Player Discussion Nikolay Goldobin Pt. II

[Frankie Blueberries]

^Funnily enough, the Forsberg and Madden trades were made by GMs desperately trying to save their jobs by mortgaging the future to compete in the short-term. So it's easy to distinguish the desperation moves involving good prospects, from the fringe prospect trades.

 

[krutovsdonut]

I think it depends on the prospect and how old they are. Goldobin was 21 years old when we acquired him, with a sample size of three seasons after his draft and two pro seasons in the AHL. The sample size post-draft matters since San Jose had a better idea of the type of player he would become and elected to part ways with him. I would have preferred a draft pick where we'd have a clean slate on the prospect we could draft, or packaging Hansen with other pieces to get a better return. Oh well, it's by no means a terrible trade by Benning, but it does fall under the age gap experiment that has backfired pretty much every time.

well it balances out. goldobin at 21 was still clearly an nhl top 6 talent and thus had already bucked the odds of many late 1st rounders. he just had a painfully obvious missing mental element. you fix that and you have a top six player. that's the kind of gamble you take late in the first round.

 

[Bleach Clean]

I think it depends on the prospect and how old they are. Goldobin was 21 years old when we acquired him, with a sample size of three seasons after his draft and two pro seasons in the AHL. The sample size post-draft matters since San Jose had a better idea of the type of player he would become and elected to part ways with him. I would have preferred a draft pick where we'd have a clean slate on the prospect we could draft, or packaging Hansen with other pieces to get a better return. Oh well, it's by no means a terrible trade by Benning, but it does fall under the age gap experiment that has backfired pretty much every time.

This.

To say that these trades were “decent returns” because most prospects traded at the TDL are projects is erroneous. This glosses over each player’s record and his pros and cons at the time.

Goldobin had enough warts in his game to make it a bad gamble. Good relative to what Benning had done to that point, still bad if there were pick returns available. Dahlen was lesser known and so could have been justified. They weren’t viewed as the same type of gamble and this should refute the notion that all trades of this type are relatively the same... they are not.

 

[MS]

I agree with @krutovsdonut. Blockbuster trades involving top shelf prospects that teams clearly didn't want to move don't happen often. You get those in trades for guys like Mark Stone not bottom 6 players like an aging Burrows and Hansen.



I think you put too much stock on a team's willingness to trade a player. The Canucks gave up Madden, does that mean the Canucks didn't like Madden as a prospect or indicate anything about Madden's future? Of course not. It could mean that he's not considered the team's top prospect as it has been reported. The same theory applies to Washington trading Filip Forsberg. The other team might have had more time and opportunities to observe their own prospects but opportunity and change of scenery can play an important role in a prospect's development.

You’re correct, and so close to getting it.

This is why fans were upset (correctly) when Benning took back someone else’s failing prospect in the Hansen deal rather than getting a #2 pick.

This is why fans were irate that a blue chip prospect like Madden was included in a deal for a middling rental like Toffoli.

This is why the Forsberg-Erat deal was absolutely terrible.

 

[F A N]

You’re correct, and so close to getting it.

This is why fans were upset (correctly) when Benning took back someone else’s failing prospect in the Hansen deal rather than getting a #2 pick.

This is why fans were irate that a blue chip prospect like Madden was included in a deal for a middling rental like Toffoli.

This is why the Forsberg-Erat deal was absolutely terrible.

You are also close to getting it. Correctly identifying talented young players who are knocking on the NHL door and just need an opportunity and further development is what a GM should be constantly doing. Goldobin was a swing and a miss but it made sense for a team like the Canucks at the time. Sharks' fan opinion at the time was that Goldy had significantly improved from the year before so he was trending up. The Sharks had Lebanc and Meier attempting to earn a full time spot that year as well and clearly the Sharks kept the right guys.

 

[MS]

You are also close to getting it. Correctly identifying talented young players who are knocking on the NHL door and just need an opportunity and further development is what a GM should be constantly doing. Goldobin was a swing and a miss but it made sense for a team like the Canucks at the time. Sharks' fan opinion at the time was that Goldy had significantly improved from the year before so he was trending up. The Sharks had Lebanc and Meier attempting to earn a full time spot that year as well and clearly the Sharks kept the right guys.

Guys who are real prospects - especially at forward - blow through the AHL and barely see that league if at all.

If you pass 100 games in that league, you’re overwhelmingly likely to be a dud. And when you trade for a guy like that, you’re picking off the scrap heap. Goldobin was past that point and SJ correctly sold high on him.

