And that's what is really scary about what Carolina has going on down there.
They won last year but they still have got guys like Ladd & Johnson coming through the system to compliment Staal who is only 21, Ward is a little older and guys like Cole who are just now entering their peak seasons.
Anton Babchuk looks like he will be a solid Dman as well for them..kinda crazy..
Quote:
id love to grab ladd as well, id move immonen to get him. they can use help at centre since they dealt vasicek and let weight and cullen go.
And attempts to acquire BOTH Johnson and Ladd is pretty much impossible I would think...I don't see how an offer of Toots, Montoya, Immonen and a 1st would make that deal happen..would take alot more..
I think Erik plays the better all-around game right now, but I also think he's closer to the finished product than Jack. People don't realize how raw Jack still is and how there are certain elements to his game that are still coming together. This kid is very similar to Dion Phaneuf in the sense that he's got the potential to be a Scott Stevens clone.
There's certain elements in Jack's game such as offense and physical play that are still maturing. I think Erik is steaider, more polished and more poised but it wouldn't surprise me in the least to see Jack putting up better offensive numbers and overshadowing Erik with his physical elements.
The debate I find myself in with JJ is the one I found myself in with Dion.
You defense with lots of tools but very raw, a work in progress. Guys steadier and more developed at the same age (say 19) but give him a few years and the conversations will seem almost silly.
I remember back in 04 people fought me tooth and nail about my thoughts that not only was Phaneuf the best defenseman in that draft but that he had a ton of emerging offensive talent. Suddenly in the last two years, EVERYONE is a Phaneuf fan. But if it wasn't for those people I wouldn't have the reputation I do because it's frankly built on people looking back again and again and saying "Yup, Edge was right". If it sounds like an ego trip, that's fine by me. I have faith in my ability to judge players, and contrary to what some might say, not all opinions are equal no matter how much someone claims they know just as much. (This isn't directed at you, just me making a statement so I repeat this is NOT a shot at you).
I'll say flat out, right now, JJ has THAT kind of potential and he's already heading in the right direction. Now that he's not the shiny new car on the lot, everyone wants to kick the tires and try to get him at a discount (such is the way with prospects) but make no bones, this kid is a bluechip defensive prospect.
No offense taken.
Phaneuf was 03 draft though.
I agree with you on JJ, he is a bluechip prospect, but what I've been trying to say is, at this point, he is no Malkin, that kind of return for a raw and unproven commodity is riduclous. I'm not going to comparing Johnson and Montoya here, that's like apples and oranges, but if Johnson's going to fetch that, what do you think Montoya should fetch? Both are not clearly the #1 prospects in their positions as there is some stiff competition out there, but both have VERY high ceilings. The big difference is like you said, JJ is still raw. The reason why I bring up Montoya is because it's intriguing to come across this scenario from a different point of view, looking on the outside in, I'd like to relate that insight to Montoya, on the inside. I think Johnson is a better prospect if you ask me, as his ceiling is probably a tad bit higher, but Montoya's position is one of the utmost value. A franchise goaltender is VERY hard to come by, and Al certainly has the makings of one.
I don't mean to go off on a tangent here, something else I've thought about... how Staal's steady and more polished play makes him the less attractive prospect. Meaning people are comparing JJ to Stevens, while Staal draws comparisons - the most notable from Perry Pearn, who coached both - to Wade Redden. Meaning at this point, Staal's development has come along better. Staal also wasn't too far behind JJ at the 05 draft. At that point, Carolina had to decide between the younger Staal and JJ, and picked JJ. That is also always going to give Johnson the edge in any argument or comparison. Wouldn't it be pretty fair to say that straight up, a swap would be even? The same could be said for Montoya and Barker if you ask me. Both have had injury troubles, both were top 10 draft picks in 04, and both are bluechip prospects at their respective positions. People like to overrate their prospects and demand lucrative returns for them, when in reality, there's only one prospect that can command that kind of return, and that's Evgeni Malkin. Malkin has not only cemented himself as the best player in the world outside of the NHL, but he's one of the best prospects we've seen in a while. JJ simply is just not of that caliber. Bring out of all of the Stevens comparisons you want, he is not overwhelmingly good to a point where he DOMINATED PROFESSIONALS IN INTERNATIONAL PLAY. As much as I would love to have Jack Johnson, I would not severely overpay for him. If Tyutin's development were to have come along a little better, Tyutin could have been a centerpiece in a Ranger offer. Tyutin, and a 1st you said could have likely been the deal. Or... Tyutin, Immonen, and a 1st, since I don't think Carolina would take Montoya as he is not needed. Malkin could net half of some team's farm system, Johnson should not be able to do that. That's not a knock at him by any means.
