You guys can be so tedious. I defined overagers several pages back as essentially the same as the CHL definition of overager. I believe that is age 20 and above.
- spatso

Therefore....Cowen, Rundblad, Lehner, Filatov are all failures. That is, by your subjective definition of what an overage prospect is...

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

I think you need to think that through.

Therefore....Cowen, Rundblad, Lehner, Filatov are all failures. That is, by your subjective definition of what an overage prospect is...
- p_zub

Nobody has talked about failure.
We have been talking about relative value.
And we were not talking about overage prospects in isolation.
We are talking about overage prospects that are traded.
My point was very simple. When an overage prospect is traded, his value should no longer be measured by his previous draft position. Rather, his value should be measured in direct relation to what the market (other team) paid to acquire his services. So, if Ottawa offered up a 3rd round pick for Filatov his relative value is a 3rd round pick and not the 6th overall ranking from his original draft. This is what markets do, they value tradeable assets.

It is entirely possible that assets will increase in value beyond their original draft position. Probably the very best example was the package that the Flyers put together for Lindros (including Forsberg and other players the Flyers established that Lindros' value exceeded even his number 1 draft status the year before. I think Ottawa got a 3rd round pick for Daigle when they dealt him, that was his value.

So, the larger matter under discussion is what is the value of the many players that Burke has brought into the system. My response, until they prove differently, is that they are worth what it cost on the market to get them.

thats a prock assessment as well
- sens rock

Backup. I've never said that. There are several kids at 20 or 21 that are still in developmental leagues that go on to become very good NHLers. There are incredibly few that you find at 23 or 24, just breaking into the NHL, that become impact NHLers.

Essentially, the development curve of an NHL player is in full swing at 18 to 21 or 22. Past that, you see development and improvement, but at a significantly slower rate. Up until about 25 or 26, when it seriously starts to plateau. You're generally starting to see a player in their prime at that age, or maybe slightly older.

But things you see at 18, 19, 20, can usually give you a pretty good idea of what a player is capable of. Not 100%, but a pretty good idea. The poster that mentioned earlier that most ELITE players have shown that they're capable of it by 20 or 21 was somewhat right. The majority (not all) of truly elite players, are in the NHL, playing full seasons, by 20 or 21. These days, many (again, I stress, not all) are there right after draft. And if they're not in the NHL, these guys had better be completely dominating their junior/development leagues. If a 20 year old in the CHL is not putting up big points (and I mean 80 points at the bare min for a forward, 40 for a Dman), he will probably never be a top flight player. Of any sort. if a 21 year old is in the AHL, and not putting up 60 plus points.... same thing.

Also, you'll notice that junior players (restricted mostly to North American leagues, as the Euro leagues operate very differently) who turn into good NHLers, are generally very dominant, with very few exceptions. Even defensive guys like, for example, John Madden or Mike Peca, will put up huge junior numbers, even though that's not their specialty. This is because of the sheer talent level it takes to be an NHL player any sort. They stand out in their junior leagues.

so, when I see a 23 or 24 year old kid, who's been toiling in the AHL or some other league for years, and fans of a team start touting this guy as an impact player for their team soon, my reaction, for the most part is, it's not very likely. It's just probably not going to happen. You may get some kids out of the NCAA, or late bloomers, who just haven't had their shot... But even then, when they break into the NHL, and have decent rookie seasons, you probably won't see much improvement from there. So, a guy like Bozak, at 23 or 24, or whatever he was, and puts up 27 points in 37 games.... Even the optomistic projects should really top out at 60ish points..... Same goes for guys like Butler....

So, yeah, when I see 21 or 22 year old players not dominating in the AHL, or 20 year olds not dominating the CHL, I'll generally look at them and think they probably won't ever be GOOD NHLers. They may end up serviceable, but probably not GOOD. That's just the odds. There are exceptions, but it holds true more often than not.

Spatso, I appreciate the Oilers love but knock it off. I'm not assuming anything until the 30 or 40 game mark. 9 games into the season is wayyy to early for assumptions.

