Value of: Marco Rossi +

[MuckOG]

CHLs, NCAA for sure. kHL= no. Dude was a well paid KHL player and 5 time all star before he came to the NHL. He was never a rookie in North America. He came over as a vet.

According to Calder criteria, he was a rookie

 

[McJedi]

According to Calder criteria, he was a rookie

That semantics. According to his development and age and achievements prior to joining the NHL, Krill was a well established hockey player the day he played his first pro game in the best hockey league.

Trying to compare him to an 18 year old high pick is utter nonsense. Rossi wasn’t established when he joined the NHL to that’s a different convo. But breaking out at 22 isn’t the same as blowing up when you’re 18 or 19.

Same thing will be true of Nikishin when he comes over to the NHL in 25/26 season.

 

[MuckOG]

That semantics. According to his development and age and achievements prior to joining the NHL, Krill was a well established veteran professional hockey player the day he played his very first pro game in the best hockey league.

Trying to compare him to an 18 year old high pick is utter nonsense. Rossi wasn’t established when he joined the NHL to that’s a different convo. But breaking out at 22 isn’t the same as blowing up when you’re 18 or 19.

You say "semantics", I say what the NHL criteria is. No matter what professional league somebody plays in, it's still inferior to the NHL. Would you consider a player who spent 2 seasons in the AHL a "rookie" when he gets promoted to the NHL? Of course you would. Why should it be any different if a player is coming from the SHL or KHL? Yes, those leagues are more difficult than the AHL, but not by a wide margin.

 

[McJedi]

You say "semantics", I say what the NHL criteria is. No matter what professional league somebody plays in, it's still inferior to the NHL. Would you consider a player who spent 2 seasons in the AHL a "rookie" when he gets promoted to the NHL? Of course you would. Why should it be any different if a player is coming from the SHL or KHL? Yes, those leagues are more difficult than the AHL, but not by a wide margin.

I never considered Kuzmenko a rookie either. When you play, are paid and thrived for several years in a league like the KHL or SHL, then turn pro at 24-27… you’re not a rookie.

You’re already an established professional player.

If you play more than 100 games in the AHL and you’re not a goalie, I don’t think you’ll have much future in the NHL other than as a bottom of roster tweener type. The late bloomers happen but are rare.

The AHL is a jump off point for youngsters or the pro league for guys that can’t let go of the dream but aren’t ever good enough to be drawing full time NHL paychecks. The KHL is different. That’s the top pro league for Europe. That’s their job and livelihood and at the peak of their aspirations as players for most of those guys.

 

[MuckOG]

I never considered Kuzmenko a rookie either. When you play, are paid and thrived for several years in a league like the KHL or SHL, then turn pro at 24-27… you’re not a rookie.

You’re already an established professional player.

If you play more than 100 games in the AHL and you’re not a goalie, I don’t think you’ll have much future in the NHL other than as a bottom of roster tweener type. The late bloomers happen but are rare.

The AHL is a jump off point for youngsters or the pro league for guys that can’t let go of the dream but aren’t ever good enough to be drawing full time NHL paychecks. The KHL is different. That’s the top pro league for Europe. That’s their job and livelihood and at the peak of their aspirations as players for most of those guys.

Again, you may not consider them as rookies, but the league does. So, its YOUR argument that is pure "semantics". It's your opinion and you are free to it.

 

[McJedi]

Again, you may not consider them as rookies, but the league does. So, it’s YOUR argument that is pure "semantics". It's your opinion and you are free to it.

For comparison purposes, trying to compare an 18 year olds rookie season to someone like Kaprizov or Kuzmenko is completely stupid. You know this. I know this.

Giving a rookie of the year award to a 25 year old guy that’s been a 5 time All Star in the KHL is something the NHL may do. But the NHL is a poorly run sport that hasn’t been able to grow, has endured several ugly lockouts, missed awarding a cup one season, is so far behind other pro leagues, and has a terrible commissioner so it’s hardly a league I look at with admiration for their business acumen.

In reality, Kaprizov was never a rookie in the NHL.

 

[MuckOG]

For comparison purposes, trying to compare an 18 year olds rookie season to someone like Kaprizov or Kuzmenko is completely stupid. You know this. I know this.

Giving a rookie of the year award to a 25 year old guy that’s been a 5 time All Star in the KHL is something the NHL may do. But the NHL is a poorly run sport that hasn’t been able to grow, has endured several ugly lockouts, missed awarding a cup one season, is so far behind other pro leagues, and has a terrible commissioner so it’s hardly a league I look at with admiration for their business acumen.

In reality, Kaprizov was never a rookie in the NHL.

In reality, Kaprizov was a rookie based on how the NHL defines them. Also, he was 23 years old his rookie season, not 25.

Also, by what metric hasn't the NHL grown?

