RNH for Iginla and Ehrhoff

[bigbabybuda]

That question is misleading whether you know it or not. The problem is that this situation is not a vacuum where only talent matters. Contracts and salaries are a huge factor in this from the Oilers standpoint. RNH is a cheap salary for the next 2.5 years and is controllable beyond that. Parise is a UFA with a +7 million dollar price tag. So no the Oilers would not trade RNH straight up for Parise. The other factor here is positional. Parise plays wing. You don't win hockey games from the wing. You win them with strength up the middle and on defense. RNH has more NHL value due to his play up the middle.

Only in the vacuum of the fantasy hockey world where positions and salary don't matter, only talent as it relates to producing across six standard rotisserie categories can we answer this question in earnest as it relates to the situation in question. In that situation yes the Oilers would trade RNH for Parise.



The issue at hand is not whether RNH will be elite or not. We all buy that with a great amount of certainty. It's the fact that you are using poorly layed out logic to formulate an argument that only covers half the story and puts way more faith in the opinion of others whom we don't even know than in your own opinion which we actually value here and tangible numbers. The best thing you've offered up in this whole argument is the fact that you've watched RNH and you believe he will be a star because it's not based on the assumed collective of all NHL scouts.

So conceding that we all seem to believe RNH is likely to be an elite calibre player the argument rests in two things. The fact you were ignoring Parise's accomplishments based on the fact he's a late bloomer without the perfect draft pedigree and you have yet to acknowledge that this is not merely a points only league but in fact a rotisserie based league that measures a players value based on more than simply scoring points, which is as you say all the Oilers drafted RNH to do.

Parise is proven elite and produces more across the board than RNH will.

I will concede the trade question because your right there are many other things to take into consideration and since I have been in pools for close to 20 years all of which have cap's I should have known better then to ask that. Your right it bares no weight...For the record I would have conceded that point after 1 sentence. It didn't need two paragraphs.

RNH is on pace to have to have about 180 SOG, so at this point there is nothing to make me believe that his shot number's won't go up at a strong enough pace over the next few years to marginalize the difference. As for PIM's Parise has never had over 32 so that has no value for him and as for +/- pretty hard to predict but I think Edmonton will be a much better team over the next few years, so I'll even just call that a push. As for me respecting the views of people who are paid for a living to evaluate players to evaluate players. That's the logical thing to do. If I was going to buy a stock I would listen to Warren Buffet. If I was going bake a cake I'd listen to a chief. If I was looking to build a car I would listen to a mechanic. So if I'm looking to invest in a hockey player I will listen to a professional scout. That is actually logical to me and to dismiss there insight is ill-logical imo. I actually think your's and mine opinion weighs far less in this argument then the opinions of the people who spend everyday at the arena's being paid to scout the players.

As for Parise, I like Parise I own him in two pools and understand that his career took a little longer then some to blast off. I don't think of him as Elite, but very close to it. I'm simply trying to point out to you guys that to dismiss a player because he hasn't put up huge numbers yet (because he has never played before) is wrong.

I would rep you if I had any left.

[notoriusbug]

The sample size is not 20 games. It's about the 4000 or so. That is the about the the amount of games the last 10 first overall picks who were forwards have played. Actually I have no idea how many games it is. But anyway all of them are almost elite or elite. So after averaging over a ppg as an 18 thru his first 20 games there is nothing to make me believe he will not be elite. I will take the judgement of the guys getting paid to scout him since he was 14.

How about those scouts who didn't pick RNH for last year's WJC team? Your logic is terrible...and as Blayze has outlined so well, putting all #1 picks in the same basket is a bad argument. And if you want to go there...RNH was far from the consensus #1...he was one of four who may have gone #1. What if he ended up going #3 and was putting up the same numbers? Does that make any difference in his future potential?

[bigbabybuda]

How about those scouts who didn't pick RNH for last year's WJC team? Your logic is terrible...and as Blayze has outlined so well, putting all #1 picks in the same basket is a bad argument. And if you want to go there...RNH was far from the consensus #1...he was one of four who may have gone #1. What if he ended up going #3 and was putting up the same numbers? Does that make any difference in his future potential?