Nobody has talked about failure.
We have been talking about relative value.
And we were not talking about overage prospects in isolation.
We are talking about overage prospects that are traded.
My point was very simple. When an overage prospect is traded, his value should no longer be measured by his previous draft position. Rather, his value should be measured in direct relation to what the market (other team) paid to acquire his services. So, if Ottawa offered up a 3rd round pick for Filatov his relative value is a 3rd round pick and not the 6th overall ranking from his original draft. This is what markets do, they value tradeable assets.

It is entirely possible that assets will increase in value beyond their original draft position. Probably the very best example was the package that the Flyers put together for Lindros (including Forsberg and other players the Flyers established that Lindros' value exceeded even his number 1 draft status the year before. I think Ottawa got a 3rd round pick for Daigle when they dealt him, that was his value.

So, the larger matter under discussion is what is the value of the many players that Burke has brought into the system. My response, until they prove differently, is that they are worth what it cost on the market to get them.
- spatso

So....you're saying Phil Kessel IS worth what the Leafs paid for him?

Backup. I've never said that. There are several kids at 20 or 21 that are still in developmental leagues that go on to become very good NHLers. There are incredibly few that you find at 23 or 24, just breaking into the NHL, that become impact NHLers.

Essentially, the development curve of an NHL player is in full swing at 18 to 21 or 22. Past that, you see development and improvement, but at a significantly slower rate. Up until about 25 or 26, when it seriously starts to plateau. You're generally starting to see a player in their prime at that age, or maybe slightly older.

But things you see at 18, 19, 20, can usually give you a pretty good idea of what a player is capable of. Not 100%, but a pretty good idea. The poster that mentioned earlier that most ELITE players have shown that they're capable of it by 20 or 21 was somewhat right. The majority (not all) of truly elite players, are in the NHL, playing full seasons, by 20 or 21. These days, many (again, I stress, not all) are there right after draft. And if they're not in the NHL, these guys had better be completely dominating their junior/development leagues. If a 20 year old in the CHL is not putting up big points (and I mean 80 points at the bare min for a forward, 40 for a Dman), he will probably never be a top flight player. Of any sort. if a 21 year old is in the AHL, and not putting up 60 plus points.... same thing.

Also, you'll notice that junior players (restricted mostly to North American leagues, as the Euro leagues operate very differently) who turn into good NHLers, are generally very dominant, with very few exceptions. Even defensive guys like, for example, John Madden or Mike Peca, will put up huge junior numbers, even though that's not their specialty. This is because of the sheer talent level it takes to be an NHL player any sort. They stand out in their junior leagues.

so, when I see a 23 or 24 year old kid, who's been toiling in the AHL or some other league for years, and fans of a team start touting this guy as an impact player for their team soon, my reaction, for the most part is, it's not very likely. It's just probably not going to happen. You may get some kids out of the NCAA, or late bloomers, who just haven't had their shot... But even then, when they break into the NHL, and have decent rookie seasons, you probably won't see much improvement from there. So, a guy like Bozak, at 23 or 24, or whatever he was, and puts up 27 points in 37 games.... Even the optomistic projects should really top out at 60ish points..... Same goes for guys like Butler....

So, yeah, when I see 21 or 22 year old players not dominating in the AHL, or 20 year olds not dominating the CHL, I'll generally look at them and think they probably won't ever be GOOD NHLers. They may end up serviceable, but probably not GOOD. That's just the odds. There are exceptions, but it holds true more often than not.
- prock

i can agree with all that has been said here.

Nobody has talked about failure.
We have been talking about relative value.
And we were not talking about overage prospects in isolation.
We are talking about overage prospects that are traded.
My point was very simple. When an overage prospect is traded, his value should no longer be measured by his previous draft position. Rather, his value should be measured in direct relation to what the market (other team) paid to acquire his services. So, if Ottawa offered up a 3rd round pick for Filatov his relative value is a 3rd round pick and not the 6th overall ranking from his original draft. This is what markets do, they value tradeable assets.

It is entirely possible that assets will increase in value beyond their original draft position. Probably the very best example was the package that the Flyers put together for Lindros (including Forsberg and other players the Flyers established that Lindros' value exceeded even his number 1 draft status the year before. I think Ottawa got a 3rd round pick for Daigle when they dealt him, that was his value.

