Quote:
Originally Posted by GranteedEV
Okay, then to play that game, first strip the team roster of:
Johnny Gaudreau
Sam Bennett
Sean Monahan
TJ Brodie
Mark Giordano
Dougie Hamilton
Brian Elliott
Mikael Backlund
Now, which individual player has the most potential to help impact a stripped-bare team? Is it really Tkachuk? I mean, it's fair if it is, but maybe the potential star goalie Gillies has the most ability to help that remaining roster float a la Cory Schneider in New Jersey. Maybe the two-way centremen with offensive upside Jankowski has the most potential to help that team akin to what Ryan O'Reilly rapidly improved in Buffalo. Or maybe the defenseman Andersson has the most potential to help the team like Ekblad did in Florida. I don't know, and I'm absolutely not making direct talent comparisions because if we had those three NHLers in our prospect pools we'd have a better prospect pool than Winnipeg or Toronto - and maybe it really is Tkachuk who most helps a team. But I do think you have to look at the players' value from the perspective of a team with absolutely no "starting point" rather than the perspective of whether "we" would trade Tkachuk for anyone else. It's hard to slot anybody else onto the roster, it's easy to slot Tkachuk. But does that mean he has the highest ceiling impact-wise + likelyhood of coming close to that ceiling? I don't think it's blatantly obvious at all.
|
Great post. But not sure I agree with the bold.
THe simple fact of the matter is that we
do have a team. And that team
does have holes. And those holes affect how much value we put on certain prospects.
I think the vote for round two is a perfect example:
If we didn't have Monahan and Bennett, Jankowski would have more value than he does.
Because we don't have a couple great young goalies on the roster, Gillies becomes more valuable.
THose factors could push Gillies to #2. But if we had goalies and no Cs, Jankowski is probably a landslide #2, if not #1.