View Single Post
Old
04-13-2004, 07:42 PM
  #65
punchy1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Kiwiville.
Posts: 2,444
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sammy
You gotta get a grip Punchy. Frolov is hardly a proven star & the league is /has been littered with guys like him at a young age who never prove out to be a star. Yeah, hes progressing nicely but lets get a little realistic here.
Then we have Rome (104th overall in '02) ,who I have never seen on anybodies cant miss list. Has he ever even recieved an invite to Team Canadas WJC tryout or made an WHL all-star team to help even a little bit to indicate his draft position was that out of wack? Maybe he has, I dunno but hes not even on the radar screen as being a bluechipper or even close to it.

On Rome, you aren't looking very hard. If you like I can give you two different links to articles and rankings that list him as a dead solid prospect as well as his stats from the past two years but I would first ask you to go to the Kings home page at hf and have a look at his stats and what he has done these past two years. He is 21 and that could have something to do with why he wasn't invited to the u20s the past two years but I see what you are saying and would also add that he is a nice piece but not *the* center of the deal.

On Frolov lets have a look then.

To start this year he averaged less than 12mins a game playing on our third line and saw less than 28 seconds of PP on average and was used as a PK specialist energy winger. He wasn't moved into the Kings top six until after injuries forced Murrays hand into doing so. (even though frolov was producing very well with is limited chances)

Frolov then flourished and ended the season averaging 17:11 from the moment he was called up on and still didn't see much time on the PP until the last third of the season and once he was put there, he produced better than some of the name players on the Kings.

His stats are, 21 years old, second season, 156gp, 79pts, +*20* Kings number pk option (with Palffy when he were healthy) 17:11 ATOI.

Lets look at Nash (and no, not saying he is better than Nash, just making a comparison). Nash is his teams NUMBER ONE option in every offencive category. He is the top PP, top line LW receiving 17:37 ATOI since entering the league.

Here are his numbers, 154gp, 96 pts, -*62*.

He is what I would call a star caliber player and a true stud but, I think that by judging his play AND the stats that it isn't even close to a stretch to say that if Frolov were given the same amount of ice time with the same green light mentality where offence were concerned that he would easily have added the 17 points that Nash has scored over him.

Remember, Nash's deviance in +/- from Frolov is an astonishing 82 points. That means that Nash has been on the ice for 82 more goals scored by his opponents than Frolov. Certainly you can argue that the teams have different levels of talent and such but, the Kings have been for well better than the most part injured during Frolovs time with them. Frolov received precious little ice time on average until after the first 24 games of this season and only started being used on the PP during the last third of this past season and he still wasn't that far off the pace of what I would say is one of the best LWs to come along in a very long time.


If Frolov were on a team whos coach used him as a top option on LW he would score a considerable number more points but also would be at or near the top of his teams plus minus amoung forwards.

So mate, I appreciate what you are saying but believe me, I have a very firm grip on what Frolov is capable of and that is why I would demand an awful lot for him.

Of his draft class he finished third in total points behind the amazing Spezza (clearly the best) and Nash (although he had a significantly better plus minus). If as you say so many players like Frolov have come through the game I can only say that they haven't done so during his draft year or the year after it.

Frolov is an under rated budding star who, if given a spot on a team whos blankered coach would actually use him over players like John Tripp and Craig Johnson and so many others who have little if any business being in the NHL let alone on the Kings top lines, Frolov would certainly be more productive and we wouldn't be having this conversation.

punchy1 is offline