Prospect vs. Project
by birky on Aug 29, 2010 7:00 AM EDT
in From The Branches
Email
Print
The discussion concerning the acquisition of defender Matt Lashoff on Friday got me thinking. We, as a community, tend to throw around the word "prospect" quite often. But should we? How exactly should we define the term? I've heard players such as Lashoff, Hanson, Mueller, and others called prospects. But it seems like they would be more correctly referred to as "projects". Mueller is an undrafted twenty-two year old left winger whose highest level of play is the German Ice Hockey League. At this stage, I have a hard time describing him as a prospect. Considering his level of play, lack of previous interest from North America, and age, shouldn't he be thought of as a project? What can we really expect from a player who tied for 13th in scoring in perhaps the fourth best league in Europe? And what about Christian Hanson? How do we classify him? He's twenty-four, was an undrafted player out of the NCAA, and his role with the organization is ambiguous at best. Where exactly does he fit?
Here's my question for all of you: Should we differentiate between a "prospect" and a "project"? Is there a point that a player should no longer be considered a prospect, but not yet capped out his potential? Would you consider Christian Hanson or Matt Lashoff, twenty-somethings with AHL/NHL experience but yet to clearly define their niche in the sport, still prospects? I would not. But let's hear what you have to say and why.
Links after the jump.
Sunday links:
Someone Left the Cake out in the Rain
Yakov dissects the Leafs newest acquisition.
Seven Players that can Lift the Leafs into the Playoffs
The General deals out more of his top commodity: hope.
Leafs still have a long climb out of the cellar
Michael Traikos of the National Post examines the predictions of The Hockey News.
The General on MacArthur, Sir!
LeafsHQ examines the MacArthur deal.
12 Burning Questions: Will the Maple Leafs finally return to the playoffs?
MLHS asking the question for the upcoming season.
Competition for "bottom-six" forward positions can only help.
Vintage Leaf Memories looks at the suddenly cramped battle for spots on the checking lines.
Missed your post? Throw it in the comments.
133 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Should we differentiate between a “prospect” and a “project”?
I don’t think there’s a need really. Hopefully this doesn’t become an argument about semantics, but if I had to – here’s how I’d differentiate.
Anyone who is not playing for the big club, but is a candidate in the system with ANY hope of making it – I’d call a prospect. This would include Mueller, Hanson, Lashoff, etc.
As for “project”, one could argue that every player in the system is a project, no? Even at the highest level, each one of these guys is developing. At the lower levels, I would say even more. It seems by the proposed definition, Mueller – who, if he’s going to make it, will have to fine tune his game to the North American style – is more of a project than freshly drafted McKegg who is going to need years more development. That doesn’t really make sense to me.
A career AHLer could probably just be called “a career AHLer.”
verbeauty!
Well you’re basically differentiating by the amount of hope you have, right… with some necessarily fuzzy boundary because hope is hard to quantify. Your prospect is someone who is projecting through, a project is one who you see is unlikely to make it due to some kind of serious flaw…
So Lashoff is a project because he’s got some great assets, but has shown a lack of desire that seems to be a crippling impediment… Kadri is a prospect because he projects through within a year or two (it’d be surprising if he never made it at all), and Caputi is in limbo between prospect and project status.
I guess the only real utility to it is in giving a very quick sense of the health of your farm. Are we full or prospects, or projects, or mostly one or the other… A crude tool for a crude job is sometimes a somewhat useful thing.
I would say prospects are players with less than 1 season’s worth of NHL experience.
Projects are players you believe have potential, but have spent more time in the NHL than ‘prospects’
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
Albert Einstein
by Say *plan the parade one more time*... on Aug 29, 2010 5:30 PM EDT up reply actions
but projects can also be the guys that you get in a deal that have great promise but also have some flaw (a headcase or whatever). The word implies that with some significant amount of extra work or luck, they could turn into something valuable… i.e., they are a big project to work on that may or may not pay off.
Prospects are also uncertain and require work, but doesn’t carry this connotation that they require somehow salvaging off the scrap heap.
A couple thoughts
An interesting aspect to the Leafs is that (assuming Lashoff is AHL bound) we now have 22 guys signed with only $900K in cap space. In other words, not enough cap space, even using the bonus cushion, for D’Amigo, Mueller or Kadri even if they play well enough to make the club out of camp. The most likely scenario would appear to be Hanson signing for Mitchell-esque money as the 23rd player, leaving about $150,000 in cap space (i.e. anyone sent down can’t be replaced by anyone making more than $150,000 more).
