Friedman: Gaudreau negotiations will be put on hold during World Cup

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

Yeah, but Pepsi -- Tanguay put up his PPG seasons in his mid-20s, at ages 25, 26, and 27. 22-year-old Gaudreau has already put up a 0.99 PPG season at age 22. Same with Cammalleri -- in his best year (08-09), he was 27. Gaudreau has shown more for his age so far. He's en route to easily surpassing these players.

Key word, though: en route.

Look at Tanguays first two seasons at 20/21:
158 GP, 128 points
His second season was 77 points.

Cammalleri's first two full seasons at 23/24 (the season before was the lockout):
161 GP, 138 points
His second season was 80 points.

Gaudreau (21/22) - 159 GP, 142 points
His second season was 78 points.

Yeah, Gaudreau hit higher totals, but there isn't a huge way to know if that continues. Cammalleri topped 80 points once after that. Tanguay topped 77 three times (with 78, 79, and 81).

Are people prepared to back the truck up for a guy that is more likely to touch around 80 points a couple more times over his career? Or is the truck reserved for a superstar like Kane or Datsyuk? Because the conservative outlook is more likely.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Yes I could

Crosby averages over 10.5M a year until he's 35.
Parise averages over 10M a year until he's 35.
Weber averages 11M a year until he's 35.
Suter averages 10M a year until he's 35.
Ovechkin, going forward, makes 10M a year now until he's 35. He signed his contract in 2008 with a cap-hit of 9.5M+.
Lundqvist makes over 10M a year until he's 35.
Kane and Toews make 10.5M a year.
Kopitar averages over 10M a year until he's 35.
Benn makes 9.5M a year.
Subban makes 9M a year despite signing while still an RFA.

Malkin at 9.5M is not overpaid. Or I would at least love to hear the argument.

Over the last 3 years, here's a complete list of players with a higher point-per-game-average:
Crosby
Kane

The only argument I could even a little bit see is injury issues. In which case, I don't see that as being overpaid, that's just bad luck.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

I'd love to see a poll: Will Gaudreau's contract end up being over or under $7.25M?

(though I guess term comes into it, so never mind?)

Gave it a shot anyway.

Froze the term at 7 and used 125K differentials to really drive in a bell curve.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Crosby averages over 10.5M a year until he's 35.
Parise averages over 10M a year until he's 35.
Weber averages 11M a year until he's 35.
Suter averages 10M a year until he's 35.
Ovechkin, going forward, makes 10M a year now until he's 35. He signed his contract in 2008 with a cap-hit of 9.5M+.
Lundqvist makes over 10M a year until he's 35.
Kane and Toews make 10.5M a year.
Kopitar averages over 10M a year until he's 35.
Benn makes 9.5M a year.
Subban makes 9M a year despite signing while still an RFA.

Malkin at 9.5M is not overpaid. Or I would at least love to hear the argument.

Over the last 3 years, here's a complete list of players with a higher point-per-game-average:
Crosby
Kane

The only argument I could even a little bit see is injury issues. In which case, I don't see that as being overpaid, that's just bad luck.

First off I don't like the Parise, Suter or Subban contracts ...

but if you go back, I said could argue he's overpaid on a team that has a center ahead of him.

Thought that was a pretty solid argument. Why pay a 2nd center that much when the best he can be is your second center. They won the cup, can't argue with that, but they did it in a structure that I wouldn't advocate.

[The Fonz]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Gave it a shot anyway.

Froze the term at 7 and used 125K differentials to really drive in a bell curve.

Glad you did this.

What I find fascinating in this dumpster of a thread, is how combative Gaudreauvertime is being in regards to Johnny's value, but when I asked him point-blank what he believes Johnny will sign for on a 7yr deal, his value was only a couple hundred thousand higher than those he seems to be arguing with.

Arguing over nothing, passionately. It's nuts. Happy that the poll is public.

[Gaudreauvertime]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

No, by my logic we should pay him $6.5-$7.0 instead of $8+ because we can. Who said anything about $3M. Stop the hyperbole. It makes you look silly.

But with the current situation, we don’t have to offer him anything significant. Why offer him only a little less than his worth when he has to sign with us? Anything above his qualifying offer is charity, no?

