except... like... *he can contribute in some way in the nhl*
you don't have to like his upside, his hands, whatever. he absolutely *has* proven more than some these guys ranked ahead of him, though. remember, as much as some salivate over some of this kids, many will never play a game or play few games in the nhl.
You know why he has "proven" more than some of the other guys is because he is older and had the longest time to "prove" himself. We're talking about who will be the best prospect in 3-5 years, and that clearly isn't McArdle. Voting him into the 14th best prospect in some years is idiotic. Maybe some of the others won't see the NHL, but still as of this day they have more potential to have an impact than McArdle who has done nada.
You know why he has "proven" more than some of the other guys is because he is older and had the longest time to "prove" himself. We're talking about who will be the best prospect in 3-5 years, and that clearly isn't McArdle. Voting him into the 14th best prospect in some years is idiotic. Maybe some of the others won't see the NHL, but still as of this day they have more potential to have an impact than McArdle who has done nada.
You've "proven" you can't hold a legitimate discussion with anyone else.
He's proved more than some of the younger guys. Though, obviously thats by virtue of being older in some cases. But he hasn't really proven anything of note at the professional level yet either.
The question is ; do you value more upside, or do you value concrete and absolute projections existing within a field of clearly defined limitations.
McArdle probably should be ranked between 15-20 IMO. He should certainly be behind Salak (who has actually proved alot at the Pro level, he is certainly a better AHL player) and Cherverie who was a top goaltender in the NCAA. These guys have more upside and possess a degree of high level performance at a high level of hockey.
A guy like Donskoi is going to be ranked below McArdle here. But i would absolutely rather have him in the system than McArdle.
I guess when you get to ranking at this level ; McArdle seems the obvious choice. But if someone asked you today, who would you rather keep in the system, Brickely, McArdle or Donskoi for example, you'd almost never take McArdle because we know what he is. And that "what" is barely anything.
yes, this essentially my rationale. if you asked me that last question, i'd probably agree and, if forced, might take a gamble on another kid. but that's not the point of this exercise. mcardle has value. he will play in the nhl. some of these other kids will certainly not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AwesomePanthers
You know why he has "proven" more than some of the other guys is because he is older and had the longest time to "prove" himself. We're talking about who will be the best prospect in 3-5 years, and that clearly isn't McArdle. Voting him into the 14th best prospect in some years is idiotic. Maybe some of the others won't see the NHL, but still as of this day they have more potential to have an impact than McArdle who has done nada.
well, i may be idiotic but your wrong. he hasn't proven more only because he's older; he's proven more because, unlike other prospects we've seen get a shot, he's actually gone out and contributed. he's done what has been asked.
and the exercise is not about who will be the best prospect in 3-5 years.
Contributed? He hasn't done anything. He looked ok in very very limited minutes and wasn't a liability. At the AHL level - he isn't even relied upon as a top six forward. You need to redefine some words in your vocab ; because McArdle HAS ALOT TO PROVE.
Oh, and this poll absolutely is an excercise in finding out who will be the best players in 3-5 years time. Understand what the term PROSPECT is. Seriously, im amazed at the stupidity i read sometimes.
If this poll wans't about that (which it is), then how the hell is McFarland for instance above McArdle? Yeah ...
Seriously, im just in awe of what people come out with.
Contributed? He hasn't done anything. He looked ok in very very limited minutes and wasn't a liability. At the AHL level - he isn't even relied upon as a top six forward. You need to redefine some words in your vocab ; because McArdle HAS ALOT TO PROVE.
Oh, and this poll absolutely is an excercise in finding out who will be the best players in 3-5 years time. Understand what the term PROSPECT is. Seriously, im amazed at the stupidity i read sometimes.
If this poll wans't about that (which it is), then how the hell is McFarland for instance above McArdle? Yeah ...
Seriously, im just in awe of what people come out with.
i'm in awe of your post. get over yourself, pal.
what the hell does "best player" even mean? there's a balance a bunch of different factors here, as far as i can tell and nobody has defined a precise mathematical formula. we aren't using hf's grading scale. instead it's just a vague balancing act between potential and current value.
and i never said mcardle is done proving himself, did i? no.
what the hell does "best player" even mean? there's a balance a bunch of different factors here, as far as i can tell and nobody has defined a precise mathematical formula. we aren't using hf's grading scale. instead it's just a vague balancing act between potential and current value.
and i never said mcardle is done proving himself, did i? no.
So you're reply consists of a paragraph with a basic babbling, questioning now the parameters of how we measure players and success?
Yet, in your previous post, you say this poll isn't an excerise to judge who will be better in 3-5 years. Yet now you say its a balance between potential and current value, which i assume means NHL closeness, as current value actually includes long-term potential. This completely contradicts what you originally said.
So you have gone from saying this isn't an excersise in judging long-term potential, to saying it is a balance, to quering what the parameters of being the "better player" are. Your argument isn't consistent at all.
So you're reply consists of a paragraph with a basic babbling, questioning now the parameters of how we measure players and success?
Yet, in your previous post, you say this poll isn't an excerise to judge who will be better in 3-5 years. Yet now you say its a balance between potential and current value, which i assume means NHL closeness, as current value actually includes long-term potential. This completely contradicts what you originally said.
So you have gone from saying this isn't an excersise in judging long-term potential, to saying it is a balance, to quering what the parameters of being the "better player" are. Your argument isn't consistent at all.
i meant this isn't *only* about who will be better in 3-5 years. of course, that's a big part of it. that should've been obvious.
