You can't or won't read. I twice in two separate posts wrote that I am not comparing Miller and Grachev, but because both names appeared in the same post, your inability to read and comprehend does not allow you to understand what I mean, even when I wrote multiple times that I was not comparing the two.
Your assertion was clearly that Miller could bust like Grachev if he plays in the AHL next year. That's a pretty clear line of comparison. If you didn't want to draw the line you could've just said something like: "Placing Miller in the AHL next year could drastically hurt his development." By bringing Grachev into it, you automatically draw the comparison.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerEsq
Same for St. Croix, though the example is not as extreme in your inability to understand basic English.
Do you know what Shiny New Toy means? It means an unproven prospect, recently acquired, usually via draft, who attracted attention to himself by puttting up cute stats for a short period of time.
Anything else is not shiny new toy. A well developed prospect who produced for a long time up to his high expectations is a blue chipper. For instance, nobody calls Kreider a Shiny New Toy.
I'm not talking about the shiny toy bit. I'm talking about the 100-point pace at 18 and what it means bit. Specifically, this post:
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerEsq
Any 18 year old who gets 100 points in the defense-first WHL all by himself (aka not off his superior teammates) is a blue chipper in my book. If he gets 80 points, he's a very solid prospect. If he gets 100+ points, he's a blue chipper.
Again, this is WHL, not the QMJHL, and not even the OHL. 100 points is very hard to get there. Only 4 players had 100+ points last year.
One of them was RNH who was just drafted first overall.
One was an overager, and it's not unusual for overagers to dominate just because of their age.
One was in his final year.
And there was only one 18 year old like St. Croix who had 100+ points.
If he joins the elite group of 18 years who score 100+ points, he's a blue chipper.
This is the kind of stuff I have a problem with. You throw this stuff out there like in means something. Putting up 100 points in juniors does not necessarily make St. Croix a blue chipper. Conversely, not putting up 100 points doesn't necessarily disqualify St. Croix from being a blue chipper. It's stat surfing. Now scouting stuff that newoilburnsclean brings up might actually mean something. But you can't draw conclusions the way you seem to off junior scoring rates. Like you said, it's a bunch of "cute stats."
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerEsq
As for your general statement about me, go bank to what I write over the years and test how often I was wrong on prospects and how often I was right.
Just from the last summer (all of these I repeated many times):
1. Hagelin will make three team between Thanksgiving and Christmas;
2. MDZ will learn competent defense and will ve an NHLer;
3. McNeill's offense is overrated and we should avoid drafting him;
4. Jam is one of the most gifted offensive players in our system.
5. The Rangers should draft McColgan (nobody before me brought up his name or at least I did not see it).
6 . The Rangers should trade down to draft Grimaldi plus another late first rounder.
7. Thomas will not make the NHL despite his junior stats.
So because I have a problem with your statistical claims, I have to disprove everything you've ever said about hockey in order to be right? And I'm the one who has a problem with the English language?
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerEsq
The only statement that isn't looking good right now is Grimaldi, but I always knew he was very high risk, but even a 25% chance of being an offensive star vs. 75% failure seemed worth it considering how mutch depth we have. It was not as if I ever thought Grimaldi was a safe choice.
The other 6 statements were pretty much on target or look to be on target at an early stage.
And there it is, you did it again. Where on Earth do you get this 75% versus 25%? How can you possibly calculate the boom/bust chances of Grimaldi like that? Are you a scout? Please don't throw your numbers threads about the rate of drafting guys with various heights at me. Disregarding the fact that I find your methodology faulty, they're attempting to make points about trends and not applicable to a single case.
I don't know how much you guys have talked about him, but I really have to say he's something. I have seen lots of elite players in Finnish Elite League, SM-Liiga, over the years. Jussi Jokinen, Joni Pitkänen, Pekka Rinne, Brian Rafalski, Tim Thomas etc. I haven't ever seen as ready NHL-caliber goal scorer as Tomas Zaborsky.
