Paul Stastny is a very good player. He can play on the PP and kill penalties. He can play in traffic no probleme. He's a great playmaker. Bottom line is Stastny has the better upsides I'll take him on my team any time over Latendress.
Stasny is overrated because of his father
Latendresse is underrated because he's a french-canadian playing in Montreal
IMO, Latendresse is what the Habs need now and for the future...(not comparing him, but the Habs haven't had a top 6 PowerForward since John LeClair...).
So, it works out well for both Colorado and Montreal (they should both have good careers + Stastny is 21, Latendresse is 19...).
Stastny is replacing Pierre Turgeon, and doing a good job of it.
Not easy to find, but the Habs need a grittier center-man...a la healthy Forsberg wouldn't hurt .
BTW, would YOU trade Vermette for Stastny and a 2nd Round? (just curious!).
Also, I'm a Vermette fan...
The one thing to consider is they are different ages. One is 19, the other 21 and a lot of development can take place in years. At the same age Stastny was averaging a point per game in the NCAA. Doesn't mean Lats is going to be better by any stretch, just something to help put their respective play in context.
I dunno...I'd keep Lats, cuz I think Higgins and Plekanec are similar to Stastny. Although Higgs and Pleks are not as good of playmakers, they are better goal scorers (imo). As far as 2 way game, heart and work ethic, they're very similar imo.I agree , Lats is a very good playmaker , he mades tremendous passes , he is underestimated in that case IMO .
Id still take Stastny over him thought
All I can add here is that, according to hockeysfuture.com, Statsny is rated a 7.5B and Latendresse an 8.5C.
So, Statsny's potential is to be a better than average second line player (players not quite good enough to play on the top line on a regular basis, but still possessing enough talent to contribute offensively. Think Andrew Cassels, Jason Arnott.)
Whereas, Latendresse's potential is considered to be a better than average first line player (players with definite skill that might be just a cut below elite status, but still possessing All-Star potential. Think Patrik Elias, Keith Tkachuk).
Whatever I may think about the talent and abilities of different players isn't really all that relevant to the proper evaluation of the players in question. By that, I mean that I may watch these players on the ice but I'm not a trained hockey observer/expert. I don't have the 'eye' for all the fine points of skill level evaluation.
Therefore, when it comes to evaluating or rating players, I defer to sites like hockeysfuture.com and other sites like tsn.ca/nhl/teams/players, red line report and others of that kind. These sites include trained observers, scouts, etc that contribute corporately to the evaluation of hockey players. This is much better than one potentially biased opinion like mine and like many of you. But, more importantly, it tends to be more accurate because there's a concensus that is achieved through the interaction of 'more heads' than one.
fixed
All I can add here is that, according to hockeysfuture.com, Statsny is rated a 7.5B and Latendresse an 8.5C.
So, Statsny's potential is to be a better than average second line player (players not quite good enough to play on the top line on a regular basis, but still possessing enough talent to contribute offensively. Think Andrew Cassels, Jason Arnott.)
Whereas, Latendresse's potential is considered to be a better than average first line player (players with definite skill that might be just a cut below elite status, but still possessing All-Star potential. Think Patrik Elias, Keith Tkachuk).
Keep in mind most avs fans were upset at the team for signing Paul because we believed he'd be in the AHL this season and would have rather had him at Denver.All I can add here is that, according to hockeysfuture.com, Statsny is rated a 7.5B and Latendresse an 8.5C.
So, Statsny's potential is to be a better than average second line player (players not quite good enough to play on the top line on a regular basis, but still possessing enough talent to contribute offensively. Think Andrew Cassels, Jason Arnott.)
Whereas, Latendresse's potential is considered to be a better than average first line player (players with definite skill that might be just a cut below elite status, but still possessing All-Star potential. Think Patrik Elias, Keith Tkachuk).
Whatever I may think about the talent and abilities of different players isn't really all that relevant to the proper evaluation of the players in question. By that, I mean that I may watch these players on the ice but I'm not a trained hockey observer/expert. I don't have the 'eye' for all the fine points of skill level evaluation.
Therefore, when it comes to evaluating or rating players, I defer to sites like hockeysfuture.com and other sites like tsn.ca/nhl/teams/players, red line report and others of that kind. These sites include trained observers, scouts, etc that contribute corporately to the evaluation of hockey players. This is much better than one potentially biased opinion like mine and like many of you. But, more importantly, it tends to be more accurate because there's a concensus that is achieved through the interaction of 'more heads' than one.
Liles had rating 3. And your point ?
Not likely, since those ratings are made by others sitting on their own biased sofas with limited perspectives, just like us. Granted, they are based on mostly smarter and more objective perspectives than those of the average poster. But factor in outdatedness of the ratings, and you're still often going to get a better picture filtering and averaging the back-and-forth chatterings of the two biased sides than relying on two single possibly-outdated opinions.And Ryder had a poor rating (5.5, I think), I know... but nevertheless, I still believe that these 'organized' rankings/evaluations/ratings are superior, on the whole, to what we can do from our sofas and our limited perspectives and biases.
All I can add here is that, according to hockeysfuture.com, Statsny is rated a 7.5B and Latendresse an 8.5C.
So, Statsny's potential is to be a better than average second line player (players not quite good enough to play on the top line on a regular basis, but still possessing enough talent to contribute offensively. Think Andrew Cassels, Jason Arnott.)
Whereas, Latendresse's potential is considered to be a better than average first line player (players with definite skill that might be just a cut below elite status, but still possessing All-Star potential. Think Patrik Elias, Keith Tkachuk).
Whatever I may think about the talent and abilities of different players isn't really all that relevant to the proper evaluation of the players in question. By that, I mean that I may watch these players on the ice but I'm not a trained hockey observer/expert. I don't have the 'eye' for all the fine points of skill level evaluation.
Therefore, when it comes to evaluating or rating players, I defer to sites like hockeysfuture.com and other sites like tsn.ca/nhl/teams/players, red line report and others of that kind. These sites include trained observers, scouts, etc that contribute corporately to the evaluation of hockey players. This is much better than one potentially biased opinion like mine and like many of you. But, more importantly, it tends to be more accurate because there's a concensus that is achieved through the interaction of 'more heads' than one.
How much points can we expect from each of them?
In 3 years?
at their peak?
In 3 years:
Stastny: 15-55-70
Lats: 30-30-60
Peak:
Stastny: 25-60-85
Lats: 40-40-80