Nash to the Rangers.

Welcome to the main forum of our site. Anything and everything to do with the Vancouver Canucks is dicussed and debated here.

Moderator: Referees

Re: Nash to the Rangers.

Postby clem » Sun Jul 29, 2012 10:21 am

Potatoe1 wrote:
Hockey Widow wrote:The return for Nash was not all that bad people. Again, I would be happy with a similar return for Luongo.


I agree.

Good center depth, Erixson would easily be our best prospect and a first rounder is always a valuable chip.

I dont think the return for Lu will be as good though.

If we can get a really good prospect and a center for the 3rd line I will be happy.

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.
User avatar
clem
CC 1st Team All-Star
 
Posts: 543
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 10:45 am

Re: Nash to the Rangers.

Postby Potatoe1 » Sun Jul 29, 2012 10:28 am

clem wrote:
Potatoe1 wrote:
Hockey Widow wrote:The return for Nash was not all that bad people. Again, I would be happy with a similar return for Luongo.


I agree.

Good center depth, Erixson would easily be our best prospect and a first rounder is always a valuable chip.

I dont think the return for Lu will be as good though.

If we can get a really good prospect and a center for the 3rd line I will be happy.

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.


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.
Potatoe1
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1613
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 1:06 pm

Re: Nash to the Rangers.

Postby clem » Sun Jul 29, 2012 10:41 am

Potatoe1 wrote:
clem wrote:
Potatoe1 wrote: I agree.

Good center depth, Erixson would easily be our best prospect and a first rounder is always a valuable chip.

I dont think the return for Lu will be as good though.

If we can get a really good prospect and a center for the 3rd line I will be happy.

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.


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.
User avatar
clem
CC 1st Team All-Star
 
Posts: 543
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 10:45 am

Re: Nash to the Rangers.

Postby clem » Sun Jul 29, 2012 10:42 am

Potatoe1 wrote:
clem wrote:
Potatoe1 wrote: I agree.

Good center depth, Erixson would easily be our best prospect and a first rounder is always a valuable chip.

I dont think the return for Lu will be as good though.

If we can get a really good prospect and a center for the 3rd line I will be happy.

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.


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.

Independent (from club alliance), third party opinions tend to be more credible than blowhards who like to talk about themselves.
User avatar
clem
CC 1st Team All-Star
 
Posts: 543
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 10:45 am

Re: Nash to the Rangers.

Postby Scintillator » Sun Jul 29, 2012 11:53 am

clem wrote:Independent (from club alliance), third party opinions tend to be more credible than blowhards who like to talk about themselves.


+1 +1 +1
Scintillator
CC Veteran
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2011 12:12 am

Re: Nash to the Rangers.

Postby Strangelove » Sun Jul 29, 2012 12:38 pm

Scintillator wrote:
clem wrote:Independent (from club alliance), third party opinions tend to be more credible than blowhards who like to talk about themselves.


+1 +1 +1


- 1,000,000,000

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NHL_All-Rookie_Team

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 nor played in six or more NHL games in each of any two preceding seasons, as well as being under the age of 26 on September 15 of the season in which he is eligible


Potski may be an asshole but he is no "blowhard who likes to talk about himself"! (smile)

Scintillator, Clem wottup widdat dudes?
____
The Ring Leader
User avatar
Strangelove
CC Legend
 
Posts: 7539
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 1:13 pm

Re: Nash to the Rangers.

Postby clem » Sun Jul 29, 2012 1:55 pm

Strangelove wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NHL_All-Rookie_Team

In order to be considered a rookie in the NHL, ......
The discussion was about prospects, not rookies.

Strangelove wrote:Potski may be an asshole but he is no "blowhard who likes to talk about himself"! (smile)

Scintillator, Clem wottup widdat dudes?
His last post (this thread - since you had trouble following) indicates otherwise.
Having fun living in the old forum clique (whatever it's called) ? (kiss my ass)
User avatar
clem
CC 1st Team All-Star
 
Posts: 543
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 10:45 am

Re: Nash to the Rangers.

Postby dbr » Sun Jul 29, 2012 2:39 pm

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.


I think you're misinterpreting HF's system of ranking players (which is hard to blame you for since they've changed the labels without actually changing the way they rate players - hardly speaks to their credibility as a source but that's another matter), or you are just comparing prospect quality entirely in terms of how likely they are to reach their various ceilings..

Erixon, Lack, Kassian, Tanev and Duco may all be B prospects but they are 7.5B, 7B, 7B, 6.5B and 6.0B respectively.

While Erixon (according to HF) is a 90% probability to turn out somewhere between a 7 (Kuba, Ehrhoff, Tallinder) and an 8 (Keith, Boyle, Timonen) Mike Duco has the same chance to turn out to be a player of the calibre of Matt Cooke, Manny Malhotra or Trent Hunter.

They may all have the same rating when it comes to the likelihood of meeting their potential (as defined by Hockeys Future) but HF explicitly states Erixon has the greatest potential of any of them.

(Personally I'd take Kassian over Erixon but he is in my opinion a better prospect than any of the rest.)

Anyway it's moot as there is absolutely no way Luongo returns a package like what Nash got. Two top nine forwards (both of whom can play center), a blue chip defense prospect and a first round pick would be an astonishing return.

Even if we got a "salary dump" of Dubinsky's calibre and a prospect of Erixon's calibre I'd be completely happy with the trade.
dbr
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 2554
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 5:37 pm

Re: Nash to the Rangers.

Postby Potatoe1 » Sun Jul 29, 2012 2:57 pm

clem wrote:

Independent (from club alliance), third party opinions tend to be more credible than blowhards who like to talk about themselves.