Originally Posted by Frequitude

And with respect to the 1%, you're about $1.5M away from what I'm arguing for so its 2%. 2% of the cap is MASSIVE. It's almost 10% of the difference between the floor and the cap. It's half the value of an average salary on a 23 man roster. Or more simply, it's $1.5M of cap age which is extraordinarily valuable.

My valutation range is 7.5M-8.0M. You want him at 6.5M-7.0M. That’s 1M on average. That’s like 1.4% of today’s cap, and will be closer to 1.1% of the cap by the end of the term.

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Tarasenko, yes - bad contract.

Many, many people disagree with you, including Blues fans.

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Ekblad is a different case. At 15, he was the #1 rated 15 year old and got exempt status. At 17, he was #1/#2 rated prospect and was taken 1st overall. At 18, he played a top pairing role. At 20, he was still considered the best player in his draft class, and had firmly established himself as the top pairing guy he was projected to be.
In other words, he has been one of the top 2 or 3 rated players of his age every year for the last 6 or more years. The risk that he suddenly won't be a top player is very, very low.

How can you possibly come to that conclusion? That’s not how risk works, previous ratings as a prospect do not imply anything about a certain player before they have fully developed. There are countless examples of guys who were elite players from 15 to 19, and then everybody else caught up to them (usually physically). Ekblad’s development profile fits the mold of a guy who was extremely physically mature in junior, so his dominance at that level really has no bearing on his probability distribution going forward. Dion Phaneuf is a great example.

To the point of risk, who has more risk of falling short of becoming a 7.5-8M player? The guy who has already performed like an 8M player and shown progression every year of his development, or the guy who has yet to perform like an 8M player and has shown limited progression over the past 2 seasons?

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Gaudreau was drafted in the 4th round for a reason.

Because of his size? Which has clearly proven to not be an issue for Johnny. Its silly you would ever bring up draft position as part of your argument regarding risk and potential. I sure hope Treliving isn’t – that’s one way to insult your player.

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

He has proven that he can be a star in the NHL, and has 2 solid seasons to back that up. Great. But his future is still less certain. The NHL history books are littered with forwards that hit top 6 in scoring once or twice.

The NHL history books are also littered with high picks that turn into nothing. What they aren’t littered with is players who have scored 142 points in their first 2 seasons. That’s not 2 “solid” seasons. His first 2 years are in the top 10 of players over the last 15 years.

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I am not saying that Johnny isn't likely to be a top point producer. I am saying that there is a little more risk, and the likely possible scenarios (distribution of outcomes) for the future are more varied. That means a little more risk and a lower expected mean outcome.

Volatility has no implication on expected value, it all depends on the shape of your curve. You say Johnny has downside risk? But guess what, he also has upside risk. Meaning he could be a perennial art ross contender / winner, just as likely as he becomes Ales Hemsky. With a normal curve the expected value remains unchanged. In this case, I’d say there is a long tail, but its to the right of the mean.

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

The problem you and the Gaudreau camp are ignoring is that an NHL contract is guaranteed. The player gets paid, no matter how the future unfolds.

So a long term contract has some risk. And as a result, it has to be balanced. You can't simply say that a player is going to be this good for 8 years, so pay him the best case scenario. You have to factor some likelihood of less-optimistic scenarios. .

Trust me, if he were going to get paid on best case scenario, you’d be paying a lot more than 8M lol. Right now, best we can tell is that the most likely scenario is that he either matches or improves upon his totals from last season, especially given the poor power play and his historic progression curves. So the expected outcome for him is to be an 80+ point player. That’s not optimistic. That’s realistic. And guess what 80+ point players are worth?

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

And Johnny has a bit more risk in that regard than Ekblad does.

Says who? Ekblad has never reached the level that he has just signed for and has not shown much (if any) progression since his rookie year. I fail to see how he is less risky at that price point.

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Also, you continue to ignore that very real issue that Gaudreau's contract has 5 RFA years, while Tarasenko's and Ekblad's only have 4. Normalizing for that automatically takes Johnny down to maybe $7.2M, just to be equal (ignoring the differences in risk).

Seriously, I’ve already addressed this about a billion times. Where is your normalization for the fact that Johnny has been significantly more productive than Tarasenko in the 2 years prior to his contract?