I don’t care about general fan opinion on a prospect. Our fanbase thought Shinkaruk was great when we dumped him, too.

And as for the bolded, exactly. Labanc was a 6th rounder the year SJ took Goldobin and blew past him and was up in the NHL for keeps earlier that season after only 20 games in the AHL. The real prospects separated themselves and Goldobin didn’t, and then we got suckered into taking him when he was already trending into bustville.

 

[VanJack]

^Funnily enough, the Forsberg and Madden trades were made by GMs desperately trying to save their jobs by mortgaging the future to compete in the short-term. So it's easy to distinguish the desperation moves involving good prospects, from the fringe prospect trades.

We only learned after the Madden trade, that the Canucks saw him exclusively as a winger and hinted he wouldn't be able to play his natural position of center in the NH because of his size. And they already had wingers like Podkolzin, Hoglander and Lind who were ahead of him.

But I suspect the Kings will give him every chance to succeed as a center, and can afford to be patient with him. Still getting bad vibes about this deal.....Madden and a second rounder in a strong 2020 draft is lot to cough up for a 10-game rental.

By contrast, Canucks really didn't have to surrender much to get Dahlen and Goldy. So the fact they didn't work out, hurts a lot less.

 

[VanJack]

^Funnily enough, the Forsberg and Madden trades were made by GMs desperately trying to save their jobs by mortgaging the future to compete in the short-term. So it's easy to distinguish the desperation moves involving good prospects, from the fringe prospect trades.

We only learned after the Madden trade, that the Canucks saw him exclusively as a winger and hinted he wouldn't be able to play his natural position of center in the NH because of his size. And they already had wingers like Podkolzin, Hoglander and Lind who were ahead of him.

But I suspect the Kings will give him every chance to succeed as a center, and can afford to be patient with him. Still getting bad vibes about this deal.....Madden and a second rounder in a strong 2020 draft is lot to cough up for a 10-game rental.

By contrast, Canucks really didn't have to surrender much to get Dahlen and Goldy. So the fact they didn't work out, hurts a lot less.

 

[RobertKron]

By contrast, Canucks really didn't have to surrender much to get Dahlen and Goldy. So the fact they didn't work out, hurts a lot less.

One could probably make some kind of an argument that if they'd just kept Hansen with the intention of dealing him the next year as a rental, they probably don't sign Gagner that offseason, who they're basically still paying. I guess they wouldn't have been able to protect Granlund, though, which would have obviously been disastrous, and Gagner did provide immeasurably valuable mentorship for the prospects on the marlies, so that was probably for the best.

 

[F A N]

Guys who are real prospects - especially at forward - blow through the AHL and barely see that league if at all.

If you pass 100 games in that league, you’re overwhelmingly likely to be a dud. And when you trade for a guy like that, you’re picking off the scrap heap. Goldobin was past that point and SJ correctly sold high on him.

It's much easier playing 100 games in the AHL when you play in the NHL in your draft + 2 season. A favourite of yours, Brett Connolly played over 100 games in the AHL. A closer comparable Vladislav Namestnikov played over 100 games in the AHL. Tanner Pearson played over 100 games in the AHL. Writing off a prospect because they have played over 100 games in the AHL is beyond stupid.

 

[MS]

It's much easier playing 100 games in the AHL when you play in the NHL in your draft + 2 season. A favourite of yours, Brett Connolly played over 100 games in the AHL. A closer comparable Vladislav Namestnikov played over 100 games in the AHL. Tanner Pearson played over 100 games in the AHL. Writing off a prospect because they have played over 100 games in the AHL is beyond stupid.

Ugh. Attacking strawmen as usual.

I never said that players were 100% incontrovertibly busts when they hit 100 AHL games. I said they were now low-percentage targets tracking toward busting. And yes, of course in a few cases those low percentages have come through. That doesn’t mean targeting players from this pool is a good idea.

You could make a nice list of 6th and 7th rounders that have become solid NHL players, too. That doesn’t mean they’re a high-value asset or a quality target or that it would have been a good idea for LA to target a 6th rounder as the centrepiece of a deal for Tyler Toffoli this year.

Goldobin was supposed to have been a Shark by then and the team had room for him. Instead, he watched a nobody in Labanc who had been left as an overage junior the previous year walk on his AHL team, outplay him, and take only 19 games before going up and sticking in the NHL. He was not on a good trajectory.

 

[Dissonance Jr]

oops, double post

 

[Dissonance Jr]

Ugh. Attacking strawmen as usual.

