Just love how Tuna is dodging the fact that not one Leaf prospect made Buttons top 50 list while four Canuck prospects did, this after having to painfully put up with Tuna's shite talk for months gong on and on about the leaves many great prospects. I guess Button is no fan of the copious amounts of smurfs in the leaves system
leaves farm coach - "Yeeeeeaaaaarrrrrssss Away!"
leaves future on defence and goaltending is razor thin shite!!!
Horton - 3 more years after this at $5.3 million per
Kessel - 4 more years after this at $1.2 million per
All they have to show for Seguin and Hamilton is Frederik "the playoff choker" Andersen!
Well at one time he was arguing that the reason they had no prospects was because they are no longer prospects. But then he tried to backtrack and say both. Their best prospects are no longer prospects and their remaining prospects are great. Combined that makes the best prospect list bigly in the world. Best ever. Greatest.
RoyalDude[b] wrote:Just love how Tuna is dodging the fact that not one Leaf prospect made Buttons top 50 list while four Canuck prospects did,[/b] this after having to painfully put up with Tuna's shite talk for months gong on and on about the leaves many great prospects. I guess Button is no fan of the copious amounts of smurfs in the leaves system
leaves farm coach - "Yeeeeeaaaaarrrrrssss Away!"
leaves future on defence and goaltending is razor thin shite!!!
Horton - 3 more years after this at $5.3 million per
Kessel - 4 more years after this at $1.2 million per
All they have to show for Seguin and Hamilton is Frederik "the playoff choker" Andersen!
The leaves have the best rookie class in years of any NHL team. Buttons list wasn't best prospects, it was best prospects outside of the NHL. If it included all prospects, leaves are #1 out of 30 team sas Matthews/Marner.Nylander/Brown/Zetsev are rookies.
Hockey Widow[b] wrote:Well at one time he was arguing that the reason they had no prospects was because they are no longer prospects[/b]. But then he tried to backtrack and say both. Their best prospects are no longer prospects and their remaining prospects are great. Combined that makes the best prospect list bigly in the world. Best ever. Greatest.
When was this? leaves are #1 currently in terms of prospects. You guys are confused with Button's list. A prospect doesn't lose being one once they play in the NHL. It is after 1 year in the NHL. Button's list was top 50 "Outside NHL", It wasn't a list I previously asked for which was top 30 rankings of all prospect depth.
Hockey Widow[b] wrote:Well at one time he was arguing that the reason they had no prospects was because they are no longer prospects[/b]. But then he tried to backtrack and say both. Their best prospects are no longer prospects and their remaining prospects are great. Combined that makes the best prospect list bigly in the world. Best ever. Greatest.
When was this? leaves are #1 currently in terms of prospects. You guys are confused with Button's list. A prospect doesn't lose being one once they play in the NHL. It is after 1 year in the NHL. Button's list was top 50 "Outside NHL", It wasn't a list I previously asked for which was top 30 rankings of all prospect depth.
BigTuna wrote:
The leaves do not require more building.
BigTuna wrote:
The vast majority of their core is set. You can't say "Whatever", my comments were clearly in regards to the situation in 2014 which involved Luongo when the leaves had no core and a bottom 5 prospect pool.
If "the core is set"... then these guys aren't "prospects" anymore by definition
... and if we can't count any of the Leaves players currently with the big club
... then the Leaves once again have a "bottom 5 prospect pool"!
Leaves were among the top teams in terms of "prospect pools" when these guys were "prospects"
... but you're telling me they're not "prospects" any longer.
So, according to YOU, back to the basement with the Leaves as far as "prospect pools".
BigTuna wrote:
To spin it as a negative in 2017 for them making the playoffs is ridiculous.
"My point was that competing for the last playoff spot isn't a way to properly build." - YOU
Mr Shanahan says the rebuilding is ongoing, get with the Shanaplan!
No Goalie of the Future and no defencemen who can actually play defence.
2 of your top 5 scoring forwards are UFAs in 1.3 years.
And as discussed, your "rookie" top scoring defenceman could become a Group 6 UFA this summer.
Leaves prospects are as dim as you are my friend and Spanky + the Rascals have hit the Rookie Wall.
Rookies are considered "Prospects" until they complete 1 full NHL season.
YOU called these guys "core players" (can't be both "core players" and "prospects" - choose one).
"A player will be considered a prospect until he meets the following criteria:
If a prospect is a skater (forward, defenseman) and has played in 65 NHL games or more before the completion of the season of his 24th birthday; or, if a goaltender has played in 45 NHL games before the completion of the season of his 24th birthday, that player will be considered graduated to the NHL. Conversely, if a player completes the season of his 24th birthday without passing those milestones, then that player will no longer be considered a prospect by Hockey’s Future, regardless of the player’s status with his NHL club.
An NCAA player who signs his first contract at or above the age of 22 has three years to meet the above criteria (65/45), while those NCAA players that turn pro under the age of 22 will be subjected to the criteria above.
European players who sign their first NHL contract at or above the age of 22 have three seasons from the time they sign that contract to meet the above criteria. Those European players below the age of 22 that have signed a NHL contract will be subjected to the criteria in section one.
