Thread: Value of: Scott Harrington
View Single Post
Old
01-06-2013, 11:02 AM
  #29
Warm Cookies
The Dynamic Duo
 
Warm Cookies's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 48,072
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tender Rip View Post
Arguably the best defensive defense prospect in the world?
This is exactly what I mean.
Do you take issue with that?

Quote:
Rob Scuderi looked to be our best defensive defenseman when we won the cup, but it doesn't mean he had great tradevalue even if he hadn't been an UFA, nor does it mean that you cannot trade for reliable ready-mades to fulfill such duties. Scott Harrington had a spectacular coming out year last season and is continuing in that vein as a defensive specialist. That is great, but before he does his thing in the NHL, no one knows that he can be dominant there. As you can never consider him to have offensive upside, that says he is looking good to be a 3rd pairing D-man and PK'er in the NHL down the line.
All I said is that that's what it should take to get the Pens to deal him. I don't care about his vacuum value - trades are not made in a vacuum, and we need a player exactly like what Harrington projects to be.

Of course, nobody can know how any prospect will fare in the NHL before he gets there. That ain't news . As somebody who's watched him very closely over the past couple years, I don't think Harrington's raw offense affects what pairing he can play on. He skates well and makes quick, smart decisions in every zone, which is all we'd need him to do as a top 4 complement, and more than we could ever say for Scuds. Nothing in his career so far suggests he isn't capable of that.

Quote:
Vaunted Team Canada just gave up 11 goals in two games with nothing but highly rated D-men. Harrington was part of that, by no means the biggest culprit, but he was part of it. Doesn't mean Canada didn't have a kick ass roster - defensively as well. They just didn't perform when they had to - much like the Pens D against Philly. Harrington - like many out and out defenders - didn't fall as hard the others also because he isn't on the ice to take chances.
Harrington was on the ice for 2 ES goals in those blow-outs, and responsible for neither - making a defenseman culpable for his team's mistakes is lazy man's scouting, TR. He didn't "fall as hard as others" because he was flat-out better.

That's why he was Canada's "player of the game" in one of those games. That's why he had his blueline's best +/- in the tourney despite getting the toughest assignments. That's also why he was selected as one of Canada's 3 best players in the tournament by the IIHF directorate...the only defenseman.

Quote:
If we are REALLY lucky, Harington will be a player in mould of a Marc Eduard Vlasic. And for him to be that, he will need to improve quite a bit, and to beat out guys like Despres, Morrow and Dumoulin, not to mention Strait and Bortuzzo in the short term, for an NHL spot, it could take a while.... for a team that surely doesn't need ALL of its D (and Kris Letang) to be made up of guys who are wet behind the ears NHL wise.
I don't mind waiting a couple years for the herd to thin out. The potential payoff justifies it. And given his mature style of play, he may just surprise a few people and leapfrog some more highly touted guys - wouldn't be the first time.

Quote:
You cannot win in the NHL with a bunch of early 20 somethings on D. It just doesn't happen. If we add two of our present stable of D-prospects over the next three years, that will be huge, and with our D-pipeline we are surely not going to fret trading a player who is most likely half a decade from progressing to a spot above the third pairing. At least we shouldn't.
I don't think Harrington's gestating time will be near that long (he's not Strait or Bortuzzo - that's really underestimating his upside). I think the Rangers have shown that a younger blueline can win if the youth is quality. We have the quality. Now it's just a matter of seeing who rises to the occasion.


Last edited by Warm Cookies: 01-06-2013 at 03:14 PM.
Warm Cookies is offline   Reply With Quote