Thoughts on Alexis Lafrenière?

[Luffy D Monkey]

He does some small things well but he does some big and obvious things not so well, like he's not fast, he's doesn't seem to play that well around the boards, he doesn't show off a laser shot.

[butch]

some of us planted a pretty decent seed with Hischier not that long ago so this takes time .

[HonkyTonkMan]

This. Exactly this. I've asked myself that question a million times.

But you're all bringing great points folks. And like random-d said, there's no point in selling low on him right now. Anyway, my team is a total train wreck, as all of my prospects are doing next to nothing right now. So I guess I'll just suffer in silence, hold him and hope he finishes the season on a good note.

Appreciate your input folks. It's been fun to read your replies.

Get that 1st overal pick. Shane Wright would be a nice piece

[Pashowretty]

Get that 1st overal pick. Shane Wright would be a nice piece

I wish it was that simple... In my league, the last 3 teams compete in a playoff pool, and the winner of that pool gets the first overall pick. So you can't just throw the towel and sell all your assets during the first week of November if your team is bad. You have to keep that pool in mind and try to have a good roster for the playoffs.

[rangerdanger]

Here's the thing with Laf, he was never what people thought he was. He wasn't a "generational talent" and he wasn't a "can't miss" or "elite" prospect. He was and is a very good, promising young player. And if looked at like that, with reality glasses, he's still a work in progress. He's not fast, he needs to improve on his skating. He has a great wrister but not so great slap shot. He was much bigger than most players his age at 15, 16 etc., which gave him a huge advantage that he no longer has in the NHL.

All the hype and mystique surrounding Lafreniere prior to and after the 2020 draft, was unrealistic and miscalculated. Calling him a "generational talent" puts him on the same level as guys like Crosby, Matthews, McDavid, Hedman and he was never that level of prospect. Part of the issue was he's Quebecois and the hype surrounding the next great Quebecois player is always enormous and usually is way, way overboard, as it was in this case. Sure he did a lot of terrific things at a young age, but overall, he wasn't the same level prospect people thought he was. And this, the faulty expectations, put on a player was well over-hyped, a player that the majority of pros and amateurs helped overhype, makes it seem like he's a bust or failing. And if you do hold him up to those unreasonable expectations, then sure. But the problem isn't that he was a generational talent and is now busting. It's that he was never a generational talent to begin with.

All the hype made people overlook very real and very significant concerns. People all assumed him being slow or only an average skater wouldn't be a problem. Well, in an increasingly faster NHL, yea, it's a problem. But people were actually comparing him to Mario, saying things like "well Mario wasn't that fast either". Yea, but Mario skated better. And if you are slow, it helps a ton if you can at least skate very well. I mean, this is just one aspect. Plainly, he was never nearly as good as Mario was, or Crosby, McDavid, Ovechkin, Malkin or any of that level prospect. In truth, he and Byfield were a whole lot closer than most people believed and still today, some try to convince themselves that the Rangers have ruined him, or that something must be going wrong with him mentally. Nah, I doubt all that. I think he's just a very good young prospect who became way overrated and now that he's not meeting those uncalled for expectations, people are freaking out. And yea, he may never turn into a superstar. But I think there are some similarities between him and Huberdeau. And it took Hubs some time to reach his potential. And it could be exactly the same for Laf. I actually think, from a prospect standpoint, Laf was a lot more like Huberdeau than like any "generational talent".

[toddycat]

Here's the thing with Laf, he was never what people thought he was. He wasn't a "generational talent" and he wasn't a "can't miss" or "elite" prospect. He was and is a very good, promising young player. And if looked at like that, with reality glasses, he's still a work in progress. He's not fast, he needs to improve on his skating. He has a great wrister but not so great slap shot. He was much bigger than most players his age at 15, 16 etc., which gave him a huge advantage that he no longer has in the NHL.

All the hype and mystique surrounding Lafreniere prior to and after the 2020 draft, was unrealistic and miscalculated. Calling him a "generational talent" puts him on the same level as guys like Crosby, Matthews, McDavid, Hedman and he was never that level of prospect. Part of the issue was he's Quebecois and the hype surrounding the next great Quebecois player is always enormous and usually is way, way overboard, as it was in this case. Sure he did a lot of terrific things at a young age, but overall, he wasn't the same level prospect people thought he was. And this, the faulty expectations, put on a player was well over-hyped, a player that the majority of pros and amateurs helped overhype, makes it seem like he's a bust or failing. And if you do hold him up to those unreasonable expectations, then sure. But the problem isn't that he was a generational talent and is now busting. It's that he was never a generational talent to begin with.

