Potatoe1 wrote:Erixson would easily be our best prospect and a first rounder is always a valuable chip.
clem wrote:If we use HF's definition of a prospect (less than 65 NHL games & under 24yrs) & their player success probability,
the Canucks with roughly equal probability of success (as Erixon) are: Lack, Kassian, Duco, & Tanev.
Erixson would not easily be our best prospect.
Potatoe1 wrote:Who says I'm in agreement with how HF defines prospects?
I dont really consider Kassian and Tanev prospects anymore.
Out of the rest of the group I think Erixson is easily the best of the group. Very easily actually.
clem wrote:Independent (from club alliance), third party opinions tend to be more credible than blowhards who like to talk about themselves.
In order to be considered a rookie in the NHL, the rookie must be eligible to win the Calder Trophy. The qualification criteria to be eligible are that the player must not have played in more than 25 NHL games in any previous year...
clem wrote:The discussion was about prospects, not rookies.
Actually the discussion was about "Independent (from club alliance) opinions" vs the opinions of "blowhards".
So I offered up an official NHL perspective to counter your HF perspective.
Most NHL fans view a hockey players progression terminologically thusly:
.... "prospect".... "rookie".... "established player".
(feel free to disagree but be careful lest you be dubbed a "blowhard")
Now, since Kassian and Tanev are beyond the "rookie" barrier in accordance with the official NHL definition it is very reasonable indeed for Mr Potatoe1 to no longer consider them to be "prospects". And he is most certainly NOT a "blowhard" for stating that opinion.
clem wrote:kiss my ass
My word, bad form old chap, BAD FORM!