Another interesting thing is that of those 23, I believe only Bozak, Caputi, Hanson, Gunnarsson and Gustavsson are waiver-eligible. Bozak, Gunn and Monster aren’t going anywhere. So Caputi and Hanson are the only guys who can go down without clearing waivers. Caputi will likely have the higher salary at $833K. That means he can’t be replaced by anyone with a total cap hit (including bonuses, because we’re right up against the cushion) of over a million.
I think our 4 most promising prospects are Kadri, Mueller and D’Amigo. They all have a cap hit of at least $1.1MM.
So as things stands, we have the following possibilities:
(1) Status quo reigns. If this is the case, we have no possibility of competition in camp unless Burke is willing to expose a roster player to waivers (something he was extremely unwilling to do last year even with underperforming stiffs like Primeau, Wallin and Mayers). We literally do not have cap space for any of our leading prospects to make the team. Under this scenario, we’re also almost certain to face cap penalties next year, as the combination of the inevitable LTIR and bonuses will put us over the cap, just like last year. This is a very bad scenario to me.
(2) The Leafs carry a 21 or 22 man roster. I saw mf37 predict this yesterday. This would mean Kadri, Mueller, Caputi, Hanson and D’Amigo would all be competing for the last spot. It also means we’re still at significant risk of cap penalties.
(3) Finger gets demoted. This would solve our cap space problems, let us carry 23 guys, and let whoever earns it win the last forward spot. One can only hope.
One final thought is that I don’t really see where MacArthur fits. Ubiquitous says MacArthur is not a checking line type and the stats seem to bear that out. He’s clearly not first line material. Using my F, C, S, T breakdown, F is likely to be Kule/Versteeg-Bozak-Kessel; S will feature Grabbo, Versteeg/Kulemin, and whoever of Caputi/Kadri/D’Amigo/Mueller makes the team; C will probably be Armstrong, Mitchell and Sjostrom; this leaves Orr, Brown, Hanson and MacArthur for T. Maybe Burke views MacArthur as a candidate for the S line (sigh; Perry, Getzlaf or Penner he ain’t), freeing Versteeg or Kulemin for the C line.
I agree that it now seems more likely than before that Finger gets demoted. Not set in stone though
Negative. I am a meat popsicle.
indeed, the posibility is definitely higher than it was two days ago, but I’m hard pressed to say something happens either way with finger until after training camp/preseason.
I also feel that another move is in the works to ship someone out for prospects or pics, or a package for a single player (nothing major, just an NHL version of the Lashoff trade)
You may be taking Jared a little too seriously
by JaredFromLondon on Aug 29, 2010 9:53 AM EDT up reply actions
In a way
the stars have been aligning for a Finger waiver/sent down through Burke’s offseason moves.
Signing of Lebda…. trading for Lashoff (ok ok i know it was more about the SPC/1-way contract, but as an emergency 7th/8th callup for 500k there are worse things in life)…
and now this cap “situation” (i wouldn’t call it a crisis, but it’s definitely an issue with so many potential bonuses out there to dmg the cap next year).
If he doesn’t move and this is the club we go into October with then it’s “manageable” but not great (especially if he’s riding the pine with Lebda most nights).
If Finger gets traded (with a sweetener) or waived/demoted, the other moves start to make a lot more sense.
Plus I keep hearing Burke say he’s willing to bury $$ in the minors… can’t wait to see if he walks the walk there.
20 miles to Legoland!
by nhlcheapshot on Aug 29, 2010 10:11 AM EDT up reply actions
Yeah, I’m hoping at least one guy currently on our major league roster is dealt away before camp breaks.
by The '67 Sound on Aug 29, 2010 1:47 PM EDT up reply actions
Status quo reigns. If this is the case, we have no possibility of competition in camp unless Burke is willing to expose a roster player to waivers (something he was extremely unwilling to do last year even with underperforming stiffs like Primeau, Wallin and Mayers).
I don’t understand how Burke would know before the season starts that Primeau, Wallin (both brought in on the off season by Burke) and Mayers let alone seeing only half a season of Leafs hockey to know to waive those players? Maybe he lacks a crystal ball?
"There's been four different Cup winners the last four years, and I got one of them (Anaheim) and it was a fighting team. We're playing it that way regardless." - B. Burke, Toronto Maple Leafs GM
Yeah, I was conflating two issues there. The way it seemed to play out last year was that the vets had virtually guaranteed spots coming out of camp last year (seriously, did Primeau/Wallin/Mayers impress anyone in camp? Me neither). Then when they stunk it up, Burke wouldn’t demote them for whatever reason until he was able to unload them after the season was effectively older.