All the hype made people overlook very real and very significant concerns. People all assumed him being slow or only an average skater wouldn't be a problem. Well, in an increasingly faster NHL, yea, it's a problem. But people were actually comparing him to Mario, saying things like "well Mario wasn't that fast either". Yea, but Mario skated better. And if you are slow, it helps a ton if you can at least skate very well. I mean, this is just one aspect. Plainly, he was never nearly as good as Mario was, or Crosby, McDavid, Ovechkin, Malkin or any of that level prospect. In truth, he and Byfield were a whole lot closer than most people believed and still today, some try to convince themselves that the Rangers have ruined him, or that something must be going wrong with him mentally. Nah, I doubt all that. I think he's just a very good young prospect who became way overrated and now that he's not meeting those uncalled for expectations, people are freaking out. And yea, he may never turn into a superstar. But I think there are some similarities between him and Huberdeau. And it took Hubs some time to reach his potential. And it could be exactly the same for Laf. I actually think, from a prospect standpoint, Laf was a lot more like Huberdeau than like any "generational talent".

A great and accurate dissertation. Well done!

[Belexus75]

A great and accurate dissertation. Well done!

agree with this right now, however i would want to see you posting that somewhere before his draft....everybody thought he was clear #1 and there are few great guys that were drafted after him...

i think he will be fine..maybe not mcdavid or even matthews level but i can see 70-80 points down the road as a norm...

[rangerdanger]

agree with this right now, however i would want to see you posting that somewhere before his draft....everybody thought he was clear #1 and there are few great guys that were drafted after him...

i think he will be fine..maybe not mcdavid or even matthews level but i can see 70-80 points down the road as a norm...

Does it matter what I personally thought about him prior to the draft?

If you really want to know, I was undecided. But I thought the Rangers, as I am a Ranger fan, should have drafted Byfield. Should have traded down with the Kings, got an extra asset and drafted Byfield. Now certainly, Byfield is yet to prove anything. And there is no argument to be made right now that Byfield is NOW a better or more valuable prospect than Laf. QB is still injured and we haven't seen what he can do at an NHL level. He could himself bust. And today, if the Rangers could trade AL for QB, I would be all for it. Ideally though, I would jump at a chance to trade AL for S. Wright. Wright, who I believe IS actually closer to those elite prospects than AL ever was. Wright, whom I think, while not being a "generational talent" as about as close as you can get without reaching that tier. And I still do not think Wright is "can't miss" or an "out of the box" player. But I would compare him a bit to Kopitar or a more offensively gifted John Toews. Which I think is exactly what the Rangers are missing. But here are a few reasons I wanted Byfield. :

a) Byfield's raw tools, superior athleticism, size, physicality and speed, if developed properly would possibly mean he has a higher ceiling than Laf. Laf was older. Byfield theoretically had more room to grow. And with those tools, IMO, a higher potential to grow into. More physically suited for today's game. And a size that actually will benefit him at times in the NHL, where Laf I would say is just about average or a nip above in terms of NHL size.

b) The Rangers had just drafted Kakko the year prior and before that Kravtsov. They all ready had Panarin, Buch and Kreider as wingers. What we needed then and still need today is a high ceiling young center. A center that can bring everything together. And yea we had and still have Zibby. But I think we need a strong 1,2 punch up the middle. And Zibby at 29 years old, could have mentored that center, who would ideally play at 2C until they were ready to surpass Zibby. And I get the whole, "talent over need" concept. But when two players are as close as I think Laf and Byfield were and maybe still are, especially because of the team needs, I would generally go with the center. Given the choice of two equal prospects, I would lean center almost every time even if the Rangers didn't need it. But in this case, they did and still do.

c) The concerns about Laf were and are still very real. Speed has changed the NHL game immensely and so has skating ability. Comparing this era to like the 80's or 90's is just night and day. Never were there so many amazing, high end skaters and never were there so many brutally fast players. Remember when guys like Bure and Federov or Coffey were unique? When they were outliers and their skating stood out? They'd still be great skaters today, but they wouldn't be as unique or stand out nearly as much. They would today be one of a number of very fast, high skating ability players.

