Couture? Perry and getzlaf? There are many. It's getting less and less but it does happen
- burn

poop. I forgot to dress Vermette.

Nonsenscal? Thats quite ironic coming from you.



Who are you speaking to in regards to the kessel deal? Cause I don't know many around here that said it was good. More nonsensical ramblings from spatso.
- burn

That is just simply a statement grounded in error. Even today there are people trying to insist that it is a deal that Burke won. To pretend otherwise is a misjudgment on your part.

Couture? Perry and getzlaf? There are many. It's getting less and less but it does happen
- burn

i didn't say there was none, just not many.

thats what i mean, there aren't many top line players (maybe some dman and goalies for sure) that play their full junior career.
- sens rock

This is the problem with the kool aid squad. They want to compare the 17, 18 and 19 year old kids of other teams (eg. Seguin and Hamilton) with overagers like Aulie, Franson and Gardiner in the belief that they are comparing apples and apples. The kids who make the NHL as an underager have a shot at becoming an elite player. Kids who make it as overagers may prove to be really good NHL players, some will even become elite. But for the most part people understand the difference. A team like Edmonton, for example, has real genuine underagers. When you look at their future you have to imagine what these kids will be like 3 and 4 years out. The growth in their game will be phenomenal. For a kid who is 21 or 22 years of age now the ceiling on his potential for future growth is much lower.

This is the problem with the kool aid squad. They want to compare the 17, 18 and 19 year old kids of other teams (eg. Seguin and Hamilton) with overagers like Aulie, Franson and Gardiner in the belief that they are comparing apples and apples. The kids who make the NHL as an underager have a shot at becoming an elite player. Kids who make it as overagers may prove to be really good NHL players, some will even become elite. But for the most part people understand the difference. A team like Edmonton, for example, has real genuine underagers. When you look at their future you have to imagine what these kids will be like 3 and 4 years out. The growth in their game will be phenomenal. For a kid who is 21 or 22 years of age now the ceiling on his potential for future growth is much lower.
- spatso

so its the prospects boston has from the leafs trade that bugs you.

i don't see many comparisions from anyone here that puts the leafs prospects against any top 10 prospects. aside from kadri maybe but he was a 7th overall pick. I think your fabricating facts to support your opinion.

The context is the constant rolling over of the kool-aid squad to accept whatever they say without any critical analysis. For the most part they believe that every deal that Burke does is a great success because that is what they hope. Understanding the definitions will give you some understanding of the meaning of "false hope."

The reference to players available because of the other teams depth chart simply recognizes that Franson and Gardiner were offered up because their respective teams had Blum and Fowler slotted into their depth charts ahead of the guys they made available.
- spatso

Pajaarvi sits behind Hall and Smyth on our depth chart, would he be a good or poor acquisition for any of the other 29 teams in the NHL?

clearly Milbury saw something wrong with him, and didn't want to draft him.
- Schenn-Sational!

How would he know Spezza would be available? Atlanta may have chosen him.

How would he know Spezza would be available? Atlanta may have chosen him.
- Doppleganger

i believe the pick was traded after kovalchuk was selected.

so its the prospects boston has from the leafs trade that bugs you.

i don't see many comparisions from anyone here that puts the leafs prospects against any top 10 prospects. aside from kadri maybe but he was a 7th overall pick. I think your fabricating facts to support your opinion.
- sens rock

Use Florida, Carolina, Ottawa or any other team that has had a comparable finish to the Leafs over the last 4 years or so and compare any of those teams with the Leafs and you will see all of the outcomes are similar. In terms of your comment, I used two teams Boston and Edmonton. Boston because they are so relevant to the Leaf story and Edmonton because they are the gold standard in terms of underage players and prospects.

i believe the pick was traded after kovalchuk was selected.
- sens rock

I know it happened on draft day, but not when. Great trade for Ottawa.

The context is the constant rolling over of the kool-aid squad to accept whatever they say without any critical analysis. For the most part they believe that every deal that Burke does is a great success because that is what they hope. Understanding the definitions will give you some understanding of the meaning of "false hope."

