Of course, Kane posted those numbers as a 19yo vs. 21yo. I would probably make that trade if it was 16 instead of 11, although you'd have to do your homework about his character first. I don't have much question that Kane's upside is higher.
At this point I'd project Johansson more closely to a Milan Michalek type. That said it's hard to project a forward like him when his time in the NHL has overall been played without much of a refined possession approach. Put him on a more structured team that seems to actually practice offensive fundamentals and building chemistry and I'd be more comfortable making an assessment one way or another. That combined with the positional changes makes him a difficult player to get a real good read on. Strength and conditioning on this team isn't where it needs to be either.
I'm curious: If this team does nothing in the way of trades next weekend, what would McPhee have to do in free agency for the off-season to be considered a success from a team building standpoint? Would he have to land Suter or Parise? Is the market otherwise adequate for other moves to position them well enough to play a more up-tempo style? Would something like Jokinen+2W be enough?
I think the Mojo hate is coming more from his blown chances rather then his production. Mojo could have easily had 10+ more goals if he was strong on his stick or had some sense of how to finish. I have far more memorys of mojo starring into the air after blowing a easy tap in goal then him celebrating.
The good news is if he can gain some muscle and get better at converting his scoring chances he could have a big jump in points. And im sure most GMs see this in him.
Of course, Kane posted those numbers as a 19yo vs. 21yo. I would probably make that trade if it was 16 instead of 11, although you'd have to do your homework about his character first. I don't have much question that Kane's upside is higher.
At this point I'd project Johansson more closely to a Milan Michalek type. That said it's hard to project a forward like him when his time in the NHL has overall been played without much of a refined possession approach. Put him on a more structured team that seems to actually practice offensive fundamentals and building chemistry and I'd be more comfortable making an assessment one way or another. That combined with the positional changes makes him a difficult player to get a real good read on. Strength and conditioning on this team isn't where it needs to be either.
I'm curious: If this team does nothing in the way of trades next weekend, what would McPhee have to do in free agency for the off-season to be considered a success from a team building standpoint? Would he have to land Suter or Parise? Is the market otherwise adequate for other moves to position them well enough to play a more up-tempo style? Would something like Jokinen+2W be enough?
IMO he has to do the following:
1) Let Wideman walk and re-sign Green at no more than his current cap hit
2) Fill all of the top 6 holes (8-19-???, 90/21/???-90/21/???-???), preferably with not 90 or 21 (90 not ready yet, 21 not good enough)
3) Get another 1st or 2nd pair LD
4) Get rid of the excess veteran bottom pair D contracts (remember my 10D lineup?) (55, 4). The kids can play callup duty and 44 can rest while they're up.
5) Draft at least one successful prospect in the first round (obviously, we probably won't be able to grade this until a few years down the road) and preferably another one in the later rounds
It doesn't matter in the least what age each player was. It's not like once a player hits 21, he has some sort of epiphany and learns to play. NHL experience is much more relevant.
And I'd go so far as to argue that a 19 year old Evander Kane was more physically prepared than a 21 year old Marcus Johansson for the physical grind of the NHL.
It doesn't matter in the least what age each player was. It's not like once a player hits 21, he has some sort of epiphany and learns to play. NHL experience is much more relevant.
Of course it matters because it's not just about NHL experience when it comes to a development curve. I wouldn't assess Joe Thornton's 18yo rookie season similar to, say, Couture's or Henrique's at 20. The same applies in a sophomore season. Down the line there's no way I'd compare Kuznetsov's rookie or sophomore season with an 18/19yo even if their respective NHL experience tracks closely.
Quote:
And I'd go so far as to argue that a 19 year old Evander Kane was more physically prepared than a 21 year old Marcus Johansson for the physical grind of the NHL.
...which can't be overlooked when projecting out upside. Johansson shouldn't really get the benefit of the doubt that his inadequacies at an older age is any sort of benefit.
Of course it matters because it's not just about NHL experience when it comes to a development curve. I wouldn't assess Joe Thornton's 18yo rookie season similar to, say, Couture's or Henrique's at 20. The same applies in a sophomore season. Down the line there's no way I'd compare Kuznetsov's rookie or sophomore season with an 18/19yo even if their respective NHL experience tracks closely.
...which can't be overlooked when projecting out upside. Johansson shouldn't really get the benefit of the doubt that his inadequacies at an older age is any sort of benefit.
Sorry, don't buy it. At all. It doesn't matter. Age is just a number. It's like people arguing Crosby's rookie year was better than Ovechkin's because he was younger. You want to look at each player and evaluate their specific physical and mental maturity? That's fine. That makes sense.
Joe Thornton at 18 was a lanky, physically immature kid. Henrique and Couture had grown into their frames much more.
I don't see how Johansson lack of physical maturity at this point is a knock on his upside. He's got more room to develop in the physical department than Kane.
Joe Thornton at 18 was a lanky, physically immature kid. Henrique and Couture had grown into their frames much more.
