NameFaker

I guess the truth is... up in smoke?

Mad respect for the username. Great books.

The release on his shot is deeeeecent.

If we draft for character and ability, this shouldn't really be a problem. Something I'm irrationally worried about is the perceived logjam that'll develop over the next few years if we keep this up, though. It's like my BeAGM modes. Too many high potential player forced out of the lineup by assistant coaches because there are slightly better players (right now) ahead of them. Then those players lose out on development time. Also, if you add in the human element, it'd be hard to see so much talent ahead of you and figure you still have a chance.

We thank you. Kinda in the same boat. He might pan out, he might not. I would love for him too. I do think playing in Europe should end for him this season. Next year, Utica. Could be a stacked team, and who doesn't like prospects developing in a winning culture? I don't Jim Benning doesn't.

That's interesting... Maybe we should make something of Benning's comments about "where he ends up"? Benning almost always talks about the immediate future of players rather than their long term value.

Honestly unbelievable. Well, it is until I think about Burr's defensive value and his worth as a leader on and off the ice. Still highway robbery though.

I really like that Benning's "administration" has prioritized intelligence and character the last couple drafts. These are inherited traits for the most part that can't be taught. That's not to say they can't be accentuated or dulled, but for the most part they're ingrained from the get-go. Lind, Gaudette, Petterson, and Juolevi are all examples of this. Gadjovich seems to fit the definition as well. I'd add in some of the other picks from this year but I haven't seen enough of them to comment. I think the greatest asset of these traits is their coachability. The players can understand the dynamics of the game like their coach does, and so his strategic adaptations won't be wasted on them. This could and should make for a terrifically tactical team. I'm so freaking into that. Back to Lind - I see him as a middle six forward with scoring ability, but he could excel. I feel (major hope here) like he might be Benning's Pominville of his tenure as GM here. That would make me soooooo happy. God I can't wait for preseason. GCG!

Tasty.

Yeah man. Where would he fit? I can see it as a cap dump, but not as a trade for Gudbranson....

"Hold on! Help! I lost a contact!" -CDC

It depends on his development curve but I think Petterson can be a first line guy. Vilardi is just so damn smart. Still processing his slide...

Vilardi is definitely a steal at 11. Petterson, if he develops well, will be dominant. He creates space for himself. And he distributes like a boss. I'm stoked.

I agree. Talent can't be linearly accounted for neither can it be linearly graphed. But this doesn't change the philosophy of BPA. You take into consideration whatever you deem to be relevant factors and then choose BPA. This is outside of relevant team needs. If it isn't, then you're modifying the BPA philosophy with a "team x"'s BPA. That would vary team to team, obviously. I think BPA is a strong way to build your team.

BPA. Strive to maximize value at all times.

I kinda wonder what exactly a rich man's Maata would look like. Is Maata the poor man's Juolevi? If this is the way it works, how much better is Juolevi? Like with forwards, I kinda expect 10-25 points less for "poor man's 'x'" than x on a regular basis. How much should Juolevi then score? How well should be defend? I guess part of my thinking here is that the whole business of comparison is slightly malfunctional. its hard to define someone in terms of an example. The problem seems to really take hold when the examples replace truth. To be clear, I'm only using this comment as a launch pad for thought and discussion. dl;dr - why're we comparing players anyway? Seems dumb.

This thread is more toxic than a divorce attoney's office...

I think you can train smarts. Virtanen doesnt have the the best mental toolbox, but he can understand his role and perform within it. Teaching defense is one thing, teaching him to keep his head up is another, making plays a third, and everything else will fall into place. He's not and never will be a playmaker, but he'll be fine with his "IQ" provided he's deployed accordingly.

I have some guesses as to why Tryamkin went back, but I don't expect it'll be a permanent move. My best guess is that he looked at our potential line-up for next year and thought he'd have a tough time breaking in, given the way things panned out this year. That, coupled with whatever "family" influence, would make it difficult to believe that this coming year would be best spent waiting for an injury to a player higher on the depth chart. For a young man with a lot of pride and a young bride, it's easy to see the allure of money and minutes in Russia. Big picture, he's going to get better over there, and will probably come back once he's damn sure he's a top-4 guy.

Damn it. Other points still stand.

I don't think there's a huge difference in player build between college, AHL, and NHL level players. If there were, Stetcher, Hutton, Johnny Hockey, Larkin, Werenski, and others wouldn't be able to make the jump as effectively as they have. Give Lockwood another year or two in college. I think Middlestadt is committed to a year at Minnesota, too, so we might get to see the two of them play together. In any case, I expect him to build strength, skill, awareness, and speed while he's developing, and I suspect we'll see him above a PPG next season, too.

His progression has progressed further this year than what we expected for his progress. Maybe he will continue to progress? Progress.

Brains can be trained... Lots of evidence supports it. You just like a naturalist narrative. More thinking, less prejudice plz.

I was thinking the same thing, and have lamented CA's pGPS system for the same reason. Zack looks like he's got a good set of skills, speed, and size, which bodes well for his transition. He'll likely see his odds jump up dramatically this year, I agree with you about that. Side-note: you guys think a cool stat to measure might be, "successful dekes that lead to scoring chances"? You could measure how often a player either sets themselves or a teammate up for a scoring chance after deking out a defender, and incorporate high, medium, and low probability scoring chances as well. This could be a tool to target high-skill players who might be playing with low-skill teammates or have undeveloped shots. Just a thought I had while watching Zack's highlights.

Juolevi hasn't regressed. At most, he's stagnated, and there are mitigating factors which explain that. We shouldn't be worrying yet.