My logic is not terrible because you don't understand it. It is actually rooted in complete logic. Who were the other 4? I sure as hell new he was going to go #1 and the fact that Edmonton passed on a stud Defense man which they so surly need further illustrates his talent. He was 17 at the world juniors 95% Canada's juniors are 18 and 19 it is not that he was not good enough it is that they like to field bigger, older, stronger teams. I'm not putting them all in the same boat it just a way of trying to explain why you don't simply dismiss a player because he hasn't scored 80 points in the NHL, especially one with the pedigree of a number 1 pick. Or a number 2 pick or 3. I would take Seguin over Parise as well... His pedigree has to be taken into account when holding him up against older players as that is what you have to judge him by and to compare him with players of similar pedigree is only prudent. If you want I can break down there games like MT does or would that not be ok as well. So will simply say Parise has averaged .80pts per game RNH has never played a game. So you can't trade them. Fine.

[metaldude26]

I will concede the trade question because your right there are many other things to take into consideration and since I have been in pools for close to 20 years all of which have cap's I should have known better then to ask that. Your right it bares no weight...For the record I would have conceded that point after 1 sentence. It didn't need two paragraphs.

RNH is on pace to have to have about 180 SOG, so at this point there is nothing to make me believe that his shot number's won't go up at a strong enough pace over the next few years to marginalize the difference. As for PIM's Parise has never had over 32 so that has no value for him and as for +/- pretty hard to predict but I think Edmonton will be a much better team over the next few years, so I'll even just call that a push. As for me respecting the views of people who are paid for a living to evaluate players to evaluate players. That's the logical thing to do. If I was going to buy a stock I would listen to Warren Buffet. If I was going bake a cake I'd listen to a chief. If I was looking to build a car I would listen to a mechanic. So if I'm looking to invest in a hockey player I will listen to a professional scout. That is actually logical to me and to dismiss there insight is ill-logical imo. I actually think your's and mine opinion weighs far less in this argument then the opinions of the people who spend everyday at the arena's being paid to scout the players.

As for Parise, I like Parise I own him in two pools and understand that his career took a little longer then some to blast off. I don't think of him as Elite, but very close to it. I'm simply trying to point out to you guys that to dismiss a player because he hasn't put up huge numbers yet (because he has never played before) is wrong.

I would rep you if I had any left.

Right but that's not what we are saying though. We don't dismiss RNH because he hasn't been their before we just can't value his potential as much as Parise's proven because one is tangible the other isn't.

What NHL scouts have to say is nearly irrelevant because I think all would agree they ****ed up with regard to Parise. If you did that draft over Parise would be a lock for the top five and a very strong candidate for the first overall pick. Not a shoe-in but neither was RNH a shoe-in. It's because of guys like Parise proving that in the new NHL small guys can succeed that small guys like Kane and RNH are no longer written off because of size. As we've indicated before the draft slot does not guarantee a superstar, it is merely one of many factors and on it's own it's probably the least tangible factor because it only tells you about that player's abilities at the time of the draft compared to those in his age group. The reason is that elite players do not come out of every draft and even when they do that player's elite status is not always self-evident come draft time. I would say that being selected number one overall as a forward is a good sign for a player but it has the most relevance at draft time. Once you see what that player can do at the NHL level you basically write off his pedigree and start looking at his individual merits as an actual player. He's awesome but he's not a guaranteed elite player. This is why I say that your judgement of that player is more important because those scouts stop scouting him once he makes it to the show. In fact, many NHL scouts don't even see players until they get to their draft year. What's more, it's the GM who almost always makes the call on who to take with a high pick like 1st overall. The scouts get input but the GM gets the final say and he'll be swayed by things like team needs and media pressure other internal pressures. Even more so the fact that someone gets paid to do something does not ensure competence. That's why people get fired and why some teams do better than others. It's because of luck and differing levels of competence.

