Value of: William Nylander Trade Possibilities

[Starat327]

HF: What would you trade Nylander for?
Leafs fans: We don't want to trade Nylander.
HF: So "young player + a high pick"?
Leafs fans: No.
HF: So "established player"?
Leafs fans: No.
HF: lol typical Leafs fans, overrating their players.

Funny, i saw the same thing the other day in a parayko thread, only the roles were reversed. Fancy that.

 

[jetsjetsjets]

hf: What would you trade player x for?
any fan base: We don't want to trade player x.
hf: So "young player + a high pick"?
any fan base: No.
hf: So "established player"?
any fan base: No.
hf: Lol typical team x fans, overrating their players.

ftfy

Welcome to the trade board.

 

[Willy Stylez]

HF: What would you trade Nylander for?
Leafs fans: We don't want to trade Nylander.
HF: So "young player + a high pick"?
Leafs fans: No.
HF: So "established player"?
Leafs fans: No.
HF: lol typical Leafs fans, overrating their players.

 

[Blender]

HF: What would you trade Nylander for?
Leafs fans: We don't want to trade Nylander.
HF: So "young player + a high pick"?
Leafs fans: No.
HF: So "established player"?
Leafs fans: No.
HF: lol typical Leafs fans, overrating their players.

Venture into any thread where it's a player Leafs fans want, and you get the same thing from the other direction. Leafs have such a huge fan base it happens a lot as well. Drop the persecution complex, this is just how the trade board works (unfortunately) and it happens between every fan base, it isn't exclusive against Leafs players so don't act like it is.

 

[Starat327]

Venture into any thread where it's a player Leafs fans want, and you get the same thing from the other direction. Leafs have such a huge fan base it happens a lot as well. Drop the persecution complex, this is just how the trade board works (unfortunately) and it happens between every fan base, it isn't exclusive against Leafs players so don't act like it is.

Bravo!

 

[McNuge]

Birth year determining when you start school or what level of hockey you play in isn't any less arbitrary than the NHL's draft cutoff date. A player born in December 1995 playing against 1995 birth year players is going to have less of a physical advantage than a player born in January 1996 playing against 1996 birth year players, despite those two players being less than a month apart in age. You are using birth year because it favours your argument, but you aren't applying any context to it that is required to actually make a proper analysis.

The reason draft year is used is because it represents the number of years of development a player has under his belt, that is generally equal between all players. Yes the birth date of players will be a factor in their physical maturity in comparison to their peers, up to a certain age, but it doesn't account for the number of playing years and level of skill development a player may have. Draft year does.

Thank you, could not have said it better myself.

 

[Viqsi]

Venture into any thread where it's a player Leafs fans want, and you get the same thing from the other direction. Leafs have such a huge fan base it happens a lot as well. Drop the persecution complex, this is just how the trade board works (unfortunately) and it happens between every fan base, it isn't exclusive against Leafs players so don't act like it is.

Eeyep. You get a cookie.

 

[firstemperor]

Birth year determining when you start school or what level of hockey you play in isn't any less arbitrary than the NHL's draft cutoff date. A player born in December 1995 playing against 1995 birth year players is going to have less of a physical advantage than a player born in January 1996 playing against 1996 birth year players, despite those two players being less than a month apart in age. You are using birth year because it favours your argument, but you aren't applying any context to it that is required to actually make a proper analysis.

The reason draft year is used is because it represents the number of years of development a player has under his belt, that is generally equal between all players. Yes the birth date of players will be a factor in their physical maturity in comparison to their peers, up to a certain age, but it doesn't account for the number of playing years and level of skill development a player may have. Draft year does.

Honestly, I haven't read a post before this and I already disagree with this premise. You use a straw man of Dec 1995 to Jan 1995 birthdates- which would apply equally to an abitrary draft year cut off (in either extreme).

There's more of an age argument than draft year argument but it's not leaning clearly towards either side. When your a child or adolescenet, your not cut off in development by an arbitrary draft year cut-off. Similarly, when your placed in an education setting. I think when judging the tracking of a prospect- you should use context above all.

 

[Blender]

Honestly, I haven't read a post before this and I already disagree with this premise. You use a straw man of Dec 1995 to Jan 1995 birthdates- which would apply equally to an abitrary draft year cut off (in either extreme).

There's more of an age argument than draft year argument but it's not leaning clearly towards either side. When your a child or adolescenet, your not cut off in development by an arbitrary draft year cut-off. Similarly, when your placed in an education setting. I think when judging the tracking of a prospect- you should use context above all.

Not using context was exactly my point, did you even read my post? Maybe you should actually read the thread as well, so you have some context to the argument that was being made. That example isn't a straw man, it was an example of why just tossing out strict age with no context as the best comparison was a flawed argument, which is what Zeke was doing. He was comparing 18 years old vs 18 years old, 19 vs 19, etc. without any context whatsoever. A strawman is when you prop up an argument the other person didn't make and then argue against it. Using a real life example of how age is handled in youth hockey isn't that, when he was using age as his only argument.

There isn't "more of an age argument than draft year argument", since just using age (i.e. 18, 19, 20, etc.) says a lot less than draft year. Draft year specifically tracks the number of years of development a player has had since they were drafted, which provides a point in time for comparison for the progress that player has made since. It also provides a point of comparison you can make against other players based on their draft position and progress. Just saying someone is 18 and another guy is 18 says little, since they could in theory be up to 364 days apart in age, and have a different number of years of development time due to the draft cut off. Draft year provides a certain amount of context itself, but I agree that more context is always better.

