Better contract: Laf or Slaf?

[Lshap]

Development is not linear though. If it were Nail Yakupov would be a star.

Of course. Lafreniere or Slafkovsky could regress. But without concrete signs of regression, you may as well say the equally vague "Anything can happen".

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Of course. Lafreniere or Slafkovsky could regress. But without concrete signs of regression, you may as well say the equally vague "Anything can happen".

Eh, not really. You're making it out to be like some lottery ticket. Neither will have to regress, they're both probably going to progress. However, it's perfectly plausible without saying "anything can happen" that Lafreniere will progress more. I've said this a number of times he has a very valid claim to be the second best forward on a cup contender. And I know they're both a few years in, but would it require that much imagination for the guy that was the much better prospect at the time of the draft to end up better?

 

[Lshap]

Eh, not really. You're making it out to be like some lottery ticket. Neither will have to regress, they're both probably going to progress. However, it's perfectly plausible without saying "anything can happen" that Lafreniere will progress more. I've said this a number of times he has a very valid claim to be the second best forward on a cup contender. And I know they're both a few years in, but would it require that much imagination for the guy that was the much better prospect at the time of the draft to end up better?

Perfectly natural to imagine your team's player progressing better than a rival's player.

I'll take my team's player. He's only 20, already advanced further and faster than Lafreniere did at the same age, and he appears to still be on an upward trajectory.

I guess we'll see...

 

[Bouboumaster]

Eh, not really. You're making it out to be like some lottery ticket. Neither will have to regress, they're both probably going to progress. However, it's perfectly plausible without saying "anything can happen" that Lafreniere will progress more. I've said this a number of times he has a very valid claim to be the second best forward on a cup contender. And I know they're both a few years in, but would it require that much imagination for the guy that was the much better prospect at the time of the draft to end up better?

It also possible than Slaf Will be twice the player that Laf will ever be

Chadkovsky is PPG right now, while also being more physical than Lafrenière will ever be, and is also younger. And he's not playing with Panarin, btw. Suzuki is great, but not "Panarin" great

You can't call the bias of other when you are yourself super biased

 

[The Gr8 Dane]

No idea who to pick , both are probably going to be great contracts

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Perfectly natural to imagine your team's player progressing better than a rival's player.

I'll take my team's player. He's only 20, already advanced further and faster than Lafreniere did at the same age, and he appears to still be on an upward trajectory.

I guess we'll see...

I'm not saying it's going to happen. Just that "random year my player was better than another player" doesn't necessarily mean he'll end up better.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

It also possible than Slaf Will be twice the player that Laf will ever be

Chadkovsky is PPG right now, while also being more physical than Lafrenière will ever be, and is also younger. And he's not playing with Panarin, btw. Suzuki is great, but not "Panarin" great

You can't call the bias of other when you are yourself super biased

And Slaf gets PP1 time, does he not? That has a bigger impact that Panarin. And he's almost as instrumental to that line as Panarin. Look at their even strength production last year, Laf had like 15 more even strength points than Slaf. Slaf can end up better, I never said he can't. All I'm saying is "random year my prospect was better" is not an argument at this point.

 

[The Gr8 Dane]

I'm not saying it's going to happen. Just that "random year my player was better than another player" doesn't necessarily mean he'll end up better.

Especially when Laff didn't get pp1 time. Slaf worked for his spot but at the same time he only had greats like Armia Newhook Dach Gallagher Anderson to surpass to get that. Not really the same internal competition.

 

[Bouboumaster]

That has a bigger impact that Panarin.

Euh, no?

 

[KrisLetAngry]

Both contracts are great.

I voted Laferniere because his contract is a 7 year deal after a 2 year prove it deal. Laferniere though has had limited powerplay time and has shown to be a ES driver.

Both again are amazing. I am voting Laf.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Euh, no?

Uhhh, yeah? Laf would have had most likely at least 20 extra points on the PP last year. Trocheck had the fewest points on the PP last year for the Rangers with 24. The Rangers top line this year in terms of xGF doesn't have one superstar on it. You don't need Panarin on your line to score a lot at even strength. And it's not like Slaf is playing with scrubs.

 

[Grifter3511]

It also possible than Slaf Will be twice the player that Laf will ever be

Chadkovsky is PPG right now, while also being more physical than Lafrenière will ever be, and is also younger. And he's not playing with Panarin, btw. Suzuki is great, but not "Panarin" great

You can't call the bias of other when you are yourself super biased

How's that PP time working out for Chad? Kinda easy to put up points when your team is so shitty you're gifted top line minutes and plenty of power play time off the bat. You think Chad gets those same minutes and opportunities if drafted by New York?

That said, I'm a big fan of both these guys.

 

[elmaco]

Laf is very clearly better and he's on the better contract... Only way you're taking Slaf in this poll is if you expect him to end up the better player, which is reasonable given how much better Slaf is at 20 than Laf was. For a team like the Rangers i'm taking Laf, more of a sure thing, better player right now while contending. For a team with the Habs, Slafkovsky, higher ceiling, younger and nothing but time to build/develop.


If you think Slafkovsky is already as good as Lafreniere is already, right now, i don't know what to tell you.