I agree with you on JJ, he is a bluechip prospect, but what I've been trying to say is, at this point, he is no Malkin, that kind of return for a raw and unproven commodity is riduclous. I'm not going to comparing Johnson and Montoya here, that's like apples and oranges, but if Johnson's going to fetch that, what do you think Montoya should fetch? Both are not clearly the #1 prospects in their positions as there is some stiff competition out there, but both have VERY high ceilings. The big difference is like you said, JJ is still raw. The reason why I bring up Montoya is because it's intriguing to come across this scenario from a different point of view, looking on the outside in, I'd like to relate that insight to Montoya, on the inside. I think Johnson is a better prospect if you ask me, as his ceiling is probably a tad bit higher, but Montoya's position is one of the utmost value. A franchise goaltender is VERY hard to come by, and Al certainly has the makings of one.
I think a lot of it comes down to how they are percieved. Johnson is seen is probably seen as having better odds of becoming one of the top defenseman of his generation than Montoya is of achieving the same amongst goaltenders.
Also, and this isn't my rule, teams just generally do not go for young goalies.
Quote:
I don't mean to go off on a tangent here, something else I've thought about... how Staal's steady and more polished play makes him the less attractive prospect. Meaning people are comparing JJ to Stevens, while Staal draws comparisons - the most notable from Perry Pearn, who coached both - to Wade Redden. Meaning at this point, Staal's development has come along better. Staal also wasn't too far behind JJ at the 05 draft. At that point, Carolina had to decide between the younger Staal and JJ, and picked JJ. That is also always going to give Johnson the edge in any argument or comparison. Wouldn't it be pretty fair to say that straight up, a swap would be even?
Personally I'd take Johnson, I just don't think it makes sense to move one for the other. I think Staal is steadier than Johnson, but Johnson on his best nights is better than Staal IMO. So it really comes down to whether you believe Johnson developes to the point where he's just as consistent or close to as consistent as Staal. If he gets to that point, I think he's the better defenseman. But it really comes down to who will be better in the long run. Johnson's style of play, by nature is not going to come along as fast as Staal's. Not when there's high level offensive ability or where physical play is as intrigal to that style. I don't think Staal has necessarily come along better (because JJ was damn good as a freshman last season) so much his style involves less development by leaps and bounds.
To some extent I do believe Staal has been a bit overhyped because of A. his name and B. his place on the Rangers depth chart. Take nothing away from what he's done, but I don't see Staal as being one of the top 5 defenseman of his generation. Johnson has THAT ability. Staal is safer than Johnson though, less pieces have to fall into place and his style will be more about fine tuning than drastically progressing. Personally I thought Staal's progress last season was right on course for where it should be if he was going to keep developing, somewhere in that though people treated it like it was this miraculous transformation.
So personally I don't think it's a straight swap. If Johnson keeps developing, and so far he's done that (I think the flack he gets is for not jumping to the NHL) I think he's just flat out a game dominating defenseman.
Quote:
The same could be said for Montoya and Barker if you ask me. Both have had injury troubles, both were top 10 draft picks in 04, and both are bluechip prospects at their respective positions. People like to overrate their prospects and demand lucrative returns for them, when in reality, there's only one prospect that can command that kind of return, and that's Evgeni Malkin.
That I disagree with. For starts neither Montoya nor Barker, despite their hight ceilings were seen as "can't miss, going to be in the top 5 players in the game" category. The only thing that kepy Malkin from more hype at the time of the draft, was Ovechkin.
Malkin's ransom would have been very high. Barker to me has always been overrated and outside of one rookie camp has been heading the wrong direction since draft day.
Montoya, as stated, is a goalie and whether we like it or not they just don't get returns without being in the NHL. Maybe it's wrong, maybe it's not right but that's just the way it is. Any discussion about guessing values just has to throw goalies out the window because there is simply little to nothing in NHL history to go off.
