CanucksCorner.com Forums

Strangelove wrote:

BigTuna wrote:

Strangelove wrote:

BigTuna wrote: After your embarrassing prediction on Marner being a bust based on size, you may want to consider that size I snot everything.

You snot everything?

Yeah Marner is right now is reeeally proving he can battle through injuries like the big boys.

Laine is huge and he's been concussed already and missed more games than Marner.

Nice answer.

UMMMM no one is questioning whether or not Laine is big enough tough enough...

RoyalDude[b] wrote:Just love how Tuna is dodging the fact that not one Leaf prospect made Buttons top 50 list while four Canuck prospects did,[/b] this after having to painfully put up with Tuna's shite talk for months gong on and on about the leaves many great prospects. I guess Button is no fan of the copious amounts of smurfs in the leaves system

leaves farm coach - "Yeeeeeaaaaarrrrrssss Away!"

leaves future on defence and goaltending is razor thin shite!!!

Horton - 3 more years after this at $5.3 million per
Kessel - 4 more years after this at $1.2 million per

All they have to show for Seguin and Hamilton is Frederik "the playoff choker" Andersen!

Hockey Widow[b] wrote:Well at one time he was arguing that the reason they had no prospects was because they are no longer prospects[/b]. But then he tried to backtrack and say both. Their best prospects are no longer prospects and their remaining prospects are great. Combined that makes the best prospect list bigly in the world. Best ever. Greatest.

BigTuna wrote:

Hockey Widow[b] wrote:Well at one time he was arguing that the reason they had no prospects was because they are no longer prospects[/b]. But then he tried to backtrack and say both. Their best prospects are no longer prospects and their remaining prospects are great. Combined that makes the best prospect list bigly in the world. Best ever. Greatest.

When was this? leaves are #1 currently in terms of prospects. You guys are confused with Button's list. A prospect doesn't lose being one once they play in the NHL. It is after 1 year in the NHL. Button's list was top 50 "Outside NHL", It wasn't a list I previously asked for which was top 30 rankings of all prospect depth.

Strangelove wrote:

BigTuna wrote:

Strangelove wrote:

BigTuna wrote: The leaves do not require more building.

BigTuna wrote: The vast majority of their core is set. You can't say "Whatever", my comments were clearly in regards to the situation in 2014 which involved Luongo when the leaves had no core and a bottom 5 prospect pool.

If "the core is set"... then these guys aren't "prospects" anymore by definition

... and if we can't count any of the Leaves players currently with the big club

... then the Leaves once again have a "bottom 5 prospect pool"!

Leaves were among the top teams in terms of "prospect pools" when these guys were "prospects"

... but you're telling me they're not "prospects" any longer.

So, according to YOU, back to the basement with the Leaves as far as "prospect pools".

BigTuna wrote: To spin it as a negative in 2017 for them making the playoffs is ridiculous.

"My point was that competing for the last playoff spot isn't a way to properly build." - YOU

Mr Shanahan says the rebuilding is ongoing, get with the Shanaplan!

No Goalie of the Future and no defencemen who can actually play defence.

2 of your top 5 scoring forwards are UFAs in 1.3 years.

And as discussed, your "rookie" top scoring defenceman could become a Group 6 UFA this summer.

Leaves prospects are as dim as you are my friend and Spanky + the Rascals have hit the Rookie Wall.

Rookies are considered "Prospects" until they complete 1 full NHL season.

YOU called these guys "core players" (can't be both "core players" and "prospects" - choose one).

Here's a definition for NHL prospect:

http://www.hockeysfuture.com/whatmakesaprospect/

"A player will be considered a prospect until he meets the following criteria:

If a prospect is a skater (forward, defenseman) and has played in 65 NHL games or more before the completion of the season of his 24th birthday; or, if a goaltender has played in 45 NHL games before the completion of the season of his 24th birthday, that player will be considered graduated to the NHL. Conversely, if a player completes the season of his 24th birthday without passing those milestones, then that player will no longer be considered a prospect by Hockey’s Future, regardless of the player’s status with his NHL club.

An NCAA player who signs his first contract at or above the age of 22 has three years to meet the above criteria (65/45), while those NCAA players that turn pro under the age of 22 will be subjected to the criteria above.

European players who sign their first NHL contract at or above the age of 22 have three seasons from the time they sign that contract to meet the above criteria. Those European players below the age of 22 that have signed a NHL contract will be subjected to the criteria in section one.

Section one is the meat of the criteria as it will govern the majority of players that vie for a NHL roster spot. Sections two and three are simply an acknowledgement that some prospects arrive on the scene a bit later than their peers, thus needing some time past their 24th birthday to develop into an NHL-caliber player."

..................

Some of the players you call "prospects" are not that... by HF's definition.

The rest of your "rookies" will very soon not be "prospects"... by HF's definition.

BigTuna wrote: leaves are not bottom 5 in prospects at all. Even when the big 3 are gone from the list they'll be middle of the pack in rankings.

Wrong.