d) If you watch some of his teen highlights, size mattered to his game, a lot. He did some amazing things as a youth. Some of which didn't depend on size, but skill. And in terms of stickhandling, on the puck, his skills are super high end. But much of his success also stemmed from the fact that he was bigger and stronger than many of the same age players he was playing against. Which is again, something that will not be the same benefit to him in the NHL. Not to mention, it was always quite possible he would need time to get used to not having that size advantage. This is normal. Something a lot of players who are bigger at a younger age have to deal with when they transition to the NHL.

e) I never saw the gap between Laf and Byfield as that huge. And again, I thought, ideal situation, everything goes right and both reach their ceiling, that Byfield's ceiling would be ultimately higher. More risk/reward perhaps. But again, I don't think Laf was ever really a "sure thing", so that's fairly relative. 99.9% of NHL prospects are a "risk" in one way or another. That largely separates "generational talent" from the rest. So because I perceive them as closer, moving down to the 2nd spot to get Byfield, and getting another important piece during a rebuild would have been worthwhile IMO. I thought that given the hype around Laf, that 2nd piece, for moving down just 1 spot, would have been well worth it and probably still significant. Not sure what the Kings would have actually paid, but given their wealth of young center talents, given the fact they had drafted a bunch of centers, it made sense that they would choose Laf and would possibly be willing to give him a significant piece with him. The team that needed a winger drafted a center and the team that needed a center drafted a winger.

f) I was still "undecided". But any inclination I had to draft Laf mostly had to do with the hype and narrative surrounding him. What if my eyes deceive me? What if people are right and we are passing up a generational player? etc... Of course I asked myself those questions, but ultimately, I did not think all the lore surrounding Laf was accurate. And if I were going with my gut, I would have traded down to go with Byfield plus another asset. And I wonder how much this question, this doubt, led others to lean towards Laf. I think if you take that appearance of "consensus" away, way less people would have been all in on Laf and more might have trusted their gut or instincts and their perception based on what they see with their eyes.

If I were the Rangers GM at the time, I honestly do not know what I would have done. It's obviously easier for me to accept such a risk by going with a heterodox opinion than it would be for a GM. There's really no pressure on me to make that decision while there is a ton of pressure on those making the actual decision or publicly championing either position. If the GM went so out of the box and failed it could mean his job or career. And no doubt he would be getting harassed for it. But I think if we take away that bubble, more GM's and scouts would have seen the situation more evenly. And more would have suggested trading down one spot to get Byfield and another asset was actually worthwhile. When THAT many people believe something, even if every single one of them is wrong, it puts a great deal of pressure on those that have a minority perception to feel confident in that minority perception and will often lead people to make the "safe" choice even if they somewhere inside believe it's the wrong choice.

On a side note, I am honestly not sure how much faith I have in Drury and Gallant. Thus far, I am not especially impressed. One of the main things that I think should have been done all ready is trading one of our young Dmen for an equivalent young, high end center. And Drury has not given the impression he's even considering such a thing. We still today badly need that center. And right now, I would trade Lundkvist in a split second if it got us that equivalent level of young center. But I would be fine with moving any of Miller, Jones, Lundkvist or Robertson for that piece honestly. I am eyeing guys like Kupari, who I think has top 6 potential but will get stuck in the bottom 6 because of the Kings depth at center. Rasmussen another, who I think will be much more difficult to acquire now that he's performing in the NHL. I don't know, I would probably be happy with anyone from Perfetti to Turcotte to Foudy to whomever. And I do feel like the only area the Rangers have actually drafted poorly in, over the last say 5 years, is at center.

[senryu]

Although I didn't read every prognosticator in existence, the idea that a majority or even a substantial minority of people put Lafreniere in McDavid/Crosby's "generational talent" tier pre-draft rings false. Everyone I heard and read put him as the clear #1 that year, but distinctly below McDavid or Crosby or Matthews. He was placed at an above-average #1 overall, a little higher than Jack Hughes but below those mentioned and guys like Eichel. Saying that he was put in that tier is a straw man argument that doesn't explain his perceived struggles now.

[audiopile]

Although I didn't read every prognosticator in existence, the idea that a majority or even a substantial minority of people put Lafreniere in McDavid/Crosby's "generational talent" tier pre-draft rings false. Everyone I heard and read put him as the clear #1 that year, but distinctly below McDavid or Crosby or Matthews. He was placed at an above-average #1 overall, a little higher than Jack Hughes but below those mentioned and guys like Eichel. Saying that he was put in that tier is a straw man argument that doesn't explain his perceived struggles now.