Quote:
Malkin has not only cemented himself as the best player in the world outside of the NHL, but he's one of the best prospects we've seen in a while. JJ simply is just not of that caliber. Bring out of all of the Stevens comparisons you want, he is not overwhelmingly good to a point where he DOMINATED PROFESSIONALS IN INTERNATIONAL PLAY.
Problem is the return for Johnson wouldn't have landed Malkin so I don't really think that point makes a lot of sense. Malkin's price would have been much more, so no one is asking for Malkin prices for Johnson. The names we mentioned would NOT have landed Malkin. With Malkin you'd be looking at Staal, Prucha and more to get it done. There's just no comparison to what even carolina would be looking for with Johnson.
Secondly, when we look at a lot of the top defenseman of various generations VERY VERY few were world dominators at an early age. The development of defenseman just doesn't work that way. Not for Phaneuf at 19, not for Stevens, not for Leetch, etc. Unless we want to go into Bobby Orr territory, the overwhelming majority of top defenseman over the last 15 years were not dominating at that point, not consistently at least.
Quote:
As much as I would love to have Jack Johnson, I would not severely overpay for him. If Tyutin's development were to have come along a little better, Tyutin could have been a centerpiece in a Ranger offer. Tyutin, and a 1st you said could have likely been the deal. Or... Tyutin, Immonen, and a 1st, since I don't think Carolina would take Montoya as he is not needed. Malkin could net half of some team's farm system, Johnson should not be able to do that. That's not a knock at him by any means.
Giving up more than what you're offering is not what I'd consider giving up half the farm. I think there is a huge gap between what Malkin would have cost and what Johnson costs and I don't think what we've discussed is even remotely close to the neighborhood of Malkin.
Again with Malkin you're looking at Staal, Prucha, Immonen/Dubinsky as your starting point. Those names are not being mentioned with Johnson. Big big gap there. I think your viewing these Johnson "offers" as being closer to Malkin territory and I think flat out that these "offers" aren't even in the city limits of Malkin was going to cost.
But either way, I just do not see the Rangers landing Johnson. I think he's going to Pitts. to play with Crosby and Jordan Staal is eventually joining his brother. It just makes me too much sense for both team's for it to fall any other way.
To respond to both Xander and Gretz, personally I don't think Tyutin gets it done or the Canes see him that way but strangers things have happened. I just wouldn't hope too hard.
May I ask then, although you've already said you thing the 2 teams make poor trading partners, who do you think would be "fair" return for JJ?
I think a lot of it comes down to how they are percieved. Johnson is seen is probably seen as having better odds of becoming one of the top defenseman of his generation than Montoya is of achieving the same amongst goaltenders.
Also, and this isn't my rule, teams just generally do not go for young goalies.
I don't know if I necessarily agree with that, Montoya is a future elite goaltending prospect. He is a guy who has the potential to win 35-40 games, if you ask me.
Quote:
Personally I'd take Johnson, I just don't think it makes sense to move one for the other. I think Staal is steadier than Johnson, but Johnson on his best nights is better than Staal IMO. So it really comes down to whether you believe Johnson developes to the point where he's just as consistent or close to as consistent as Staal. If he gets to that point, I think he's the better defenseman. But it really comes down to who will be better in the long run. Johnson's style of play, by nature is not going to come along as fast as Staal's. Not when there's high level offensive ability or where physical play is as intrigal to that style. I don't think Staal has necessarily come along better (because JJ was damn good as a freshman last season) so much his style involves less development by leaps and bounds.
Johnson's upside might be a bit higher because of his flashier play. The question is, does Johnson have the ability to raise his play to the next level in crunch time? Staal has already shown that he can be thrown right into the fire, and raise his game, something that you RARELY see out of a 18 year old defender, how old he was at the time of last seasons training camp. I agree with you, when you say that Johnson's style will hamper his development in terms of length, it will take him a little longer, but I do believe that Staal has already shown signs of being a great defender at such a young age. Not many kids can adjust to a different level of the game in such a short time like he did.
Quote:
To some extent I do believe Staal has been a bit overhyped because of A. his name and B. his place on the Rangers depth chart. Take nothing away from what he's done, but I don't see Staal as being one of the top 5 defenseman of his generation. Johnson has THAT ability. Staal is safer than Johnson though, less pieces have to fall into place and his style will be more about fine tuning than drastically progressing. Personally I thought Staal's progress last season was right on course for where it should be if he was going to keep developing, somewhere in that though people treated it like it was this miraculous transformation.
