Rumor: Avs Proposals/Rumors/Free Agents 18-19 part XXVI|Kerfoot or Corefoot?

[Sea Eagles]

While Kerfoot is not quite finished with his 2nd year in the league, he's already 24 years old. At this point he is more-or-less a finished product. And others have pointed out his shortcomings already. He's an incredibly streaky player (we saw that last year and this year), he's not quite talented enough to be a bottom-6 player, and if he's a permanent fixture in the top-6 he's immediately the area you'd need to upgrade.

Yeah, he has points, and yeah as Avs fans we are thankful that he's been able to step in and help the team down the stretch on the top-line. But he's not an answer going forward. Given his offensive production, I think he could make a good argument for 4M+ on his next deal, and given the type of player he is, that's too much.

He's a fine player on a non-contending or even bubble team, but once you're discussing contending teams, he doesn't really fit in anywhere.

Okay, so what if he takes a cheap(ish) , short term contract ? Hurts no-one.

 

[Tru]

I've got to back up Pokecheque here, more so to contradict the notion that everyone is painting Kerfoot like they already know what his ceiling is. I disagree that he's a "finished product".

The kid is just finishing up his sophomore season, and so those that are saying that Kerfoot isn't good enough to be a top-6er, and he isn't suited to be a bottom-6er (like it's a definitive), are just being a tad premature in their analysis of the kid, imho. Just on the face of it, if you were to apply the same analysis to MacKinnon after his 0.59 PPG second season, then you'd be obligated to say that MacKinnon will never be a top-6 guy on a contending team, too.

I don't think the kid is anywhere near his ceiling, and if his recent play is any indication of what he could be capable of, then he darn well could develop into a great top-6er. In that aspect, I can absolutely say, I hope we hold onto Kerfoot over Wilson, Brassard, or any of the other pending FA's. He's smart, he's coachable, and I just think we ought to see what he develops into.

If the rest of the roster was pushing him out because of production, I'd have a different standpoint, but they're not, and so I feel we have the luxury with Kerfoot to wait and let him grow with this core.

 

[lonelybadger]

I've got to back up Pokecheque here, more so to contradict the notion that everyone is painting Kerfoot like they already know what his ceiling is.

The kid is just finishing up his sophomore season, and so those that are saying that Kerfoot isn't good enough to be a top-6er, and he isn't suited to be a bottom-6er (like it's a definitive), are just being a tad premature in their analysis of the kid, imho. Just on the face of it, if you were to apply the same analysis to MacKinnon after his 0.59 PPG second season, then you'd be obligated to say that MacKinnon will never be a top-6 guy on a contending team, too.

I don't think the kid is anywhere near his ceiling, and if his recent play is any indication of what he could be capable of, then he darn well could develop into a great top-6er. In that aspect, I can absolutely say, I hope we hold onto Kerfoot over Wilson, Brassard, or any of the other pending FA's. He's smart, he's coachable, and I just think we ought to see what he develops into.

If the rest of the roster was pushing him out because of production, I'd have a different standpoint, but they're not, and so I feel we have the luxury with Kerfoot to wait and let him grow with this core.

Mackinnon was like 12 years old that second season though.

 

[Pokecheque]

Okay, so what if he takes a cheap(ish) , short term contract ? Hurts no-one.

Given some of the over-the-top statements about his future I'm not so sure about that.

 

[RockLobster]

Okay, so what if he takes a cheap(ish) , short term contract ? Hurts no-one.

Depends on one's definition of "cheap-ish".

I want to take a moment to look at the last several games here and offer that it's kind of an anomaly. He's got 8 points in the last 6 games, and yes--some of them have been timely points that have helped the team overall (whereas last season there were quite a few of his points/goals there were "garbage time" that had no impact on the outcome of the game). That is definitely GOOD/GREAT production from him. However he had 1 point in the previous 12 games prior to that.

His recent point output coincides with when Rantanen went out with his injury, the TOI shows that as he's been averaging over 18:30 min per game (a bit closer to 19min per game) over the last 7 games. His TOI average for this year is 14:45. He's getting more ice-time to get those points (again, we're not going to complain that he's getting him, but it's about looking at him in perspective). When Rantanen returns, and he's no longer playing with MacKinnon, then it's more likely we're back to seeing the Kerfoot we saw all year--an incredibly streaky offensive player that's not quite good enough to be in the Top-6 longterm, but also not quite good enough in the bottom-6.

