2025 NHL Draft: Lose a ton for Porter Martone

[tiburon12]

I think he's referring to the style of hair he rocks that is popular in his generation. Faded sides with curly, permed top reminiscent of broccoli.

Pretty much any annoying popular teen streamer style of hair that makes a face 1000x more punchable.

Or I could be way off based and went off on an old man rant.

View attachment 958127

I have the hair and head shape to pull off the broccoli cut but neither the age nor interest lol. I often wonder if I was Gen-z would I have worn it. I just rocked the helmet of curly hair in the 00s

 

[anthonyyy]

I have the hair and head shape to pull off the broccoli cut but neither the age nor interest lol. I often wonder if I was Gen-z would I have worn it. I just rocked the helmet of curly hair in the 00s

This you?

 

[tiburon12]

This you?

View attachment 958313

i do frequently fall down when i play....

 

[Zarzh]

Hagens isn't a good fit for us but everyone in this thread trying to contort the facts until they're convinced that we shouldn't take Hagens at 3rd overall at the very latest is clinical insanity.

James Hagens is much better than Will Smith. James Hagens is better than Porter Martone. James Hagens is much, much, much better than Anton Frondell.

Come on, people, get it together.

The problem is people are naturally risk adverse and Hagens has multiple layers of risks that most top picks don't and there's also questions about his ultimate upside.

Every team wants a Porter Martone, even if he isn't a superstar, while it's extremely hard to win with a James Hagens even if he becomes a superstar.

 

[Juxtaposer]

The problem is people are naturally risk adverse and Hagens has multiple layers of risks that most top picks don't and there's also questions about his ultimate upside.

Every team wants a Porter Martone, even if he isn't a superstar, while it's extremely hard to win with a James Hagens even if he becomes a superstar.

That's a good collection of words that doesn't mean anything. You basically said "small boy bad, big boy good".

1. What are the "multiple layers of risk"? The only "risk" to Hagens is that he's 5'11" and slight. Teams like Tampa have shown you can win with that profile. Martone is far riskier of a prospect than Hagens.

2. Who is questioning his ultimate upside? His upside is as high or higher as anyone in this draft other than Schaefer.

3. If Porter Martone is such a winner, why has he never led his team to any winning? Why is his effort questioned by scouts and why has his OHL team been so disappointing this season? You just saw that he's 6'3" and made some assumptions.

4. The US WJC team just won Gold with 18 year old James Hagens as its 1C. He almost set the all time U18 scoring record last Spring and single-handedly dragged his terrible NTDP team to nearly winning Gold (and would have if it weren't for Trevor Connolly), vastly outplaying Martone in the same tournament.

 

[TheBeard]

Every player coming out of every draft with the exception of maybe 20 in the history of hockey are risky picks. They're teenagers.

 

[Zarzh]

That's a good collection of words that doesn't mean anything. You basically said "small boy bad, big boy good".

1. What are the "multiple layers of risk"? The only "risk" to Hagens is that he's 5'11" and slight. Teams like Tampa have shown you can win with that profile. Martone is far riskier of a prospect than Hagens.

2. Who is questioning his ultimate upside? His upside is as high or higher as anyone in this draft other than Schaefer.

3. If Porter Martone is such a winner, why has he never led his team to any winning? Why is his effort questioned by scouts and why has his OHL team been so disappointing this season? You just saw that he's 6'3" and made some assumptions.

4. The US WJC team just won Gold with 18 year old James Hagens as its 1C. He almost set the all time U18 scoring record last Spring and single-handedly dragged his terrible NTDP team to nearly winning Gold (and would have if it weren't for Trevor Connolly), vastly outplaying Martone in the same tournament.

Tampa Bay won with an extremely stacked team in years they didn't go against any Tier 1 or arguably Tier 2 teams in either run and still almost lost, that's why it's extremely hard instead of impossible. The amount of talent as well as the weak bracket is not something remotely realistic to replicate.

Hagen's profile is typically the type of player who sees their scoring dip most drastically in the playoffs both because he is slight and because of his style of play, where more possession based forwards typically thrive and far fewer speed and transition based forwards thrive.

Martone plays a different role on a team and is more flexible. The more unique risk for players like Hagens is they aren't good enough to play their role on a contending team and that's far more difficult to fix. Someone like Beniers immediately comes to mind as someone who doesn't have an ideal role on a contending team and makes quite a bit of money.

 

[Juxtaposer]

Tampa Bay won with an extremely stacked team in years they didn't go against any Tier 1 or arguably Tier 2 teams in either run and still almost lost, that's why it's extremely hard instead of impossible. The amount of talent as well as the weak bracket is not something remotely realistic to replicate.