This is also the sentiment I recall about Laffy pre draft. Clear #1 with a very good chance at being a PPG player in the NHL.

[Belexus75]

Does it matter what I personally thought about him prior to the draft?

If you really want to know, I was undecided. But I thought the Rangers, as I am a Ranger fan, should have drafted Byfield. Should have traded down with the Kings, got an extra asset and drafted Byfield. Now certainly, Byfield is yet to prove anything. And there is no argument to be made right now that Byfield is NOW a better or more valuable prospect than Laf. QB is still injured and we haven't seen what he can do at an NHL level. He could himself bust. And today, if the Rangers could trade AL for QB, I would be all for it. Ideally though, I would jump at a chance to trade AL for S. Wright. Wright, who I believe IS actually closer to those elite prospects than AL ever was. Wright, whom I think, while not being a "generational talent" as about as close as you can get without reaching that tier. And I still do not think Wright is "can't miss" or an "out of the box" player. But I would compare him a bit to Kopitar or a more offensively gifted John Toews. Which I think is exactly what the Rangers are missing. But here are a few reasons I wanted Byfield. :

a) Byfield's raw tools, superior athleticism, size, physicality and speed, if developed properly would possibly mean he has a higher ceiling than Laf. Laf was older. Byfield theoretically had more room to grow. And with those tools, IMO, a higher potential to grow into. More physically suited for today's game. And a size that actually will benefit him at times in the NHL, where Laf I would say is just about average or a nip above in terms of NHL size.

b) The Rangers had just drafted Kakko the year prior and before that Kravtsov. They all ready had Panarin, Buch and Kreider as wingers. What we needed then and still need today is a high ceiling young center. A center that can bring everything together. And yea we had and still have Zibby. But I think we need a strong 1,2 punch up the middle. And Zibby at 29 years old, could have mentored that center, who would ideally play at 2C until they were ready to surpass Zibby. And I get the whole, "talent over need" concept. But when two players are as close as I think Laf and Byfield were and maybe still are, especially because of the team needs, I would generally go with the center. Given the choice of two equal prospects, I would lean center almost every time even if the Rangers didn't need it. But in this case, they did and still do.

c) The concerns about Laf were and are still very real. Speed has changed the NHL game immensely and so has skating ability. Comparing this era to like the 80's or 90's is just night and day. Never were there so many amazing, high end skaters and never were there so many brutally fast players. Remember when guys like Bure and Federov or Coffey were unique? When they were outliers and their skating stood out? They'd still be great skaters today, but they wouldn't be as unique or stand out nearly as much. They would today be one of a number of very fast, high skating ability players.

d) If you watch some of his teen highlights, size mattered to his game, a lot. He did some amazing things as a youth. Some of which didn't depend on size, but skill. And in terms of stickhandling, on the puck, his skills are super high end. But much of his success also stemmed from the fact that he was bigger and stronger than many of the same age players he was playing against. Which is again, something that will not be the same benefit to him in the NHL. Not to mention, it was always quite possible he would need time to get used to not having that size advantage. This is normal. Something a lot of players who are bigger at a younger age have to deal with when they transition to the NHL.

e) I never saw the gap between Laf and Byfield as that huge. And again, I thought, ideal situation, everything goes right and both reach their ceiling, that Byfield's ceiling would be ultimately higher. More risk/reward perhaps. But again, I don't think Laf was ever really a "sure thing", so that's fairly relative. 99.9% of NHL prospects are a "risk" in one way or another. That largely separates "generational talent" from the rest. So because I perceive them as closer, moving down to the 2nd spot to get Byfield, and getting another important piece during a rebuild would have been worthwhile IMO. I thought that given the hype around Laf, that 2nd piece, for moving down just 1 spot, would have been well worth it and probably still significant. Not sure what the Kings would have actually paid, but given their wealth of young center talents, given the fact they had drafted a bunch of centers, it made sense that they would choose Laf and would possibly be willing to give him a significant piece with him. The team that needed a winger drafted a center and the team that needed a center drafted a winger.

f) I was still "undecided". But any inclination I had to draft Laf mostly had to do with the hype and narrative surrounding him. What if my eyes deceive me? What if people are right and we are passing up a generational player? etc... Of course I asked myself those questions, but ultimately, I did not think all the lore surrounding Laf was accurate. And if I were going with my gut, I would have traded down to go with Byfield plus another asset. And I wonder how much this question, this doubt, led others to lean towards Laf. I think if you take that appearance of "consensus" away, way less people would have been all in on Laf and more might have trusted their gut or instincts and their perception based on what they see with their eyes.

