Would be interesting to see the logic behind the grades. For instance:
1) Salary vs Performance - in a cap world, this is so very crucial. Out-perform your contract, and you are helping the team. Under-perform your contract, you are hurting it.
2) Slotting/responsibilities - sometimes players are asked to play above their level, or are fitting into new roles and responsibilities. Maybe they are asked to play a more offensive style, or be more defensive responsible, etc.
3) Just simple expectations going into the year without a care for the two above.
I think it will drastically alter people's grades. For instance, Ferland hit it out of the park when compared to salary and slotting/responsibility in my opinion, but gets a lower grade for what you may expect out of a 1st line RW. Brouwer in retrospect gets destroyed when comparing salaries, but hits it out of the park for me for what I was expecting out of him this season (which was poor play - I thought he played like a solid depth player, and have no problem with him on the team, if it wasn't for his salary and his being over-used).
Kulak hit it out of the park for me in terms of expectations and watching him play, but he didn't really put up enough points and wasn't that good defensively. Two very different grades for me (though I think he had a very promising first full year).
Bartkowski was essentially 'fine' for me in terms of grades. He is cheap, he is a 7th defencemen, and I expected him to be quite horrible - so I guess for me he just 'meets expectations'.
Anyway, I just find it interesting trying to understand the thought process behind some of the grades, as often the explanation beside each player doesn't enlighten me as to where someone is coming from.
I find it the same for prospect grades - some people rank according to how close they are to the NHL, some as to how high their floor is, some how high their ceiling is, etc. I always find it enlightening to read how one arrives at their conclusions.
|