Steve Stamkos?

[herman]

I have history around the league at my side, when you look at what the injection of multiple top offensive prospects and what they did for their team's year over year points totals.

You actually don't. You only have history on your side if you only look at specific, cherry picked examples of players who we know were top tier NHL players in hindsight. There are dozens of examples of teams adding multiple high value young players and not significantly improving.

The 2000-2001 Lightning, for instance, already had Vincent Lecavalier and added Brad Richards and Martin St. Louis. All three young players had good seasons. The result? The team improved a whopping 5 points, from 54 to 59 points. They didn't make the playoffs the next year either. They finally did in 2003 which means from the time they drafted both Lecavalier and Richards in the 98 draft it was four full seasons before they made the playoffs.

It wasn't hard to find that example and I could find a bunch more easily(the 2000-2001 Thrashers finished with 60 points, added Kovalchuk and Heatley the following year and finished with 54 points).

But even then you're avoiding, as always, the central point I raised. You don't know how good Marner and Matthews will be next year. You're, again, assuming that they're going to be as good as some of the duos you listed. When pressed on why you're stating that as a fact, despite the fact that you've already been proven wrong when using any actual measurements like NHLe you reply with "I'm optimistic" or "I have faith" in some nickname you've given to the front office.

Again, the point I'm raising and the one I'm not interested in letting you deflect is the idea that you're constantly telling people that they're wrong in their read of how the team should be built or the value in not making moves without certainty in the prospects on the club and when pressed for why that is we keep coming back to "optimism". For the umpteenth time, optimism is a fine thing but your optimism doesn't make other people wrong. Your personal disposition isn't a counter to rational arguments made by other people.

Its interesting to see the shoe on the other foot for a change. What with the cherry picking of examples for  evidence in arguments and what not.

Oh, and he's not constantly telling people that they're wrong in their read of how the team should be built. He's laying out his arguments with points, examples and facts, Just like you guys say one should present their arguments around here.

Shoe....meet other foot.

We must be reading different things.

 

[Redleaf]

I have history around the league at my side, when you look at what the injection of multiple top offensive prospects and what they did for their team's year over year points totals.

You actually don't. You only have history on your side if you only look at specific, cherry picked examples of players who we know were top tier NHL players in hindsight. There are dozens of examples of teams adding multiple high value young players and not significantly improving.

The 2000-2001 Lightning, for instance, already had Vincent Lecavalier and added Brad Richards and Martin St. Louis. All three young players had good seasons. The result? The team improved a whopping 5 points, from 54 to 59 points. They didn't make the playoffs the next year either. They finally did in 2003 which means from the time they drafted both Lecavalier and Richards in the 98 draft it was four full seasons before they made the playoffs.

It wasn't hard to find that example and I could find a bunch more easily(the 2000-2001 Thrashers finished with 60 points, added Kovalchuk and Heatley the following year and finished with 54 points).

But even then you're avoiding, as always, the central point I raised. You don't know how good Marner and Matthews will be next year. You're, again, assuming that they're going to be as good as some of the duos you listed. When pressed on why you're stating that as a fact, despite the fact that you've already been proven wrong when using any actual measurements like NHLe you reply with "I'm optimistic" or "I have faith" in some nickname you've given to the front office.

Again, the point I'm raising and the one I'm not interested in letting you deflect is the idea that you're constantly telling people that they're wrong in their read of how the team should be built or the value in not making moves without certainty in the prospects on the club and when pressed for why that is we keep coming back to "optimism". For the umpteenth time, optimism is a fine thing but your optimism doesn't make other people wrong. Your personal disposition isn't a counter to rational arguments made by other people.

Its interesting to see the shoe on the other foot for a change. What with the cherry picking of examples for  evidence in arguments and what not.

Oh, and he's not constantly telling people that they're wrong in their read of how the team should be built. He's laying out his arguments with points, examples and facts, Just like you guys say one should present their arguments around here.

Shoe....meet other foot.

We must be reading different things.

Are we? that happens. I mean, you may not agree with TB, but you cant take away the fact he's laid out some solid  arguments in favor of bringing in Stamkos and why it could work out. Its one thing to disagree and its another to say he's telling everyone else that they're wrong.