I just hope that if players aren’t contributing this year Burke will be quicker on the draw to move them out or move them down.
by The '67 Sound on Aug 29, 2010 2:03 PM EDT up reply actions
effectively *over*, not older
Bit of a Freudian slip there.
I have to say I’m more optimistic long term about a roster where the “vets” among the forward ranks are Armstrong and Orr. That’s a really, really young line up.
by The '67 Sound on Aug 29, 2010 2:05 PM EDT up reply actions
I thought one of the most useless memes going around last year was “competition in camp.”
One look at the Leafs training camp invite list made it clear that at least 17 of the 23 jobs were locked in.
I look forward to seeing the final training camp line-up so we can do a simialr head count for this year.
Bitter Leaf Fan: because sometimes there's no option but to be bitter...
Yeah, I got sucked in last year. I won’t this year.
I’m thinking the number is more like 20 this year.
Kulemin, Kessel, Bozak, Versteeg, Grabovski, Armstrong, Mitchell, Sjostrom, MacArthur, Orr, Brown (I don’t like it but I think it’s true), Phaneuf, Beauchemin, Gunnarsson, Kaberle, Komisarek, Schenn, Lebda, Giguere, Gustavsson
Which leaves Caputi, Hanson, Kadri, D’Amigo, Mueller, Irwin, Finger and Lashoff fighting for the last three spots.
by The '67 Sound on Aug 29, 2010 2:18 PM EDT up reply actions
And putting aside the press box, that means there’s one open spot barring trades.
by The '67 Sound on Aug 29, 2010 2:18 PM EDT up reply actions
I think the Leafs will employ a bunch of smaller tactics to get as much cap relief as possible, such as running a 22, maybe 21, man roster and demoting all waiver eligible players to the Marlies on non-game days.
Bitter Leaf Fan: because sometimes there's no option but to be bitter...
They certainly should do whatever they can, every penny counts.
by The '67 Sound on Aug 29, 2010 2:26 PM EDT up reply actions
If the NHL
really wanted to make hockey work in the south, they should let the Leafs pay PHX $2 for every $1 in cap space they could sell.
MOVABLE CAP SPACE – HOW TO SAVE SOUTHERN HOCKEY
20 miles to Legoland!
by nhlcheapshot on Aug 29, 2010 2:29 PM EDT up reply actions
You think that maybe jobs are claimed?
I think 18 of 23 are pretty much locks (although, I think the team would prefer to only carry 22 bodies for cap reasons):
Forwards:
1. Kessel
2. Kulemin
3. Bozak
4. Versteeg
5. Grabovski
6. Armstrong
7. Sjostrom
8. MacArthur
9. Orr
10. Brown
F Bubble (3 players)
11. D’Amigo
12. Caputi
13. Hanson
14. Kadri
15. Mitchell
16. Mueller
17. Irwin
Defence
1. Phaneuf
2. Beauchemin
3. Gunnarsson
4. Kaberle
5. Komisarek
6. Schenn
D Bubble (2)
7. Finger
8. Lebda
9. Lashoff
G
1. Giguere
2. Gustavsson
Bitter Leaf Fan: because sometimes there's no option but to be bitter...
I’d say Mitchell is a lock due to our depth at center. And Lebda on D for sure. And maybe I’m in the minority here, but I have major doubts that anyone challenges Caputi for a roster spot. Considering his competition is Mueller (german import with no NA experience) and D’Amigo, who has yet to play professional hockey, and that Caputi has already been through two full training camps before. So maybe one spot up front (Hanson vs. Kadri?) and one on D (finger vs. lashoff?)
So 21 of 23 then.
Negative. I am a meat popsicle.
I agree that Mitchell and Lebda are locks. I agree with your reasoning re. Caputi, and think he’s the leading contender, but he’s not quite a lock to me—if he craps the bed in training camp he’s at the Ricoh.
by The '67 Sound on Aug 29, 2010 5:40 PM EDT up reply actions
How do
you pronounce truculence? Just give me a few shifts of solid body work in the las tminutes of a period and I’ll take those two.
Versteeg
puzzles me. Is he someone we traded for to put out to check people? Aren’t his skills more in the goals first or at least alround.
he played on the checking line for the cup winning black hawks, I say he has the chops to do it for us, but I feel he will be used in more of an offensive roll in Toronto
You may be taking Jared a little too seriously
by JaredFromLondon on Aug 29, 2010 10:24 AM EDT up reply actions
for sure. burke brought him here to score. i see him getting first line minutes if kulie/BOZAK/kessel doesn’t click the same way they did the last 20 games or so last year.