 

[Sota Popinski]

For comparison purposes, trying to compare an 18 year olds rookie season to someone like Kaprizov or Kuzmenko is completely stupid. You know this. I know this.

Giving a rookie of the year award to a 25 year old guy that’s been a 5 time All Star in the KHL is something the NHL may do. But the NHL is a poorly run sport that hasn’t been able to grow, has endured several ugly lockouts, missed awarding a cup one season, is so far behind other pro leagues, and has a terrible commissioner so it’s hardly a league I look at with admiration for their business acumen.

In reality, Kaprizov was never a rookie in the NHL.

If only they would listen to you, they'd be the most successful sports league on the planet. I'm sure it's killing them inside that you don't look at them with admiration

 

[BagHead]

That semantics. According to his development and age and achievements prior to joining the NHL, Krill was a well established hockey player the day he played his first pro game in the best hockey league.

Trying to compare him to an 18 year old high pick is utter nonsense. Rossi wasn’t established when he joined the NHL to that’s a different convo. But breaking out at 22 isn’t the same as blowing up when you’re 18 or 19.

Same thing will be true of Nikishin when he comes over to the NHL in 25/26 season.

Semantics is the branching of linguistics, and the resultant meanings of words and phrases. Saying "that's semantics" means that the person you're responding to is just saying the same thing as you in a different way.

Requirements are the set of conditions that must be met for something to be true. Kaprizov was an NHL rookie because he met the requirements for being a rookie in the NHL. That's not semantics, it's the rules as written. Having requirements actually removes semantics from the measurement.

If the Calder was awarded to people who are in their first full year of pro hockey (minor included, as the NHL considers the KHL minor), he wouldn't have qualified, but that's not a part of the requirements the NHL has set forth.

It sounds to me like you think the NHL should change its rules because you think it would be better another way. Maybe you should write them about it instead of trying to convince the people here, who have no power to change it. Personally, I think the more people you exclude from a thing, the less meaningful winning it becomes, but that's my own preference and is also not a part of the rules.

 

[Baksfamous112]

Semantics is the branching of linguistics, and the resultant meanings of words and phrases. Saying "that's semantics" means that the person you're responding to is just saying the same thing as you in a different way.

Requirements are the set of conditions that must be met for something to be true. Kaprizov was an NHL rookie because he met the requirements for being a rookie in the NHL. That's not semantics, it's the rules as written. Having requirements actually removes semantics from the measurement.

If the Calder was awarded to people who are in their first full year of pro hockey (minor included, as the NHL considers the KHL minor), he wouldn't have qualified, but that's not a part of the requirements the NHL has set forth.

It sounds to me like you think the NHL should change its rules because you think it would be better another way. Maybe you should write them about it instead of trying to convince the people here, who have no power to change it. Personally, I think the more people you exclude from a thing, the less meaningful winning it becomes, but that's my own preference and is also not a part of the rules.

Do you believe the feast of a 22 years old rookie is as impressive as a 18 or 19 years old? Let’s say we have two rookies, Player A (19 years old) and Player B (22 years old). They both put up a ~40 points season. Which would you say has a biggest upside or room to grow? Which one would you prefer on your team? Putting up 40 points as a 19 years old is impressive. Putting up 40 points as a 22 years old is not that impressive for a top 10 pick.

Slafkovsky isn’t a rookie anymore. He’s ~40 points. Rossi is a rookie at ~40 points as well. Which one would you take? The rookie or non rookie?

 

[dgibb10]

a

 

[BagHead]

Do you believe the feast of a 22 years old rookie is as impressive as a 18 or 19 years old? Let’s say we have two rookies, Player A (19 years old) and Player B (22 years old). They both put up a ~40 points season. Which would you say has a biggest upside or room to grow? Which one would you prefer on your team? Putting up 40 points as a 19 years old is impressive. Putting up 40 points as a 22 years old is not that impressive for a top 10 pick.

Slafkovsky isn’t a rookie anymore. He’s ~40 points. Rossi is a rookie at ~40 points as well. Which one would you take? The rookie or non rookie?

It doesn't matter what I believe, it matters what the NHL rules are. The facts are that that Kaprizov was an NHL rookie by the NHLs rules, and that Rossi and Faber are also an NHL rookies by the NHLs rules. The NHL sure as heck doesn't care what I believe.

I do, however, realize that development is both nonlinear and nonuniform, so some players will be better at different ages than others. My belief, since asked, is that the Calder (and a lot of other individual trophies) doesn't matter that much, certainly not to me. It's a nice pay bump for the guy who wins it, and good for him.

 

[McJedi]

Semantics is the branching of linguistics, and the resultant meanings of words and phrases. Saying "that's semantics" means that the person you're responding to is just saying the same thing as you in a different way.