I never said that players were 100% incontrovertibly busts when they hit 100 AHL games. I said they were now low-percentage targets tracking toward busting. And yes, of course in a few cases those low percentages have come through. That doesn’t mean targeting players from this pool is a good idea.

You could make a nice list of 6th and 7th rounders that have become solid NHL players, too. That doesn’t mean they’re a high-value asset or a quality target or that it would have been a good idea for LA to target a 6th rounder as the centrepiece of a deal for Tyler Toffoli this year.

Goldobin was supposed to have been a Shark by then and the team had room for him. Instead, he watched a nobody in Labanc who had been left as an overage junior the previous year walk on his AHL team, outplay him, and take only 19 games before going up and sticking in the NHL. He was not on a good trajectory.

I was curious about this AHL thing and thanks to Covid have some time to kill so went through the first two rounds of the 2010 draft for fun.

To me it looks like the 100 game rule is quite solid — i.e., after 100 games in the AHL, a prospect's odds of being an impact player are really very low. Some numbers:

— Players who blew through the AHL in fewer than 100 games or skipped it entirely and established themselves: 20 (mostly obvious names like Tarasenko or Hall)

— Players who "made it" in the NHL after more than 100 AHL games: 16

(Included here: Brett Connolly, Jack Campbell, Derek Forbort, Austin Watson, Riley Sheahan, Mark Pysyk, Tyler Pitlick, Alex Petrovic, Patrik Nemeth, Devante Smith-Pelly, Ryan Spooner, Martin Marincin, Justin Holl, Johan Larsson, Oksar Lindberg, Stephen Johns)

— Players who were top-6/top-4 NHL players after playing more than 100 AHL games: 2

(Connolly, Forbort)

— Players who clearly busted after playing more than 100 AHL games: 22

(Included here: McIlrath, Gormley, Hishon, Bennett, Tinordi, Howden, Visenti, Etem, Knight, Mcfarland, Smith, Bulmer, Thomas, Ross, Wannstrom, Hamilton, Pickard, Brickley, Lane, Alt, Straka, Simpson)

-----

The only guys you'd really regret giving up on after 100 AHL games are Connolly and Forbort and maybe Riley Sheahan. But most of these players....are not great. Guys like Pysyk and Larsson and Watson are serviceable but fungible depth. And I'm being generous and including junk like Ryan Spooner and Martin Marincin and Jack Campbell on the "made it" list.

Even Connolly is a bit of a weird one here since he played a full season in the NHL in his D+2 year before being demoted. And he ended up being a bad trade acquisition for Boston anyway — just a strange career arc all around.

Not sure what the story with Forbort was. Sheahan only played 110 AHL games so he's an edge case.

------

Anyway, there are exceptions out there. But based on this small sample, it seems like if you were a GM and as a rule you traded every prospect who played more than 100 AHL games for picks or veteran help, you'd come out ahead a lot more often than not.

 

[MS]

I was curious about this AHL thing and thanks to Covid have some time to kill so went through the first two rounds of the 2010 draft for fun.

To me it looks like the 100 game rule is quite solid — i.e., after 100 games in the AHL, a prospect's odds of being an impact player are really very low. Some numbers:

— Players who blew through the AHL in fewer than 100 games or skipped it entirely and established themselves: 20 (mostly obvious names like Tarasenko or Hall)

— Players who "made it" in the NHL after more than 100 AHL games: 16

(Included here: Brett Connolly, Jack Campbell, Derek Forbort, Austin Watson, Riley Sheahan, Mark Pysyk, Tyler Pitlick, Alex Petrovic, Patrik Nemeth, Devante Smith-Pelly, Ryan Spooner, Martin Marincin, Justin Holl, Johan Larsson, Oksar Lindberg, Stephen Johns)

— Players who were top-6/top-4 NHL players after playing more than 100 AHL games: 2

(Connolly, Forbort)

— Players who clearly busted after playing more than 100 AHL games: 22

(Included here: McIlrath, Gormley, Hishon, Bennett, Tinordi, Howden, Visenti, Etem, Knight, Mcfarland, Smith, Bulmer, Thomas, Ross, Wannstrom, Hamilton, Pickard, Brickley, Lane, Alt, Straka, Simpson)

-----

The only guys you'd really regret giving up on after 100 AHL games are Connolly and Forbort and maybe Riley Sheahan. But most of these players....are not great. Guys like Pysyk and Larsson and Watson are serviceable but fungible depth. And I'm being generous and including junk like Ryan Spooner and Martin Marincin and Jack Campbell on the "made it" list.