Yesterday is dead, but not my memory.
even if they don’t click right away I see wilson distributing the two purest goal scorers the leafs have (kessel, steeg) across two lines to spread out offense, except in situations that require a goal NOW like the end of a game down a goal or in OT or something
You may be taking Jared a little too seriously
by JaredFromLondon on Aug 29, 2010 10:28 AM EDT up reply actions
if he threw them together (removing kulie let’s say) and they started lighting it up, i can see wilson being ok with having one potent offensive line.
Yesterday is dead, but not my memory.
the problem with that line becomes an inability to grind it out along the boards against larger physically skilled opponents. BOZAK is the biggest at 6’1 180.
they would probably play a hell of a perimeter/ finesse game, but I’d worry if it got gritty out there.
But then if they are lighting it up, who cares
You may be taking Jared a little too seriously
by JaredFromLondon on Aug 29, 2010 10:34 AM EDT up reply actions
Which
means Verst should score and raise the team D higher. Sounds like a very good Second line winger. He could easily play No. 1 but I like more balanced lines.
Yeah, like Jared I think the evidence is that he has the chops for both. The issue for me is as much as this team lacks elite scoring talent, we’re equally thin on elite checkers. I don’t see a single guy on this roster that matches Moen-Pahlsson-Niedermayer. Armstrong and Sjostrom have not played at that level yet in their careers. And Mitchell (our most likely checking line centre), much as I like him, isn’t even close.
by The '67 Sound on Aug 29, 2010 1:50 PM EDT up reply actions
Versteeg puzzles me. Is he someone we traded for to put out to check people? Aren’t his skills more in the goals first or at least alround.
There’s some great info about this trade in the Leafs Annual. Garret Bauman of MLHS interviewed Dave Poulin, who had this to say about the acquisition:
“[Versteeg] is incredibly versatile. He played a lot of games in a top-six role, but when the Blackhawks really locked in this past year, he was in that role on the third line. But he’s a hybrid because he’s a power-play guy and a penalty killer as well. There are some guys who, if they can’t fit in your top six, they can’t play for your team. Kris Versteeg can play for your team.”
Bitter Leaf Fan: because sometimes there's no option but to be bitter...
Yeah, that’s exactly why I think he’s invaluable to this team. Can play F, S or C roles.
by The '67 Sound on Aug 29, 2010 2:06 PM EDT up reply actions
I think Versteeg has the highest ceiling of our players not named Kessel. Using him as a checker on a team with no goal scorers seems like a poor use of our fixed assets.
Pension Plan Puppets*
* Blog contains less than 2% puppet content by weight.
by Chemmy on Aug 29, 2010 5:26 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
I am not a huge fan of line matching during the season
But I could see Versteeg on our second line – and throw out our second line against the oppositions top line. Puck possession is important, and from what I have seen from Versteeg he has that ability in spades (please, keep the bad turnovers down to a minimum!)
Not a checking role per se, but if he has the ability to generate turnovers AND score on the same shift, that would be ideal.
Big problem might be finding linemates that can compliment him.
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
Albert Einstein
by Say *plan the parade one more time*... on Aug 29, 2010 5:35 PM EDT up reply actions
I just think someone who can neutralize the opponents’ top line effectively is extremely valuable to our team, even if his offence suffers. We are really thin on that front.
by The '67 Sound on Aug 29, 2010 5:42 PM EDT up reply actions
you have to be
careful. If you force def play you might lose the goals from people you need to score. Versteeg fits this problem because he needs to produce. Tough call on his linemates.
Here's the thing though
about the cap space issues…
last season Hanson, Stalberg and Bozak weren’t really called up until injuries or trades made it a necessity. I see this being the same logic that will be used with respect to D’Amigo, Kadri, Mueller, Caputi, etc. Don’t rush the kids, let them grow as a unit in the AHL. If a spot opens up, they get a taste of NHL action, and it won’t compromise things from a salary cap standpoint as the amount we exceed can be equivalent to the salary of the player who is out with injury.
So if a cheap guy goes down, a cheap guy comes up… more expensive guy goes down, well there’s your chance for a higher priced prospect to make the jump.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."