Requirements are the set of conditions that must be met for something to be true. Kaprizov was an NHL rookie because he met the requirements for being a rookie in the NHL. That's not semantics, it's the rules as written. Having requirements actually removes semantics from the measurement.

If the Calder was awarded to people who are in their first full year of pro hockey (minor included, as the NHL considers the KHL minor), he wouldn't have qualified, but that's not a part of the requirements the NHL has set forth.

It sounds to me like you think the NHL should change its rules because you think it would be better another way. Maybe you should write them about it instead of trying to convince the people here, who have no power to change it. Personally, I think the more people you exclude from a thing, the less meaningful winning it becomes, but that's my own preference and is also not a part of the rules.

The NFL doesn’t have a KHL. There isn’t a way for guys to get as good as Kaprizov was when he did joined the league. So their rookie of the year award is one where a first year pro player beats other first year pros. It’s apples to apples.

But MLB does. So does a guy like ichario get to win rookie of the year when he joins MLB at age 32 with 3,000 pro hits, +$20mm in earnings and a few MVPs to his name?

Kaprizov showed up in the NHL as fully developed. He was professionally accomplished and fully grown. If the league allows guys like that to win rookie of the year awards vs 18 year olds like an Auston Matthews putting up crazy goal stats for a teen or a just turned 18 year old Barkov playing well as a rookie… it’s a pretty stupid award.

And trying to compare the rookie season of an 18 year old to a 1st NHL season to a highly accomplished, much older professional player like Kaprizov is also stupid. Kaprizov is a wonderful player but he never was a rookie in the NHL. He was a first NHL year veteran professional hockey player when he joined the NHL. Similar to Kuzmenko.

 

[McJedi]

If only they would listen to you, they'd be the most successful sports league on the planet. I'm sure it's killing them inside that you don't look at them with admiration

The sport is stagnant and barely on the radar of your average American. It’s certainly not relevant to most Americans. And given that is where most of the teams are located, that’s unfortunate.

 

[Sota Popinski]

The sport is stagnant and barely on the radar of your average American. It’s certainly not relevant to most Americans. And given that is where most of the teams are located, that’s unfortunate.

The salary cap is rising. They are talking about expansion to two more American markets. Your statement that the sport is stagnant is not based in reality.

Your gatekeeping of the Calder to only 18 year olds is idiotic and would limit the field to about 3 players. The amount of draftees that start the season with the NHL club can be counted on one hand. It might not be fair that Kaprizov won the Calder, but anyone who abandons being a fan of the sport for such a dumbass reason was never going to be a long-term fan anyway.

Back to the lecture at hand, ignoring Rossi missing a full season because of an illness would really be no different than holding it against mcdavid for breaking his leg during his rookie season.

 

[BagHead]

The NFL doesn’t have a KHL. There isn’t a way for guys to get as good as Kaprizov was when he did joined the league. So their rookie of the year award is one where a first year pro player beats other first year pros. It’s apples to apples.

But MLB does. So does a guy like ichario get to win rookie of the year when he joins MLB at age 32 with 3,000 pro hits, +$20mm in earnings and a few MVPs to his name?

Kaprizov showed up in the NHL as fully developed. He was professionally accomplished and fully grown. If the league allows guys like that to win rookie of the year awards vs 18 year olds like an Auston Matthews putting up crazy goal stats for a teen or a just turned 18 year old Barkov playing well as a rookie… it’s a pretty stupid award.

And trying to compare the rookie season of an 18 year old to a 1st NHL season to a highly accomplished, much older professional player like Kaprizov is also stupid. Kaprizov is a wonderful player but he never was a rookie in the NHL. He was a first NHL year veteran professional hockey player when he joined the NHL. Similar to Kuzmenko.

That makes sense for the NFL, since there is a direct line from college to the NFL, and the top players all hit it within a year or so of each other in age. That is not the case in the NHL, so the rules are different. Growing up seeing governments do their thing it may not seem like it, but sometimes rules follow reality.
Also... the average age for a rookie in the NFL is the age Kaprizov was as a rookie, so what is the point you're making with this tangential argument?

Kaprizov was well developed already, but actually improved after his rookie season, so he wasn't fully developed, was he? In fact, Jason Robertson has improved by about the same margin, so maybe Robertson was also too old at 21? Or did the AHL prepare him so quickly? If so, we should take Calder eligibility away from players who have a year in the AHL, or players who are 21, or both.

If you take nothing else away, please take this away:
Players develop at different rates and at different ages, so maybe it's not a great idea to limit the window too much, or you remove almost all the competition from it, making it meaningless. If it were for 18-20 year olds only, the only player actually competing for it realistically this year would be Bedard (he'll win and should, but Faber at least made it interesting for a while). Pretty boring, which is not a favorable attribute for entertainment.

I have no idea what any of this has to do with Rossi, though, or his trade value. Good kid, good player. I hope the Wild keep him!