So, the larger matter under discussion is what is the value of the many players that Burke has brought into the system. My response, until they prove differently, is that they are worth what it cost on the market to get them.
- spatso

So since Phaneuf has proven more valuable than the pieces given up for him, getting Aulie in that deal was a steal, correct?


And since Lupul has proven far more valuable than Beauchemin, getting Gardiner is also a steal... right?


Lombardi's got 4 points on the season already, while Lebda's in the minors.... so acquiring Franson on top of Lombardi, also a steal... right?

Woah, I never said "told you so" or "wow were you wrong" I was merely pointing out that while we need work, it might not be a total overhaul as some seem to feel we need.

Also, I had to get those stats in before we play Washington tomorrow..
- gretzky

Spatso, I appreciate the Oilers love but knock it off. I'm not assuming anything until the 30 or 40 game mark. 9 games into the season is wayyy to early for assumptions.
- GuyLaDouche

Even if the Oilers miss the playoffs by 10 points or more, I will still love them for the way they are rebuilding their brand. My guess is that the Oilers are doing what most Canadians love about hockey. They are young, fast and highly skilled. When they are big time winners everybody will love them. I love them just watching them get there.

So....you're saying Phil Kessel IS worth what the Leafs paid for him?
- p_zub

Short term Kessel has proved to be worth more than the cost. But long term, most hockey fans will probably think it is too much.

Even if the Oilers miss the playoffs by 10 points or more, I will still love them for the way they are rebuilding their brand. My guess is that the Oilers are doing what most Canadians love about hockey. They are young, fast and highly skilled. When they are big time winners everybody will love them. I love them just watching them get there.
- spatso

We need the other lines to start picking it up pronto. Guys like MPS, Gagner need to do more. The bottom 6 has to chip in more.

Khabi, Potter, Gilbert,Smid and the Kids In The Hall all get straight A's.

Short term Kessel has proved to be worth more than the cost. But long term, most hockey fans will probably think it is too much.
- spatso

As Huddle pointed out in another thread, Dougie Hamilton could be the guy who makes it hurt in the long run. He's a freaking machine so far this year in juniors.

That being said, currently, I doubt many Leafs fans care right now.

As Huddle pointed out in another thread, Dougie Hamilton could be the guy who makes it hurt in the long run. He's a freaking machine so far this year in juniors.

That being said, currently, I doubt many Leafs fans care right now.
- GuyLaDouche

Not one (frank) is given anymore

So since Phaneuf has proven more valuable than the pieces given up for him, getting Aulie in that deal was a steal, correct?


And since Lupul has proven far more valuable than Beauchemin, getting Gardiner is also a steal... right?


Lombardi's got 4 points on the season already, while Lebda's in the minors.... so acquiring Franson on top of Lombardi, also a steal... right?
- Schenn-Sational!

*ahem*

edit: I should also mention that Gardiner has 3 assists so far on the season and has made far fewer mistakes than Beauch did in his time here.

*ahem*

edit: I should also mention that Gardiner has 3 assists so far on the season and has made far fewer mistakes than Beauch did in his time here.
- Schenn-Sational!

Always liked him. Only reason Ducks traded him was Fowler made him expendable.

Always liked him. Only reason Ducks traded him was Fowler made him expendable.
- GuyLaDouche

yup, but is there any doubting that the trade was a steal?

So since Phaneuf has proven more valuable than the pieces given up for him, getting Aulie in that deal was a steal, correct?


And since Lupul has proven far more valuable than Beauchemin, getting Gardiner is also a steal... right?


Lombardi's got 4 points on the season already, while Lebda's in the minors.... so acquiring Franson on top of Lombardi, also a steal... right?
- Schenn-Sational!

Your going off in the direction that I have cautioned against. I agree that value changes based on the performance of the player. So you have to pose your question to the other side of the deal as well. Are the Ducks happy with Beauchemin? Are they satisfied with the deal?

If you look at the Ducks Beauchemin is playing 25:00 minutes a game. Only Fowler is logging more minutes. Gardiner was moved because they had Fowler ahead of him in the depth charts. So, I guess both sides of the deal would be content with the outcome and it would suggest that the value set in the deal looks to be fairly reasonable.