 

[Bill_Berg]

I have history around the league at my side, when you look at what the injection of multiple top offensive prospects and what they did for their team's year over year points totals.

You actually don't. You only have history on your side if you only look at specific, cherry picked examples of players who we know were top tier NHL players in hindsight. There are dozens of examples of teams adding multiple high value young players and not significantly improving.

The 2000-2001 Lightning, for instance, already had Vincent Lecavalier and added Brad Richards and Martin St. Louis. All three young players had good seasons. The result? The team improved a whopping 5 points, from 54 to 59 points. They didn't make the playoffs the next year either. They finally did in 2003 which means from the time they drafted both Lecavalier and Richards in the 98 draft it was four full seasons before they made the playoffs.

It wasn't hard to find that example and I could find a bunch more easily(the 2000-2001 Thrashers finished with 60 points, added Kovalchuk and Heatley the following year and finished with 54 points).

But even then you're avoiding, as always, the central point I raised. You don't know how good Marner and Matthews will be next year. You're, again, assuming that they're going to be as good as some of the duos you listed. When pressed on why you're stating that as a fact, despite the fact that you've already been proven wrong when using any actual measurements like NHLe you reply with "I'm optimistic" or "I have faith" in some nickname you've given to the front office.

Again, the point I'm raising and the one I'm not interested in letting you deflect is the idea that you're constantly telling people that they're wrong in their read of how the team should be built or the value in not making moves without certainty in the prospects on the club and when pressed for why that is we keep coming back to "optimism". For the umpteenth time, optimism is a fine thing but your optimism doesn't make other people wrong. Your personal disposition isn't a counter to rational arguments made by other people.

Its interesting to see the shoe on the other foot for a change. What with the cherry picking of examples for  evidence in arguments and what not.

Oh, and he's not constantly telling people that they're wrong in their read of how the team should be built. He's laying out his arguments with points, examples and facts, Just like you guys say one should present their arguments around here.

Shoe....meet other foot.

We must be reading different things.

Are we? that happens.

Facts are so subjective these days.

 

[herman]

We must be reading different things.

Are we? that happens. I mean, you may not agree with TB, but you cant take away the fact he's laid out some interesting arguments in favor of bringing in Stamkos and why it could work out. Its one thing to disagree and its another to say he's telling everyone else that they're wrong.

They would be more interesting if they were solid arguments, instead of shifting examples that keep getting disassembled.

Most of his responses to my posts (and others who have questioned his opinions) have started with, "Disagree", or "Wrong" and then going on to not address the point at all with anything other than opinion. I could pull up some examples, but I see you'd frown on that practice, so I'll refrain.

I love his enthusiasm and I think it's admirable you're defending him from your nemesis (though I think there is a higher road available). I wish TBLeafer would take the time to develop his opinions based on a foundation of evidence, rather than the other way around.

 

[Redleaf]

I have history around the league at my side, when you look at what the injection of multiple top offensive prospects and what they did for their team's year over year points totals.

You actually don't. You only have history on your side if you only look at specific, cherry picked examples of players who we know were top tier NHL players in hindsight. There are dozens of examples of teams adding multiple high value young players and not significantly improving.

The 2000-2001 Lightning, for instance, already had Vincent Lecavalier and added Brad Richards and Martin St. Louis. All three young players had good seasons. The result? The team improved a whopping 5 points, from 54 to 59 points. They didn't make the playoffs the next year either. They finally did in 2003 which means from the time they drafted both Lecavalier and Richards in the 98 draft it was four full seasons before they made the playoffs.

It wasn't hard to find that example and I could find a bunch more easily(the 2000-2001 Thrashers finished with 60 points, added Kovalchuk and Heatley the following year and finished with 54 points).

But even then you're avoiding, as always, the central point I raised. You don't know how good Marner and Matthews will be next year. You're, again, assuming that they're going to be as good as some of the duos you listed. When pressed on why you're stating that as a fact, despite the fact that you've already been proven wrong when using any actual measurements like NHLe you reply with "I'm optimistic" or "I have faith" in some nickname you've given to the front office.

Again, the point I'm raising and the one I'm not interested in letting you deflect is the idea that you're constantly telling people that they're wrong in their read of how the team should be built or the value in not making moves without certainty in the prospects on the club and when pressed for why that is we keep coming back to "optimism". For the umpteenth time, optimism is a fine thing but your optimism doesn't make other people wrong. Your personal disposition isn't a counter to rational arguments made by other people.