- Sir Winston Churchill
I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.
by Steve Burtch on Aug 29, 2010 11:47 AM EDT up reply actions
I think you've got some mixing incorrect here
F = Kulemin/Versteeg-Bozak-Kessel
S = Kulemin/Versteeg-Grabovski-MacArthur
C = Armstrong-Mitchell-Sjostrom
T = Orr-?-Brown
The ? is likely Hanson if he ever re-signs, but if he doesn’t it could turn out that Mitchell drops down, Versteeg plays the centre role on your C line, and one of the kids is promoted to the F/S lines (i.e. Kadri, Caputi, D’Amigo, etc.)… we also still have Brayden Irwin don’t forget, and he might end up in the centre role on the T line.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."
- Sir Winston Churchill
I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.
by Steve Burtch on Aug 29, 2010 12:27 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah, this is basically how I see it. Those S and C lines need some work.
by The '67 Sound on Aug 29, 2010 1:57 PM EDT up reply actions
curious
what is the definition or stats of a “checking line type”?
This is my BOZAK!!!1
by blurr1974 on Aug 29, 2010 12:36 PM EDT up reply actions
qualcomp + hits + 5 intangibles.
verbeauty!
by A Lindros Jaw on Aug 29, 2010 1:02 PM EDT up reply actions
grit, willing to drop the gloves and stand up for his team mates, always gives 110% while being a good locker room presence who offers veteran leadership to the kids but contributes youthful enthusiasm in all his endeavors while always trying to improve his game and sacrifice his body for the good of the team, working the corners at both ends of the ice with a can do attitude while being difficult for the other team to play against.
or something like that
You may be taking Jared a little too seriously
by JaredFromLondon on Aug 29, 2010 1:07 PM EDT up reply actions
Willing to
come off the ice after keeping the top lines from another team scoreless adn appreciating the value and then chip in with points anytime anywhere. It’s a lot of attitude play. Fearless, sacrificing, team play.
Did Crash Davis dictate that to you? Awesome.
by The '67 Sound on Aug 29, 2010 2:52 PM EDT up reply actions
thanks
but i was being serious.
not sure i understand what the qualifications are for “checking line type” and how MacArthur is not capable of filling the role.
This is my BOZAK!!!1
by blurr1974 on Aug 29, 2010 3:45 PM EDT up reply actions
ok then
seriously:
A player who is good two way and can pressure the other team off the puck. The ideal checking forward (IMO) can chip in offensively and be about a 15-25 man, has the speed to keep up with the upper echelon speedy offensive forwards (st louis) but is physically adept enough to not be out muscled by the power forwards on the back check or large hulking defensemen on the forcheck
also the ability to agitate is a bonus
You may be taking Jared a little too seriously
by JaredFromLondon on Aug 29, 2010 3:52 PM EDT up reply actions
John Madden usually comes to mind, maybe Kris Draper in his prime.
Professional cusser causer.
by T is for Truculence on Aug 29, 2010 4:05 PM EDT up reply actions
I’m basically going on Ubiquitous’ scouting report that you should count on MacArthur for secodnary offence, not for defence.
by The '67 Sound on Aug 29, 2010 5:43 PM EDT up reply actions
The Leafs WILL make the playoffs
Thats my prediction. Im comfortable making it too.
Why?
Goaltending.
I dont have advanced stats but I watched 75 of the 82 games last year and I KNOW this team was better than their record. Any one who watched as much would agree with that comment. The ONLY player that can get injured and derail this prediction because they have no fill in is Kessel.
Im now going to try and map out who our 1st rd opponent will be.
by Johnny Bower's Pokecheck on Aug 29, 2010 9:30 AM EDT via mobile reply actions
The funny thing is that the stats would agree with you.
Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.
Like reading thoughts confined to 140 characters? I'm on Twitter too.
I think all seven players that I mentioned in my post need to stay healthy and have tremendous seasons. Including, and maybe most importantly, Komisarek. Once he gets into a comfortable rhythm the whole team can then play a style of game that Wilson and Burke are looking for. Komi is Burke’s most expensive FA signing and a huge piece of the puzzle.
by general borschevsky on Aug 29, 2010 10:21 AM EDT up reply actions
The goaltending sunk us, but I don’t think we were good enough even if we had league average. We shouldn’t have finished 29th, but I highly doubt we would have finished in the top 8 in the East either. Too much went wrong.
This year though, I’m calling the Leafs in 7th.
Bobby Ryan...can he be acquired?
blurr1974: No.
by Chris Stoikoff on Aug 29, 2010 11:24 AM EDT up reply actions
if everything went perfect last year, the leafs would have ended where montreal did (at best JUST sqeeking into the playoffs, not necessarily their playoff run).