Even Connolly is a bit of a weird one here since he played a full season in the NHL in his D+2 year before being demoted. And he ended up being a bad trade acquisition for Boston anyway — just a strange career arc all around.

Not sure what the story with Forbort was. Sheahan only played 110 AHL games so he's an edge case.

------

Anyway, there are exceptions out there. But based on this small sample, it seems like if you were a GM and as a rule you traded every prospect who played more than 100 AHL games for picks or veteran help, you'd come out ahead a lot more often than not.

Pretty much, yeah.

Two things I’d add on your list are 1) your biggest success is Brett Connolly who really doesn’t fit - he basically did a Virtanen where he was rushed to the NHL at 19, had his development derailed, and then needed to be rebuilt in the AHL and 2) picking the 2010 draft as an example skews AHL games upward because many of these guys would have been in the NHL during the 12-13 lockout and they were all playing in the AHL instead.

I crunched the numbers on this pretty hard a bunch of years ago - the curve is a bit flatter for defensive defenders and 4th line grinder types (which form most of the ‘made it sort of’ group you list above), but for skill forwards, if you’re going to produce in the NHL, you don’t see much of the AHL. You never play there in the first place or you absolutely blow that league apart and move on quickly. If it takes you years to separate yourself at that level, the odds you will magically figure something out later to make the huge leap to NHL producer are very small.

Like, look at the other skill forwards coming through SJ at about the same time. Hertl played 0 AHL games. Meier 33. Tierney 29. Labanc 19. When Goldobin is soaring over 100 and not close to sticking, something is obviously going wrong.

Plus the other thing on Goldobin is that he played a full season vs. men in Finland before getting to the AHL, so his adjustment should have been smaller than for a junior or college player. He was actually at 150 games over 3 full seasons against men at that point without separating himself, and at that point the numbers are getting *really* thin.

 

[F A N]

Ugh. Attacking strawmen as usual.

I never said that players were 100% incontrovertibly busts when they hit 100 AHL games. I said they were now low-percentage targets tracking toward busting. And yes, of course in a few cases those low percentages have come through. That doesn’t mean targeting players from this pool is a good idea.

You could make a nice list of 6th and 7th rounders that have become solid NHL players, too. That doesn’t mean they’re a high-value asset or a quality target or that it would have been a good idea for LA to target a 6th rounder as the centrepiece of a deal for Tyler Toffoli this year.

Goldobin was supposed to have been a Shark by then and the team had room for him. Instead, he watched a nobody in Labanc who had been left as an overage junior the previous year walk on his AHL team, outplay him, and take only 19 games before going up and sticking in the NHL. He was not on a good trajectory.

How is it strawman when you're literally saying "If you pass 100 games in that league, you’re overwhelmingly likely to be a dud. And when you trade for a guy like that, you’re picking off the scrap heap. Goldobin was past that point."

That's the point. Your argument was Goldobin passed the 100 game mark so he is "overwhelmingly likely to be a dud" and he was put in "the scrap heap."

 

[MS]

How is it strawman when you're literally saying "If you pass 100 games in that league, you’re overwhelmingly likely to be a dud. And when you trade for a guy like that, you’re picking off the scrap heap. Goldobin was past that point."

That's the point. Your argument was Goldobin passed the 100 game mark so he is "overwhelmingly likely to be a dud" and he was put in "the scrap heap."

Let’s try this again.

If I say that ‘7th round picks are overwhelmingly likely to not turn out’ that is a statement that few people would disagree with. It isn’t saying that I’m not aware of Ondrej Palat, but it is saying that for every Ondrej Palat, there are countless guys who didn’t make it. An Ondrej Palat is an overwhelmingly unlikely result.

If you then respond and say ‘You’re wrong, look at Ondrej Palat!’ .... that is a strawman. You aren’t doing anything to disprove my argument, but instead creating a response to disprove a different argument I never made - if I had said ‘no 7th rounders turn out ever’ then bringing up Palat disproves that argument. But I didn’t. That is what a strawman is.

In this case, saying that a player in Goldobin’s position in 2017 is overwhelmingly likely to bust doesn’t mean I think it’s a 100% thing or don’t know that their are exceptions. So pointing out some of those exceptions as a ‘gotcha’ is a strawman.

If you want to do a 10 year study of every draft pick in the first 3 rounds who was a skill forward and compile the bust % of guys once they hit 100 AHL games, fill your boots. And if you can show that 30-40% of those guys go on to be productive NHLers, you’ll have proved me wrong. But I’ve run these numbers before, and you won’t like how they come out.