Why don't we trust that the "scouts" are always getting it right? Because the scouts don't always get it right. Because it often requires a consensus to create a first overall pick and it also requires mitigating circumstances like team needs. If RNH went 2nd, or 3rd because a team just NEEDED a defenseman more than anything would that reduce his chances of being a superstar? Not at all. Nor does it reduce the chances of any player selected after him. Draft position is just a position. Actual talent is tangible and how that talent translates to points is even more tangible. It's too easy to get caught up in things like draft position and what the scouts are saying. At a certain point something else must take over. I'm glad you made your personal preference known. Because that's more important at this point.

[bigbabybuda]

Right but that's not what we are saying though. We don't dismiss RNH because he hasn't been their before we just can't value his potential as much as Parise's proven because one is tangible the other isn't.

Well that's fine, but I never meant you in particular dismiss for those reason, but the 100 other threads were the only argument against him is that he is unproven do. Your's and my perspective of what is tangible simply just differs!!


What NHL scouts have to say is nearly irrelevant because I think all would agree they ****ed up with regard to Parise. If you did that draft over Parise would be a lock for the top five and a very strong candidate for the first overall pick. Not a shoe-in but neither was RNH a shoe-in. It's because of guys like Parise proving that in the new NHL small guys can succeed that small guys like Kane and RNH are no longer written off because of size. As we've indicated before the draft slot does not guarantee a superstar, it is merely one of many factors and on it's own it's probably the least tangible factor because it only tells you about that player's abilities at the time of the draft compared to those in his age group. The reason is that elite players do not come out of every draft and even when they do that player's elite status is not always self-evident come draft time. I would say that being selected number one overall as a forward is a good sign for a player but it has the most relevance at draft time. Once you see what that player can do at the NHL level you basically write off his pedigree and start looking at his individual merits as an actual player. He's awesome but he's not a guaranteed elite player. This is why I say that your judgement of that player is more important because those scouts stop scouting him once he makes it to the show. In fact, many NHL scouts don't even see players until they get to their draft year. What's more, it's the GM who almost always makes the call on who to take with a high pick like 1st overall. The scouts get input but the GM gets the final say and he'll be swayed by things like team needs and media pressure other internal pressures. Even more so the fact that someone gets paid to do something does not ensure competence. That's why people get fired and why some teams do better than others. It's because of luck and differing levels of competence.

I just went back and looked at the first 2 rds of the draft and I would put Parise some were between 7-10, just my opinion and yes they miss some players and they fall, but there recorded over the last 10 years is pretty dam good when it comes to the top picks.

Of course because someone has a job doe's not insure competence, but the fact that it takes " a consensus to create a first overall pick" lends any reasonable person to have to believe that the majority of the people doing that job are very much competent and there track record speaks for it's self in terms of the top guys not being busts. The huge majority just simply are not.

As for teams passing over the best player in the draft to draft for position, that simply doe's not happen very much any more, as was shown by the drafting of RNH last year. Edmonton was in much more need of a stud d-man then another blue chip forward, but drafted the player they thought was more talented. If you want my opinion I actually think they should have drafted Larrson and would still be saying I would rather have RNH then Parise 2-3 years from now..




Why don't we trust that the "scouts" are always getting it right? Because the scouts don't always get it right. Because it often requires a consensus to create a first overall pick and it also requires mitigating circumstances like team needs. If RNH went 2nd, or 3rd because a team just NEEDED a defenseman more than anything would that reduce his chances of being a superstar? Not at all. Nor does it reduce the chances of any player selected after him. Draft position is just a position. Actual talent is tangible and how that talent translates to points is even more tangible. It's too easy to get caught up in things like draft position and what the scouts are saying. At a certain point something else must take over. I'm glad you made your personal preference known. Because that's more important at this point.

Of course the "scouts" don't always get it right. Nobody at any job in the world is perfect. Expects in what ever field there in make mistakes time and time again. That doe's not mean I dismiss there opinion on a subject. It would not be prudent, because you or I would make more mistakes if we were in the same position more then likely...

It is by know means a perfect science scouting players, but I for one just don't have the opportunity or the want to go to 2 or more hockey games a day. But to not use the most obvious tool at your disposal the "scouts" is a huge mistake imo. Perfect or NOT!