Its interesting to see the shoe on the other foot for a change. What with the cherry picking of examples for  evidence in arguments and what not.

Oh, and he's not constantly telling people that they're wrong in their read of how the team should be built. He's laying out his arguments with points, examples and facts, Just like you guys say one should present their arguments around here.

Shoe....meet other foot.

We must be reading different things.

Are we? that happens.

Facts are so subjective these days.

So true. A lot of that goes on around here. The worst is the cherry picking and pigeon holing of 'facts' to suit an argument that is than claimed entirely to be factual.

 

[Kin]

I know Redleaf has taken a stand against contributing anything interesting to the thread in favour of trying to get my attention but could he at least learn to clip his quotes?

 

[Redleaf]

I know Redleaf has taken a stand against contributing anything interesting to the thread in favour of trying to get my attention but could he at least learn to clip his quotes?

Lol. really? Only you would think its about you.

 

[Kin]

Yup. Nothing worse or less civil than a discussion forum where people occasionally say "I disagree".

 

[Redleaf]

Yup. Nothing worse or less civil than a discussion forum where people occasionally say "I disagree".

Interesting. Is this even more of your clever insight?

 

[Kin]

Interesting. Is this even more of your clever insight?

For future reference, how many edits should I wait for before I respond?

 

[mr grieves]

Patience requires a little more than 15 months and shiny new toys.

How many draft picks do we have over the next three seasons again, including this June 24th?

It doesn't stop with signing Stamkos.  Just the top 10 first rounders do.

I'm perfectly okay with that at this point.  We have enough of those to form our new core around.

You don't really know that, I get that you 'feel' that but it's really unknown right now. You didn't really address that last post either, just skipped by the evidence and said the same thing.

Sorta off topic** but I do wonder whether all this caution about unknowns, suspicion of positive projections, and insistence that we have no idea what Marner, Nylander, and Matthews will be in the NHL isn't a bit overblown. Obviously, by definition, these elite prospects haven't done anything in the NHL yet. But how many other players have done what they've done in their respective development leagues? What became of those players? This isn't entirely a crap shoot, you know?

** on topic, but redundantly: I'm still all for adding Stamkos at around $10m. Can't think of anything better to do with the money than add elite talent, which is an asset to have even if things don't work out.

 

[Redleaf]

Interesting. Is this even more of your clever insight?

For future reference, how many edits should I wait for before I respond?

Your responses are mostly all the same anyways. Shouldn't matter too much. Just be cutting, snide and self righteous and most of us won't know the difference.

 

[Redleaf]

Patience requires a little more than 15 months and shiny new toys.

How many draft picks do we have over the next three seasons again, including this June 24th?

It doesn't stop with signing Stamkos.  Just the top 10 first rounders do.

I'm perfectly okay with that at this point.  We have enough of those to form our new core around.

You don't really know that, I get that you 'feel' that but it's really unknown right now. You didn't really address that last post either, just skipped by the evidence and said the same thing.

Sorta off topic** but I do wonder whether all this caution about unknowns, suspicion of positive projections, and insistence that we have no idea what Marner, Nylander, and Matthews will be in the NHL isn't a bit overblown. Obviously, by definition, these elite prospects haven't done anything in the NHL yet. But how many other players have done what they've done in their respective development leagues? What became of those players? This isn't entirely a crap shoot, you know?

** on topic, but redundantly: I'm still all for adding Stamkos at around $10m. Can't think of anything better to do with the money than add elite talent, which is an asset to have even if things don't work out.

This is true. These players aren't late 1st rounders.These guys were drafted in spots where the likely outcome of success is generally predictable.  Of course there are examples of failures in the positions they were drafted , but I'd wager that Marner, Nylander and Matthews are pretty 'safe' as far as being future NHL players at the very least, and more likely future NHL stars. Of course that's up for debate for anyone comparing them with our other picks over the years where we drafted outside the top 10 for the most part.

 

[Bill_Berg]

Patience requires a little more than 15 months and shiny new toys.

How many draft picks do we have over the next three seasons again, including this June 24th?