 

[F A N]

Let’s try this again.

If I say that ‘7th round picks are overwhelmingly likely to not turn out’ that is a statement that few people would disagree with. It isn’t saying that I’m not aware of Ondrej Palat, but it is saying that for every Ondrej Palat, there are countless guys who didn’t make it. An Ondrej Palat is an overwhelmingly unlikely result.

If you then respond and say ‘You’re wrong, look at Ondrej Palat!’ .... that is a strawman. You aren’t doing anything to disprove my argument, but instead creating a response to disprove a different argument I never made - if I had said ‘no 7th rounders turn out ever’ then bringing up Palat disproves that argument. But I didn’t. That is what a strawman is.

Let's try this again. We are talking about Goldobin. A 1st round pick. I never said anything about Palat or a 7th round pick.

In this case, saying that a player in Goldobin’s position in 2017 is overwhelmingly likely to bust doesn’t mean I think it’s a 100% thing or don’t know that their are exceptions. So pointing out some of those exceptions as a ‘gotcha’ is a strawman.

Umm... no. How as a player in Goldobin's position overwhelmingly likely to bust? Because he played over 100 AHL games? Goldobin is a late 1st round pick. He played in the AHL in his draft +2 year. It's not unusual for late 1st round picks or 2nd round picks to play over 100 AHL games when they don't spend their draft +2 or +3 year outside of the AHL/NHL. I'll give you other names: Artem Anisimov, Ivan Barbashev (which many here liked at the time of the draft), Joel Armia, Kevin Fialla,Phillip Danault, Anthony Mantha, Colton Sisson, and Thomas Tatar. The list goes on.

 

[MS]

Let's try this again. We are talking about Goldobin. A 1st round pick. I never said anything about Palat or a 7th round pick.



Umm... no. How as a player in Goldobin's position overwhelmingly likely to bust? Because he played over 100 AHL games? Goldobin is a late 1st round pick. He played in the AHL in his draft +2 year. It's not unusual for late 1st round picks or 2nd round picks to play over 100 AHL games when they don't spend their draft +2 or +3 year outside of the AHL/NHL. I'll give you other names: Artem Anisimov, Ivan Barbashev (which many here liked at the time of the draft), Joel Armia, Kevin Fialla,Phillip Danault, Anthony Mantha, Colton Sisson, and Thomas Tatar. The list goes on.

I ... don’t even know how to respond to this.

Go back and read my last post again, slowly, try to engage your brain, and try to understand how the example I have of a strawman relates to what you’ve been doing here. And are still doing.

 

[Vector]

I started compiling a list of every forward drafted in from 2008-2017 in the first 3 rounds and figuring out where they were in their draft +2, what they were doing after 100 AHL games, and how their careers went. I gave up because the goal posts kept getting moved around from the discussion here and it was quickly obvious that the players who have played 100 AHL games overwhelmingly busted. There are examples (as FAN keeps posting) but it comes down to a very small number.

It's called a warning sign. In some cases, there are extraneous factors (developed outside of NA and needs more time, injuries but clear development when healthy, too much offensive depth on a good NHL team, etc.). Offensive players who spend more time in the AHL than average tend to bust. They are in the AHL because there are holes in their game.

MS has been very clear and consistent about one thing for many many years, when looking at young players you want to see a sharp spike in development and short stays. Struggling a bit is fine as long as they figure it out and move on quickly. This is true, again, the majority of the time. There are players who don't follow this development model.

 

[Melvin]

I have posted this probably a dozen times over the years. Exhaustive lists with all the names listed out, going back 40+ years. You guys are beating your head against a rock. Some people will just never understand the basics of probability.

 

[MS]

I started compiling a list of every forward drafted in from 2008-2017 in the first 3 rounds and figuring out where they were in their draft +2, what they were doing after 100 AHL games, and how their careers went. I gave up because the goal posts kept getting moved around from the discussion here and it was quickly obvious that the players who have played 100 AHL games overwhelmingly busted. There are examples (as FAN keeps posting) but it comes down to a very small number.

It's called a warning sign. In some cases, there are extraneous factors (developed outside of NA and needs more time, injuries but clear development when healthy, too much offensive depth on a good NHL team, etc.). Offensive players who spend more time in the AHL than average tend to bust. They are in the AHL because there are holes in their game.

MS has been very clear and consistent about one thing for many many years, when looking at young players you want to see a sharp spike in development and short stays. Struggling a bit is fine as long as they figure it out and move on quickly. This is true, again, the majority of the time. There are players who don't follow this development model.