If I were the Rangers GM at the time, I honestly do not know what I would have done. It's obviously easier for me to accept such a risk by going with a heterodox opinion than it would be for a GM. There's really no pressure on me to make that decision while there is a ton of pressure on those making the actual decision or publicly championing either position. If the GM went so out of the box and failed it could mean his job or career. And no doubt he would be getting harassed for it. But I think if we take away that bubble, more GM's and scouts would have seen the situation more evenly. And more would have suggested trading down one spot to get Byfield and another asset was actually worthwhile. When THAT many people believe something, even if every single one of them is wrong, it puts a great deal of pressure on those that have a minority perception to feel confident in that minority perception and will often lead people to make the "safe" choice even if they somewhere inside believe it's the wrong choice.

On a side note, I am honestly not sure how much faith I have in Drury and Gallant. Thus far, I am not especially impressed. One of the main things that I think should have been done all ready is trading one of our young Dmen for an equivalent young, high end center. And Drury has not given the impression he's even considering such a thing. We still today badly need that center. And right now, I would trade Lundkvist in a split second if it got us that equivalent level of young center. But I would be fine with moving any of Miller, Jones, Lundkvist or Robertson for that piece honestly. I am eyeing guys like Kupari, who I think has top 6 potential but will get stuck in the bottom 6 because of the Kings depth at center. Rasmussen another, who I think will be much more difficult to acquire now that he's performing in the NHL. I don't know, I would probably be happy with anyone from Perfetti to Turcotte to Foudy to whomever. And I do feel like the only area the Rangers have actually drafted poorly in, over the last say 5 years, is at center.

Disclaimer: i didnt read your post as its too long to read being at work however im answering your question at the top

it does matter in contest of your previous post. you said that you been always saying people made him more then he was....that is most likely not true as i dont remember anybody thinking he will be anything but a total stud prior to the draft.

[rangerdanger]

Although I didn't read every prognosticator in existence, the idea that a majority or even a substantial minority of people put Lafreniere in McDavid/Crosby's "generational talent" tier pre-draft rings false. Everyone I heard and read put him as the clear #1 that year, but distinctly below McDavid or Crosby or Matthews. He was placed at an above-average #1 overall, a little higher than Jack Hughes but below those mentioned and guys like Eichel. Saying that he was put in that tier is a straw man argument that doesn't explain his perceived struggles now.

"False"?

Button and the entire TSN crew EXPECTED him to score 60+ points his rookie season.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bob McKenzie in reference to Laf: "In a 2020 hockey prospect world fraught with so much uncertainty, it’s comforting to hang on to that which is a sure thing."

https://www.tsn.ca/bob-mckenzie-s-fi...year-1.1488272

This article then goes on to basically contradict itself. Playing semantics or "just in case". "He's not a generational talent but he's as close as you will get...." blah blah blah. I am sorry, you call a player a "sure thing", you suggest they are an "elite" talent, you are comparing him to the best players ever. That is what "elite" means. Those are the "can't miss" prospects. And whether they actually thought he was close to a generational talent or not, thinking he's a "sure thing" or "can't miss" is just as bad. Because clearly, that "can't miss" has thus far, missed quite a bit. That "sure thing" hasn't been very "sure".

And if Laf did come out and show himself as a "generational talent". You damn well know they would have followed up with "Well, I don't think there was any question that he had this kind of talent. That he is an elite player. " etc... and so on.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

https://blueseatblogs.com/2020/08/11...is-lafreniere/

Quoting: " Many scouting reports have Alexis Lafreniere pegged as an elite player and potential generational talent.