The reference to players available because of the other teams depth chart simply recognizes that Franson and Gardiner were offered up because their respective teams had Blum and Fowler slotted into their depth charts ahead of the guys they made available.
- spatso

Part 1: typical troll attacks, again, out of context.

Part 2: backtrack + argument change.


I expect nothing more of you.

Use Florida, Carolina, Ottawa or any other team that has had a comparable finish to the Leafs over the last 4 years or so and compare any of those teams with the Leafs and you will see all of the outcomes are similar. In terms of your comment, I used two teams Boston and Edmonton. Boston because they are so relevant to the Leaf story and Edmonton because they are the gold standard in terms of underage players and prospects.
- spatso

your talking 2 different things. if you want to talk about quality of prospect depth then no toronto hasn't faired as well as other teams, mainly due to the kessel trade.

but burke has done a very good job at adding quality depth propects mainly for older and underacheiving players that they had no use for. none of who (that i have seen) have been compared to seguin, hamilton, rnh, hall, etc.

Pajaarvi sits behind Hall and Smyth on our depth chart, would he be a good or poor acquisition for any of the other 29 teams in the NHL?
- Morris

Great example, he was a 10th pick overall (I think that is right). Sitting behind Smyth is unimportant, he is veteran and closer to retirement. Playing behind Hall is not much of a negative given the former #1 picks obvious skill and talent level. So, if the Oilers are prepared to deal Pajaarvi for a 2nd round pick (or equivalent player) you have to know that the Oilers know he likely will not live up to his original draft expectations. This is the essential point, the team dealing him and the team taking him have agreed on his value.

There is, of course, always an exception. If the Oilers decide to do an old time hockey trade and they want to acquire a talented Dman to fill out their top 5 skaters and they deal Pajaarvi to Winnipeg for Bogosian (another top prospect) then I would think his value remains constant or even goes up.

Filatov was a 6th pick overall. Ottawa got him for a 3rd round pick. So, what is Filatov worth? I think he is worth what a team was willing to pay for him.

So, you have two related factors at play. A player prospect ahead on the depth chart may make another player available. But the actual value is based on what the market pays. If somebody wants to argue that Fliatov is better than a third round pick, my answer would be not until he proves it on the ice.

Part 1: typical troll attacks, again, out of context.

Part 2: backtrack + argument change.


I expect nothing more of you.
- Schenn-Sational!

This comment is substandard and not worthy of a response.

your talking 2 different things. if you want to talk about quality of prospect depth then no toronto hasn't faired as well as other teams, mainly due to the kessel trade.

but burke has done a very good job at adding quality depth propects mainly for older and underacheiving players that they had no use for. none of who (that i have seen) have been compared to seguin, hamilton, rnh, hall, etc.
- sens rock

i can agree with this. Your problem will not be with me but with the Kool-aid squad who will likely object to your labeling those players as underachievers who were deemed expendable by the team who had taken them in the draft (Aulie, Franson, Gardiner, Colborne). This is all this debate is about. The kool-aid logic wants to believe these kids are worthy of being considered as prospects relative to their draft value rather than the diminished value established as a condition of their being traded.

This comment is substandard and not worthy of a response.
- spatso

And yet, it's more accurate and valid than any you've made.

i can agree with this. Your problem will not be with me but with the Kool-aid squad who will likely object to your labeling those players as underachievers who were deemed expendable by the team who had taken them in the draft (Aulie, Franson, Gardiner). This is all this debate is about.
- spatso

I wouldn't call them underachievers personally. I wouldn't call them overachievers either. Based on their draft positions, they are achievers.

Aulie -117th in 2007. At 129, Jaime Benn is overachieving from that class. Bill Sweatt (39th) is underachieving, and Omark (97th) Frattin (99th) Justin Falk (110) and Aulie are achieving.

Franson 79th in 2005 - Quick and Letang overachieving, O'Marra and Lashoff underachieving, Franson achieving.

Gardiner 17th in 2008.- Stepan Overachieving, Teubert underachieving, Gardiner is doing fine.

I wouldn't call them underachievers personally. I wouldn't call them overachievers either. Based on their draft positions, they are achievers.