He's pretty fast, good shooting guy and what amazes me most, is his ability to be in the game in every shift. He's making some tricks all the time in our league, scored 24 goals in 30 games and is in pace of 48 goals which would be the league all-time-record.
Great player, he's going to have fruitful NHL career.
I don't know how much you guys have talked about him, but I really have to say he's something. I have seen lots of elite players in Finnish Elite League, SM-Liiga, over the years. Jussi Jokinen, Joni Pitkänen, Pekka Rinne, Brian Rafalski, Tim Thomas etc. I haven't ever seen as ready NHL-caliber goal scorer as Tomas Zaborsky.
He's pretty fast, good shooting guy and what amazes me most, is his ability to be in the game in every shift. He's making some tricks all the time in our league, scored 24 goals in 30 games and is in pace of 48 goals which would be the league all-time-record.
Great player, he's going to have fruitful NHL career.
We traded him in 2010 to Anaheim for a long-gone defender named Matt McCue (we love our Macs)...
We traded him in 2010 to Anaheim for a long-gone defender named Matt McCue (we love our Macs)...
I doubt Zaborsky will make an impact in the NHL (assuming he comes back over). He could barely hack it in the ECHL when he was here. I'm glad for him that he's doing well, but let's remember that Zucc was the MVP of the SEL, a better league than Zaborsky is playing in, and he's a borderline NHLer right now.
It's why he chose to go to the OHL and not college, so that he could get physically used to the longer schedule of the NHL
OHL this year, AHL next year, NHL the year after.
He's showing more that people expected, I can see him doing the same next season.
A big factor in going the OHL route was the compromise that Miller stated before the draft.
Miller was verbally committed to UND. Im sure there was a reason for that.
But the compromise, as he stated before the draft, was if his drafting team requested he go the Junior route, he wanted an ELC then and there.
His goal from the start was to reach the NHL as soon as possible.
After what happened with Cherepanov (RIP) and Kreider, the Rangers wanted a player (forward) they would control from the get-go.
They requested the OHL and Miller followed through with his demand for an ELC (rightfully so) and both ends followed through.
Rangers got a high-end forward they control right away. And Miller got his contract.
Miller always had the character and work ethic to continue improving, and now all he needs to do is continue doing what he does, and the Rangers can excersize their right to send him where ever they feel he belongs. Miller doesn't have to worry about earning a contract, he only needs to worry about earning his way to the NHL now.
It was a good fit from several standpoints. We needed a player like him, we needed a player whose development we control, and Miller wanted to be on a fast track to the NHL.
Fact we could potentially be adding our big three (Kreider, McIlrath, Miller) at about the same time frame (within the next two seasons) could be a big boost for this club.
I knew this coming was coming. That's why I said that there are different types of players to whom this happened. Let's keep in mind that Grachev was seen as the ultimate blue chipper when he first turned pro. Everyone was saying that Anisimov is a slow learner, but Grachev is so much better and will catch up to Anisimov within months. One Hartford newspaper article was downright insulting to Anisimov in its comparson.
When I first raised on this board that Grachev may not be as good as people think he is, I was accused of trolling. [On HF, "trolling" means saying that the person's favorite team's future may not be absolutely great. Fans here are somewhat realistic about the present, but a large majority is delusional about the future. This applies particularly to teams whose future is dark. Telling this to any fan will get you an accusation of trolling and an instant trip to the ignore list.]
Anyway, to get to the main point. While Grachev and Miller may be very different types of players, it doesn't mean that Miller would be immune to losing confidence or being in over his head. This has nothing to do with style. It's basic ability and experience.
You err on the side of safety. What's the worst that can happen if he gets sent back to the OHL? He'll dominate there, gain confidence and come to the pros the following year in a better physical state.
What's the worst thing that can happen if he goes to the AHL and isn't ready? His career will be severely harmed.