If everything went fair trade with its share of ups and downs the Leafs were a 10th -11th in the east team
instead, everything that could go wrong did
/le sigh
You may be taking Jared a little too seriously
by JaredFromLondon on Aug 29, 2010 11:29 AM EDT up reply actions
Just give me
a plus October so we don’t start in a hole. Long run the momentum woudl be stronger. Might actully set up a situation where we BUY at the deadline.
Remember in December when we were 3 points out of a playoff spot in the East?
good times.
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
Albert Einstein
by Say *plan the parade one more time*... on Aug 29, 2010 5:40 PM EDT up reply actions
I’d say a prospect is someone under 20 who hasn’t cracked the NHL for depth or they just aren’t physically ready (need to put on weight, get stronger, what have you)
a project is a player who is generally older (but can be younger, see Devane: Jamie) who clearly has holes in their game (skating, defensive acumen) that they need to work on, but clearly have some natural ability that makes them look like a possible future NHLer
You may be taking Jared a little too seriously
by JaredFromLondon on Aug 29, 2010 9:42 AM EDT reply actions
Or even
no NHL experience and under 21. Mueller/Hanson/Lashoff projects. Kadri/Aulie prospects. But what about Mac? Is this reclamation project or just taking a chance on a skill set? Does that make him a project?
Cap: someone has to go for space and Jared is right to point out camp has to happen before anything meaningful will occur.
both Hanson and Lashoff have NHL experience so I wouldn’t put that as a project classifier.
Mueller looks to be a “late bloomer” so I would still put him in the prospect category, at least until I get to watch him play and see if his game is just immature or needs some serious renovations.
MacArthur is an NHL player straight up, he hasnt regressed (in fact he had more points in less games last year than the year prior) he just got thrown too high a number in arbitration
You may be taking Jared a little too seriously
by JaredFromLondon on Aug 29, 2010 10:21 AM EDT up reply actions
I see
but Hanson has some areas of concern as does Lashoff which implies project. Do you think that -16 plus/minus for Mac is an ATL thing or just him? They are not exactly team D down there.
hanson and Lashoff are definetly projects, not denying that, just saying that you can have a decent amount of NHL time and still be considered a project
MacArthur is pretty brutal defensivly, combine that with Atlanta not being very good and you get a not so good plus minus
You may be taking Jared a little too seriously
by JaredFromLondon on Aug 29, 2010 10:27 AM EDT up reply actions
Agreed
That’s what gives me hope tho’. he comes here and gets better team play and responsibility expectations. But he can score and that is not teachable unless you consider the grinder goals.
Most of
Macarthur’s minuses came when he was with Buffalo… so the Atlanta thing is irrelevant.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."
- Sir Winston Churchill
I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.
by Steve Burtch on Aug 29, 2010 11:49 AM EDT up reply actions
Really?
Seems like it would be the other way. Good. If he can have those numbers good with Atl, they should be better for TO, he offers us Versteeg jr type player. Would be as strong 3rd lien if it works out.
Some of those goals can be blamed on the suck that Chris Butler was last year.
His 2.90 GA/60 wasn’t terrible, but it did tie him with Ethan Moreau, along with a bunch of players who can actually score like Paul Stasny. (comparitively, the next worse forward on buffalo had a 2.51)
Also, as an aside, the penguins defense sucked last year.
Malkin: 3.65 (6th among forwards, three of which played for edmonton)
Crosby: 3.26(~25th among forwards)
Remember that MacArthur also played with Afinoganov and Antropov in Atlanta, which helped his stats.
On the Mike Weber bandwagon.
Everything wrong with the Sabres is Drew Stafford's fault.
Prospect -
Under the age of 21
Less than one season in the NHL
Less than two seasons pro
Someone whom there is a reasonable expectation that they will play in the NHL regularly within 2-3 years
Project
Anyone else
Resident Capologist
Cold.