Lafreniere, a 6’1, 194 lb LW, is a projected generational talent."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

https://www.sportingnews.com/us/nhl/...z10cu8zq4gjiec

Quoting: "A surefire generational talent,"

""Obviously, Alexis is quite the player when you look at every aspect of his game. I think you could consider every aspect as elite when you look at his skating, his puck skills, obviously it's above average. He's been excellent for his three years with Rimouski." — J-F Damphousse, Central Scouting's regional scout for Quebec and the Maritimes" - Every aspect "elite"? Including his skating? I can't tell you how many scouting reports were raving about how good his skating was. When it's clearly NOT. Now maybe that was less obvious at lower levels than it is at an NHL level. But his actual skating in the NHL is far from what most suggested.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here, all be it a Reddit thread, just showing how many actually thought he was a "generational talent".

https://www.reddit.com/r/rangers/com...talent_and_im/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

An Oilers site article plainly stating that many think we might be seeing the "next great one".

https://oilersnation.com/2018/08/07/...talent-in-nhl/

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

An entire NYT article about how Laf would "Prefer you not to compare him to Sidney Crosby" which means, people were comparing him to Sidney Crosby and other such elite talents.

"https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/20/sports/alexis-lafreniere-quebec.html"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

EA Sports, in their hockey game, seemed to think he had that kind of potential, putting his top card up at Mario level.

https://www.reddit.com/r/NHLHUT/comm..._now_equal_to/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

An article directly discussing the question of comparison between he and Crosby. Not because they just decided out of thin air, they should focus an article on this topic for no reason whatsoever. But because the comparisons were actually being made.

https://thehockeywriters.com/rangers...ent-potential/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So no, it's not "false". It's not "false" at all. I can do this all day. When you claim a player is "elite", when you claim a player is a "generational talent", when you claim a player is the "next great one", when you claim they are a "sure thing" and when you EXPECT a rookie to come into the NHL and easily score 60+ points, you are in fact comparing him to McDavid, Crosby, Gretzky, Mario, Matthews etc.... Because THAT is what an "elite" player is. Those are what "generational talents" look like. Those are the players that come into the NHL and are expected to score 60+ points right out of the gate. And sure, some prognosticators and scouts were more careful of their words than others. But they were all suggesting the same or similar things ultimately.

You can try to play semantics all you want. But the FACT is, this is what was being said about him AND more. Of course not by everyone. There were even people suggesting the Rangers should trade down to take Byfield and an extra asset as I all ready stated. But that opinion was heterodox, very heterodox. The majority, whether they put him on the level with Crosby or Mario, or whether they implied he's a "generational talent" or whether they attached a qualifier just to save their behinds that he was "just below" that tier, were all basically claiming these things. Even if they made it conditional.

So no, I am sorry, you are dead wrong in this regard.

[rangerdanger]

Disclaimer: i didnt read your post as its too long to read being at work however im answering your question at the top

it does matter in contest of your previous post. you said that you been always saying people made him more then he was....that is most likely not true as i dont remember anybody thinking he will be anything but a total stud prior to the draft.

"That is most likely not true as (YOU) dont remember anybody thinking he will be anything but total stud" is irrelevant. Just because you didn't see it, or ignored it, doesn't mean it wasn't happening. And while clearly the majority felt the way you suggest, that is NOT everyone.

And if you didn't bother reading what I wrote because it's "too long" then you should probably not bother asking the question to begin with. If "it does matter" then you would have actually read what I wrote. And you should definitely avoid then going on to claim I am lying. Please, enough nonsense. The majority is not "everyone". And not everyone was as infatuated with Laf as the "majority". That's a perception issue on your part. Not a reality issue. That is completely fallacious reasoning.

But let's face it, you don't care what the reality was or is. You only care to color the past with generalities and rhetoric. So, no, it clearly doesn't matter to you one bit.

[mdratch]

I'm just going to respond to OP here... HOLD ON TO LAF... You know who he reminds me? Huberdeau... Go back and look how long it took for him to pop... If you can afford to hold Laf... HOLD LAF.

We can go back and laugh at people's overreactions to Mackinnon too early in his career too... People who give up on Laf this soon are gonna eat some big fat crow.

90 point player in 3 years time. BOOK IT!

One thing I have learned in hockey pools, people are SO IMPATIENT... so take advantage of that

[pieceofschmidt]

Gotta dredge this beauty up now that we're in December. How are my fellow keeper league Laf owners doing? His stats are sure looking ugly. Look at those minutes!

Looks like it's going to be a long season for #13 and his owners.

Is Laf a keeper over players like Pierre Luc Dubois, Granlund, Troy Terry, or Chychrun in a multi-cat league?