Exactly.

And yeah, this is not an anti-Benning thing. This is stuff I’ve been saying here for over a decade, and ironically most of the number crunching I’ve done on this (and I’ve done a lot) was anti-Gillis number crunching to explain why Schroeder and Jensen were not tracking well.

One other type of exception I’ll mention is guys who were in the AHL at 18 or 19 like Anisimov or Palmeiri - obviously the expectations are different when you’re dealing with a younger player tossed into in advanced level, and you’d expect those players to stay there longer than a guy who turns pro at 20 or 21 as the majority of players do.

 

[vanuck]

Exactly.

And yeah, this is not an anti-Benning thing. This is stuff I’ve been saying here for over a decade, and ironically most of the number crunching I’ve done on this (and I’ve done a lot) was anti-Gillis number crunching to explain why Schroeder and Jensen were not tracking well.

One other type of exception I’ll mention is guys who were in the AHL at 18 or 19 like Anisimov or Palmeiri - obviously the expectations are different when you’re dealing with a younger player tossed into in advanced level, and you’d expect those players to stay there longer than a guy who turns pro at 20 or 21 as the majority of players do.

Yeah, I was one of those who liked Schroeder a lot as a prospect and was obviously wrong about him turning out. But back then I never understood the implications of his relative lack of production and extended stays in the AHL. Not being able to put up PPG numbers in 2011-12 (or even somewhat close) should've been a very clear warning sign at the time.

Just goes to show how important the concept of probabilities is and how big of a role they play in hockey. It's truly a game of percentages. You'd like your GM to understand that too.

 

[Motte and Bailey]

Ugh. Attacking strawmen as usual.

I never said that players were 100% incontrovertibly busts when they hit 100 AHL games. I said they were now low-percentage targets tracking toward busting. And yes, of course in a few cases those low percentages have come through. That doesn’t mean targeting players from this pool is a good idea.

You could make a nice list of 6th and 7th rounders that have become solid NHL players, too. That doesn’t mean they’re a high-value asset or a quality target or that it would have been a good idea for LA to target a 6th rounder as the centrepiece of a deal for Tyler Toffoli this year.

Goldobin was supposed to have been a Shark by then and the team had room for him. Instead, he watched a nobody in Labanc who had been left as an overage junior the previous year walk on his AHL team, outplay him, and take only 19 games before going up and sticking in the NHL. He was not on a good trajectory.

You just complained about being strawmanned and then in the very next sentence you set up your own massive straw man. F A N never said you said “100% controvertibly busts” he was correctly pushing back against your repeated use of the 100 AHL games played as some sort of useful rule of thumb because, as F A N explained to you, it is arbitrarily biased against players who happen to have a certain birthday or certain path to the NHL that inflates their AHL games played by 50 games or 50% by the time he hits 100 games played.

50% is a huge deviation. Playing in the AHL as an 18-19 year old rookie (like Goldobin) vs a 20-21 year old rookie is also a huge huge difference. But your 100 game heuristic doesn’t account for any of that. It might very well be a good heuristic over the long term but in the time span and sample sizes we care about it’s not going to be as rock solid as your confidence projects. And when there is a clear context in which your heuristic breaks down, like in the case of Goldobin, it’s not good enough for you to say “oh well over the long term with a sample size of 7o00 players what I said about Goldobin was the right take” because that’s malarkey. You’re setting up an “I can never be wrong” scenario by covering all your bases - if Goldobin plays 100 AHL games and pans out you can fall back on saying, “oh but I never said ALL of them bust, see I’m still right!” and if he busts then you can say, “see? I was right all along!’ while circling his AHL games played. By doing this you can be right about every prospect’s trajectory (in your own mind) whether or not you’ve seen them play! Because in your mind “I’m just going by the numbers and probabilities and blah blah blah.” But in reality you’ve added zero insight at best and at worst you’ve misled people about a prospect.

When Goldobin arrived he was still in his draft +3 season, when a lot of guys would be starting in the AHL as a rookie straight from Jrs and the scouting report was he had dynamic offence, he had by all accounts been a fantastic offensive player in the AHL who needed to work on his defensive effort. When you put it in context, a barely 20 year old highly skilled offensive forward who ripped it up in the AHL, Goldobin was clearly not some toxic asset on his way to bustville. But when you look at his AHL GP he was. Don’t you see the problem with this?

 

[Mr. Canucklehead]

As Goldobin is now an ex-Canuck, this topic is now closed.