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I could just as easily paint a scenario where he signs a one year deal, has a weak season, or gets injured, and ends up missing out on millions.

Sure, there is that possibility. But how likely is it? Its far more likely he continues to do what he’s always done – rack up points while staying healthy. It seems you would like to use Ekblad’s history as being a top player since he was 15 as evidence to his lack of risk, but you seem hesitant to apply the same rhetoric to Gaudreau. Why is that?

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

You are simply guessing how the future will unfold (and using the most optimistic scenario). I am saying that a contract has to balance more than just the optimistic projection.

Like I said, the idea that Johnny will keep being Johnny is not optimistic. Its realistic.

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Apologies for the long post, but I think this is necessary...

One thing people need to understand, with respect to long term contracts, is that they are guaranteed, even though the future is uncertain.

You can’t simply project an optimistic scenario and say: I believe player X will be this good so he should be paid that much. Like with any forecasting, you have to project various different possible outcomes, and assign probabilities to the likelihood of them happening.

In other words, you have to establish a projected distribution of outcomes.

It isn’t just about their ceiling – you have to factor in the likelihood of them achieving that – consistently – as well as the likelihood of other possible scenarios.

When you are projecting the future, you have to assess probabilities. After his rookie season, who predicted that Phaneuf wouldn’t be a star for many years? No one that I saw. But it turned out that he didn’t live up to expectations. It happens.

So when you are signing a player to a 7 or 8 year deal - that is guaranteed – you have to factor in probabilities of all possible outcomes, not just the most optimistic.

Look at the contracts that have been signed this year with Monahan, MacKinnon, Scheifele, Forsberg, and others. All in the $6M per year range. ALL of those players are projected to be stars. Each team, and each player, hopes they will be worth more than that – the optimistic scenario for each one is higher – maybe much higher – than the AAV suggests.

What about Ekblad and Tarasenko?

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

So why did they sign them? Are they stupid? No. It is because the contracts are guaranteed. And therefore factor in a distribution of multiple scenarios, including the risk that they don’t come anywhere near their potential ceilings.

By asking for $8M, the Gaudreau camp is basically arguing for an optimistic scenario only. Is Gaudreau going to be a better player than all of the about players? Maybe. But his camp needs to understand that that is not a certainty by any stretch.

The most likely scenario is that yes, Gaudreau continues to be much better than all those players. His worst season is better than the best season those guys have put together (especially considering his usage in the first half of his rookie campaign).

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Does he deserve a larger contract than those players? Yes, IMO, because he outperformed them over the last two years.

But how much more? Can he justify $1.5 - $2M per year more than those players? Not a chance IMO. I can see $500k more – that seems reasonable, and justified. But any more than that seems wildly optimistic.

So I’m guessing this is just a gut feel thing, because you’re not providing any evidence to suggest he’s not that much better than those guys because he has been that much better than those guys for the past 2 years.
Wildly optimistic would be paying him like a perennial 90-100 point player, which he could reasonably become.

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Ekblad is getting more, he signed for $7.5M. But Ekblad has a much longer track record of performing at the very highest level for his age. The probability that Ekblad continues to perform at the most elite level is higher, because he has been doing it longer.

This is why pedigree comes up. Does it matter where a player was drafted? No, what matters is how you play now. However, when forecasting the future, a more consistent track record leads to more confidence in your projections.

What’s been inconsistent about Johnny’s track record? The fact that he won the rookie of the year in the USHL? Or lead his team to the USHL championship? Or that he was a PPG freshman in the NCAA, again leading his team to a championship? Or was it his Hobey Baker season? Or his 7 goal 9 point gold medal performance at the WJC’s? Or his dominance at the WC’s? Or his Calder nominated rookie year? Or finishing as the 2nd highest LW scorer in the league as a sophomore? Back to back all star appearances?
Please clarify if I’m missing anything. At every level, Gaudreau has been an elite offensive player, the best player on the ice most nights.

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Great post Enoch.

I think everyone is a little obsessed over the idea that he COULD become the next Kane, or Datsyuk (though it's worth noting that he's a full step below where Kane was at the same age, it's a lofty dream to hope he becomes that).