I take my personal preference/opinions into consideration very much into consideration. I drafted Filatov over Stamkos and moved up into the top 3 to make sure I got him in 3 other pools. From looking at the them in the World Juniors and seeing Stamkos live maybe a half dozen times when he played for Sarnia. I was wrong in that instance. I also did it with Toews over Staal and was right in that instance and have done it hundreds of other times. I'm not trying to say at all you should just simply trade any player that wasn't drafted first overall for any player that is. What I'm trying to stress is that the opinions of people who go to literally 1000's of hockey games with there only purpose to be at those games is to evaluate talent should be taken into the highest regard when judging a player coming directly out of junior/college/khl/sel or any were else.


Sorry it took me so long to respond.. Had sh** to do!

Peace

[metaldude26]

These are all side arguments to the main point. The biggest reason your argument has and is outrageous is not about the value of scouts it's about the total disconnect between draft position and relative value based on the year that someone is drafted in. Even if the scouts were infallible and always made the right selection picking an elite forward with the first pick that only covers half the argument. Yes we put our faith in the scouts but we don't do it blindly because that's just not what sensible people do. We think critically. We use multiple resources and come to a conclusion. Does RNH have elite talents? Sure he looks pretty damn snazzy but it's not just about trusting the scouts that because he went first overall he most definitely will be a scoring star. Why is that the case? Because scouts aren't at all concerned with fantasy value. There's a huge difference between what a scout is looking for and what a fantasy owner values. Were it only about fantasy production on the ice then we could put way more faith into the scouts but it isn't and so we have to look beyond what the scouts are saying. Not only that but we also, and I'm repeating myself because you didn't address this, have to realize that GMs make the selection for top pick, not the scouts. So ultimately it only matters so much what they have to say because its the GM who has maybe seen the prospect play five times if he's lucky who has to make the call. Sure he has guidance from scouts but as we know some scouting departments are better than others. Some scouts favour certain traits over others and so do some GMs. It's all about personal preferences when it comes down to it. That means you aren't always getting the best player going first overall. It also means you aren't always getting the best fantasy asset going first overall.

Your argument is that RNH is elite because the scouts say he's elite and the connotation of that argument is that if you don't go first then you aren't elite. If you don't think Parise is elite, the numbers beg to differ. He's proven himself a top flight scorer in this league. Our argument is that you cannot simply say that RNH is elite because of his draft position and completely ignore the value of other players or reject that a player could be better than him if they aren't drafted first overall. Not saying that's your argument but for the bulk of your posts you didn't explain most of your argument and you left us with the mere connotation of your statements to fill in the blanks. You've better explained yourself but now to prove your points you are going beyond the mere argument of whether or not RNH is a better keeper than Parise which, let's face it, remains to be seen.

I have one more point to make and it has nothing to do with the Parise/RNH argument but it still needs to be made. Edmonton's biggest need was not on defense. Fact is they had holes pretty much everywhere but on the wing. True, they'd spent multiple top picks in recent years drafting forwards but they took all wingers with those picks leaving a gaping whole at center. I believe and I'm sure you'll find many people who are paid to analyze hockey who will agree that winning in the NHL requires first and foremost strength up the middle and strength on the blueline. The problem is that good centermen rarely if ever become available and even harder is convincing them to come to a market like Edmonton. They are the single hardest commodity to come by and it's something you almost always have to draft. Defensemen are hard to come by but drafting them is not necessary and they take longer to develop than forwards. I guarantee the Oilers have a tough time finding a defenseman but before the year is out the will have traded for one. If they pick a defenseman with the top pick I'm not sure they manage to trade for a centerman this season. RNH was the logical choice for the Oilers because of NHL value and positional value. Not because of fantasy value and only partially because of his elite upside. First and foremost he filled their need for talent and then he filled their need for a centerman. If a different team picks first they could have different needs and could go in a completely different direction but that would say nothing of the elite upside that RNH has. A player's abilities/upside are only somewhat connected to their draft position based on the needs of that NHL team and the ability of that team to make proper assessments.

