1. So your point that talent level increases while quantity stays the same would mean that Russia produces more talent. Which would work against your point that the level of KHL is decreasing because it would mean that while those 20 players making up the Russian NHL core get more and more talented those hundreds that stay get less and less so?
2. The point about Mozyakin is extremely circumstantial. For one, he is 38, so him not leaving has very little to do with the KHL developments over the last 4-5 years. If you use him as an example I can counter it with Radulov or Kovalchuk coming back even though that's just as irrelevant to the situation lately. One could also make a point Shipachyov never really leaving is just as big for the league as Mozyakin staying here 10 years ago. Gusev stayed until he's 27. Tryamkin, for example, came back, even though Canucks wanted to keep him. Nothing has changed in this regard over the last 4-5 years which the discussion was all about.
3. And yes, the number of players trying the AHL marginally increased but 1) as long as the number of NHLers isn't getting any higher it means they all eventually come back to the KHL. If the player doesn't get a big role in the NHL he just comes back. And it was a rule of thumb forever so your "quality over quantity" argument only applies to some supposedly higher level of those before mentioned 20 players or so. The benchmark has always been the same, you either become an impact NHLer or you go home. Increase of AHLers while NHLer number stays the same means more players are trying to make the NHL. It usually lasts for 1 year; 2) many of those guys in the AHL were pushed out of the KHL rather than didn't want to stay, Zagidulin might be the best example for it. If a KHL team can't give a young player big role they don't want to pay him big money. Since there are less teams in the KHL there are more good players that occupy big roles. Young players on big teams then are forced to make a decision, either they go to the AHL or they are paid very little money and get little ice time. The teams are fine with them leaving knowing they will most likely come after a year or two and they still hold their rights. If they were to trade them away to a weaker KHL team which could give the guy bigger role and more money the big club then would have to buy his rights back for a fair price. Meaning letting the guy go to the AHL is just way cheaper and works to their benefit.
The part with "actual junior leagues" is funny altogether:
4) 1) you added J20 just because it served your agenda very well but that's why it's the funniest. J20 is a junior B league, not "an actual junior league" in a real sense. If you aren't playing in SuperElit you are C-grade prospect at best unlikely to ever make the KHL in any role. All of 15 Russian players there were simply not good enough for the MHL, they were all signed by organizations whose men's teams are playing 3-5 Swedish leagues. The most successful one actually got an MHL invite for the next year, they 2nd best one signed the deal with Swedish 3rd league team. I'm not even talking about 13 others who are very unlikely to become pro players at any league ever, definitely not the KHL. Got to love when people act so smug and then insert absolutely ridiculous data just to push their agenda trying to trick less-informed readers.
5)2) absolute same applies, to a less laughable extent, to the NCAA numbers. Most NCAA grads are not at the KHL level even after college careers, select few of them could play in the KHL at the age when they study. So yes, after the KHL contraction more young players were forced to look for different paths to their career since the KHL doors closed to them as I just explained a couple of paragraphs earlier. We have been through this. After graduating they will end up in the KHL or VHL, most likely. They will get degrees over that time rather than driving buses while playing minor roles in the VHL.
3) as your numbers indicate, there were just as many players back then as there is now playing major junior in Canada.
6)4) the number of players in the USHL has increased and it's thanks to 1) USHL raising its status internationally but more importantly 2) more players wanting to go the NCAA route, got to the paragraph 2 for that.
So all this grasping at straws is mighty impressive but it's just treading water like crazy.
7) It's very clear at this point I can't prove anything to you, as Dr. House said everyone is working around the assumption they are right, it doesn't matter if they are. You choose to see those facts you want to see while ignoring the ones you don't and furthermore, even ignoring the main reasons why the facts you use are the way they are. KHL contraction was a major force (just imagine what would happen if the NHL just cut 5 teams) but you just refuse to see it as one banging your own drum about ruble crisis while a lot of Russian KHL teams (Avto, Traktor, CSKA) have massively increased their budgets over the period you are talking about.
^ This is what someone who is beyond delusional and thinks they are a tv character (Dr. House) writes.
1. That isn't my point at all. I never said that. Sorry Dr. House.
2. Or... and hear me out for a second, and take your rosy KHL glasses off, the fact that players like Shipachyov and Mozyakin couldn't even make an NHL team, and other players who also excelled in the KHL like Kovalchuk have struggled back in the NHL, could mean that the KHL isn't as strong. And just a side note. I literally just mentioned 1 player Mozyakin who is probably one of the best KHL players of all time, as he never came over like you said.
3. "And yes, the number of players trying the AHL marginally increased but 1) as long as the number of NHLers isn't getting any higher it means they all eventually come back to the KHL"
"Increased marginally" It increased 50% in this span lol. And if the players can't hack it in the AHL that isn't a glowing recommendation in the KHL. At this point I honestly feel like you've lost sight of what you're even arguing, Dr. House. And now you're arguing for the sake of arguing. How is stating that if a player can't hack it in the AHL, they eventually come back to the KHL-- how is that good for the KHL? How is that showing that the KHL has not diminished in play over the past ~4 seasons?
4) Or smart readers will acknowledge my point that more and more Russian kids are looking at different avenues. The loss of those specific players to the j20, is as you said inconsequential to the KHL, but the overarching exodus of young talent is impactful--at every level. And that was why I listed all of those various leagues.
5) Well actually Spin Doctor House, one could argue that more young players are looking at different avenues of development than that of the KHL because it's less beneficial for the individual player. And no, there are some good Russians in the NCAA right now. Pavlychev, Smirnov, and Ishakov all have some NHL potential. What's interesting, Dr House, is the first 2 have zero minutes in the KHL development machine.
6. The rule change from 2017 really only effects Canadians and Euro goalies--which actually harder for Russian players.
7. Well Dr. House, if anyone's treading water, and believing their own non-sense it's you. You're arguing for the sake of arguing.
I'm arguing to say that Bulat's development path needs change, and he would be better served in NA. I literally stated that there are some good KHL organizations, Dr House. However, that small umbrella of good (that could get increasingly smaller as profits continue to dwindle) does not cover Bulat's team in the slightest.
Sorry Dr. House, your argument just like your show got cancelled.
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc()/confusedladymathmeme-5ab6ad1d8e1b6e0037eb6fe8.PNG)
