View Single Post
07-27-2010, 09:12 AM
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: United States
Posts: 6,340
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Clint
Originally Posted by Markstrom Rules View Post
I don't think though that just because a guy has pro experience and has produced reasonably shoud automatically put him ahead of another prospect just because they don't have pro experience.
Neither do I. I judge a prospect by questioning whether he's continually improving. Dadonov took a big step last year (in the 2nd half of the season, I believe) against much tougher competition than one would see in major juniors. If a prospect accumulates pro experience and answers the bell, then all things being equal I think he's worthy of a higher ranking that a guy still in juniors.

I mean, experience and being proven definitely counts, but I factor in potential as well.
I've recently become of the opinion that the entire concept of "potential" as a buzzword is overrated and thrown around too much. Like I said before, I judge our prospects by how well they've done in recent seasons and whether they've improved their performance or not (and also scouting reports). If a player is able to step up his game and improve his game from year to year, against increasingly difficult competition, I think he's worth of a higher ranking than than a guy with a boatload of unrealized "potential." Dadonov has stepped up his game and improved over time. McFarland, for example, has not. That's pretty much endgame for me, until either Dadonov plateaus, which he hasn't yet, or McFarland steps it up in a big way, which he hasn't yet.

I just see higher potential in Petrovic and McFarland than in Dadonov, which is not to say he's bad, only that I don't think his potential is as high.
Interestingly enough, I agree with you 100%. I think that McFarland and Petrovic have the unrealized potential to have longer NHL careers than Dadonov. But I think that Dadonov, at this point in time, has proven more against tougher competition than anyone else on this list.

I guess I just value actual proven results over potential future results when I rate prospects.

I don't see how McFarland being our #8 prospect and Petrovic likely #11 or #12, and voting for them instead of Dadonov after our first 7 prospect slots have been voted on, is overrating them or hyping them up. I think it's very reasonable. I mean, if it was #3 or 4, I could see your point, but...
I would actually put both McFarland and Petrovic very close after Dadonov. I'm just trying to make a case for why I'm voting the way I'm voting, and also to emphasize that we don't get ahead of ourselves in hyping unproven prospects just because they're fresh out of the draft.

Clint is offline   Reply With Quote