Thanks. Clarifies it.Stanley is already eligible because he’s played more than two pro seasons (18-19 and 19-20 in the AHL, plus this year).
Thanks. Clarifies it.Stanley is already eligible because he’s played more than two pro seasons (18-19 and 19-20 in the AHL, plus this year).
Had his ceiling at 5th/6th dman that kills penalties and could move up when needed.What's his ceiling? Can he be better than Tyler Myers? I'm looking forward to eventually seing his mean streak that I've heard about.
Not sure you can say with a straight face “He was a bad pick no matter how good he turns out” .I was addressing the impatience. It had nothing to do with patience. He was a bad pick no matter how good he turns out to be. The decision to pick him that high wasn't based in reality. It was based on hope. Praising the pick now because he's playing limited #6 minutes is called results oriented thinking which leads to making future bad decisions.
Not sure you can say with a straight face “He was a bad pick no matter how good he turns out” .
If Stanley develops to the level this organization believes he can reach, which is what influenced them to make the pick, that and only that will be the determination if this was a good or bad pick.
Only some jaded fans that had their worlds ripped a part when Stanley’s name was announced by Chevy, those that were labelling him a bust on draft night when the majority never saw the kid play a single minute of hockey, these people will be reflecting back 5 years from now proclaiming the pick as bad.
If he becomes a solid NHL dman the real hockey world will grade it as a very good pick.
And reality was Detroit was taking Stanley at 20. So if they moved up-to get him it was based on the organization seeing something in the player that makes it worth moving up.
This may blow some minds but organizations do their homework and see things that analytics misses on young developing players like Stanley. With our track record of drafting off the board we shouldn’t be so critical of their choices so quickly.
Let’s remember they were playing with house money, though. They already “won” Laine, they could afford to take a gamble on a project with their second pick. And I’m glad they did because he is turning out really well.It’s not wise to take 6’7 project defensemen in the top 20 that you know will take 4-5 before they sniff the NHL. Even in hindsight.
Says you.It’s not wise to take 6’7 project defensemen in the top 20 that you know will take 4-5 before they sniff the NHL. Even in hindsight.
Let’s remember they were playing with house money, though. They already “won” Laine, they could afford to take a gamble on a project with their second pick. And I’m glad they did because he is turning out really well.
Says you.
How long have you been a GM?
because we know 2 real GM’s were willing to do just that.
Just because you think you know something, or someone told you something so you parrot it it as if it’s the gods honest truth, over and over and over....doesn’t necessarily mean it’s true.
It is very wise if you see something worth taking them for and you know the only opportunity to nab the player is drafting them in the top 20 because another team will draft him.It’s not wise to take 6’7 project defensemen in the top 20 that you know will take 4-5 before they sniff the NHL. Even in hindsight.
I would much rather have Stanley than the 2 players selected at 22 and 36. Combined Rubstov and Leberge have 4 NHL games for 0 points. Rubstov does have an impressive 11 points in 44 games in the KHL, after an equally impressive 13 points in 42 games in the AHL last season. Lebarge did get 22 points in 47 games last season splitting his time equally between the ECHL and AHL. The other player we got in the deal at 79 Luke Green, is probably a better prospect than either Rubstov or Leberge, and Stanley is miles better than both at this point.Looking like he may be an NHL player going forward, was worried the injury was going to be a problematic setback.
Would still rather have had 22 and 36 though .
It is very wise if you see something worth taking them for and you know the only opportunity to nab the player is drafting them in the top 20 because another team will draft him.
What would actually be unwise would be losing out on getting the player you wanted by not drafting them in the round they went in, because of some unwritten belief longer projects cant be drafted in the top 20.
You draft off potential regardless of the time it takes to reach it. If Stanley had the highest ceiling by our scouting department then its a very wise pick.
I would much rather have Stanley than the 2 players selected at 22 and 36. Combined Rubstov and Leberge have 4 NHL games for 0 points. Rubstov does have an impressive 11 points in 44 games in the KHL, after an equally impressive 13 points in 42 games in the AHL last season. Lebarge did get 22 points in 47 games last season splitting his time equally between the ECHL and AHL. The other player we got in the deal at 79 Luke Green, is probably a better prospect than either Rubstov or Leberge, and Stanley is miles better than both at this point.
Hindsight? I was suggesting we draft Stanley back in January of his draft year, and was on this forum battling the absurdity thrown at him on draft night, supporting and saying it was a solid pick.How is it wise to take a guy who is essentially a lottery ticket even with all the positives that high in the draft? You’re speaking in hindsight assuming he was always going to work out. The data does not support that. Not even close.
How is it wise to take a guy who is essentially a lottery ticket even with all the positives that high in the draft? You’re speaking in hindsight assuming he was always going to work out. The data does not support that. Not even close.
Where is this data coming from?Citation missing... thus far the only variables that have been consistent in general terms for aging curves and such are:
1) The less good you are, the later you typically enter the league, the lower your peak, and the earlier you leave the league
2) The peak performance and aging curve relative to usage in all 3 positions is essentially the same but the usage curve is not
3) Physical and bigger players (which has some confounding overlap) has a steaper post-peak decline then those who are not
4) (EDIT FORGOT THIS ONE) Elite players retain their peak longer
I'll even one-up you on this. Who is to say that he doesn't have potential to be a first pairing defenseman on a good team?Had his ceiling at 5th/6th dman that kills penalties and could move up when needed.
Now, with a small sample size I think he could rise to a second pairing 3/4 Dman and it won’t shock me if he finds his way on to a power play down the road. He holds the line well and consistently gets shots through. He also has a cannon when given time to get it off. His passing seems solid as well.
He also strikes me as a leader, think he wore a C in junior and I could see him down the road with a letter on his jersey.
Golfed with Logan at the Scheifele tourney summer 2019. Just a fantastic guy. At one hole they were giving away free hats from one of the sponsors and wore it the rest of the day. A couple of days later they interviewed at the rookie camp and he was wearing the same hat. Thought that was funny. He had lots of stories and the day was a blast. Can’t wait for him to get a real number so I can grab a jersey. Oh and he was sure he was going to Tampa. Had breakfast with them the week of the draft and they told him they were drafting him. Great to see him excelling.
Where is this data coming from?
Too tall was brought up by a very popular stats poster who you will have your post deleted if you point out his predictions were wrong in the Stanley draft thread regardless of how ridiculously small his sample size is. Many jumped on board.I'm saying "he's too big" has never been an argument against Stanley. It's always been an argument for Stanley regardless of who was making the argument. It's always been "it's great that he's big, but does he have the skills to go with that size" never "he's too tall to be good" which is how you characterized it.
None of us are GMs. It's a message board to express our opinions. Capeesh?Says you.
How long have you been a GM?
because we know 2 real GM’s were willing to do just that.
Just because you think you know something, or someone told you something so you parrot it it as if it’s the gods honest truth, over and over and over....doesn’t necessarily mean it’s true.
Yup. 100% agree on all fronts.
Also, it's a tough concept on process vs outcome for the better selection (let's pretend we're in a fictional world where we know the probabilities perfectly with skill, work ethic, genetics, etc.):
Player A: 80% chance NHL: 10% top line player, 30% middle six, rest 4th line/depth
Player B: 60% chance NHL: 1% top line player, 10% middle six, rest 4th line/depth
Now... let's say B makes it and A misses. B ends up the better player, but A was the better call to make.
We don't know if this is what happened. There's a LOT of guessing and unknowns on what the probabilities actually are, even if you are scout for the best team that integrates numbers and scouting perfectly. But, it's just one possible scenario.