The "Kid Line" in New York- Here... we.... go!!

[PoolPartyPuljeejarvi]

So I can't say I know what you mean in the first bit there but I can address the second part.

These are opinions but not all opinions are created equal and there are actually some good reasons why a writer or poster might not have the most "informed" opinion on a player.

I mean we are all building a portfolio of data and contextual info on most of the fantasy relevant players in the league but its not always feasible that you can do a very deep dive on ALL of them. There are examples of guys that poolies are giving up on- say Morgan Frost or Film Zadina but the reality is I dont own them.in any leagues, they've never really come up in trade talks or on the wire and at some point you have to narrow down your list and "cut the cord" on players. I mean it wouldn't be that great of advice if everyone just said any guy with any upside was undroppable right? I mean what is it like 30% that make it to the show? Half of
them aren't even fantasy relevant? Those numbers are a total guess btw- im just saying itd be bad advice- you need to cultivate your list at some point. If a forum member or writer has done that here you couldn't really blame them right? Its been three years after all. If you ask an opinion and someone takes the time to respond that should be enough right? Im not saying its a dishonest opinion- but I do question if they've taken the requisite amount of time/care a player with this type of upside warrants- I mean hes a game breaker if he develops properly.

But thats exactly WHY you have to "rudely" disagree and address the issue. I own lafreniere in my main league which is very big, very savvy and where you have very very little wiggle room to add elite talent. You get one real good shot at the beginning of each draft (no ones trading their 1st)- so if you're going to take a guy you have to make damn sure hes the one. Same with cutting him- lol- you get one shot a year!

And I did the research on Lafreniere- frozen tools, podcasts, scouting reports, interviews with the player, the coach, the gm- im not saying that ensures a "correct" opinion but its certainly more than a gut feeling. In fact this isn't really my opinion- im looking at what the forum members/writers are saying here (hes had long enough) compared to what scouts and sources closer to the team are saying (his talent level and upside are off the charts and the team is asking him to do all the things a grinder does including NOT cheat for offense and they're ecstatic about his play. When you look at that draft Byfield brought size that you couldn't teach and Stutzle was the "insider" pick from the get go- but Lafreniere was a tier to himself right from the start. We should have seen the warning signs when he went to NY- thats on us. Deep forward corps, coach who is notoriously pro vet- its not even all that surprising tbh. Why does this deployment matter?

Because when you look at guys who take awhile to break out- Jack Hughes for example- he was force-fed every minute he could handle in the ozone, on the pp and he failed miserably at times! Even with all that primo deployment all the enthusiastic pep talks from coaching and management it took him three years to break out! Lafreniere gets maybe ten games a year of primo deployment split between three sets of linemates lol! And no pep talks- just criticism and trade rumors! That skill doesn't just evaporate- he'll find his groove whether its with a new coach or on a new team!

Back to the matter at hand- my issue is not the "opinion" its the "argument". Hes had three years is not a valid argument. A first overall should dominate is not a valid argument. Saying well "maybe hes a 60 point player" is not an argument at all its an opinion and a bad one to boot

So if the argument was: "despite his lack of deployment he has advanced metric a and advanced meteic b that suggest he won't succeed when given that deployment anyways and for that reason I think he's not on track to develop like we thought he would". Thats not the argument though- in fact another poster in another thread pointed out quite brilliantly that when you take out the pp points and account for the differential in atoi his es totals are pretty dang close to Stutzles!

The argument is: "Hes had long enough and if he were truly as exceptionally talented as they said he was hed have broken out by now". I'm sorry but thats bunk (and it REEKS of sour grapes lol!). This is the best league in the world and if he had been force-fed minutes like JH there would still be an argument why he could still break out BUT he hasn't even had that.

You can't call him a bust when hes never had a real opportunity. In the immortal words of Gordon Bombay the mighty dicks thats "not even a has been- thats a never was"

So if you want to make your decision based on someone's opinion whose either been burned or is just plain nor very invested in the outcome you can do that- these are all just "opinions" after all- but its YOU whose left scratching your head wondering how you managed to cut a 90+ point player before their 22nd birthday. If he's actually given a real shot and fumbles the puck- we can talk about him being a bust but until then its just throwing darts and hoping like he'll you're right. Why is my opinion any different? Because its not mine- its will scouchs, smart scouting, Tony ferraris- all of them- its that of the scouting world at large. They said if he's given the opportunity he could be one of the best in the business and he just hasn't been given that opportunity. You want to write a kid off at the age of 21 before hes been given a shot then I hope you have a very sound argument and I just have NOT heard one...