But yeah a project seems to imply someone for which improvement in skill, play or attitude is needed ala Wellwood.
that excludes goaltenders, and to a dagree defensemen, as they develop slower and may need over 2 years in the AHL to get NHL ready
You may be taking Jared a little too seriously
by JaredFromLondon on Aug 29, 2010 10:23 AM EDT up reply actions
Kinda wanna
say all goalies are projects/prospects. Seems like a position where guys come out of nowhere. Drafting them high is a risk and that says project.
not a bad observation. Goalies are a fickle thing. There is the occasional goalie that I would call a prospect (Rask, Markstrom, Price before he made the habs) but yeah, about 95% of goaltenders are projects upon being drafted
You may be taking Jared a little too seriously
by JaredFromLondon on Aug 29, 2010 10:30 AM EDT up reply actions
hero
You may be taking Jared a little too seriously
by JaredFromLondon on Aug 29, 2010 10:30 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
he is between prospect and nhl player, he has shown the ability to stick, but has yet to prove he can do it long term, but that is simply because he hasn’t had the chance
You may be taking Jared a little too seriously
by JaredFromLondon on Aug 29, 2010 10:31 AM EDT up reply actions
he’s only played like 30 games though, and is far from a proven NHL-er. calling him a project feels hurtful, but prospect seems weird for a 24-yr old as well. we need a 3rd term here.
Yesterday is dead, but not my memory.
I just call him
Leafs 1st-line centre.
20 miles to Legoland!
by nhlcheapshot on Aug 29, 2010 10:34 AM EDT up reply actions
So not proven means
still a prospect but he does seem to be beyond that tag. NHL er seems right but way too young to be solid or veteran.
totally different type of player
save that comparo for Kadri
You may be taking Jared a little too seriously
by JaredFromLondon on Aug 29, 2010 10:38 AM EDT up reply actions
1,414 career points and a Cup
would be pretty sweet for Kadri, yeah.
More seriously, Doug Gilmour had 25 goals and 53 points in his rookie season. If Kadri can achieve that level of ppg whenever he gets called up, I’d be ecstatic.
Young
developing forward?
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."
- Sir Winston Churchill
I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.
by Steve Burtch on Aug 29, 2010 11:50 AM EDT up reply actions
COINCIDENCE????
January 14th: Bozak scores this goal.
February 6: Ole-Christian Tollefsen (wearing 55) is traded for very little.
Yay, finally a MacArthur Park reference!
Seriously that is the only real enjoyment I’ve gotten out of the MacArthur signing so far.
Professional cusser causer.
by T is for Truculence on Aug 29, 2010 12:12 PM EDT reply actions
I don't know if this got mentioned in the MacArthur posting yesterday
but his GVT last year was +1.5, which would put him slightly ahead of the likes of Jeff Finger in terms of usefulness… and behind the likes of every relevant forward on the Leafs last season…. not sure he’s going to add much to the team.
His Corsi was negative and comparable to the likes of Wayne Primeau… I really hope he isn’t who we’re counting on to revive things in Toronto.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."
- Sir Winston Churchill
I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.
the only thing I am counting on him to do is pop in about 15 goals and insulating the kids who aren’t ready while hopefully being moved at the dead line for a pick or two
You may be taking Jared a little too seriously
by JaredFromLondon on Aug 29, 2010 12:36 PM EDT up reply actions
15 goals would be pretty sweet, considering we currently have only two players that cracked that threshold last year and four in double digits.
Professional cusser causer.
by T is for Truculence on Aug 29, 2010 12:43 PM EDT up reply actions
MacArthur has scored 16, 17 , 8(in 31 games), 3 (in 19 games) goals in his NHL career so I don’t think it is even pushing it to expect at least 15 out of him.
I also expect at least 15 out of Armstrong, Bozak, Kulemin and Grabbo, nearly double that from Versteeg and more than double that from Kessel.
Not exactly a 21 gun salute but its better than a popgun
You may be taking Jared a little too seriously
by JaredFromLondon on Aug 29, 2010 12:53 PM EDT up reply actions
150
Love that breakdown. i hope he excels as well. But he turns into a deadline trade, it will be cheap.
Not saying they don’t have the potential to do it, but fact of the matter is none of them have proven they can do it yet.
I wonder when we’ll be able to find out, one way or the other? Hmm…must be something that starts in October but i can’t think of what…
Professional cusser causer.
by T is for Truculence on Aug 29, 2010 4:08 PM EDT up reply actions
I don’t think anyone is saying that, and if they are they are delusional. I think it’s just trying to establish what he can contribute to the team in a best case scenario.
PPP ain't nothin to cuss with
The Guess Who sucked, the Jets were lousy anyway
by Plea From A Cat Named Felix on Aug 29, 2010 12:38 PM EDT up reply actions
We should differentiate
A prospect would be someone like Nazem Kadri. A project would be Christian Hanson. A suspect would be Carlo Colaiacovo.
Twitter: RJAndTheCity
Web site: R.J. And The City
OHIP
No wonder we have health care costs. Liked hime but too fragile. you can’t longterm team development with him hurt all the time.