What is more likely? That he becomes the next Cammalleri, Tanguay, or Kessel. Not slouches by any means, but are they guys who you want to commit a huge cap hit to in their prime? Did any of them prove to be worth building around? Their careers were never bad, but never top-billing either.

What's just as likely as becoming a Kane or a Datsyuk? Not even coming close. He could be the next Hemsky, or Semin, or Ribeiro.

One PPG season does not a superstar make. It's not a rare thing to do here and there for a top 6 winger. The danger is paying him for who you want him to become, and not considering who he might end up as.

I'm not saying he can't become a superstar, but at his age the odds of him experiencing huge gains in production aren't high. The elite guys, the generational talents like Ovie and Crosby, were showing up the whole league in season #1, not flirting with a point-per-game and hitting 6th in scoring in season #2.

We must be watching different players. You know Johnny wears 13, right?

[polak]

Whoops didn't mean to click that. Think it'll be 7.5

Flames blink and give Johnny what he deserves.

LOL at people thinking he'll sign for 7 years at under 7 mil. That would be highway robbery.

[Leeman4Gilmour]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Are people prepared to back the truck up for a guy that is more likely to touch around 80 points a couple more times over his career? Or is the truck reserved for a superstar like Kane or Datsyuk? Because the conservative outlook is more likely.

Most Gaudreau fanboys (I'm one) will argue that's its hard to imagine this kid not being a superstar. I cannot remember a player who has made me Oooo, and ahhh as often as he does. If the Flames can sign him in and around 7.5 long term, I believe we'll look at that as fondly as the Brodie contract. Despite all the RFA/UFA arguments, which are very understandable, I have no issue with his ask of 8. In fact, I'm happy with that, because I believe he'll accept the Ekblad/Tarasenko number of 7.5.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Or is the truck reserved for a superstar like Kane or Datsyuk?

What is "the truck"? Kane makes 10.5M. Datsyuk was making 7.5M. That's quite a difference.

And just a reminder, but Kane's career year before signing his contract was 88 points nearly 5 years earlier. The three years preceding him signing his contract, he put up 190 points in 198 games. He signed his contract extension after coming off a 69 points in 69 games season.

I mean it's easy to get in the mindset that 10.5M for Kane was 10.5M for the Art Ross winning Kane we had this season, but really breaking out 2 years after he signed his contract, at 27, is not quite the norm. I'm sure that the Hawks were 'expecting' Kane to be the perennial point-per-game player he was, and were still happy to offer him that 10.5M. 106 points and an Art Ross is a bonus.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Gaudreauvertime

We must be watching different players. You know Johnny wears 13, right?

And he's only played 2 seasons. I know in your deeply intimate fantasies Johnny is an all-star, but in the real world he's a 23 year old with 2 seasons under his belt and less than a point-per-game average. He's not anything you constantly beak about him being - yet.

Originally Posted by Leeman4Gilmour

Most Gaudreau fanboys (I'm one) will argue that's its hard to imagine this kid not being a superstar.

And I get that, but I think it's important to try and imagine him not being one, because it's very possible.

At the end of the day, whether he makes 6.75 or 8.5 doesn't matter to me as long as he's worth it. The higher the contract, the higher the risk that he won't be especially with how little he's shown. As a Flames fan, I hope his career average is a point-per-game or higher. As a realist, I know it's unlikely. I just think it's a bad idea to pay for hope and leave likelihood holding the bag.

[burn_this_city]

7.75 is the number I think gets settled on.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by Gaudreauvertime

In other words, he has been one of the top 2 or 3 rated players of his age every year for the last 6 or more years. The risk that he suddenly won't be a top player is very, very low.

How can you possibly come to that conclusion? That’s not how risk works, previous ratings as a prospect do not imply anything about a certain player before they have fully developed. There are countless examples of guys who were elite players from 15 to 19, and then everybody else caught up to them (usually physically). Ekblad’s development profile fits the mold of a guy who was extremely physically mature in junior, so his dominance at that level really has no bearing on his probability distribution going forward. Dion Phaneuf is a great example

I'm only going to address you thoughts on Ekblad. Was he physically mature in junior? Yes. Is THAT the reason why he was considered an exceptional talent? Hell f'ing no. And there aren't "countless" examples of players given exceptional player status who then had everyone else catch up to them. You're creating a completely false narrative to fit an argument that doesn't make sense.