Hey and sometimes the reasoning isn't even THAT sound- I hate to say it but there are people in life who will just make a big statement lime that for the sheer ego of it- lol! If he does fail miserably and someone called it today they could ride that wave for years!

[DangerCat]

True that! Sometimes there are people who want to make a contrarian statement simply for the fact of being contrary. I agree it’s far too early to call laff a bust. He needs deployment and I think the points will come. However I am a bit concerned, as a fellow laff owner in a large dynasty league, that he hasn’t played himself into a top 6 role yet. But I am in no way ready to throw my hands in the air. Not a chance!

[Nylander2.0]

So I can't say I know what you mean in the first bit there but I can address the second part.

These are opinions but not all opinions are created equal and there are actually some good reasons why a writer or poster might not have the most "informed" opinion on a player.

I mean we are all building a portfolio of data and contextual info on most of the fantasy relevant players in the league but its not always feasible that you can do a very deep dive on ALL of them. There are examples of guys that poolies are giving up on- say Morgan Frost or Film Zadina but the reality is I dont own them.in any leagues, they've never really come up in trade talks or on the wire and at some point you have to narrow down your list and "cut the cord" on players. I mean it wouldn't be that great of advice if everyone just said any guy with any upside was undroppable right? I mean what is it like 30% that make it to the show? Half of
them aren't even fantasy relevant? Those numbers are a total guess btw- im just saying itd be bad advice- you need to cultivate your list at some point. If a forum member or writer has done that here you couldn't really blame them right? Its been three years after all. If you ask an opinion and someone takes the time to respond that should be enough right? Im not saying its a dishonest opinion- but I do question if they've taken the requisite amount of time/care a player with this type of upside warrants- I mean hes a game breaker if he develops properly.

But thats exactly WHY you have to "rudely" disagree and address the issue. I own lafreniere in my main league which is very big, very savvy and where you have very very little wiggle room to add elite talent. You get one real good shot at the beginning of each draft (no ones trading their 1st)- so if you're going to take a guy you have to make damn sure hes the one. Same with cutting him- lol- you get one shot a year!

And I did the research on Lafreniere- frozen tools, podcasts, scouting reports, interviews with the player, the coach, the gm- im not saying that ensures a "correct" opinion but its certainly more than a gut feeling. In fact this isn't really my opinion- im looking at what the forum members/writers are saying here (hes had long enough) compared to what scouts and sources closer to the team are saying (his talent level and upside are off the charts and the team is asking him to do all the things a grinder does including NOT cheat for offense and they're ecstatic about his play. When you look at that draft Byfield brought size that you couldn't teach and Stutzle was the "insider" pick from the get go- but Lafreniere was a tier to himself right from the start. We should have seen the warning signs when he went to NY- thats on us. Deep forward corps, coach who is notoriously pro vet- its not even all that surprising tbh. Why does this deployment matter?

Because when you look at guys who take awhile to break out- Jack Hughes for example- he was force-fed every minute he could handle in the ozone, on the pp and he failed miserably at times! Even with all that primo deployment all the enthusiastic pep talks from coaching and management it took him three years to break out! Lafreniere gets maybe ten games a year of primo deployment split between three sets of linemates lol! And no pep talks- just criticism and trade rumors! That skill doesn't just evaporate- he'll find his groove whether its with a new coach or on a new team!

Back to the matter at hand- my issue is not the "opinion" its the "argument". Hes had three years is not a valid argument. A first overall should dominate is not a valid argument. Saying well "maybe hes a 60 point player" is not an argument at all its an opinion and a bad one to boot

So if the argument was: "despite his lack of deployment he has advanced metric a and advanced meteic b that suggest he won't succeed when given that deployment anyways and for that reason I think he's not on track to develop like we thought he would". Thats not the argument though- in fact another poster in another thread pointed out quite brilliantly that when you take out the pp points and account for the differential in atoi his es totals are pretty dang close to Stutzles!

The argument is: "Hes had long enough and if he were truly as exceptionally talented as they said he was hed have broken out by now". I'm sorry but thats bunk (and it REEKS of sour grapes lol!). This is the best league in the world and if he had been force-fed minutes like JH there would still be an argument why he could still break out BUT he hasn't even had that.

