Another Heatley rumor to throw on the pile...

asq2 wrote:

hemlock wrote:

Hockeyhero22000 wrote:

hemlock wrote:

Hockeyhero22000 wrote:i am beginning to think that keeping heatley wont be bad provided he has a turn around in attitude if the locker room can be good then we will be pretty deep and have a decent run this year....also back to that initial rumour frolov is a good piece he may be a bit streaky but the last 4 years he has put up 50+ points thats not bad but we obvioulsy need more than just him preferable for me prospects and picks

With the addition of Kovalev, we can afford to take Frolov and prospects/picks. I think Frolov is a good fit. He's reportedly bed buddies with Volchenkov, and having Kovy around will help him feel more at home. I'd love to see a guy like Purcell and a prospect like Voinov.

i hope you meant best buddies

Oh. My. God.

Yes, I meant best buddies. I'm at work trying to do this on the sly and getting distracted.

Worse. Slip. Ever.

I thought it was semi-intentional. Still gives the same idea, though with different implications.

asq2 wrote:

hemlock wrote:

Hockeyhero22000 wrote:

hemlock wrote:

Hockeyhero22000 wrote:i am beginning to think that keeping heatley wont be bad provided he has a turn around in attitude if the locker room can be good then we will be pretty deep and have a decent run this year....also back to that initial rumour frolov is a good piece he may be a bit streaky but the last 4 years he has put up 50+ points thats not bad but we obvioulsy need more than just him preferable for me prospects and picks

With the addition of Kovalev, we can afford to take Frolov and prospects/picks. I think Frolov is a good fit. He's reportedly bed buddies with Volchenkov, and having Kovy around will help him feel more at home. I'd love to see a guy like Purcell and a prospect like Voinov.

i hope you meant best buddies

Oh. My. God.

Yes, I meant best buddies. I'm at work trying to do this on the sly and getting distracted.

Worse. Slip. Ever.

I thought it was semi-intentional. Still gives the same idea, though with different implications.

asq2 wrote:

FireOnIce wrote:

asq2 wrote:

FireOnIce wrote:Asq, I am going to assume that you like prospects as per your avatar and signature.

I think that is also why you highly overrate them. In your first paragraph, you name 8 prospects. You do realize that the odds are that only one of the 8 reach their projected potential. 3 will not make 100 games in the NHL and the other 4 will have average careers.

The above stats are taken from the Top 10 picks in every first round draft their has ever been and an average was created. Some of your listed names are not Top 10 picks, but I gave you the benefit of the doubt.

No, I was not aware that prospects have the possibility of busting.

I'm just saying that to say Toronto is set-up going forward as you put it, is not how I see it.

Sorry for disagreeing with you I guess.

Thanks for the discussion.

You don't have to apologize. That was a bit of an arseholeish response from me. I was just getting my thoughts together.

You're right, prospects do bust - frequently. Obviously, the discussions we have are on-paper (or on-screen discussions), so we tend to look at what players are supposed to be, rather than what they are. Heck, you also don't know if a player is going to pull a Wade Redden '05-'06 to '06-'07 -type decline (to put it mildly).

The weakness, as you've pointed out, for the organization is that they don't have young talent that's proven at the NHL level at the forward position. Trust that they are not the only team banking on improving a position dramatically via integration of prospects: heck, the Sens are praying like crazy that Karlsson, Cowen and Wiercioch can fulfill their respective potentials.

The Leafs don't have much talent at the forward position period, so they're going to have to look to the future to compete, ie. at their prospects. I feel Burke has laid a good foundation in that regard, though I suggest he should look at acquiring a corner-stone forward (and since I'm not sure they have the assets or the opportunity to acquire a young, proven one, they'll have to take a chance on a high-end prospect). I was also not a fan of them moving Stralman, because they don't have many youthful puck-movers.

Anyway, I guess I feel they're doing well because they've got young talent (albeit unproven talent) at every position, and they're largely unstrangled by big contracts. As teams with proven young talent begin to feel the squeeze (say, the Pittsburghs, Columbuses and Chicagos), the Leafs will be able to step in, acquire some talent while ideally having their own youth mature and develop.

asq2 wrote:I think Kadri's an elite forward prospect. A project, mind you, but so is Erik Karlsson.