So, as I said at the beginning, it depends on one's definition of "cheap-ish". I'm not thrilled at the idea of him being at 3.5M or higher. Would much rather the Avs find another home for him and utilize that $ elsewhere.

(And for the record--I like Compher a hell of a lot more than Kerfoot, but even he has some warts, namely his FO% is rather poor, but he at least fits in better on the bottom-6)

 

[RockLobster]

The kid is just finishing up his sophomore season, and so those that are saying that Kerfoot isn't good enough to be a top-6er, and he isn't suited to be a bottom-6er (like it's a definitive), are just being a tad premature in their analysis of the kid, imho. Just on the face of it, if you were to apply the same analysis to MacKinnon after his 0.59 PPG second season, then you'd be obligated to say that MacKinnon will never be a top-6 guy on a contending team, too.

Wow...what a horrendous attempt at arguing your point, because comparing Kerfoot and his 2nd year in the league to MacKinnon and his 2nd year in the league is basically like trying to compare apples to oranges.

The key reason why it's not an apt comparison is that Kerfoot came in to the league at 23, and is 24 in his 2nd year. MacKinnon came into the league at 18 and was 19 in his 2nd year. Plenty of room for development there. It's far more likely that Kerfoot is "done" developing, as most NHL forwards (save for some exceptions to the rule) are done developing at that point.

Perhaps I'll need to not skim most people's posts, but I've yet to see anyone say Kerfoot is a garbage player, just that there's no real fit for him on the top or bottom 6 on a contending team.

 

[The Abusement Park]

Forget the points, the Kerfoot we’ve seen the last couple weeks can stay, if he keeps it up through the end of the season. Outside of a blip or two he’s been the good kind of noticeable lately, in all phases.

Well we can’t just ignore him the 30 some odd game stretch where he put up line 8 points and literally contributed nothing too the team.

 

[flyfysher]

Depends on one's definition of "cheap-ish".

I want to take a moment to look at the last several games here and offer that it's kind of an anomaly. He's got 8 points in the last 6 games, and yes--some of them have been timely points that have helped the team overall (whereas last season there were quite a few of his points/goals there were "garbage time" that had no impact on the outcome of the game). That is definitely GOOD/GREAT production from him. However he had 1 point in the previous 12 games prior to that.

His recent point output coincides with when Rantanen went out with his injury, the TOI shows that as he's been averaging over 18:30 min per game (a bit closer to 19min per game) over the last 7 games. His TOI average for this year is 14:45. He's getting more ice-time to get those points (again, we're not going to complain that he's getting him, but it's about looking at him in perspective). When Rantanen returns, and he's no longer playing with MacKinnon, then it's more likely we're back to seeing the Kerfoot we saw all year--an incredibly streaky offensive player that's not quite good enough to be in the Top-6 longterm, but also not quite good enough in the bottom-6.

So, as I said at the beginning, it depends on one's definition of "cheap-ish". I'm not thrilled at the idea of him being at 3.5M or higher. Would much rather the Avs find another home for him and utilize that $ elsewhere.

(And for the record--I like Compher a hell of a lot more than Kerfoot, but even he has some warts, namely his FO% is rather poor, but he at least fits in better on the bottom-6)

It's nice that Kerfoot can play in Rantanen's absence but yeah, what happens when Rantanen returns to the line up? Anyway, if the Avs re-sign Kerfoot then I hope I'm very wrong about him and he can hang onto the puck in board battles and that he hasn't reached his ceiling yet.

 

[Barklez]

Well we can’t just ignore him the 30 some odd game stretch where he put up line 8 points and literally contributed nothing too the team.

I agree. But he’s still a young enough pro that I’m willing to see if he can bring this level consistently moving forward.

Nobody expects him to play at a 90 point pace but even if he was able to hit 65 as a 3rd wheel on Mackinnon’s line I’m happy to give him a shot over someone more expensive. Gives you more options for sheltering Hughes/Kakko/Turcotte on the 2nd line.

My criticisms of Kerfoot have always come with the caveat of assuming he didn’t have another gear offensively. Lately he’s looked better all-round. If he plays anywhere near this effectively in the playoffs he’ll be kept.

 

[avsfan09]

Okay, so what if he takes a cheap(ish) , short term contract ? Hurts no-one.

