Ottawa prospect Number 1

wprager wrote:You said he was our top prospect and his performance was anything but.  He was outperformed by Stone, Hoffman, Pageau and perhaps even Puempel (will never know).  You continue to support your pick yet it was clearly the wrong one.

Now, if you are still trying to argue who will have a bigger impact on the team in the long run?  Good luck.  It will take way too long to settle that argument.  But, like I said earlier, there is a fear and it's not unfounded, that his ceiling now is a 3rd liner with a big heart and a huge smile.  His paycheck last year would have better served the team by going to players who deserved it more.

I told you I couldn't care less uwo he performed in year one. It does not mean he wasn't our top prospect. He was our top prospect, period. Still is.

You do not understand prospects and shouldn't rank them.

To you, sure. And the way the season went along proved you wrong.

I have to agree. The team and lazar would be better served by him spending some time in the AHL. I too fear that learning the ropes in the NHL might stunt his development to become an offensive player. I'm not gonna be thrilled if he just pans out a third liner. They should give him the opportunity to be a top line player in bingo. See if that can translate into the NHL.

LeCaptain wrote:

wprager wrote:You said he was our top prospect and his performance was anything but.  He was outperformed by Stone, Hoffman, Pageau and perhaps even Puempel (will never know).  You continue to support your pick yet it was clearly the wrong one.

Now, if you are still trying to argue who will have a bigger impact on the team in the long run?  Good luck.  It will take way too long to settle that argument.  But, like I said earlier, there is a fear and it's not unfounded, that his ceiling now is a 3rd liner with a big heart and a huge smile.  His paycheck last year would have better served the team by going to players who deserved it more.

I don't think you know the definition of a prospect. Lazar being outperformed by anyone on his rookie season doesn't change his long term potential in any way, which is the Number 1 definition of a top prospect. The long term result.
If you think a rookie season is gonna make or break a player's potential, not sure what to tell you.

Well I know that Pageau deserved that spot over Lazar. I know that if the rules were different or if Lazar was a bit older that he would have been in Bingo all year. I don't subscribe to the idea that Lazar cost the team -- he was not the difference between winning an losing. And it wasn't his fault that Pageau spent half a season making a fraction of the salary he had earned. But still.

wprager wrote:

LeCaptain wrote:

wprager wrote:You said he was our top prospect and his performance was anything but.  He was outperformed by Stone, Hoffman, Pageau and perhaps even Puempel (will never know).  You continue to support your pick yet it was clearly the wrong one.

Now, if you are still trying to argue who will have a bigger impact on the team in the long run?  Good luck.  It will take way too long to settle that argument.  But, like I said earlier, there is a fear and it's not unfounded, that his ceiling now is a 3rd liner with a big heart and a huge smile.  His paycheck last year would have better served the team by going to players who deserved it more.

I don't think you know the definition of a prospect. Lazar being outperformed by anyone on his rookie season doesn't change his long term potential in any way, which is the Number 1 definition of a top prospect. The long term result.
If you think a rookie season is gonna make or break a player's potential, not sure what to tell you.

Well I know that Pageau deserved that spot over Lazar.  I know that if the rules were different or if Lazar was a bit older that he would have been in Bingo all year.  I don't subscribe to the idea that Lazar cost the team -- he was not the difference between winning an losing.  And it wasn't his fault that Pageau spent half a season making a fraction of the salary he had earned.  But still.

Again none of this means he wasn't the teams number one prospect going into last year.

And no we weren't wrong to rank him there. I specifically said he wasn't going to do much inbhis rookie year.

Why are you being so stubborn about this?

Could ask you the same question, tbh.

I'm confused. Is your argument that lazar shouldn't have been in the nhl last year or that lazar isn't a top prospect based on last year's play? The two aren't related, I hope u know that.

Michallica wrote:I'm confused. Is your argument that lazar shouldn't have been in the nhl last year or that lazar isn't a top prospect based on last year's play? The two aren't related, I hope u know that.

I guess you can have a Top prospect that's a monumental disappointment, like Lazar was last season. Some savior. Pfft.

Michallica wrote:I'm confused. Is your argument that lazar shouldn't have been in the nhl last year or that lazar isn't a top prospect based on last year's play? The two aren't related, I hope u know that.

I don't think anyone would be naming Lazar our top prospect this year. If they do, they are slightly delusional.

What I am saying is that, last year, he was narrowly picked as our top prospect (if I had picked Stone instead of Ceci like I was going to, initially, then the vote would have been very close), and I am also saying that, based on his lacklustre performance last year, that that was the incorrect pick.

You can't judge "top prospect" polls based on career results. I think one year is long enough to make the call on the poll. The poll was who is our top prospect, and last season our pick was outperformed handily by several other players also in the poll. So those who voted for Lazar were clearly wrong.

wprager wrote:

Michallica wrote:I'm confused. Is your argument that lazar shouldn't have been in the nhl last year or that lazar isn't a top prospect based on last year's play? The two aren't related, I hope u know that.

I don't think anyone would be naming Lazar our top prospect this year.  If they do, they are slightly delusional.