So, uh, just had a thought. Matt Lashoff has to clear waivers to get sent down. Not that his loss would be huge, but I could see a team taking a chance on him.
Negative. I am a meat popsicle.
oh noes! the marlies lose a defenseman and we threw away those never be anything players for nothing NOTHING!!!! NOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
also we free up an SPC slot
You may be taking Jared a little too seriously
by JaredFromLondon on Aug 29, 2010 2:57 PM EDT up reply actions
that’s not the point. just saying we should consider it before during camp. Why would Burke acquire a player for the Marlies that he could lose due to waivers in September? Maybe he’s not going to the Marlies.
Negative. I am a meat popsicle.
the leafs have waiver exempt D that he would call up i am sure, if he was going to risk a player to waivers it would probably be finger, Lashoff is probably a call up for injury purposes
You may be taking Jared a little too seriously
by JaredFromLondon on Aug 29, 2010 3:00 PM EDT up reply actions
I don’t think he was “acquired” so much as he was the price tag to clear an SPC for MacArthur.
by The '67 Sound on Aug 29, 2010 3:00 PM EDT up reply actions
if he starts in the minors and the leafs need to call him up
You may be taking Jared a little too seriously
by JaredFromLondon on Aug 29, 2010 3:02 PM EDT up reply actions
I’m actually not sure, but capgeek has him on the NHL roster. They’re usually pretty good.
My point was actually just responding to birky’s thought that Burke “acquired” him and therefore wouldn’t want to lose him. I think Lashoff wasn’t an acquisition, he was the price of the deal (like Mark Bell with Toskala).
by The '67 Sound on Aug 29, 2010 3:03 PM EDT up reply actions
Asked capgeek why they tossed him on the NHL roster:
@capgeek @So_Truculent He’s on a one-way contract and the Maple Leafs traded for him, so it only makes sense for him to be on their NHL roster.
If I'm losing an argument, I ask myself "What would a real journalist do?"
Then I cower behind: "You still don't get it. Deal with it." Thanks, James Wallace.
I think birky has an even better explanation below.
This is actually something I’m curious about. If you finish the season on an NHL roster, does that in fact mean you start the next season there, even after a trade?
by The '67 Sound on Aug 29, 2010 3:44 PM EDT up reply actions
he has to clear waivers to be sent down and clear re-sentry waivers to be recalled. he finished the season in the NHL with Tampa
Negative. I am a meat popsicle.
it’s still August though, right…?
This is my BOZAK!!!1
by blurr1974 on Aug 29, 2010 3:47 PM EDT up reply actions
I think he’s a perfect 7/8 defenceman to warm the press box. His career high in GP is 18.
You don’t want someone expensive or with potential in the press box. Lashoff is perfect on both counts.
If Lashoff is lost on waivers, who cares.
by The '67 Sound on Aug 29, 2010 2:59 PM EDT up reply actions
Clearly when Burke signed Lebda he had no idea in his wildest dreams Lashoff would be available!
Professional cusser causer.
by T is for Truculence on Aug 29, 2010 4:10 PM EDT up reply actions
Interesting
Like the idea that he was just the cost of unburdening ourselves of an SPC or he’s the guy in the press box all season looking over Gunnarsson and Schenn’s shoulders if they need a break.
Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.
Like reading thoughts confined to 140 characters? I'm on Twitter too.
PROSPECTS!!!1
A Toronto sports blog, where unabashed homerism is alive and well...
by eyebleaf on Aug 29, 2010 6:43 PM EDT reply actions 2 recs
A project is someone who lacks talent and/or drive, so is a ‘suspect’ to make it in the pros. Lashoff, Mueller, and even Hanson are projects, as are that Finn goalie. A prospect has talent and/or drive and should make it in the NHL, but may not anyway.
These four I mentioned are projects because they have tools you like, but have to be more and do more to succeed in the NHL. Kadri and McKegg are prospects, they have the tools but haven’t proven themselves in the NHL.
Jeff Ware was a project, Ken Jonsson was a prospect.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- Monday’s Three Stars: Hanzal leads Coyotes; Kessel, Leafs keep rolling
- Puck Previews: Oilers visit Maple Leafs; Red Wings go for Coyotes sweep
- Howard Baldwin, ex-Whalers owner, offers critical look at ‘marginal’ NHL markets
- Ray Emery’s chance to start equals goaltending migraines for Blackhawks
- Puck Headlines: Sam Gagner didn’t score 8 points; Stewart waived; Crosby update
SBNation.com Recent Stories
StatCounter
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
