I think if he can't find a role in the top 6 but finds a spot in the bottom six he won't be labeled a bust. Not every first round pick fails because he is not a top 6 player.
So you're also limiting it to 2nd round picks, and nothing beyond that? Then yeah, I guess you win...
My point was that aside from early first-rounders (and even they can be a bust, though not as often) the round that a player is picked is a very poor yard-stick for how they will perform at the NHL level. I probably should have just stated that outright.
Are you seriously asking if I'm only using 2nd round picks to figure out the average contributions of a 2nd round pick?
Yes, I'm only using 2nd round picks to answer my question of, "what is the average contribution of a 2nd round pick."
Which round do you suggest I look at to figure out the average contribution of 2nd round picks?
Are you seriously asking if I'm only using 2nd round picks to figure out the average contributions of a 2nd round pick?
Yes, I'm only using 2nd round picks to answer my question of, "what is the average contribution of a 2nd round pick."
Which round do you suggest I look at to figure out the average contribution of 2nd round picks?
My impression was that you meant you can't expect all that much from players that aren't first round picks. One would assume that if we can't expect a high level of production from a second round pick, we should expect even less production from a third rounder, and less from a forth, etc.
To which my reply was essentially that the round of drafting doesn't matter if the player is capable of playing a high level of hockey, and it is not at all unheard of for later draft picks to develop into great players.
So yes, we can compare him to all other 2nd round picks of that year, but it's not really a fair comparison unless you allow all of them to play on a line with Malkin/Neal caliber players.
It's all speculation anyways, so the argument is really pointless.
My impression was that you meant you can't expect all that much from players that aren't first round picks. One would assume that if we can't expect a high level of production from a second round pick, we should expect even less production from a third rounder, and less from a forth, etc.
To which my reply was essentially that the round of drafting doesn't matter if the player is capable of playing a high level of hockey, and it is not at all unheard of for later draft picks to develop into great players.
So yes, we can compare him to all other 2nd round picks of that year, but it's not really a fair comparison unless you allow all of them to play on a line with Malkin/Neal caliber players.
It's all speculation anyways, so the argument is really pointless.
But your first point is accurate: you can't - or shouldn't- expect the same output from all players regardless of draft round. Tangradi was a mid 2nd round pick. If he becomes a bottom-6 player, he's probably not a bust.
Et plays like an e.t. non existant. He's a prototype big for nothing. I just watched him grabass number 4 of the jets instead of finishing him. Guys a big puss and won't even make it as bottom 6. To be a bottom 6 u gotta have sandpaper he has zero
But your first point is accurate: you can't - or shouldn't- expect the same output from all players regardless of draft round. Tangradi was a mid 2nd round pick. If he becomes a bottom-6 player, he's probably not a bust.
True. Plenty of 2nd rounders won't even have a career in the NHL.
He's on the wrong team. Too much pressure and not enough room in the top 6 to develop. I think he'll end up on another team and end up having a few good seasons.
I'm not happy with his play or the way he's being used, but no. And whether he's a bust depends on what you expected him to be. I think some people expected him to be Todd Bertuzzi or something and it's never going to happen. He's a bigger version of Kunitz (potentially) based on what I've seen of him, not a guy that's going ot score a lot or man-handle people.
43 career games, often in situations where injuries forced a haphazard lineup, and him never being given a long stretch of games in the same position on the same line. Hard to say he's a bust at about exactly 1 half of 1 NHL season guys.
If he busts at this point it will be as much a case of mishandling as him not performing. I'm not saying he's going to be a world beater or anything but the coaches aren't smart enough to figure out in practice and elsewhere, where this kid performs his best and just leave him there and let him learn and know that the coaches are not going ot pull him or start giving him 8 minutes a game if he screws up.
At this point what's pretty clear is, Bylsma doesn't know how to get the best out of this kid so we might as well trade him along with one of our D assets as long as he still has some value / upside. Maybe better for both parties that he be somewhere else.
At this point what's pretty clear is, Bylsma doesn't know how to get the best out of this kid so we might as well trade him along with one of our D assets as long as he still has some value / upside. Maybe better for both parties that he be somewhere else.
Tangradi 9:00 1 shot, 1 block, 0's the rest of the way.
And this was his best game.
Put him with Malkin and its a bad mix. Put him on the 4th line and he's not getting a chance with offensive players. Whats it going to take to get something/ anything out of this kid?
Trade his ass for a bag of Pizza Flavored Goldfish crackers and be done with him already.
so this was the game that determined his bust status? I hope someone told him going into it
This game is the kind where not just him, but any of the non regular scoring players need to step up and nobody did, nobody. Perfect time for him to show something, as is the others.
What I saw tonight didn't put me in the no, or it's too early to call mood.
Up to him to prove me wrong, I waited until tonight to vote.
He's not a bust because he was never good enough to be considered a bust if things didn't work out. He can't think or react to the game at the NHL level and probably never will.
No one here knows that but my guess is it's pretty marginal... maybe if we have a deal for D assets and it's close, Tangradi would put it over the top.
The sooner we trade him the better imo. His value has 2 be decreasing by the game. He lost out there and is ridiculously weak for his size. He rarely finishes a check and when he does he hits the guy like a pillow.
He was playing 9-10 minutes tonight with the 4th line, and they were rarely in trouble. Now you keep on playing those guys together. Unless Tangradi HURTS the line, you don't move him, because getting him to be an NHL asset is important. Either as an option further up the lineup in the future or as a trade asset.
This is what development is for a young player who isn't a top prospect, and we better ****ing learn it. Same goes for Despres who hadn't hurt us at all in three games because he is talented enough to sort out most the problems his inexperience causes. Yet now he was sent down again to absolutely no purpose other than to stiffle the development he has to go through.
I am OK with scratching youngsters who stink it up, but if we are completely incapable of developing anyone promising much less put them in roles they can succeed in, then at some point one (Bylsma) has to look inward rather than blaming the prospect.
It's also worth noting everyone who voted "too early", is essentially voting "no". They're not ready to slap that label on him yet.
Yes and no.
I remain firm that I think Tangradi will latch on as a productive player in this league if given a consistent chance to grow. He won't get that chance here and frankly he shouldn't get that chance here with his level of play. The problem is that he's never going to recapture his value for us since nobody is going to pay a premium for what he is today and our hands are basically folded considering we can't send him to the AHL again (which won't do him any good anymore anyway) and he's not good enough to be a top six player right now.
This is the problem with developing your own top flight players...most aren't going to step into the league at a high level.
Mind you I don't think Tangradi has a prayer of reaching the ceiling that was set for him years ago...but I can see him being one of those 'damn it' 20-25 goal a year guys that plays a key role on the 2nd line of a bad team or a 20 goal guy on a good team's 3rd line. He's going to be one of those guys that everyone on this board can't wait until he's off the team and then gets pissed off at Ray Shero for letting go of him for so cheap in a couple years.
__________________
“The most terrifying fact about the universe is not that it is hostile, but that it is indifferent. If we can come to terms with this indifference and accept the challenges of life within the boundaries of death, our existence as a species can have genuine meaning and fulfillment. However vast the darkness, we must supply our own light.” - Stanley Kubrick
Pretty sure the Pens could win or lose by a dozen goals and some people will only want to write a novel about Tangradi's 3 whole shifts. I don't know what he'll become and if I did I'd probably have a scouting job, but I kinda just wish he was traded so people could find another horse to beat to death.