This doesn't mean that nobody should turn pro early, but we better be sure that the kid is ready for professional hockey before we place him there.
There could be similarities in the situation.
But, not that many IMO.
I understand you weren't comparing the players, rather the situations. Or the potential for the situation.
I agree, its always a concern that needs to be taken into account.
But the differences do lie in the players.
Grachev was a guy in Brampton that knew he was bigger and stronger then his competition, and he exploited that. He didn't learn the game as much as he just dominated weaker competition. And that sent him for a loop when he then had to face stronger, wiley competition in professional hockey.
He started to progress, slowly. But demanded a trade, and that was that.
But you know the situation, I don't need to explain it, but im trying to get to a case point.
Miller is an intelligent player. He's heady. He sees the ice in a way Grachev doesn't. He reads the play. He focused on being a smart defensive player at a young age, where Grachev hadn't learned that foundation before turning Pro.
Miller is more ahead in his development in that regard. He has the strong fundamental background, and has already started building on that when he was in the USHL.
For Miller, its applying his foundation to continue developing his offensive game. Because, as we know offensive pressure begins from smart defensive involvement. Can't float and be effective. Have to be involved.
Miller was always a skilled player, though. If you read an interview about what he prides his game on, its that he grew up idolizing Kovalev, so he worked on his puck skills from a young age, and it shows, but what sets him apart is his love for the physical game, and him realizing that the best players are good both ways.
All reasons why I liked this player at the draft. He's a player that understands. He gets "it". The mystical "it" that folks talk about. Like Callahan. Its a mentality.
Kreider and McIlrath also have that "it" in their makeup.
As do Girardi, McDonagh, Sauer, Del Zotto, Dubinsky, Richards, Lundqvist, Prust...and now we see how the club is being built.
A never quit attitude. And that's why guys like Grchev ask for a trade, because they don't have the will to press through, instead of sulk, when things get tough. Unfortunately, I too, was blinded by the dominance he showed at Brampton. Unfortunately, we found out it was smoke and mirrors. Hind sight is 20/20.
I don't know how much you guys have talked about him, but I really have to say he's something. I have seen lots of elite players in Finnish Elite League, SM-Liiga, over the years. Jussi Jokinen, Joni Pitkänen, Pekka Rinne, Brian Rafalski, Tim Thomas etc. I haven't ever seen as ready NHL-caliber goal scorer as Tomas Zaborsky.
He's pretty fast, good shooting guy and what amazes me most, is his ability to be in the game in every shift. He's making some tricks all the time in our league, scored 24 goals in 30 games and is in pace of 48 goals which would be the league all-time-record.
Great player, he's going to have fruitful NHL career.
Zaborsky was a good ECHL player who looked okay in his brief time in the AHL. I don't think he's strong enough to become an NHL regular. Additionally, I doubt that he'll ever look to come back to North America. He can make more money and have a larger role playing in Europe.
Also, we traded him a while back. I believe his rights are owned by Anaheim at the moment.
Zaborsky was a good ECHL player who looked okay in his brief time in the AHL. I don't think he's strong enough to become an NHL regular. Additionally, I doubt that he'll ever look to come back to North America. He can make more money and have a larger role playing in Europe.
Also, we traded him a while back. I believe his rights are owned by Anaheim at the moment.
We traded him for McCue, who was an ECHLer at the time and is now playing in the CHL, which is another step down from the ECHL to the point where it is not considered a developmental league.
I think the Whale(Wolfpack) has proven itself to be a great development path for our two way forwards, of which Miller fits that description. The people we have had trouble developing are the guys who are used to being an offensive force and then are forced to quickly learn the defensive side of the game.
I think that's the key difference between Grachev and Miller when discussing their best development path.
I think it's premature to draw any conclusions between Miller and Grachev. They're different players, and frankly, Miller has the intangibles you want in a prospect that Grachev never seemed to attain; i.e., work ethic, hockey IQ, and the ability to elevate his game to the level of those around him if he's not the best player on the ice.