Your going off in the direction that I have cautioned against. I agree that value changes based on the performance of the player. So you have to pose your question to the other side of the deal as well. Are the Ducks happy with Beauchemin? Are they satisfied with the deal?

If you look at the Ducks Beauchemin is playing 25:00 minutes a game. Only Fowler is logging more minutes. Gardiner was moved because they had Fowler ahead of him in the depth charts. So, I guess both sides of the deal would be content with the outcome and it would suggest that the value set in the deal looks to be fairly reasonable.
- spatso

So, with the Leafs being content with what they got, is the value for Kessel reasonable?

How about Calgary and Nashville?

So, with the Leafs being content with what they got, is the value for Kessel reasonable?

How about Calgary and Nashville?
- Schenn-Sational!

Nashvilles situation was different. Insurance issue. Toronto obviously got the better players out of it but not really accurate.

Calgary can suck my balls. I'm happy they got ripped off. Fagets.

So, with the Leafs being content with what they got, is the value for Kessel reasonable?

How about Calgary and Nashville?
- Schenn-Sational!

The answer is always yes. Whatever was paid is what the market says the value is. However, that is not the same thing as saying all the deals are good. Nashville starts with Weber and Suter who both play more than 25 minutes a game. They have other good Dmen coming up through their system. Do you think Nashville is content to see the Leafs play Franson's salary to ride the bench in Toronto. I think so. The point is there is always two sides to any deal.

Nashvilles situation was different. Insurance issue. Toronto obviously got the better players out of it but not really accurate.

Calgary can suck my balls. I'm happy they got ripped off. Fagets.
- GuyLaDouche

see, I'm not arguing with you, it's spasto who doesn't think acquiring Gardiner, Aulie, and Franson in those deals qualifies as getting "steals". The reason those guys are steals is because the deals would have still been good(or in Calgary's case, less bad) without throwing in the prospects/young nhler.

The answer is always yes. Whatever was paid is what the market says the value is. However, that is not the same thing as saying all the deals are good. Nashville starts with Weber and Suter who both play more than 25 minutes a game. They have other good Dmen coming up through their system. Do you think Nashville is content to see the Leafs play Franson's salary to ride the bench in Toronto. I think so. The point is there is always two sides to any deal.
- spatso

You know Nashville didn't trade Franson to get rid of him, right? They had to move him to get TO to accept Lombardi's uninsured contract. Franson sitting is just because Burke's other steal, Gardiner, is playing so well.


edit, and since the answer is always yes... do you think Calgary is happy with having 8.5M in dead salary with Babchuck, Stajan and Hagman to show for Phaneuf, who's improved beyond his best Calgary days... plus having given up one of their top defensive prospects?

So, with the Leafs being content with what they got, is the value for Kessel reasonable?

How about Calgary and Nashville?
- Schenn-Sational!

Sometimes it is hard to convince someone who is intent in remaining unconvinced. Kessel is worth what the Leafs paid for him. Remember I really like Kessel the player, I hate the deal. If there are Leaf fans still content with what they got they are fools.

Dallas gave up Iginla to get Nieuwendyk. They won a Stanley Cup and Nieuwendyk was a really important part to that success. Many thought that Dallas won the deal. There is no doubt in my mind based on the last few seasons Toronto won the deal with Boston in the trade for Kessel. But, and it is a very large but, we will not know the full answer for several more years. I will say again I like Kessel, I hate the deal.

The Calgary one is really a lot more complex and requires that you bring J.Bo into the equation. The minute Calgary got J.Bo, Phaneuf became expendable. Perhaps Calgary moved the wrong guy. Nobody in Calgary seems to regret getting rid of Phaneuf and most people in Toronto seem content with the acquisition.

see, I'm not arguing with you, it's spasto who doesn't think acquiring Gardiner, Aulie, and Franson in those deals qualifies as getting "steals". The reason those guys are steals is because the deals would have still been good(or in Calgary's case, less bad) without throwing in the prospects/young nhler.
- Schenn-Sational!

I strongly object to the notion of steals. How can it be a steal to acquire a guy who plays in the AHL and one who is more often than not a healthy scratch?