Oh, and comparing Ekblad to Phaneuf? come on now....

Says who? Ekblad has never reached the level that he has just signed for and has not shown much (if any) progression since his rookie year. I fail to see how he is less risky at that price point.

He hasn't shown any progression since his rookie year? LOL, you can tell that you only watch the Flames play hockey. Ekblad has already become the team's top pairing shutdown defender AND offensive driver. He's an advanced stat dreamboat. Possibly one of the best shot suppression players in the game right now...and he's just 20. I don't know how much more progression you want to see from him.

Sure, there is that possibility. But how likely is it? Its far more likely he continues to do what he’s always done – rack up points while staying healthy. It seems you would like to use Ekblad’s history as being a top player since he was 15 as evidence to his lack of risk, but you seem hesitant to apply the same rhetoric to Gaudreau. Why is that?

Because Ekblad plays a much harder position to learn and did so at an age that guys almost never break into the league. Even if a guy makes it as a defenseman at 18, they often have a lot of up and down problems. Ekblad has been nothing but consistent since entering the NHL at 18. That's why there's very little risk with him. Maturity and consistency go a long way. How were Gaudreau's road splits again?

At the same age, Gaudreau was playing in a lesser league and learning how to adapt his skill set to playing with larger players. It was far from a guarantee that he would get to this level, let alone excel at it. People thought he would get killed playing with men. To his credit, he's learned how to play his game effectively without getting destroyed.

Ekblad has been as sure a bet as you can make since day 1. There was never that sort of certainty with Gaudreau, but we're getting closer to asserting that he is one of the top players in the game. I would argue that Ekblad is probably already a top 10 defenseman in the NHL, but it would probably be debatable as to whether Gaudreau is a top 10 forward.

[Gaudreauvertime]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

And he's only played 2 seasons. I know in your deeply intimate fantasies Johnny is an all-star, but in the real world he's a 23 year old with 2 seasons under his belt and less than a point-per-game average.

Actually, he's an all-star in the real world. A two time all star, in fact.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I know in your deeply intimate fantasies Johnny is an all-star

Not quite intimate fantasies.

[Gaudreauvertime]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

I'm only going to address you thoughts on Ekblad. Was he physically mature in junior? Yes. Is THAT the reason why he was considered an exceptional talent? Hell f'ing no. And there aren't "countless" examples of players given exceptional player status who then had everyone else catch up to them. You're creating a completely false narrative to fit an argument that doesn't make sense.

Of course not, and nobody is making that argument. But it was certainly something that was in his favor as a 15 year old. If he had a different maturity curve (say of a guy like Sam Bennett) he likely wouldn't have gotten exceptional status

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

Oh, and comparing Ekblad to Phaneuf? come on now....

Wait, so comparing Phaneuf to Gaudreau is completely fair game, but comparing him to Ekblad is somehow off limits? The Phaneuf - Ekblad comparison is way more appropriate than the Phaneuf - Gaudreau comparison, not even sure how that is debatable.

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

He hasn't shown any progression since his rookie year? LOL, you can tell that you only watch the Flames play hockey. Ekblad has already become the team's top pairing shutdown defender AND offensive driver. He's an advanced stat dreamboat. Possibly one of the best shot suppression players in the game right now...and he's just 20. I don't know how much more progression you want to see from him.

He was great in his rookie year as well, and more productive offensively

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

Because Ekblad plays a much harder position to learn and did so at an age that guys almost never break into the league. Even if a guy makes it as a defenseman at 18, they often have a lot of up and down problems. Ekblad has been nothing but consistent since entering the NHL at 18.

If that is the case, then wouldn't that imply that Ekblad has even more variation with respect to the outcome distributions?

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

At the same age, Gaudreau was playing in a lesser league and learning how to adapt his skill set to playing with larger players. It was far from a guarantee that he would get to this level, let alone excel at it. People thought he would get killed playing with men. To his credit, he's learned how to play his game effectively without getting destroyed.

And that should somehow be used against him?