He has NHL level skills, a good head on his shoulder, and is good on both sides of the puck. He's another guy who could never find his offensive game but still easily end up as a 3rd line player on an NHL team.
By bringing Grachev into it, you automatically draw the comparison.
Absolutely not. Consider this statement: "My last long-term relationship didn't work out with Jane, so nobody can guarantee that things work out with Tiffany." Does that mean that the two women are the same?
Grachev and Miller are different types of players, that's obvious to the blind. But they are/were both 19, they are/were both at a fragile stage in their career, and they did not dominate the juniors before to the AHL early. If anything, people were more sure about Grachev dominating juniors at this age than about Miller today. In this sense, the comparison is valid: calling up kids too early harms their career.
This has nothing to do with their style of play, intelligence, etc. It's a basic argument against rushing kids, and in favor of playing things safe.
--
As for Grimaldi, my 75-25 ratio was a general estimate. Historically, players drafted in the late first / early second round had about a 50-50 chance to become a productive hockey player (and I mean productive, not just someone who played 12 career games). Now, I don't know if this is 50-50 or 55-45, and of course it depends on the particular draft, but it's about in this ballpark.
So my thinking was that Grimaldi probably has double the chance to become a bust than other players do. This isn't an exact science of anything kind, but a statement that I think Grimaldi has a significantly higher chance to become a bust.
I understand you weren't comparing the players, rather the situations. Or the potential for the situation.
I agree, its always a concern that needs to be taken into account.
But the differences do lie in the players.
Grachev was a guy in Brampton that knew he was bigger and stronger then his competition, and he exploited that. He didn't learn the game as much as he just dominated weaker competition. And that sent him for a loop when he then had to face stronger, wiley competition in professional hockey.
He started to progress, slowly. But demanded a trade, and that was that.
But you know the situation, I don't need to explain it, but im trying to get to a case point.
Miller is an intelligent player. He's heady. He sees the ice in a way Grachev doesn't. He reads the play. He focused on being a smart defensive player at a young age, where Grachev hadn't learned that foundation before turning Pro.
Miller is more ahead in his development in that regard. He has the strong fundamental background, and has already started building on that when he was in the USHL.
For Miller, its applying his foundation to continue developing his offensive game. Because, as we know offensive pressure begins from smart defensive involvement. Can't float and be effective. Have to be involved.
Miller was always a skilled player, though. If you read an interview about what he prides his game on, its that he grew up idolizing Kovalev, so he worked on his puck skills from a young age, and it shows, but what sets him apart is his love for the physical game, and him realizing that the best players are good both ways.
All reasons why I liked this player at the draft. He's a player that understands. He gets "it". The mystical "it" that folks talk about. Like Callahan. Its a mentality.
Kreider and McIlrath also have that "it" in their makeup.
As do Girardi, McDonagh, Sauer, Del Zotto, Dubinsky, Richards, Lundqvist, Prust...and now we see how the club is being built.
A never quit attitude. And that's why guys like Grchev ask for a trade, because they don't have the will to press through, instead of sulk, when things get tough. Unfortunately, I too, was blinded by the dominance he showed at Brampton. Unfortunately, we found out it was smoke and mirrors. Hind sight is 20/20.
You missed the one who gets "it" the most and that's Step.
I think it's premature to draw any conclusions between Miller and Grachev. They're different players, and frankly, Miller has the intangibles you want in a prospect that Grachev never seemed to attain; i.e., work ethic, hockey IQ, and the ability to elevate his game to the level of those around him if he's not the best player on the ice.
Look, if Miller comes in and blows everyone away in September, then fine, put him in the AHL or even the NHL.
But the problem is that people seem to want teenagers to turn pro based on them outplaying Ceresnak and other 18 year olds who were chosen in late rounds. "He looked good in Traverse" is not an argument for someone making the AHL, much less than the NHL.