When was I talking about myself?

And I don't see a lot of independents claiming that our prospects are of a higher quality then Tim Erixson.
Potatoe1
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1613
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 1:06 pm

Re: Nash to the Rangers.

Postby rats19 » Sun Jul 29, 2012 3:25 pm

I don't see any of the accusations ...out of the corner of my eye...maybe I should use my central vision..no?
You are who you hang with.....
User avatar
rats19
Moderator & MVP
Moderator & MVP
 
Posts: 4805
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2011 7:21 am
Location: over there.....

Re: Nash to the Rangers.

Postby clem » Sun Jul 29, 2012 4:07 pm

dbr wrote:
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.


I think you're misinterpreting HF's system of ranking players (which is hard to blame you for since they've changed the labels without actually changing the way they rate players - hardly speaks to their credibility as a source but that's another matter), or you are just comparing prospect quality entirely in terms of how likely they are to reach their various ceilings..

Erixon, Lack, Kassian, Tanev and Duco may all be B prospects but they are 7.5B, 7B, 7B, 6.5B and 6.0B respectively.

While Erixon (according to HF) is a 90% probability to turn out somewhere between a 7 (Kuba, Ehrhoff, Tallinder) and an 8 (Keith, Boyle, Timonen) Mike Duco has the same chance to turn out to be a player of the calibre of Matt Cooke, Manny Malhotra or Trent Hunter.

They may all have the same rating when it comes to the likelihood of meeting their potential (as defined by Hockeys Future) but HF explicitly states Erixon has the greatest potential of any of them.

(Personally I'd take Kassian over Erixon but he is in my opinion a better prospect than any of the rest.)

Anyway it's moot as there is absolutely no way Luongo returns a package like what Nash got. Two top nine forwards (both of whom can play center), a blue chip defense prospect and a first round pick would be an astonishing return.

Even if we got a "salary dump" of Dubinsky's calibre and a prospect of Erixon's calibre I'd be completely happy with the trade.

My post addressed the fact that one prospect was not easily better than all those listed. The group's probability of success (HF) was 'B', while skill rating varied by 1.5. The ability to evaluate prospects to a fine grade is suspect. A 'B' rating indicates that uncertainty.

Kassian seems the most promising of the group to me as well (if that's what you mean), but this assessment may not be totally objective.
User avatar
clem
CC 1st Team All-Star
 
Posts: 543
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 10:45 am

Re: Nash to the Rangers.

Postby clem » Sun Jul 29, 2012 4:29 pm

Potatoe1 wrote:
clem wrote:Independent (from club alliance), third party opinions tend to be more credible than blowhards who like to talk about themselves.

When was I talking about myself?

Your post began with three sentences, containing...
I'm
I
I
Your priorities are showing. Apparently, you didn't notice the habit.

Potatoe1 wrote:And I don't see a lot of independents claiming that our prospects are of a higher quality then Tim Erixson.
Never said that independent evaluators rated our prospects higher than Erixon. Said that evaluations don't show Erixon to be easily better than our prospects. Note your previous post.
Potatoe1 wrote:Good center depth, Erixson would easily be our best prospect and a first rounder is always a valuable chip.
User avatar
clem
CC 1st Team All-Star
 
Posts: 543
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 10:45 am

Re: Nash to the Rangers.

Postby Topper » Sun Jul 29, 2012 7:19 pm

Oh for fuck sakes Clem, give spudly some credit for doing some research and forming is own opinions rather than regurgitating pap spewed elsewhere on the interweeble.

His opinions may be flawed at times, but at least they are his opinions and he stands by them.
Over the Internet, you can pretend to be anyone or anything.

I'm amazed that so many people choose to be complete twats.
User avatar
Topper
CC Legend
 
Posts: 4989
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 8:11 pm
Location: Earth, most days.

Re: Nash to the Rangers.

Postby tantalum » Sun Jul 29, 2012 8:19 pm

I'm far closer to pot's definition. To me a prospect stops being a prospect when he has made the jump to full time nhler. That doesn't mean they stop developing or they don't have tremendous upside still. Tanev and likely Kassian have made that jump.

Oh and hockeys future while having nice message boards (some not all) is notoriously out to lunch on prospect ratings because every writer rates things differently and in in general those writers aren't any different than the people on this board.... fans who fancy themselves experts.
User avatar
tantalum
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1911
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 3:41 am
Location: Carl Junction, MO

Re: Nash to the Rangers.

Postby coco_canuck » Sun Jul 29, 2012 8:47 pm

tantalum wrote:Oh and hockeys future while having nice message boards (some not all) is notoriously out to lunch on prospect ratings because every writer rates things differently and in in general those writers aren't any different than the people on this board.... fans who fancy themselves experts.


Bingo.

It doesn't render their opinions meaningless, but HF is not exactly the most reliable source for prospect ratings and projections.

Anyway, if you're a hockey fan who follows the rest of the league closely, and does research, then you a foundation which allows you to form opinions. The thing about research however, is that the most convenient and easy to find information, such as 2 sentence evaluations on the Hockey News, and prospect ratings on HF, often lacks substance and is short on necessary context. To delve deeper, you have to read more, follow more reputable sources and evaluate each prospect based on the type of player you're expecting him to be.

Now, if someone shares an opinion, they better be prepared to back it up and defend it. If you want to attack someone's opinion, then do it clearly and prove your critique.

And yes, once a player no longer qualifies as a rookie, then he's no longer a prospect, but a young, developing NHL player.

Pretty simple.
User avatar
coco_canuck
CC 1st Team All-Star
 
Posts: 966
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2011 9:54 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Canucks Corner Chat

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: BigTuna and 2 guests