[ovi42]

My logic is not terrible because you don't understand it. It is actually rooted in complete logic. Who were the other 4? I sure as hell new he was going to go #1 and the fact that Edmonton passed on a stud Defense man which they so surly need further illustrates his talent. He was 17 at the world juniors 95% Canada's juniors are 18 and 19 it is not that he was not good enough it is that they like to field bigger, older, stronger teams. I'm not putting them all in the same boat it just a way of trying to explain why you don't simply dismiss a player because he hasn't scored 80 points in the NHL, especially one with the pedigree of a number 1 pick. Or a number 2 pick or 3. I would take Seguin over Parise as well... His pedigree has to be taken into account when holding him up against older players as that is what you have to judge him by and to compare him with players of similar pedigree is only prudent. If you want I can break down there games like MT does or would that not be ok as well. So will simply say Parise has averaged .80pts per game RNH has never played a game. So you can't trade them. Fine.

funny that you mention MT, because you sound a lot like MT in this thread.

[bigbabybuda]

These are all side arguments to the main point. The biggest reason your argument has and is outrageous is not about the value of scouts it's about the total disconnect between draft position and relative value based on the year that someone is drafted in. Even if the scouts were infallible and always made the right selection picking an elite forward with the first pick that only covers half the argument. Yes we put our faith in the scouts but we don't do it blindly because that's just not what sensible people do. We think critically. We use multiple resources and come to a conclusion. Does RNH have elite talents? Sure he looks pretty damn snazzy but it's not just about trusting the scouts that because he went first overall he most definitely will be a scoring star. Why is that the case? Because scouts aren't at all concerned with fantasy value. There's a huge difference between what a scout is looking for and what a fantasy owner values. Were it only about fantasy production on the ice then we could put way more faith into the scouts but it isn't and so we have to look beyond what the scouts are saying. Not only that but we also, and I'm repeating myself because you didn't address this, have to realize that GMs make the selection for top pick, not the scouts. So ultimately it only matters so much what they have to say because its the GM who has maybe seen the prospect play five times if he's lucky who has to make the call. Sure he has guidance from scouts but as we know some scouting departments are better than others. Some scouts favour certain traits over others and so do some GMs. It's all about personal preferences when it comes down to it. That means you aren't always getting the best player going first overall. It also means you aren't always getting the best fantasy asset going first overall.

Again I'm not simply stating that because the scouts think a player should be drafted 1st or 2nd or 3rd and then inform the GM of this and then the GM goes to watch him play (however many) times and comes to the same conclusion is a reason to trade him for anyone. It is and has been proven that it is simply a very good indicator that the player is more then likely going to be a very good NHLer. As I have shown earlier 6 out of the last 8 forwards who were drafted first going back before Hall's drafting have scored more ppg the Parise over there careers up until this point. I said 7 before but Tavares is .08 behind, but is well a head of Parise pace threw similar points in there career. So To suggest there is no collation between the 2 is just false imo. If your drafted 1st and the reason your drafted there is not to defend or stop pucks or kill penalties then your more then likely going to do what you are drafted for and score points.. GM/Scouts Semantics. It is clear I put 1 and 2 together. As well as the professional training staff that work him out to ensure he's in shape.

You mention that the GM makes the call and he doesn't care about fantasy hockey he only cares about what will make his team better and such. Of course your 100% right. I realize this and so would any other reasonable person also. What any other reasonable person should also be able to realize is they didn't draft the 175 pound Taylor Hall for any other reason then to put up points and be a force down the middle. They didn't draft him to shut people down or to fight anyone they drafted him to score goals and get assist's. Hopefully he evolves into a great 2-way center and he does way more then that (as he has shown that ability), but he was drafted for his vision, offence creativity and tremendous hockey sense and that is very apparent by watching his first 20 games.



Your argument is that RNH is elite because the scouts say he's elite and the connotation of that argument is that if you don't go first then you aren't elite. If you don't think Parise is elite, the numbers beg to differ. He's proven himself a top flight scorer in this league. Our argument is that you cannot simply say that RNH is elite because of his draft position and completely ignore the value of other players or reject that a player could be better than him if they aren't drafted first overall. Not saying that's your argument but for the bulk of your posts you didn't explain most of your argument and you left us with the mere connotation of your statements to fill in the blanks. You've better explained yourself but now to prove your points you are going beyond the mere argument of whether or not RNH is a better keeper than Parise which, let's face it, remains to be seen.