Traverse has a couple early picks and a couple experienced guys, but the rest are teenagers who were drafted late or undrafted at all. Obviously a first rounder should look good next to them. Think about how good Bourque and Parlett looked against this competition.
Traverse is at most ECHL-level hockey, but probably with less depth because late picks who are still only 18 aren't playing even ECHL hockey.
You remember how Stepan looked in the WJC two years ago? It looked like he was the father toying around with his sons. That's why he made the NHL half a year later. He looked out of place with even the most talented teenagers.
That's how Miller and every other teenager needs to look before we consider him for a spot in the NHL before he's old enough to buy beer. Even for the AHL, I want to see not a "good" performance in Traverse, I want to see a dominant performance because the AHL is much better competition than Traverse.
Absolutely not. Consider this statement: "My last long-term relationship didn't work out with Jane, so nobody can guarantee that things work out with Tiffany." Does that mean that the two women are the same?
But that's not what you said. That sentence doesn't equate to, "Remember what happened to Jane?" There's a menacing implication to that line that isn't in your rephrasing. I don't have a problem with you arguing against rushing guys. I just found that opening statement inflammatory.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerEsq
As for Grimaldi, my 75-25 ratio was a general estimate. Historically, players drafted in the late first / early second round had about a 50-50 chance to become a productive hockey player (and I mean productive, not just someone who played 12 career games). Now, I don't know if this is 50-50 or 55-45, and of course it depends on the particular draft, but it's about in this ballpark.
So my thinking was that Grimaldi probably has double the chance to become a bust than other players do. This isn't an exact science of anything kind, but a statement that I think Grimaldi has a significantly higher chance to become a bust.
Then say that. Just say you think Grimaldi has a high chance of becoming a bust, but is worth the gamble. Don't smack a ratio on it that has no actual verifiable basis, without qualifying it. Your assertions don't bother me. You just shouldn't try and back your them up with phony numbers, or jump to conclusions based on stuff like junior scoring rates. That's why people get mad at you sometimes.
Exciting times with the prospects in the system...
I am really having a difficult time thinking who is going to be a better NHL player. Miller or Kreider.
Miller is doing very well statistically the year after his draft at well over a PPG. This is not even including his intangibles. I can see him being a Dubinsky or a Scott Hartnell type of player
Kreider is now starting to REALLY produce points after a few years after being drafted. I can see him being a Brian Rolston or Erik Cole type of player in the NHL.
Here is a guy who can skate, shoot, and is big. A guy who not only scored a lot at the WJC level, but even made the WC as a teenager.
Honestly, while I think it is possible that he becomes another Sjostrom, I highly doubt it. I will be sorely disappointed if he does not become a 25-25 or better player.
I am normally the person who tells everyone to temper their expectations, that if we get a high quality third liner from our #19 pick we should be satisfied, that we should not create big expectations got unproven kids, but come on, if Kreider doesn't become a very good second liner or better, something is wrong with his head.
His physical tools are ridiculous. I mean how many people have the shot of a scorer, the size of a goon and the speed almost of an Olympic speed skater?
Miller is a nice prospect and I think it was an excellent choice at #15 that I would gladly make again, but I want him to make the adult WC team before we declare him better than Kreider.
Yeah, I have a hard time imagining a solid case that puts Miller over Kreider. I like them both a lot, but Kreider has the advantage in ceiling and development time.
Yeah, I have a hard time imagining a solid case that puts Miller over Kreider. I like them both a lot, but Kreider has the advantage in ceiling and development time.
If both pan out I could see a player like Miller having a greater influence/impact on a game to game basis, with his vision & puck control.
Kreider is obviously further ahead on his development curve due to his age & experience so it's easy to defer to him at this point... But when Miller is 21, if all goes well between now and then point, watch out because he will be a very valuable Center.