Section one is the meat of the criteria as it will govern the majority of players that vie for a NHL roster spot. Sections two and three are simply an acknowledgement that some prospects arrive on the scene a bit later than their peers, thus needing some time past their 24th birthday to develop into an NHL-caliber player."
..................
Some of the players you call "prospects" are not that... by HF's definition.
The rest of your "rookies" will very soon not be "prospects"... by HF's definition.
BigTuna wrote:
leaves are not bottom 5 in prospects at all. Even when the big 3 are gone from the list they'll be middle of the pack in rankings.
Wrong.
I'll just re-post this every 12 pages or so until he gets it...
EDIT: A little help for slooooow folk:
Nylander – 82 NHL games thus far = not a prospect
Connor Brown – 68 NHL games thus far = not a prospect
Zaitsev – 25 years old = not a prospect
Hyman – 24 years ole = not a prospect; Hyman – 77 NHL games thus far = not a prospect
Carrick – 108 NHL games thus far = not a prospect
Matthews – should hit game #65 in 9 days, at that point: not a prospect
Marner – too much of a weenie to ever hit 65 NHL games?
BigTuna wrote:
The leaves do not require more building.
BigTuna wrote:
The vast majority of their core is set. You can't say "Whatever", my comments were clearly in regards to the situation in 2014 which involved Luongo when the leaves had no core and a bottom 5 prospect pool.
If "the core is set"... then these guys aren't "prospects" anymore by definition
... and if we can't count any of the Leaves players currently with the big club
... then the Leaves once again have a "bottom 5 prospect pool"!
Leaves were among the top teams in terms of "prospect pools" when these guys were "prospects"
... but you're telling me they're not "prospects" any longer.
So, according to YOU, back to the basement with the Leaves as far as "prospect pools".
BigTuna wrote:
To spin it as a negative in 2017 for them making the playoffs is ridiculous.
"My point was that competing for the last playoff spot isn't a way to properly build." - YOU
Mr Shanahan says the rebuilding is ongoing, get with the Shanaplan!
No Goalie of the Future and no defencemen who can actually play defence.
2 of your top 5 scoring forwards are UFAs in 1.3 years.
And as discussed, your "rookie" top scoring defenceman could become a Group 6 UFA this summer.
Leaves prospects are as dim as you are my friend and Spanky + the Rascals have hit the Rookie Wall.
Rookies are considered "Prospects" until they complete 1 full NHL season.
YOU called these guys "core players" (can't be both "core players" and "prospects" - choose one).
"A player will be considered a prospect until he meets the following criteria:
If a prospect is a skater (forward, defenseman) and has played in 65 NHL games or more before the completion of the season of his 24th birthday; or, if a goaltender has played in 45 NHL games before the completion of the season of his 24th birthday, that player will be considered graduated to the NHL. Conversely, if a player completes the season of his 24th birthday without passing those milestones, then that player will no longer be considered a prospect by Hockey’s Future, regardless of the player’s status with his NHL club.
An NCAA player who signs his first contract at or above the age of 22 has three years to meet the above criteria (65/45), while those NCAA players that turn pro under the age of 22 will be subjected to the criteria above.
European players who sign their first NHL contract at or above the age of 22 have three seasons from the time they sign that contract to meet the above criteria. Those European players below the age of 22 that have signed a NHL contract will be subjected to the criteria in section one.
Section one is the meat of the criteria as it will govern the majority of players that vie for a NHL roster spot. Sections two and three are simply an acknowledgement that some prospects arrive on the scene a bit later than their peers, thus needing some time past their 24th birthday to develop into an NHL-caliber player."
..................
Some of the players you call "prospects" are not that... by HF's definition.
The rest of your "rookies" will very soon not be "prospects"... by HF's definition.
BigTuna wrote:
leaves are not bottom 5 in prospects at all. Even when the big 3 are gone from the list they'll be middle of the pack in rankings.
Wrong.
I'll just re-post this every 12 pages or so until he gets it...
EDIT: A little help for slooooow folk:
Nylander – 82 NHL games thus far = not a prospect
Connor Brown – 68 NHL games thus far = not a prospect
Zaitsev – 25 years old = not a prospect
Hyman – 24 years ole = not a prospect; Hyman – 77 NHL games thus far = not a prospect
Carrick – 108 NHL games thus far = not a prospect
Matthews – should hit game #65 in 9 days, at that point: not a prospect
Marner – too much of a weenie to ever hit 65 NHL games?
You're welcome.
I never mentioned Carrick BTW.
You are incorrect. A player is still a prospect until one full season. That's why the Button list you loved so much stated "Outside the NHL(:-because rookies in the NHL are still prospects,.
Last edited by BigTuna on Sun Feb 26, 2017 4:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Hockey Widow[b] wrote:Well at one time he was arguing that the reason they had no prospects was because they are no longer prospects[/b]. But then he tried to backtrack and say both. Their best prospects are no longer prospects and their remaining prospects are great. Combined that makes the best prospect list bigly in the world. Best ever. Greatest.
When was this? leaves are #1 currently in terms of prospects. You guys are confused with Button's list. A prospect doesn't lose being one once they play in the NHL. It is after 1 year in the NHL. Button's list was top 50 "Outside NHL", It wasn't a list I previously asked for which was top 30 rankings of all prospect depth.