What I am saying is that, last year, he was narrowly picked as our top prospect (if I had picked Stone instead of Ceci like I was going to, initially, then the vote would have been very close), and I am also saying that, based on his lacklustre performance last year, that that was the incorrect pick.

You can't judge "top prospect" polls based on career results.  I think one year is long enough to make the call on the poll.  The poll was who is our top prospect, and last season our pick was outperformed handily by several other players also in the poll.  So those who voted for Lazar were clearly wrong.

I don't consider Lazar a prospect anymore, so he would not be my number one. If he was still a prospect, I would have him or Chabot #1, followed closely by Colin White.

As for the bolded.  No. Just, no. We weren't wrong. Hoffman outperformed him. So what? He's 25 and doesn't have nearly the same upside. Stone outperformed him? Good for him, he's a great player, but that was expected, to me, and he wasn't a prospect in my eyes. Nobody else outperformed him, they were in completely different leagues and are all at different stages of development.

"You can't judge "top prospect" polls based on career results." We aren't? It looks like *you're* doing just that. Basing your opinion of Lazar's future on what he did in the NHL last year...

Again you aren't grasping the concept of "top prospect."

Lazar was the top prospect - by a good margin. The Sens had him #1 as well in the THN Future Watch.

I am dumber for having read all of the last page and 1/2

Nah, you're too hard on yourself ... or not hard enough.

This is outdated. Should be prospects with less than 20 games of NHL experience. My top 10 for you to debate:

1) Puempel
2) Prince
3) Paul
4) Wikstrand
5) Lindberg
6) O'Connor
7) Chabot
8) White
9) Claesson
10) Dzingel

But again, it is a combination of skill and readiness and purely my opinion. Just because White/Chabot were top 20 picks doesn't mean they're top 5 prospects.

Puempel
Chabot
White
Paul
Wikstrand
Prince
O'Connor
Lindberg
Claesson
Dzingel

DefenceWinsChampionships wrote:This is outdated. Should be prospects with less than 20 games of NHL experience. My top 10 for you to debate:

1) Puempel
2) Prince
3) Paul
4) Wikstrand
5) Lindberg
6) O'Connor
7) Chabot
8) White
9) Claesson
10) Dzingel

But again, it is a combination of skill and readiness and purely my opinion. Just because White/Chabot were top 20 picks doesn't mean they're top 5 prospects.

disagree with that. I don't see any way the organization would value Lindberg or Prince over White and Chabot. Lindberg shouldn't be in the conversation. Chabot would definitely be above Wikstrand I would say, but it might be close because I know they love Wikstrand. O'Connor, probably below them but he's a goalie and that's different altogether.

just go back to two weeks ago and ask yourself whether the organization would trade Lindberg, Prince, or Wikstrand and Paul, for the 18th or 21st pick. Resounding yes if the question is asked about most of our prospects.

Ev wrote:

DefenceWinsChampionships wrote:This is outdated. Should be prospects with less than 20 games of NHL experience. My top 10 for you to debate:

1) Puempel
2) Prince
3) Paul
4) Wikstrand
5) Lindberg
6) O'Connor
7) Chabot
8) White
9) Claesson
10) Dzingel

But again, it is a combination of skill and readiness and purely my opinion. Just because White/Chabot were top 20 picks doesn't mean they're top 5 prospects.

disagree with that. I don't see any way the organization would value Lindberg or Prince over White and Chabot. Lindberg shouldn't be in the conversation. Chabot would definitely be above Wikstrand I would say, but it might be close because I know they love Wikstrand.

These guys haven't even skated at the AHL level. Prince/Lindberg in their current state are significantly better than White/Chabot right now. Things change but as it stands they are better prospects.

DefenceWinsChampionships wrote:

Ev wrote:

DefenceWinsChampionships wrote:This is outdated. Should be prospects with less than 20 games of NHL experience. My top 10 for you to debate:

1) Puempel
2) Prince
3) Paul
4) Wikstrand
5) Lindberg
6) O'Connor
7) Chabot
8) White
9) Claesson
10) Dzingel

But again, it is a combination of skill and readiness and purely my opinion. Just because White/Chabot were top 20 picks doesn't mean they're top 5 prospects.

disagree with that. I don't see any way the organization would value Lindberg or Prince over White and Chabot. Lindberg shouldn't be in the conversation. Chabot would definitely be above Wikstrand I would say, but it might be close because I know they love Wikstrand.

These guys haven't even skated at the AHL level. Prince/Lindberg in their current state are significantly better than White/Chabot right now. Things change but as it stands they are better prospects.

I edited my post before you sent this. Would anyone trade their 18th or 21st pick for Tobias Lindberg or Shane Prince? No. A guy like White is on a completely different level than Lindberg or Prince.

Lindberg is an average NHL prospect. Making the NHL is an uncertainty for him, and his upside is minimal. Prince is a decent skilled prospect but he's small and White kills him as a prospect.

Ev wrote:
Yes lazar was easily the teams best prospect going into last year.

This year it is now Chabot or white.

Disagree. I voted for Stone and continue to think that, at this time last season, he was the best prospect in the system. Draft position doesn't necessarily correlate to best prospect. I'm a believer that highest attainable upside is the best determining factor when choosing the best prospect.