Blob Mckenzie wrote:I'd trade anyone on the Canucks or any of their prospects for Mathews or Marner. I'd trade anyone but Horvat for Nylander.

Strangelove wrote:

Blob Mckenzie wrote:I'd trade anyone on the Canucks or any of their prospects for Mathews or Marner. I'd trade anyone but Horvat for Nylander.

Whatever Bubbles, everyone knows you're a closet Leaves fan...

Strangelove wrote:

Strangelove wrote:

BigTuna wrote:

Strangelove wrote:

BigTuna wrote: The leaves do not require more building.

BigTuna wrote: The vast majority of their core is set. You can't say "Whatever", my comments were clearly in regards to the situation in 2014 which involved Luongo when the leaves had no core and a bottom 5 prospect pool.

If "the core is set"... then these guys aren't "prospects" anymore by definition

... and if we can't count any of the Leaves players currently with the big club

... then the Leaves once again have a "bottom 5 prospect pool"!

Leaves were among the top teams in terms of "prospect pools" when these guys were "prospects"

... but you're telling me they're not "prospects" any longer.

So, according to YOU, back to the basement with the Leaves as far as "prospect pools".

BigTuna wrote: To spin it as a negative in 2017 for them making the playoffs is ridiculous.

"My point was that competing for the last playoff spot isn't a way to properly build." - YOU

Mr Shanahan says the rebuilding is ongoing, get with the Shanaplan!

No Goalie of the Future and no defencemen who can actually play defence.

2 of your top 5 scoring forwards are UFAs in 1.3 years.

And as discussed, your "rookie" top scoring defenceman could become a Group 6 UFA this summer.

Leaves prospects are as dim as you are my friend and Spanky + the Rascals have hit the Rookie Wall.

Rookies are considered "Prospects" until they complete 1 full NHL season.

YOU called these guys "core players" (can't be both "core players" and "prospects" - choose one).

Here's a definition for NHL prospect:

http://www.hockeysfuture.com/whatmakesaprospect/

"A player will be considered a prospect until he meets the following criteria:

If a prospect is a skater (forward, defenseman) and has played in 65 NHL games or more before the completion of the season of his 24th birthday; or, if a goaltender has played in 45 NHL games before the completion of the season of his 24th birthday, that player will be considered graduated to the NHL. Conversely, if a player completes the season of his 24th birthday without passing those milestones, then that player will no longer be considered a prospect by Hockey’s Future, regardless of the player’s status with his NHL club.

An NCAA player who signs his first contract at or above the age of 22 has three years to meet the above criteria (65/45), while those NCAA players that turn pro under the age of 22 will be subjected to the criteria above.

European players who sign their first NHL contract at or above the age of 22 have three seasons from the time they sign that contract to meet the above criteria. Those European players below the age of 22 that have signed a NHL contract will be subjected to the criteria in section one.

Section one is the meat of the criteria as it will govern the majority of players that vie for a NHL roster spot. Sections two and three are simply an acknowledgement that some prospects arrive on the scene a bit later than their peers, thus needing some time past their 24th birthday to develop into an NHL-caliber player."

..................

Some of the players you call "prospects" are not that... by HF's definition.

The rest of your "rookies" will very soon not be "prospects"... by HF's definition.

BigTuna wrote: leaves are not bottom 5 in prospects at all. Even when the big 3 are gone from the list they'll be middle of the pack in rankings.

Wrong.

I'll just re-post this every 12 pages or so until he gets it...

EDIT: A little help for slooooow folk:

Nylander – 82 NHL games thus far = not a prospect
Connor Brown – 68 NHL games thus far = not a prospect
Zaitsev – 25 years old = not a prospect
Hyman – 24 years ole = not a prospect; Hyman – 77 NHL games thus far = not a prospect
Carrick – 108 NHL games thus far = not a prospect
Matthews – should hit game #65 in 9 days, at that point: not a prospect
Marner – too much of a weenie to ever hit 65 NHL games?

You're welcome.

Hockey Widow wrote:

BigTuna wrote:

Hockey Widow[b] wrote:Well at one time he was arguing that the reason they had no prospects was because they are no longer prospects[/b]. But then he tried to backtrack and say both. Their best prospects are no longer prospects and their remaining prospects are great. Combined that makes the best prospect list bigly in the world. Best ever. Greatest.

When was this? leaves are #1 currently in terms of prospects. You guys are confused with Button's list. A prospect doesn't lose being one once they play in the NHL. It is after 1 year in the NHL. Button's list was top 50 "Outside NHL", It wasn't a list I previously asked for which was top 30 rankings of all prospect depth.

I see he's still doing it. My bad.

Strangelove wrote:

Blob Mckenzie wrote:I'd trade anyone on the Canucks or any of their prospects for Mathews or Marner. I'd trade anyone but Horvat for Nylander.

Whatever Bubbles, everyone knows you're a closet Leaves fan...

BigTuna wrote: You are incorrect. A player is still a prospect until one full season.