I personally would offer him a one year contract and tell him its a prove it year. Use him as depth and see what you can get from him. Knowing that he can be dealt at the deadline to a better team for him or resigned if he unexpectedly takes another step which seems unlikely.

Depends on one's definition of "cheap-ish".

I want to take a moment to look at the last several games here and offer that it's kind of an anomaly. He's got 8 points in the last 6 games, and yes--some of them have been timely points that have helped the team overall (whereas last season there were quite a few of his points/goals there were "garbage time" that had no impact on the outcome of the game). That is definitely GOOD/GREAT production from him. However he had 1 point in the previous 12 games prior to that.

His recent point output coincides with when Rantanen went out with his injury, the TOI shows that as he's been averaging over 18:30 min per game (a bit closer to 19min per game) over the last 7 games. His TOI average for this year is 14:45. He's getting more ice-time to get those points (again, we're not going to complain that he's getting him, but it's about looking at him in perspective). When Rantanen returns, and he's no longer playing with MacKinnon, then it's more likely we're back to seeing the Kerfoot we saw all year--an incredibly streaky offensive player that's not quite good enough to be in the Top-6 longterm, but also not quite good enough in the bottom-6.

So, as I said at the beginning, it depends on one's definition of "cheap-ish". I'm not thrilled at the idea of him being at 3.5M or higher. Would much rather the Avs find another home for him and utilize that $ elsewhere.

(And for the record--I like Compher a hell of a lot more than Kerfoot, but even he has some warts, namely his FO% is rather poor, but he at least fits in better on the bottom-6)

Compher is a great piece and I think he's underrated by our fans.

 

[avsfan09]

It's nice that Kerfoot can play in Rantanen's absence but yeah, what happens when Rantanen returns to the line up? Anyway, if the Avs re-sign Kerfoot then I hope I'm very wrong about him and he can hang onto the puck in board battles and that he hasn't reached his ceiling yet.

Push him down to the third line. We can have offensive players on our third line. Teams seem to be trending that way lately.

 

[The Abusement Park]

I agree. But he’s still a young enough pro that I’m willing to see if he can bring this level consistently moving forward.

Nobody expects him to play at a 90 point pace but even if he was able to hit 65 as a 3rd wheel on Mackinnon’s line I’m happy to give him a shot over someone more expensive. Gives you more options for sheltering Hughes/Kakko/Turcotte on the 2nd line.

My criticisms of Kerfoot have always come with the caveat of assuming he didn’t have another gear offensively. Lately he’s looked better all-round. If he plays anywhere near this effectively in the playoffs he’ll be kept.

He’s 24. He doesn’t have much more to grow, he’s at the point where you basically are where you are.

 

[Pokecheque]

Yeah I'll agree there--I don't think there's much development left in his game, it's really just refinement at this point. That said I think the tools he has are valuable to the team. It's now about finding more consistency and filling out that depth utility role properly.

 

[Pokecheque]

BTW, he's on the downslide of his career, but if the Jets gotta dump Perrault's salary, Joe better at least make a phone call.

 

[S3rkie]

Kerfoot is such an odd player, even in this point streak sooo many plays die on his stick with horrible decisions, then he'll make a brilliant play randomly. Now does that constitute him evening out throughout the game to the point of playing well or just getting fortunate. I got back and forth with if he's PAP or a decent utility player you can move around your lineup.

 

[Barklez]

He’s 24. He doesn’t have much more to grow, he’s at the point where you basically are where you are.

He’s in his second year as a pro, having stepped straight into the NHL. I don’t think it’s out of the question he still sorts/is currently sorting out how to play at his highest level more consistently.

He’s looked good in an inrecased role. He looked great with Duchene to start last year. If he can be surrounded by better players in the top 6, this version of Kerfoot can stay.

I still don’t want him in the bottom 6 and I’d prefer to upgrade on him in UFA but I won’t be upset if he stays if we get this Kerfoot more consistently.

 

[Tru]

Wow...what a horrendous attempt at arguing your point, because comparing Kerfoot and his 2nd year in the league to MacKinnon and his 2nd year in the league is basically like trying to compare apples to oranges.

The key reason why it's not an apt comparison is that Kerfoot came in to the league at 23, and is 24 in his 2nd year. MacKinnon came into the league at 18 and was 19 in his 2nd year. Plenty of room for development there. It's far more likely that Kerfoot is "done" developing, as most NHL forwards (save for some exceptions to the rule) are done developing at that point.

