Quote:
I'll remind you that, even a year ago, no one projected Brodie to be any more than a 5/6 defenseman. Anyone who dared suggest he could be a 3/4 guy was called a homer.
You called Murray a #2 guy - it is up to you to back it up, not up to me to disprove it. Same goes for Yakupov - where are the 'he's a 40 goal scorer' reports?
More importantly, even if someone has made both those claims (and this is the point of the first paragraph), they are meaningless. We don't know what any of these players will turn out to be. So you saying that this guy is going to be one thing while that guy is going to be something else is nothing more than hot garbage.
My evaluation of Yakupov, which you didn't quote, focused only on what I see, not on someone else's projections.
|
Your point is essentially that any stats, projection or scouting analysis of a player is useless because some players are exceptions. Meaning that any discussion of players who aren't established NHL players is baseless and we shouldn't do it. It's a argument based on nihilism.
I prefer to talk about prospects using the best but admittedly flawed data we have. I've taken your point under advisement that we just shouldn't talk about it all and will subsequently ignore it.
Getting back to the discussion, Murray vs. Yakupov the basic criticism of the OIlers is that Murray + whatever they'd get trading down would be better than Yakupov for that team. Sure maybe. I happen to think that the gap between Yakupov and Murray is too big for that to be the case.
I'm not going to go digging in old scouting reports but of my read last year Murray was a minute eating solid but not flashing 2-3 defenceman and Yakupov an elite goal scorer. There's no question who you take between the two and even then if Yakupov isn't what your team needs you trade him as a player for a much greater return than as a pick on draft day.