View Single Post
10-04-2004, 02:20 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 688
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by DeathFromAbove
If you want to look at it that way, not every player is the same level of a project. It's a relative term and if every player is a "project" to some degree, then the Kings have more high-risk projects than the rest of the league.

If you want to define "project" the way you have and call both Zach Parise and Brian Boyle "projects" because neither has played 3 or 4 years in the NHL, then you are not telling the whole story between the two prospects. You are making the term "project" superfluous.

So, when someone uses the term "project", they mean that although every prospect is nothing but a "prospective player" (and not a sure thing), a "project" of a prospective player is someone who is going to take a lot more time (and therefore some more risk) to develop than others.
The point I was trying to make (and didn't make it all that well) is that most teams aren't filled with sure fire things. If you look at our guys in development (and I'm including Brown here) I'd say we have four or five guys who will be solid NHLers. Grebs, Gleason, Brown, Cammy and Tukkonen. That the rest are "projects" just plain doesn't surprise me. You can be a big guy who needs to pull things together, a little guy who needs to step it up and prove he can play in traffic, I guess my problem is that one homer's "sure thing" is another guy's "boom or bust project". I think the best you can do is select raw talent, what appears to be a good head on the kid's shoulders and hope things fall into place before he's 23 and washed up. That's what I was implying with the project assessment.


P.S. I'm also just plain not sold on Parise. Sorry to all the supporters and I've eaten crow before, but I think he's further along than Boyle, and at the same time could have a much shorter career. Got all the fundamentals, I just worry about an injury filled future.

T2M is offline