Thread: Value of: Derek Dorsett
View Single Post
Old
08-26-2012, 03:00 PM
  #20
zeus3007*
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Red Deer, Alberta
Posts: 13,227
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Viqsi View Post
Would be happy to!



Sheltered, as befits a rookie.



This is the biggest insult in the entire list and not a good way to start. Thornton did vastly worse in every single possible measurable way and a bunch of intangible ways as well. Comparing these two is like comparing Eric Christensen to Jason Spezza.



Closest equivalent so far, but he wasn't used in the same sorts of situations. He might be there sometime.



Neither of them faced anything near the same level of competition, and Jackman was strictly an O-zone guy.



Try Brandon Sutter, before he was traded. At least in terms of end results.



Bickell is reasonably close. So is Dave Bolland. Mayers played against pretty much nobody of quality.



Played mostly against fourth-liners and did crappy against them.



Potentially. Faced less difficult minutes, but performed better in them, so he could probably do similar.



Faced fairly sheltered competition.



Jones also spent a bit more time in the offensive zone. Eager faced damn near nobody.



Concur, because Goc is the only forward who faced similar competition in similar situations, and he's damn near elite in that category. Dorsett ain't elite.



Played against nobodies and losers and did not exactly do well.



Probably a fair comparable. One of the better ones listed.



Didn't face anything like the same level of competition, and did worse against it.



Somewhat close, although Dorsett did better against tougher guys.



Clarkson actually ended up pretty sheltered. Did damn well in that role, though, so he could probably take it on.

I'm seeing here a definite tendency to look strictly at "guys who play with their head on fire" - i.e. a focus on play style, rather than play results. That's the big issue at hand here.



Martin is a poor man's Dorsett. And Neilsen is their second-line center (also, see comments above re: Goc).



Did better, but against less difficult competition. Still, a fairly reasonable comparison.



Please. He performed a similar job... in the offensive zone, against lower-tier players.



Simmonds actually did a comparable job (except in scoring, where he excelled) with MANY more offensive zone starts and going up against weaker players.



Couldn't play that same level of defense if his life and career depended on it. Does his best work when sheltered - like he was.



Don't be absurd.



Try Dominic Moore.



Not hardly! Nichol faced freaking nobody.



Best comparable I can find is Tom Pyatt.



Played somewhat comparable d-zone minutes, but against lesser opponents.



Nobody I can find either. Malhotra envies DD's O-zone starts.



Both spent less time in the defensive zone, and neither faced the same kind of quality opposition, but they're the closest one can find on the Caps.



Almost perfect except for the fact that Slater sucked hardcore.


I give you credit - you did a better job of finding comparable players than I would have expected. Clutterbuck and Ott are definitely very good ones, and in double-checking your work I got to discover that Kaleta had more to him than I thought. That said, there were some really poor selections - particularly Nichol and Thornton.




Not a chance. Rinaldo is a significant downgrade, and Wellwood is not a substantive enough add to our forward depth to make it worthwhile.



Setting aside that this is a discussion of a trade between Columbus and Detroit this would not happen. Miller, compared to Dorsett, is extremely sheltered, so it doesn't exactly surprise me that he scores more.
My point still stands in that most teams have a guy like Dorsett already. I'm not splitting hairs as to which ones are better or worse than him, I do think he's a good player to have. But he's not the kind of player that GM's will give the moon to get either.

zeus3007* is offline   Reply With Quote