I dont think his name has ANYTHING to do with this if you ask me. If he was a forward, persay, like Jordan, that could be the case. I'm not saying Jordan is overhyped, he might be, but I don't know. Developmental patters for defenders are COMPLETELY different from forwards. Defenders usually don't come along until they're in their mid 20's, if they've been playing since 18 or 19. Some don't make it to the NHL until they're 21, 22. A lot of forwards make it at a younger age because there are different responsibilites to handle. Defenders if you ask me have the most responsibilities of any of the positions in hockey, that's why I believe drafting a franchise defender is the hardest of all of the positions. You may not see Staal as one of the best defenders of his generation, that's fair, but I see a very steady #1 defender who can take a team to the promised land if surrounded with the right players on the right team.
Quote:
So personally I don't think it's a straight swap. If Johnson keeps developing, and so far he's done that (I think the flack he gets is for not jumping to the NHL) I think he's just flat out a game dominating defenseman.
You're right, the flack he is getting, from Rutherford, is for not going into the NHL. Right now, if you ask me, it has to be a straight swap, if you're trading him straight up. Either that, you're giving up a first round pick, and mid level prospect. Developmentally, I think Staal has come along a lot better to this point. Where we stand a year from now could be a completely different story, but if I were to do this trade now, I think the most fair value for him would straight up be Staal, and if that didn't get it done, a 2nd round pick would be the most I would throw in there. They were both first rounders, both in the top 15, in the same draft class, and Staal's development has come further along to this point, but yet, because of upside - both projecting to be #1's - Johnson gets the edge? I don't see the logic in it at all.
Quote:
That I disagree with. For starts neither Montoya nor Barker, despite their hight ceilings were seen as "can't miss, going to be in the top 5 players in the game" category. The only thing that kepy Malkin from more hype at the time of the draft, was Ovechkin.
Malkin's ransom would have been very high. Barker to me has always been overrated and outside of one rookie camp has been heading the wrong direction since draft day.
Montoya, as stated, is a goalie and whether we like it or not they just don't get returns without being in the NHL. Maybe it's wrong, maybe it's not right but that's just the way it is. Any discussion about guessing values just has to throw goalies out the window because there is simply little to nothing in NHL history to go off.
I never said they were can't miss prospects. There are only a few can't miss prospects that come along every 5 or so years. I just thought of a similar situation in which two first rounders who were picked around the same time in the same draft class had similar value. I agree in the fact that Barker's value has diminished a little bit, but he is still a damn good prospect that a lot of teams and fans would love to have, myself included. If you ask me, Malkin was the best player in that 04 draft. I probably would have taken him over Ovechkin for his all-around game. Malkin has the potential to not only be a 100 point guy, but if his defense comes along, someday he could score 100 and win the Selke like Fedorov did... twice. I see Fedorov, but a more physical edge to him.
Quote:
Problem is the return for Johnson wouldn't have landed Malkin so I don't really think that point makes a lot of sense. Malkin's price would have been much more, so no one is asking for Malkin prices for Johnson. The names we mentioned would NOT have landed Malkin. With Malkin you'd be looking at Staal, Prucha and more to get it done. There's just no comparison to what even carolina would be looking for with Johnson.
Sorry to go off on a tangent about Malkin... but... THAT is what you pay a King's Ransom for. Not Johnson, a raw, undeveloped defenseman, who although has the potential to be the gamebreaker, but is still a little ways from that. I'm not saying you, or anyone on here is saying that he should garner that kind of return, but other people on other boards suggest that he should get a Malkin like return. That's why I said that.
Quote:
Secondly, when we look at a lot of the top defenseman of various generations VERY VERY few were world dominators at an early age. The development of defenseman just doesn't work that way. Not for Phaneuf at 19, not for Stevens, not for Leetch, etc. Unless we want to go into Bobby Orr territory, the overwhelming majority of top defenseman over the last 15 years were not dominating at that point, not consistently at least.
That's why I've said time and time again a franchise defenseman is the hardest of them all to develop.