I can see him having the potential to be a top-6/top-3 forward on a roster. You're right, though, they have no one guy to build around up front. Bozak, Kadri and Kulemin (and to a lesser extent, Hayes and Stefanovich) all look to be supporting scorers rather than the main guy. And the best guy on the roster right now (Hagman, he's a gem IMO) isn't all that young. Stempniak and Stajan are probably their best young proven forwards, which isn't the nicest thought.

In retrospect, the Komisarek signing someone legitimizes passing on Cowen. But I think Burke screwed up on the defence in the Kubina and Stralman trades. Dumping Stralman really diminishes the offensive ability of the team down the line, and keeping Kubina perhaps could have enabled a Kaberle+ for Kessel swap (I don't know what happened in that regard, but I thought that would have been excellent for the Leafs).

asq2 wrote:I think Kadri's an elite forward prospect. A project, mind you, but so is Erik Karlsson.

I can see him having the potential to be a top-6/top-3 forward on a roster. You're right, though, they have no one guy to build around up front. Bozak, Kadri and Kulemin (and to a lesser extent, Hayes and Stefanovich) all look to be supporting scorers rather than the main guy. And the best guy on the roster right now (Hagman, he's a gem IMO) isn't all that young. Stempniak and Stajan are probably their best young proven forwards, which isn't the nicest thought.

In retrospect, the Komisarek signing someone legitimizes passing on Cowen. But I think Burke screwed up on the defence in the Kubina and Stralman trades. Dumping Stralman really diminishes the offensive ability of the team down the line, and keeping Kubina perhaps could have enabled a Kaberle+ for Kessel swap (I don't know what happened in that regard, but I thought that would have been excellent for the Leafs).

wprager wrote:
So is he (Kadri) elite or supporting?

Personally, I think "Elite" goes top-three, even in a deep draft. Sure, Kadri led his team in scoring, but a team-mate finished just 2 points back, and this is a defenseman. Burke got Kadri for his style of play, I think, not necessarily expecting him to be a big scorer (which echoes what you said, actually).

SpezDispenser wrote:

wprager wrote:
So is he (Kadri) elite or supporting?

Personally, I think "Elite" goes top-three, even in a deep draft. Sure, Kadri led his team in scoring, but a team-mate finished just 2 points back, and this is a defenseman. Burke got Kadri for his style of play, I think, not necessarily expecting him to be a big scorer (which echoes what you said, actually).

Actually, that's a good question. When there was talk we were going to select Kadri, I thought of him as a second line center. I think he's on the threshold between elite and top tier, but, the question is a good one. Will he every dominate at the NHL level?

I have doubts to be honest. Close though. :*:

cas wrote:I don't think its anywhere near close - Imo there's no way in hell you can consider Kadri elite now, nor do I believe he'll ever be an elite player. Frankly, I'm dumbfounded at the suggestion. We must simply have different definitions of elite...for me, Spezza is "borderline" when it comes to discussing elite talent. As such, Kadri doesn't even get within a mile of that border...

asq2 wrote:

SpezDispenser wrote:

wprager wrote:
So is he (Kadri) elite or supporting?

Personally, I think "Elite" goes top-three, even in a deep draft. Sure, Kadri led his team in scoring, but a team-mate finished just 2 points back, and this is a defenseman. Burke got Kadri for his style of play, I think, not necessarily expecting him to be a big scorer (which echoes what you said, actually).

Actually, that's a good question. When there was talk we were going to select Kadri, I thought of him as a second line center. I think he's on the threshold between elite and top tier, but, the question is a good one. Will he every dominate at the NHL level?

I have doubts to be honest. Close though. :*:

I guess it depends on the definition of elite. And also your impression of Kadri: some say he's not that different from Duchene, just less polished. I have my doubts about whether some of his finesse will translate to the NHL level.

I don't think he's much less of a prospect than our defencemen, though, to clarify.