Reaves trade comes full circle. Pens choose not to sign Zachary Lauzon

[Peat]

Dumoulin scored in college while Lauzon couldn't even score in the QMJHL.

You don't know that for sure as he wasn't fit enough to play his full time in the Q, and the only evidence you've got is his pre-draft year which is frequently misleading.

Appealing to authority also isn't a good way to build your argument. Should JR be forgiven for signing Jack Johnson since he has more resources and eye tests to rely on than me? JR's opinion should be more informed than mine, right? So why was JR so catastrophically wrong then when me and everyone in the analytics community maligned him for that move?

Comparing relying on scouting reports of prospects we've never seen and don't have advanced stats for with relying on the GM's opinion for guys that everybody's seen and we have a crap ton of data on is apples and oranges.

You had a pretty good idea of what Johnson is like as a player as you'd seen him and had some decent data.

You have literally no idea of what Lauzon is like as a player. You've simply arrived at an opinion based on the boxscores and are repeating it as gospel. I have no idea about him either, but when asked to pick between you and people who've actually watched tape on him, I pretty much have to go with them. This isn't an appeal to authority, this is me saying which assessment is more believable. It's Marshall's/other scouts/etc.etc. You have given your opinion like an authority; there are other opinions from actual authorities.

You said he has too limited an offensive skill set to be a top 4 dman. People who watched him disagree. So I'm going to point out the alternative prognosis and the fact that your assessment is built on nothing but the stats from his pre-draft year. If you do actually have something else feeding this then by all means tell, but since you haven't mentioned it yet, I'm guessing no.

And for the record, Montreal were allegedly going to pick him at 55 if we hadn't got him. Not major demand for his services maybe, but he wasn't lasting to later rounds.

Me, myself, I'd have probably never taken Lauzon at 51. But that doesn't mean he never had top 4D potential, and it doesn't mean I'm not going to point out that your argument is based on the weakest logic going.

 

[Pancakes]

You said he has too limited an offensive skill set to be a top 4 dman. People who watched him disagree. So I'm going to point out the alternative prognosis and the fact that your assessment is built on nothing but the stats from his pre-draft year. If you do actually have something else feeding this then by all means tell, but since you haven't mentioned it yet, I'm guessing no.

Nah, it's not just box scores. His pre draft rankings: pre-draft rankings: 141 (Hockeyprospects), 174 (ISS Hockey), 228 (Future Considerations) and 143 (NHL Central Scouting, North American skaters. We took him at 51st overall. Pretty off board pick by every scouting service except for JR's and possibly Montreal's assuming your rumor was right.

So we not only went off board but we went off board with a player who....didn't do much on the ice, at least statistically.

Did he have top 4 potential? I guess we'll never know. He managed a paltry 4 points in 25 games in his draft+1, but he was also derailed by concussions, so you'd probably expect him to struggle given that.

My point is (as I stated in my previous post) that if you're taking a player like Lauzon you should probably be taking them in later rounds and not using a 2nd round pick to do it. We went way off board because of our scouts but I'd really love to know what our scouts were seeing that most other scouting services were not.

 

[Peat]

Nah, it's not just box scores. His pre draft rankings: pre-draft rankings: 141 (Hockeyprospects), 174 (ISS Hockey), 228 (Future Considerations) and 143 (NHL Central Scouting, North American skaters. We took him at 51st overall. Pretty off board pick by every scouting service except for JR's and possibly Montreal's assuming your rumor was right.

So we not only went off board but we went off board with a player who....didn't do much on the ice, at least statistically.

Did he have top 4 potential? I guess we'll never know. He managed a paltry 4 points in 25 games in his draft+1, but he was also derailed by concussions, so you'd probably expect him to struggle given that.

My point is (as I stated in my previous post) that if you're taking a player like Lauzon you should probably be taking them in later rounds and not using a 2nd round pick to do it. We went way off board because of our scouts but I'd really love to know what our scouts were seeing that most other scouting services were not.

Now who's appealing to authority?

I know a lot of people were low on him. But we don't know why. They don't give their assessments. The people who did give their assessments of him that we can find mention attacking tools and the only semi-explicit yea/nay on Top 4 potential was a yea. And their assessments match the one the team gave at the time - the kid could really skate, he saw the ice well, he had a good pass. Why that didn't result in more points? That's probably partially on being on a stacked team that needed him to play the stay at home D role; the older Lauzon and Myers both played for Canada U20 that year and were presumably hogging the PP time, along with Denis. Being on his off-side as well if true (I read at the time but no verification) didn't help. They presumably looked at the tools and role and reckoned there was more to come.