Quote:
Giving up more than what you're offering is not what I'd consider giving up half the farm. I think there is a huge gap between what Malkin would have cost and what Johnson costs and I don't think what we've discussed is even remotely close to the neighborhood of Malkin.
Again with Malkin you're looking at Staal, Prucha, Immonen/Dubinsky as your starting point. Those names are not being mentioned with Johnson. Big big gap there. I think your viewing these Johnson "offers" as being closer to Malkin territory and I think flat out that these "offers" aren't even in the city limits of Malkin was going to cost.
I agree, but like I've said, some people on other boards think that a King's Ransom should be paid for Johnson. Not the case, not if he's being offered straight up. The Eric Lindros deal was and still is the biggest deal in hockey history due to the fact that he was a GENERATIONAL prospect. Jack Johnson, although has the potential to be one of the best of his generation, is not a generational prospect at this point.
Quote:
But either way, I just do not see the Rangers landing Johnson. I think he's going to Pitts. to play with Crosby and Jordan Staal is eventually joining his brother. It just makes me too much sense for both team's for it to fall any other way.
I agree, so aside from conversation's sake, it's really almost pointless to debate this. Oh well, I guess it's a good way to make the offseason go by on here though, heh.
I don't know if I necessarily agree with that, Montoya is a future elite goaltending prospect. He is a guy who has the potential to win 35-40 games, if you ask me.
No arguments there from me, but I think if you polled most people he's not quite on that level of Johnson. I think the general consensus is that Johnson probably has the higher odds to become that elite player at his position. Not necessarily my view, but probably the one of those you'd ask.
Quote:
Johnson's upside might be a bit higher because of his flashier play. The question is, does Johnson have the ability to raise his play to the next level in crunch time? Staal has already shown that he can be thrown right into the fire, and raise his game, something that you RARELY see out of a 18 year old defender, how old he was at the time of last seasons training camp. I agree with you, when you say that Johnson's style will hamper his development in terms of length, it will take him a little longer, but I do believe that Staal has already shown signs of being a great defender at such a young age. Not many kids can adjust to a different level of the game in such a short time like he did.
And it's not really a knock on Staal, so much as Johnson would probably be seen as having a higher level above that.
Quote:
I dont think his name has ANYTHING to do with this if you ask me. If he was a forward, persay, like Jordan, that could be the case. I'm not saying Jordan is overhyped, he might be, but I don't know. Developmental patters for defenders are COMPLETELY different from forwards. Defenders usually don't come along until they're in their mid 20's, if they've been playing since 18 or 19. Some don't make it to the NHL until they're 21, 22. A lot of forwards make it at a younger age because there are different responsibilites to handle. Defenders if you ask me have the most responsibilities of any of the positions in hockey, that's why I believe drafting a franchise defender is the hardest of all of the positions. You may not see Staal as one of the best defenders of his generation, that's fair, but I see a very steady #1 defender who can take a team to the promised land if surrounded with the right players on the right team.
I think if he wasn't a Staal he probably gets a bit more recognized for what he is: a very steady, two way defenseman who will play the game for a lot of years but probably not an ideal #1 guy. His season this year was very very good, but suddenly he's not become a #1 defenseman and a guy who could put up points, etc before finally settling back into his original role (upon the drafting of Sanguinetti) as a defensive defenseman.
I think Staal will be a very good defenseman, probably play in several all-star games but I don't see him necessarily as being the guy who is going to LEAD a team to a cup. He'll be a very vital component, but I don't see him having the impact of say a Leetch or a Stevens or someone along those lines.
Johnson, I do believe, does have that ability.
Quote:
You're right, the flack he is getting, from Rutherford, is for not going into the NHL. Right now, if you ask me, it has to be a straight swap, if you're trading him straight up. Either that, you're giving up a first round pick, and mid level prospect. Developmentally, I think Staal has come along a lot better to this point. Where we stand a year from now could be a completely different story, but if I were to do this trade now, I think the most fair value for him would straight up be Staal, and if that didn't get it done, a 2nd round pick would be the most I would throw in there. They were both first rounders, both in the top 15, in the same draft class, and Staal's development has come further along to this point, but yet, because of upside - both projecting to be #1's - Johnson gets the edge? I don't see the logic in it at all.
Personally I don't think Staal has come along "better" so much as no one expected him to come along this soon. Johnson has done what was expected of him so there's really no "news" there. Johnson would easily be playing in the NHL this coming season, Staal probably not so much.