Then we agree that greater context is needed beyond sheer NHL experience. I give an 18yo more of a pass in that regard than someone that's played against men for four years at 21. It should not be that big of an issue.
Quote:
I don't see how Johansson lack of physical maturity at this point is a knock on his upside. He's got more room to develop in the physical department than Kane.
Conversely, Kane is more advanced at a younger age and there's less imagination required in picturing his peak output. Maybe Johansson has a huge third season but Kane's is already in the books.
It's not a knock on his upside, it's just that he's further from that ceiling and it requires more faith that greater strength will lead to other things falling into place. I don't really look at his game and think 'oh, all he needs is strength and he'll be a pretty dynamic player.' So there's a fair amount of conjecture there. If he's to remain on the wing he's going to need to up his goal scoring and forechecking ability. If at center then his offensive hockey sense, vision and creativity. I think he could be dynamic enough at 2C with his current frame if he had the explosive skill set but he doesn't outside of speed. That's what makes him so difficult to project. His lack of strength almost looms over everything else in his game and if he were a smarter or more crafty player that doesn't necessarily need to be the case.
But, again, he maybe most of all could really benefit from coherent skill development and a structured offensive approach that makes the forwards smarter, more aware and cohesive.
Idk what you guys think of incarcerated bob but: Incarcerated Bob @***************
**UPDATED NHL RUMOR**Source: Oilers heated up discussions with 3 teams in regards to trading out of #1 spot ( Habs / Leafs) Caps #Darkhorse
Take it for what its worth. Idk if I'd do it cuz it would most likely take alllllot
Idk what you guys think of incarcerated bob but: Incarcerated Bob @***************
**UPDATED NHL RUMOR**Source: Oilers heated up discussions with 3 teams in regards to trading out of #1 spot ( Habs / Leafs) Caps #Darkhorse
Take it for what its worth. Idk if I'd do it cuz it would most likely take alllllot
I understand this, and I think Mojo will definitely be a very good 2C in a few years, but the fact of the matter is our cup window is closing and we need a 2C, now... not in a few years.
If we agree with the premise that the 'cup window' is indeed now open why would it be closing in a few years? What key players now will not be up to the task in a few years?
I think the Mojo hate is coming more from his blown chances rather then his production. Mojo could have easily had 10+ more goals if he was strong on his stick or had some sense of how to finish. I have far more memorys of mojo starring into the air after blowing a easy tap in goal then him celebrating.
The good news is if he can gain some muscle and get better at converting his scoring chances he could have a big jump in points. And im sure most GMs see this in him.
I am not a MoJo hater, but I was disappointed in his overrall performance last year, especially in the playoffs. He looked both physically and mentally immature. And where does he play? Center or wing? A nice, hard, offseason workout program and some direction from whoever will be the HC could do a lot for him heading into next year, IMO.
I would not like to see MoJo traded. I think the kid is on the cusp of getting his act together.
Contending teams aren't the place for developing players. Either you are ready to play, or you are not.
Disagree. There's a difference between being ready to play generally speaking as an NHL player at the NHL level and being ready to play a given role. Strong franchises and well coached teams put players in a position to thrive, fill a role with confidence and develop from there based on their applied readiness. There are a lot of examples over the years of inadequate player development and expecting too much too soon. This is the flaw in youth for youth's sake with inadequate focus on the process, as amplified by a strong leadership core. In such unstable situations development is reliant largely on the individual.
If they had a more realistic slotting in of players or greater lineup versatility it would be easier to manage any lack of performance across the board when it happens. A continued lack of quality versatile back-up options (or serious Plan A options) up front really handcuffs whoever takes over behind the bench and puts their developmental ability to the test. Johansson is one of those issues but far from the only one. There are a lot of roles up front that are either unfilled entirely or poorly allotted.
Specific to MJ, from game 1 he was put into a scoring role, right through the end of the playoffs. A year ago I projected Laich and his fresh C promissory note, to be on 2. He had done well enough on a scoring line to warrant that contract after all. Plus, I didn't want a checker making that money, nor did I want MJ Semin butter softness.
But Laich was our checking C until late in the playoffs. This all but ensured MJ faced a high expectation to be a scorer. C didnt seem to go well.. ok lets try wing, changing position instead of a no brainer bump down. With the playoffs on the line, coming down the wing with the puck time after time, he had nothing. It was ugly.
I had projected and preferred MJ to be a 3C with big burly wingers. No, his faceoffs wouldn't have been much worse than Laich. As a swede C, smart defensive play is second nature to him. Be put in a place to succeed like a well run team is wise to do. Have Laich the high paid vet take the offensive pressure.
Given what Jones signed for what do people think Parenteau will get? I think he would look great with Ovechkin and Backstrom personally.
I don't think he's a very popular option around here, but I like him a lot. And I don't think his past season was a fluke. I think he could be had for $4.0 if you give him term (6 years). I'd actually prefer him on the second line -mostly because I don't think we're going to get a real second line center. Parenteau is very shifty/creative and a good passer off the wing. It's not ideal, but I would understand the logic behind it.