I'm not being "connotation" (stubbornness/pig headed) in saying that there is a collation in being drafted 1st and becoming elite. I'm again simply stressing if you are the top pick and the reason you were the top pick is to score points then your more then likely going to do that. As for the second part of your assertion here I have NEVER said anything of the sort in regards to a player not being drafted 1st means they are not elite or going to be elite. I think over the last 5 or so years the 2nd/3rd best player in the league was Pavel Datsyuk and he was most certainly not drafted first overall. So I don't really know were you got that from. As I never said anything of the sort.



I have one more point to make and it has nothing to do with the Parise/RNH argument but it still needs to be made. Edmonton's biggest need was not on defense. Fact is they had holes pretty much everywhere but on the wing. True, they'd spent multiple top picks in recent years drafting forwards but they took all wingers with those picks leaving a gaping whole at center. I believe and I'm sure you'll find many people who are paid to analyze hockey who will agree that winning in the NHL requires first and foremost strength up the middle and strength on the blueline. The problem is that good centermen rarely if ever become available and even harder is convincing them to come to a market like Edmonton. They are the single hardest commodity to come by and it's something you almost always have to draft. Defensemen are hard to come by but drafting them is not necessary and they take longer to develop than forwards. I guarantee the Oilers have a tough time finding a defenseman but before the year is out the will have traded for one. If they pick a defenseman with the top pick I'm not sure they manage to trade for a centerman this season. RNH was the logical choice for the Oilers because of NHL value and positional value. Not because of fantasy value and only partially because of his elite upside. First and foremost he filled their need for talent and then he filled their need for a centerman. If a different team picks first they could have different needs and could go in a completely different direction but that would say nothing of the elite upside that RNH has. A player's abilities/upside are only somewhat connected to their draft position based on the needs of that NHL team and the ability of that team to make proper assessments.

I don't see why it would be any harder to convince a center man to come to Edmonton then it would be to convince a defense man to come via FA (nobody = wants to be there) and Larsson looks plenty enough ready to me. Will they obtain a d-man during the season more then likely and I for 1 hope so. I'm not an Oliers fan per say, but enjoy watching there games. I think they could have traded for a center just as easily this year as trading for defense man, unless they settle for an average defense man. Hell maybe they could have even traded for Parise

So to summarize, I think that being drafted 1st overall usually has a direct correlation to you being a very good hockey player and turning into a very good NHL player. The majority of them just simply do. I would not trade for a player simply because of this, but I would take it into consideration if trading for a player as I feel if you are drafted that high you have been scouted enough were as you are not "unproven". I also of course would need to see something from that player and I surly have in RNH's first 20+. I have watched enough hockey, played enough and refed enough to be very confident in his abilities. I do not hold anyone's opinion of a player as the final word on something, but if the overwhelming majority of the "experts" think a certain way in regards to a particular player I will surly take there opinions on a player into the highest regard and use it to HELP me make a informed choice on a player. So yes in fantasy hockey under these formats I would rather have RNH in a year or 2 then Parise and how I come to that choice is irrelevant all that is really relevant is if I made right or wrong decision in the long run. As in everything else in life time will tell!!

Lastly I have enjoyed this discussion but I think it is becoming rather minuteness as we are simply arguing the same thing back and forth. I respect your opinion on the situation, but I just simply disagree with it. If you wish to have the last word the floor is yours...

Thank you
Cheers!!!

[metaldude26]

I don't see why it would be any harder to convince a center man to come to Edmonton then it would be to convince a defense man to come via FA (nobody = wants to be there) and Larsson looks plenty enough ready to me. Will they obtain a d-man during the season more then likely and I for 1 hope so. I'm not an Oliers fan per say, but enjoy watching there games. I think they could have traded for a center just as easily this year as trading for defense man, unless they settle for an average defense man. Hell maybe they could have even traded for Parise.

It's not that it's harder to convince a free agent defenseman to go there it's that less quality centermen become available than quality defensemen. That's just the nature of the beast.