Aulie -117th in 2007. At 129, Jaime Benn is overachieving from that class. Bill Sweatt (39th) is underachieving, and Omark (97th) Frattin (99th) Justin Falk (110) and Aulie are achieving.

Franson 79th in 2005 - Quick and Letang overachieving, O'Marra and Lashoff underachieving, Franson achieving.

Gardiner 17th in 2008.- Stepan Overachieving, Teubert underachieving, Gardiner is doing fine.
- Morris

I was careful and only used the underachiever term because I thought that was the word that you had used. I think the depth chart determines if a young player is expendable. His notional value is determined by the market. What the market paid establishes what he is worth. Filatov is worth a third round pick, even if it is a good deal for Ottawa.

Edit: reread your post and I see that you used underachiever in relation to what Burke gave up and not what he acquired. But if you apply the principle that the market actually determines value than it must balance out.

I wouldn't call them underachievers personally. I wouldn't call them overachievers either. Based on their draft positions, they are achievers.

Aulie -117th in 2007. At 129, Jaime Benn is overachieving from that class. Bill Sweatt (39th) is underachieving, and Omark (97th) Frattin (99th) Justin Falk (110) and Aulie are achieving.

Franson 79th in 2005 - Quick and Letang overachieving, O'Marra and Lashoff underachieving, Franson achieving.

Gardiner 17th in 2008.- Stepan Overachieving, Teubert underachieving, Gardiner is doing fine.
- Morris

Gardiner is playing 20 minutes a night in his first attempt to make an NHL roster, beating out Schenn, Komi, Franson, and Aulie for icetime. It's early, and young PMDs do come out strong early, but in what we've seen so far, he's overacheiving.

That is just simply a statement grounded in error. Even today there are people trying to insist that it is a deal that Burke won. To pretend otherwise is a misjudgment on your part.
- spatso

Who?? because you quoted me and said "you guys"..... I don't think that anyone in here has ever said that the Kessel deal is a win.

This is the problem with the kool aid squad. They want to compare the 17, 18 and 19 year old kids of other teams (eg. Seguin and Hamilton) with overagers like Aulie, Franson and Gardiner in the belief that they are comparing apples and apples. The kids who make the NHL as an underager have a shot at becoming an elite player. Kids who make it as overagers may prove to be really good NHL players, some will even become elite. But for the most part people understand the difference. A team like Edmonton, for example, has real genuine underagers. When you look at their future you have to imagine what these kids will be like 3 and 4 years out. The growth in their game will be phenomenal. For a kid who is 21 or 22 years of age now the ceiling on his potential for future growth is much lower.
- spatso

So only player who play in the NHL as 19 years olds can become elite? Nonsense.

So only player who play in the NHL as 19 years olds can become elite? Nonsense.
- burn

Did you even read what I wrote? I was very clear in saying that some kids who did not make the NHL until later would still become elite players.

i can agree with this. Your problem will not be with me but with the Kool-aid squad who will likely object to your labeling those players as underachievers who were deemed expendable by the team who had taken them in the draft (Aulie, Franson, Gardiner, Colborne). This is all this debate is about. The kool-aid logic wants to believe these kids are worthy of being considered as prospects relative to their draft value rather than the diminished value established as a condition of their being traded.
- spatso

Do you have reading problems?? He called what Toronto traded underachievers, not the prospects they got back. Your hatred is clouding you so bad right now its making you look stupid.

i can agree with this. Your problem will not be with me but with the Kool-aid squad who will likely object to your labeling those players as underachievers who were deemed expendable by the team who had taken them in the draft (Aulie, Franson, Gardiner, Colborne). This is all this debate is about. The kool-aid logic wants to believe these kids are worthy of being considered as prospects relative to their draft value rather than the diminished value established as a condition of their being traded.
- spatso

What is the hell does that even mean!! They were traded, so they are junk? You continually reach new and moronic lows. Funny how you spend the summer stroking Rundblad but yet he's no different than Gardiner, Aulie or Colbourne. Take off the hate goggles

Did you even read what I wrote? I was very clear in saying that some kids who did not make the NHL until later would still become elite players.
- spatso

it matters not if a kid makes it at 19 or 21. No more/less likely to become elite.