It doesn't stop with signing Stamkos.  Just the top 10 first rounders do.

I'm perfectly okay with that at this point.  We have enough of those to form our new core around.

You don't really know that, I get that you 'feel' that but it's really unknown right now. You didn't really address that last post either, just skipped by the evidence and said the same thing.

Sorta off topic** but I do wonder whether all this caution about unknowns, suspicion of positive projections, and insistence that we have no idea what Marner, Nylander, and Matthews will be in the NHL isn't a bit overblown. Obviously, by definition, these elite prospects haven't done anything in the NHL yet. But how many other players have done what they've done in their respective development leagues? What became of those players? This isn't entirely a crap shoot, you know?

** on topic, but redundantly: I'm still all for adding Stamkos at around $10m. Can't think of anything better to do with the money than add elite talent, which is an asset to have even if things don't work out.

This is true. These players aren't late 1st rounders.These guys were drafted in spots where the likely outcome of success is generally predictable.  Of course there are examples of failures in the positions they were drafted , but I'd wager that Marner, Nylander and Matthews are pretty 'safe' as far as being future NHL players at the very least, and more likely future NHL stars. Of course that's up for debate for anyone comparing them with our other picks over the years where we drafted outside the top 10 for the most part.

Sure they are safe bets at being future NHL players, but if that's what they are, the Leafs will need a boatload of stars to compete on top of these three. These three guys could all be those stars though, just don't know yet.

I don't think anyone is suggesting any of these three will be the next Daigle, but it's also not a good idea to say they are going to be the next Kane and Toews yet.

I for one don't want NHL players, I want Hart and Conn Smythe winners, and no one can say with certainty that anyone is that type of player until they've proven it in the NHL.

 

[Kin]

Sorta off topic** but I do wonder whether all this caution about unknowns, suspicion of positive projections, and insistence that we have no idea what Marner, Nylander, and Matthews will be in the NHL isn't a bit overblown. Obviously, by definition, these elite prospects haven't done anything in the NHL yet. But how many other players have done what they've done in their respective development leagues? What became of those players? This isn't entirely a crap shoot, you know?

See, to me, this seems like one of those affirmative claims that really needs some weight behind it in the form of having some real answers instead of questions. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" and all that jazz. Years and years of the draft really does tell us that it mostly is a crap shoot so the idea that there's a direct link between any sort of junior/european accomplishments and NHL success doesn't really stand on its own.

I think you'd grant me, for instance, that there's really no comp for what Matthews did this year. There haven't been many, if any, elite prospects who spent their draft years in the Swiss league so his numbers there don't tell us much.

When I was digging through NHLe earlier in the thread I found this site The Projection Project that gives you the NHLe for just about anyone in their draft year and then gives you a list of players who had a similar NHLe in their draft year. Does this help? Not really. For starters, NHLe can't really adjust for things like ice time, opportunity or linemates. So what you have, for instance, is Marner's draft year NHLe(where he did very well by those things) is very very good and the site lists 5 comps. Two are still prospects(Strome/Tkachuk) and the other three are/were very good NHLers(Spezza, Taylor Hall, Jack Eichel).

So how about Matthews? That's where it gets tricky. As I mentioned before Matthews' NHLe is 42. Here, the site lists 23 comparables. Problem is those guys are all over the map. It ranges from Stamkos, Tavares and Eric Staal on one end to Ramzi Abid, Jeff Tambellini and Brett Maclean on the other. Then there are guys like Ryan Strome, Josh Bailey and Nail Yakupov in the middle.

Nylander? His NHLe in his draft year was 16. You get hundreds of comparables ranging from great players to busts. Nylander outscored Anze Kopitar in his draft +1 year in the Swedish league but so did fellow high draft picks Elias Lindholm and Magnus Paajarvi-Svensson. Do you know what to do with that group of players? To sort the great from the ok? Nylander's AHL numbers don't really help us because exceptional 19 year olds are almost never in the AHL and most really good players skip the AHL entirely.

Which is obviously the problem with trying to put together a data-based approach to this issue. We don't know the Swedish league. You or I can't say which player was on a good line or good team or who got PP time or what have you. How do you correct for linemates? How do you correct for ice-time? Without doing that I don't think you can take Marner's NHLe that seriously in this context.