Perhaps I'll need to not skim most people's posts, but I've yet to see anyone say Kerfoot is a garbage player, just that there's no real fit for him on the top or bottom 6 on a contending team.

Okay well, I don't fully buy into that rhetoric. You can certainly argue that a 19-year old has more room to develop a bigger body and get physically stronger, but a 19 year old and a 23 year old entering the NHL at the same time are learning the knowledge side of the game, systems, ect. at the same pace. To say that a player playing in his second year is more or less done developing, regardless of age, is a premature analysis, imo.

That's the only point I was getting at with the MacKinnon comparison that was missed. Kerfoot isn't done improving after just 2 seasons, just as MacKinnon wasn't done improving after 2 seasons. To read anymore into it than that is unfair....hence my "on the face of it" caveat.

There's plenty of examples of guys that entered the league later and still continued to develop; Wheeler, Burrows, Dubinsky, Hoffman, Franzen, Kunitz, Callahan, the "Kerfoot-comparison" Parenteau. I may be mis-remembering some of those guys, but I think they all entered the league at 23-25ish, and none of them were at their ceiling after just 2 years.

You could very well be correct in hindsight, in that Kerfoot will never be more than a tweener, not suited for a top or bottom 6 roll on a contender. Or he could develop into one of the aforementioned late-bloomers. I'm merely trying to make a point that, unless you've got a Doced-up Delorean, you simply cannot say definitely "that there's no real fit for him on the top or bottom 6 on a contending team" at this point in the kids development.

 

[The Abusement Park]

He’s in his second year as a pro, having stepped straight into the NHL. I don’t think it’s out of the question he still sorts/is currently sorting out how to play at his highest level more consistently.

He’s looked good in an inrecased role. He looked great with Duchene to start last year. If he can be surrounded by better players in the top 6, this version of Kerfoot can stay.

I still don’t want him in the bottom 6 and I’d prefer to upgrade on him in UFA but I won’t be upset if he stays if we get this Kerfoot more consistently.

But even in this latest streak he’s on there’s so many plays that die on his stick and he’ll lose the puck with a bad pass. Again he’s not a bad player but it’s time to move on an upgrade from him.

 

[Barklez]

But even in this latest streak he’s on there’s so many plays that die on his stick and he’ll lose the puck with a bad pass. Again he’s not a bad player but it’s time to move on an upgrade from him.

I’m happy to upgrade on him, just now I’ll be less upset when it doesn’t happen.

 

[henchman21]

There are a few schools of thought on aging curves in the NHL... there is the peak is 22-24 group and there is the peak is 3-5 years experience group. Both have signs of being correct and the answer is probably somewhere in the middle. Players who enter later do tend to peak later, but most still start falling off around 25/26/27. I think there are roles there that have to be earned that play a part. IE a player may come over from Europe/college at 22 and play a 3rd line role for a year or two before getting the top line opportunity at 24 where that is held for a few years. That situation has happened for a number of players and I think the opportunity has something to do with aging curves for older players when it comes to production. If you believe that to be a large part of the impact, well, then I think you'd have a hard time saying Kerfoot has more to give since he has had plenty of opportunity here. If you believe experience is the key, they his peak is probably the next 3 seasons.

 

[avsfan09]

Chase Priskie at eliteprospects.com
Washington prospect that wants to go the FA route. Put up good numbers and is a LD. Wouldn't mind signing him to an Elc.

 

[Ceremony]

Alexander is a nice young man and better than at least five forwards on the team. Keep him.

 

[McMetal]

Chase Priskie at eliteprospects.com
Washington prospect that wants to go the FA route. Put up good numbers and is a LD. Wouldn't mind signing him to an Elc.

He's going to want NHL time. Can we give him any kind of realistic promise of PT when our RD depth is so logjammed? I bet he wants to go somewhere where there's an easy path to the NHL.

 

[avsfan09]

He's going to want NHL time. Can we give him any kind of realistic promise of PT when our RD depth is so logjammed? I bet he wants to go somewhere where there's an easy path to the NHL.

Thought he was a LD. Thanks.

 

[Foppberg]

Alexander is a nice young man and better than at least five forwards on the team. Keep him.

That doesn't really say a whole lot lol. Nobodies saying he's the reincarnation of the devil that Poke seems to think, just that he's an obvious piece that we should upgrade going forward.