You can't call him a bust when hes never had a real opportunity. In the immortal words of Gordon Bombay the mighty dicks thats "not even a has been- thats a never was"

So if you want to make your decision based on someone's opinion whose either been burned or is just plain nor very invested in the outcome you can do that- these are all just "opinions" after all- but its YOU whose left scratching your head wondering how you managed to cut a 90+ point player before their 22nd birthday. If he's actually given a real shot and fumbles the puck- we can talk about him being a bust but until then its just throwing darts and hoping like he'll you're right. Why is my opinion any different? Because its not mine- its will scouchs, smart scouting, Tony ferraris- all of them- its that of the scouting world at large. They said if he's given the opportunity he could be one of the best in the business and he just hasn't been given that opportunity. You want to write a kid off at the age of 21 before hes been given a shot then I hope you have a very sound argument and I just have NOT heard one...

Hey and sometimes the reasoning isn't even THAT sound- I hate to say it but there are people in life who will just make a big statement lime that for the sheer ego of it- lol! If he does fail miserably and someone called it today they could ride that wave for years!

You made a ton of arguments that support the fact laf has the chance to succeed but you don’t provide anything that shows he will actually succeed. I’ve watched him play quite abit and I just don’t see anything from him that shows he will be a star

Is he a bust? Absolutely not but right now in a redraft I have no clue how you don’t take a player like Say Byfield who’s been having exponential statistical growth topped with passing the visual test in spades over Lafranier who’s admittedly been very poorly developed under Gallant but has a very stagnant statistical growth.

Under a new coach I think he does better but ideally he’s traded to a team like Vancouver for say there 11th and a fresh start puts him in a good position

[PoolPartyPuljeejarvi]

Well thats good then- thats exactly where I'm at. I don't have a crystal ball- I dont know hell succeed. I mean its sort of hard to extrapolate any meaningful data given his deployment but tbh what you said sums up where I stand perfectly. I don't know hell succeed. All I know is that a lot of very talented said they'd bet a sizable amount that he probably will and then he just never got a chance. And I don't doubt he's looked bad at times- im sure jack Hughes looked brutal at times in the years if mediocrity before he broke out. In fact these forums are littered with posts about how people have seen him play and hes just a mediocre player who was overrated from playing on a dominant development team and being stapled to caufield. More people were saying that narrative then the new one which is that he was always a star apparently. That feels a little convenient and I feel bad for the guys who dropped or traded jack- and I sort of feel like this is my way of saying "hey that upside is still there- it hasn't really had a chance to show itself yet..."

My only point is that he has not been given a chance yet- NOT that he definitely will succeed. I'm leaving the "will he won't he" question to people a lot better at diagnosing that kind of thing than me. I don't think if I watched him it would tell me a ton to be honest. I thought hemsky would be a superstar and he was never really close to that! I mean I've been right a time or two as well but I just mean deferring to the experts in at least that regard has been useful.

If you've seen him and he looks lost than I appreciate the input. I'm not hearing that from sources close to the team though and I spend a ridiculous amount of free time researching that stuff. The consensus seems to be the coaching staff is asking him for even more defensive buy in and asking him not cheat for offense. Make the safe play- get the puck out and our scoring lines will do the rest and one day you'll be on that scoring line. And in that regard hes apparently been successful.

I stand by what I said- it took jack Hughes three years even with primo deployment to do anything noteworthy. Being a first overall or even a projected elite talent simply does not guarantee success. You need deployment and opportunity and sometimes you need a lot of it. The coaching change is a nice turn of events and im personally hoping its the catalyst for a 60ish point season with at least 2 minutes on the pp and a regular shift in the top six. If he gets that I'd be just ducky. Long term the guys I trust say he is a cant miss prospect who should be able to crack 90+ a few times and I still 100% believe that. If he gets a year or two of primo deployment and he still looks pedestrian maybe then its time to re-evaluate but I feel like making any big decisions at this point is based on an incomplete data set and you might as well be predicting off whether or not a groundhog casts a shadow at that point- imho.

Three years of being deployed as a grinder doesn't change his upside for me. If it does for anyone else thats all good! I dont get it- i certainly don't buy it but opinions are like yak stoves ...we've all got one?