I don't think Auston Matthews runs the risk of being Ramzi Abid but that's not based on anything outside of what scouts think of him. Which is great but his comp list has guys scouts were high on who didn't amount to much either. Honestly, if there were a real way to do this it wouldn't be at our hands. It would be a proprietary analytic somewhere because being able to tell future NHL success with any real accuracy would be the most valuable thing a number cruncher could do. I just don't think it exists.

Which is where we get back to the beginning. If you have a real way to measure these guys, where you compare them against every junior/European ever so we have enough data to make a meaningful decision then have at it. Otherwise, there's really very little benefit to making that assumption.

 

[bustaheims]

Sorta off topic** but I do wonder whether all this caution about unknowns, suspicion of positive projections, and insistence that we have no idea what Marner, Nylander, and Matthews will be in the NHL isn't a bit overblown. Obviously, by definition, these elite prospects haven't done anything in the NHL yet. But how many other players have done what they've done in their respective development leagues? What became of those players? This isn't entirely a crap shoot, you know?

As Nik post points it, it is a bit of a crap shoot, but, on top of that, when we talk about them being unknowns, we're largely reacting in comparison to them being referred to as our Kane and Toews, or being penciled in as sure things to be 1st liners - because, those are things that are very much unknown. While there's a good chance all three of Matthews, Marner, and Nylander become quality NHLers, we don't what kind of NHLers they'll me. Is Matthews going to be a Tavares type centre? An Eric Staal? A Kopitar? Is get going to be a top flight #1C, or just a "good enough" #1C? Is Marner going to be a ~50 point winger? A 70+ point winger? Somewhere in between? And so on. These are important questions that we need a fiar amount of NHL level play to be able to determine - not junior/European/AHL play or their performance at a short international tournament.

 

[TBLeafer]

Sorta off topic** but I do wonder whether all this caution about unknowns, suspicion of positive projections, and insistence that we have no idea what Marner, Nylander, and Matthews will be in the NHL isn't a bit overblown. Obviously, by definition, these elite prospects haven't done anything in the NHL yet. But how many other players have done what they've done in their respective development leagues? What became of those players? This isn't entirely a crap shoot, you know?

As Nik post points it, it is a bit of a crap shoot, but, on top of that, when we talk about them being unknowns, we're largely reacting in comparison to them being referred to as our Kane and Toews, or being penciled in as sure things to be 1st liners - because, those are things that are very much unknown. While there's a good chance all three of Matthews, Marner, and Nylander become quality NHLers, we don't what kind of NHLers they'll me. Is Matthews going to be a Tavares type centre? An Eric Staal? A Kopitar? Is get going to be a top flight #1C, or just a "good enough" #1C? Is Marner going to be a ~50 point winger? A 70+ point winger? Somewhere in between? And so on. These are important questions that we need a fiar amount of NHL level play to be able to determine - not junior/European/AHL play or their performance at a short international tournament.

Bringing Stamkos in hinders that evaluation period how, exactly?  That's your strawman here.

 

[Kin]

Bringing Stamkos in hinders that evaluation period how, exactly?  That's your strawman here.

Yes, that is an example of a strawman.

 

[bustaheims]

Bringing Stamkos in hinders that evaluation period how, exactly?  That's your strawman here.

No, that's your strawman, as you're pointing out an argument I haven't made. It's not about hindering the evaluation period, it's that the evaluation period needs to come before adding pieces like Stamkos, and that bringing in Stamkos now means either committing to these prospects regardless of how they turn out, or, if they don't turn out well, shipping out pieces of the future to make up for that or wasting most of Stamkos' contract while trying to draft and develop the pieces we hoped Matthews, Marner, et al will become.

 

[TBLeafer]

Bringing Stamkos in hinders that evaluation period how, exactly?  That's your strawman here.

No, that's your strawman, as you're pointing out an argument I haven't made. It's not about hindering the evaluation period, it's that the evaluation period needs to come before adding pieces like Stamkos, and that bringing in Stamkos now means either committing to these prospects regardless of how they turn out, or, if they don't turn out well, shipping out pieces of the future to make up for that or wasting most of Stamkos' contract while trying to draft and develop the pieces we hoped Matthews, Marner, et al will become.

Yep.  That's your strawman.