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

Ekblad has been as sure a bet as you can make since day 1. There was never that sort of certainty with Gaudreau, but we're getting closer to asserting that he is one of the top players in the game. I would argue that Ekblad is probably already a top 10 defenseman in the NHL, but it would probably be debatable as to whether Gaudreau is a top 10 forward.

Wow I would not agree with that, and neither would most people. There is a reason Johnny was rated much higher in the NHL's top 50 player list. Maybe one day Ekblad could be top 10, but you have to score more than 36 points to be an elite defenseman these days, regardless of how good you are in your own end.

Karlsson
Doughty
Hedman
OEL
Brodie
Subban
Letang
Weber
Josi
Burns
Keith
Vlasic
Pietrangelo

Are all ahead of Ekblad IMO.

[Bingo]

after all that Gaudreauovertime and I vote the exact same choice ...

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Gaudreauvertime

Actually, he's an all-star in the real world. A two time all star, in fact.

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

My bad boys. Made the mistake of referring to the general concept of an all-star (see: superstar, star, etc) rather than the arbitrary appointment to a game comprising the "best" 40 players in a given season. It wasn't my intention to include him with the likes of the legendary John Scott, Zemgus Girgensons, Petr Buzek, and many more.

Guess that completely nullifies my point. 2 appearances? That's as many as Kane! At 22!

8.5 million? Forget it? Give him 10!

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Gaudreauvertime

Actually, he's an all-star in the real world. A two time all star, in fact.

To be precise, selected to the all star game last year, and to the young star team the year before (and who got to play in the ASG because of injury).

Nor was he, of course, named a first or second team all-star at the year end awards.

He is a great player. He makes the US World Cup team easily. Not so sure he'd make Canada's if he were Canadian. But the cautions about giving a sophomore top end dollars are realistic.

[Bingo]

also interesting ...

early returns are 7.3 on average which is pretty close to the Tarasenko contract adjusted to RFA years.

7.3 is .7 off of the Flames bid, and 1.2 off of the Gaudreau offer

Shows you how much an argument can get silly while voting and math shows sanity.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by Gaudreauvertime

Of course not, and nobody is making that argument. But it was certainly something that was in his favor as a 15 year old. If he had a different maturity curve (say of a guy like Sam Bennett) he likely wouldn't have gotten exceptional status



Wait, so comparing Phaneuf to Gaudreau is completely fair game, but comparing him to Ekblad is somehow off limits? The Phaneuf - Ekblad comparison is way more appropriate than the Phaneuf - Gaudreau comparison, not even sure how that is debatable.



He was great in his rookie year as well, and more productive offensively




If that is the case, then wouldn't that imply that Ekblad has even more variation with respect to the outcome distributions?



And that should somehow be used against him?



Wow I would not agree with that, and neither would most people. There is a reason Johnny was rated much higher in the NHL's top 50 player list. Maybe one day Ekblad could be top 10, but you have to score more than 36 points to be an elite defenseman these days, regardless of how good you are in your own end.

Karlsson
Doughty
Hedman
Ekblad
OEL
Brodie
Subban
Letang
Weber
Josi
Burns
Keith
Vlasic
Pietrangelo

Are all ahead of Ekblad IMO.

Ekblad is easily better than all of OEL, Brodie, Subban, Letang, Weber, Josi, Burns, Vlasic, Pietrangelo. NOT Duncan Keith though. On my list Ekblad is easily a top 5 defenseman in the league right now. Scoring more than 36 points does NOT make you an elite defenseman. Playing the toughest competition and dominating them does. That's what Ekblad does, and then he goes down to the other end and adds plenty of offense for an elite shutdown defenseman.

As for the rest of your post, you're talking in circles now.

List of Exceptional Status junior players: John Tavares, Aaron Ekblad, Connor McDavid. These are the only examples we have of guys that had this status who have transitioned to the NHL. I would say that all of them have become superstars without any hesitation.

Phaneuf is an EXAMPLE of what can happen to a guy that everyone is sure to be a superstar. I don't think it's a particularly good comparison, and I never made the comparison in the first place. Know who you're arguing with because I never made any connection between the two.

If a player is already exceptional their first year in the league, do you expect them to progress a lot? No? Then why would you expect Ekblad to be so much better than what he was back then?

I honestly don't even know why I bothered responding to you.