I think if both were rookies this season Johnson would probably do better. Again nothing against Staal and whichever player you take you're ideally taking for what they'll be in 7 years now what they are today. That's the logic behind that value.
In 1986 there were a lot of defense you'd probably take before Scott Stevens, but you probably wouldn't take them ahead of Stevens in 92-98 or somewhere in that time frame.
I honestly do not think Staal projects as an ideal #1 and never have. I think that might be where we differ. Staal is a very good shut down defenseman who can move the puck, ideally he's the PARTNER of the the guy who serves as the #1 defenseman (which is a main reason I wouldn't trade Staal for Johnson because it seems like a weird swap for me).
I see Staal's development last year a very good step in the right direction to becoming what he was projected at before, a steady, very responsible and very safe defenseman who calms a defense for the next 15 years but probably isn't the cornerstone player at the position. But I think Rangers fans REALLY want this kid to be more and I think he falls into the same raised expectations a lot of kids have fallen into.
I think that for so long Ranger fans saw kids not develop that when they continue to progress they take it as a player's upside going up rather than that being what "ideally" happens or what a developing prospect "should" be doing. Guys like Moore, Dubinsky, Staal, etc. didn't suddenly go up a level, they just took the next steps towards becoming the players they were always intended to be.
I don't think a lot of Ranger fans really knew what the heck Staal was when we drafted him. But to me everything that has happened is just the natural progression to the player I thought he could become when we drafted him a year ago.
Quote:
I never said they were can't miss prospects. There are only a few can't miss prospects that come along every 5 or so years. I just thought of a similar situation in which two first rounders who were picked around the same time in the same draft class had similar value. I agree in the fact that Barker's value has diminished a little bit, but he is still a damn good prospect that a lot of teams and fans would love to have, myself included. If you ask me, Malkin was the best player in that 04 draft. I probably would have taken him over Ovechkin for his all-around game. Malkin has the potential to not only be a 100 point guy, but if his defense comes along, someday he could score 100 and win the Selke like Fedorov did... twice. I see Fedorov, but a more physical edge to him.
I really don't think Barker's value is close to the same level to be perfectly honest. Nor have I since before he was drafted. I've enver been a huge Barker fan so I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on him. I think a lot of fans are more tempted by the potential than the actual results of the past couple of years.
I'll also have to disagree on Malkin as well. Hell of a player, potential top 10 player in the NHL but Ovechkin is just on a seperate planet.
Quote:
Sorry to go off on a tangent about Malkin... but... THAT is what you pay a King's Ransom for. Not Johnson, a raw, undeveloped defenseman, who although has the potential to be the gamebreaker, but is still a little ways from that. I'm not saying you, or anyone on here is saying that he should garner that kind of return, but other people on other boards suggest that he should get a Malkin like return. That's why I said that.
I guess I have two feelings on the subject.
1. I don't think the ransom for Malkin and Johnson are close. Now if we were offering Prucha and Staal for Johnson than it would be, but we're not offering that combo so to me they are two different level trades.
What Carolina would ask for Johnson is not even close to what Pitts would ask for Malkin. Nor would I recommend anyone make an offer for Johnson they would for Malkin, that's just silly to me. I agree 100% with you there.
2. Johnson is not "undeveloped". This is the main problem I have when talking about Johnson, you'd think this kid didn't just have a GREAT freshman year of college. Jack is still developing, but he isn't "undeveloped". He could step in tomorrow and already be a better than average NHL defenseman. The thing is he isn't, but it's not from a lack of ability. I think some people somehow have it in their heads that he didn't have a great season.
Quote:
I agree, but like I've said, some people on other boards think that a King's Ransom should be paid for Johnson. Not the case, not if he's being offered straight up. The Eric Lindros deal was and still is the biggest deal in hockey history due to the fact that he was a GENERATIONAL prospect. Jack Johnson, although has the potential to be one of the best of his generation, is not a generational prospect at this point.
I agree, I would not make the same offer for Johnson that I would for Malkin. Anyone who does that it paying too much.
Quote:
I agree, so aside from conversation's sake, it's really almost pointless to debate this. Oh well, I guess it's a good way to make the offseason go by on here though, heh.
That's what offseasons are for, in the end it's all just to pass some time