 

[firstemperor]

There isn't "more of an age argument than draft year argument", since just using age (i.e. 18, 19, 20, etc.) says a lot less than draft year. Draft year specifically tracks the number of years of development a player has had since they were drafted, which provides a point in time for comparison for the progress that player has made since. It also provides a point of comparison you can make against other players based on their draft position and progress. Just saying someone is 18 and another guy is 18 says little, since they could in theory be up to 364 days apart in age, and have a different number of years of development time due to the draft cut off. Draft year provides a certain amount of context itself, but I agree that more context is always better.

So your argument is the draft year cut off sets a point of reference to track prospects thereafter- as to why it's superior. My point is this is a fictional arbitrary cut-off anyways. Why make the frame of reference at that point? You used some physical maturity argument earlier but no one's to say, as a generality, any prospect's physical maturity peaks, bottoms out, or plateaus at ~18 years of age, on any calendar date within the year. Sure, they can be 364 days apart by some extreme reference point using age, but it's not inherently different than by some extreme draft year analogy (in the opposite direction) is all I'm saying. I'm not exactly vouching for either- I do lean towards age but not enough to ignore all context.

I think ultimately, you should use both draft and age year with context to judge a prospect. Or else you paint clouded narratives either way, using the extremes of both.

I don't have a side in this argument and I'm not faulting your argument in the other direction (for what you claim is a flawed argument). I think your shooting one extreme and perhaps, the other poster is shooting the other- when it should really be closer to the middle.

 

[Face Of Bear]

Start this thread again after Nylander has a couple 70+ point seasons under his belt. Leafs will only trade him when he's at his peak value. And they'll get their asking price when they do

 

[McNuge]

So your argument is the draft year cut off sets a point of reference to track prospects thereafter- as to why it's superior. My point is this is a fictional arbitrary cut-off anyways. Why make the frame of reference at that point? You used some physical maturity argument earlier but no one's to say, as a generality, any prospect's physical maturity peaks, bottoms out, or plateaus at ~18 years of age, on any calendar date within the year. Sure, they can be 364 days apart by some extreme reference point using age, but it's not inherently different than by some extreme draft year analogy (in the opposite direction) is all I'm saying. I'm not exactly vouching for either- I do lean towards age but not enough to ignore all context.

I think ultimately, you should use both draft and age year with context to judge a prospect. Or else you paint clouded narratives either way, using the extremes of both.

I don't have a side in this argument and I'm not faulting your argument in the other direction (for what you claim is a flawed argument). I think your shooting one extreme and perhaps, the other poster is shooting the other- when it should really be closer to the middle.

The NHL chose that cut off day for what ever reason. But that is the first point in time you can start comparing their NHL careers, because that is the earliest point in time they can start becoming NHL players. If they are in the same draft year than you can only look at the following hockey seasons to see how they progress. They call it a draft class for a reason. Each one has had 3 years to prove themselves and that is all that matters.

 

[Mats13]

HF: What would you trade Nylander for?
Leafs fans: We don't want to trade Nylander.
HF: So "young player + a high pick"?
Leafs fans: No.
HF: So "established player"?
Leafs fans: No.
HF: lol typical Leafs fans, overrating their players.

Basically every thread on this board. Everything Leafs fans say is automatically shot down as homer talk.

Anyway, Nylander is not being traded. Stupid thread.

 

[Viqsi]

Basically every thread on this board. Everything Leafs fans say is automatically shot down as homer talk.

Anyway, Nylander is not being traded. Stupid thread.

It's not just Leafs fans. It's every fanbase that actually has the gall to want to keep a player that some other fanbase is interested in.

Just as there many fans that keep forgetting that Leafs fans are frequently on the receiving end of this abuse, there's plenty of Leafs fans who keep forgetting that they (and/or other Leafs fans) are frequently on the giving end as well. There's no room or justification for prejudices or persecution complexes where such things are involved. Everybody does it to everybody.

 

[crowi]

Funny, i saw the same thing the other day in a parayko thread, only the roles were reversed. Fancy that.

Yeah, saw the same trash for Lindholm.

 

[7even]

Aight this thread isn't even about Nylander anymore lol. Time for a lock?

 

[Cats2TheCup]

Nylander for a 4 time concussed Ekblad Lou would be a fool to make that deal, Besides i think it would take Nylander and a small plus to get Ekblad 1 for 1 wont do it.

Panthers and Leafs both could use an Ekblad more than a Nylander.

 

[bobg1]

Nylander is as talenred as any player including Drais, in fact I think he's more yalented

 

[CraigsList]

Nylander is as talenred as any player including Drais, in fact I think he's more yalented

Yep, we hear this every day.

 

[Man Bear Pig]

Panthers and Leafs both could use an Ekblad more than a Nylander.

A healthy Ekblad? Sure. The one being held together with duct tape and crazy glue? No thanks.

 

[Hunter368]

It's not just Leafs fans. It's every fanbase that actually has the gall to want to keep a player that some other fanbase is interested in.

Just as there many fans that keep forgetting that Leafs fans are frequently on the receiving end of this abuse, there's plenty of Leafs fans who keep forgetting that they (and/or other Leafs fans) are frequently on the giving end as well. There's no room or justification for prejudices or persecution complexes where such things are involved. Everybody does it to everybody.

Very good post and very true.

 

[Liferleafer]

I will put my response this way, no player is untouchable, but if i was to trade Nylander, it would only be for defense....and the players i would deal him for (even if i needed to add) aren't available. There probably isn't a Dman that would actually be available that i would move him for.

 

[34]

Yep, we hear this every day.

Because it is the truth.

Nylander is as talenred as any player including Drais, in fact I think he's more yalented

100% true, and I am a fan of Drai.

 

[rent free]

nylander is worth nylander. /thread

 

[Sundinisagod]

I would sooner convert Nylander to a defenseman than trade him for one.