Hagen's profile is typically the type of player who sees their scoring dip most drastically in the playoffs both because he is slight and because of his style of play, where more possession based forwards typically thrive and far fewer speed and transition based forwards thrive.

Martone plays a different role on a team and is more flexible. The more unique risk for players like Hagens is they aren't good enough to play their role on a contending team and that's far more difficult to fix. Someone like Beniers immediately comes to mind as someone who doesn't have an ideal role on a contending team and makes quite a bit of money.

You want to claim that possession-style forwards thrive in the playoffs when one of the best possession players of all-time was also one of the worst star forwards for production drop off from regular season to playoffs of all time? 6'4" Thornton never got it done in the playoffs and 6'0" Couture and 5'10" Pavelski put up elite playoff performances for us. You can't possibly have been a Sharks fan for the last fifteen years and still believe that big guys get it done in the playoffs and small guys can't.

Besides, this post reads like you've never seen either of these players play. Martone is far more of an opportunistic rush player than Hagens is and Hagens is better at cycling than Martone. Again, you just looked at their heights and said "small player rush big player cycle". Martone plays a very specific role on a team, which is playmaking wing. He doesn't use his size very effectively or play half as physical as he should based on his body-type. He doesn't drive play and can't be the best player on his line. Hagens does and can.

I understand that Hagens isn't a great fit for the Sharks. I understand that Martone is big and people like big players. But I can't abide you just making stuff up about them because you think big player good, small player bad.

"The more unique risk for players like Hagens is they aren't good enough to play their role on a contending team and that's far more difficult to fix."

^This is just word soup. There is a greater risk that Martone fully busts or turns into a bottom-6 grinder than that Hagens isn't good enough to be a 2C.

 

[Hodge]

"Small boy bad, big boy good" is a more useful heuristic than 99% of online prospect astrology

 

[Zarzh]

You want to claim that possession-style forwards thrive in the playoffs when one of the best possession players of all-time was also one of the worst star forwards for production drop off from regular season to playoffs of all time? 6'4" Thornton never got it done in the playoffs and 6'0" Couture and 5'10" Pavelski put up elite playoff performances for us. You can't possibly have been a Sharks fan for the last fifteen years and still believe that big guys get it done in the playoffs and small guys can't.

Besides, this post reads like you've never seen either of these players play. Martone is far more of an opportunistic rush player than Hagens is and Hagens is better at cycling than Martone. Again, you just looked at their heights and said "small player rush big player cycle". Martone plays a very specific role on a team, which is playmaking wing. He doesn't use his size very effectively or play half as physical as he should based on his body-type. He doesn't drive play and can't be the best player on his line. Hagens does and can.

I understand that Hagens isn't a great fit for the Sharks. I understand that Martone is big and people like big players. But I can't abide you just making stuff up about them because you think big player good, small player bad.

"The more unique risk for players like Hagens is they aren't good enough to play their role on a contending team and that's far more difficult to fix."

^This is just word soup. There is a greater risk that Martone fully busts or turns into a bottom-6 grinder than that Hagens isn't good enough to be a 2C.

Pavelski was at his best as a connecting forward with strong possession players. Couture was a rare exception being able to somewhat reliably have his line score at a higher rate in the playoffs, and what we want is reliability.

Martone is a similar mold of player, where he increases the value of his line through a strong net-front presence and all around offensive ability, plus massive strength and the desire to be more physical.

The risk is either player outright busts. The difference is that if both end up around 60 point players, Hagens does little for you and is a guy you're consistently looking to replace while Martone is invaluable.

 

[Juxtaposer]

Pavelski was at his best as a connecting forward with strong possession players. Couture was a rare exception being able to somewhat reliably have his line score at a higher rate in the playoffs, and what we want is reliability.

Martone is a similar mold of player, where he increases the value of his line through a strong net-front presence and all around offensive ability, plus massive strength and the desire to be more physical.

The risk is either player outright busts. The difference is that if both end up around 60 point players, Hagens does little for you and is a guy you're consistently looking to replace while Martone is invaluable.

You have never watched Martone in your life if you think he's "invaluable" as a 60 point player. He's a cherry-picker, brings nothing to the plate defensively, has no boards game to speak of, and gets pushed off the puck incredibly easily. He's Will Smith in a 6'3" body. Sublime playmaker, great hands, great finisher in close. That's what he is if you draft him, not some Matthew or even Brady Tkachuk type. He's not mean. He doesn't fight. He can't protect the puck or win battles on the boards. He doesn't force turnovers, he capitalizes on the mistakes of junior players.

Think what you want, I'm done. I've watched a dozen games of the player and don't have to fall back on lazy stereotypes.

 

[Barrie22]

Martone was so valuable to team canada that he got benched for 80% of the games.