Laf was a beast in the playoffs and we will see him again this season.

 

[WetcoastOrca]

I have to go with Laf here. I think he ends up as the better all round player and his playoff performance was an eye opener for me at least.

 

[MoneyManny]

Both contracts look good. Slaf has a larger share of it being paid for his potential right now, but i voted for him because i'm a Homer of course.

 

[Bouboumaster]

How's that PP time working out for Chad? Kinda easy to put up points when your team is so shitty you're gifted top line minutes and plenty of power play time off the bat. You think Chad gets those same minutes and opportunities if drafted by New York?

That said, I'm a big fan of both these guys.

Maybe? The Chadkovsky didn't sucked for years like Laffy at the beginning, so, why not?

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Maybe? The Chadkovsky didn't sucked for years like Laffy at the beginning, so, why not?

If his first few years in the NHL matter before he became what he is now then might as well look at them as prospects and Laf was far superior as a prospect than Slaf. Considering what we're seeing in his game (shit Caps game not withstanding) it's not unreasonable to believe that he does hit that ceiling we thought he had during his draft. Honestly though, if Laf was just under a PPG player last year, which he likely would have been if he played on PP1 I don't think anyone is talking about these guys the way they are.

 

[koyvoo]

Funny thing is that if you go back 12-18 months in HFBoards archives, you’d be led to believe that these two players in this poll were the absolute biggest busts this side of Nail Yakupov.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Funny thing is that if you go back 12-18 months in HFBoards archives, you’d be led to believe that these two players in this poll were the absolute biggest busts this side of Nail Yakupov.

Honestly, I've always wondered by 1st overall players are viewed that way. They're more likely than the average player to be good at 18, but it doesn't mean that everyone that's not good at 18 and has a different track sucks. So many great players took some time, just and just because 1st overalls COULD take less time why can't they follow a more traditional trajectory that other players follow? Why would not succeeding early mean that they're busts? Especially guys that were never considered generational (though of course Laf was well thought of).

 

[Lshap]

I'm not saying it's going to happen. Just that "random year my player was better than another player" doesn't necessarily mean he'll end up better.

'Random year' has nothing to do with Slafkovsky. It took him about 65 games to develop into a solid top-6 forward, at 19 years old. He's only 20 and continues to make steady progress. He's had no random years.

Unless I'm misunderstanding you, it sounds like you're trying to throw caveats like "Random year" and "Development isn't linear" at Slafkovsky, while ignoring that they apply more to Lafreniere. As you know, Laf's career arc has been more erratic, with three underwhelming seasons before his first good season last year. That's not a criticism. I'm happy to believe he turned the corner in his fourth season and that he'll continue upwards from here. But if you believe Lafreniere found his game at 22, there's no credible basis to question Slafkovsky arriving at that point at 19.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

'Random year' has nothing to do with Slafkovsky. It took him about 65 games to develop into a solid top-6 forward, at 19 years old. He's only 20 and continues to make steady progress. He's had no random years.

Unless I'm misunderstanding you, it sounds like you're trying to throw caveats like "Random year" and "Development isn't linear" at Slafkovsky, while ignoring that they apply more to Lafreniere. As you know, Laf's career arc has been more erratic, with three underwhelming seasons before his first good season last year. That's not a criticism. I'm happy to believe he turned the corner in his fourth season and that he'll continue upwards from here. But if you believe Lafreniere found his game at 22, there's no credible basis to question Slafkovsky arriving at that point at 19.

You said that at whatever year it was, 19 or 20 Slaf was a better player. But that's not necessarily relevant to how their career will end up. That's all I meant by random year.

They're both young and clearly Laf's development isn't linear. I was talking about Laf and his development, not Slaf's. Clearly Laf's development didn't go at a 45 degree angle and will possibly continue to go at a steeper angle. Bringing up Slaf being better early and therefore having a better career presupposes something close to a 45 degree angle development and we have seen with Laf it's not the case.

And once again I'm not saying Slaf won't be better just that him being better early, especially considering he had different circumstances doesn't NECESSARILY mean he'll be the better player long term.

 

[CanadianSniper]

The contracts are so close to identical that it really comes down to your preference of player./thread

 

[Cursed Lemon]

I don't think anyone has a credible idea of what these players are going to look like in five-ish years.

 

[Grifter3511]

'Random year' has nothing to do with Slafkovsky. It took him about 65 games to develop into a solid top-6 forward, at 19 years old. He's only 20 and continues to make steady progress. He's had no random years.

Unless I'm misunderstanding you, it sounds like you're trying to throw caveats like "Random year" and "Development isn't linear" at Slafkovsky, while ignoring that they apply more to Lafreniere. As you know, Laf's career arc has been more erratic, with three underwhelming seasons before his first good season last year. That's not a criticism. I'm happy to believe he turned the corner in his fourth season and that he'll continue upwards from here. But if you believe Lafreniere found his game at 22, there's no credible basis to question Slafkovsky arriving at that point at 19.

There was nothing erratic about Lafreniere's first 3 years. He was drafted on to a team with a strong top 6 so was slotted on the third line playing with fellow rookies and youngsters. Each season, in limited time and almost non existent pp time, Lafreniere put up more points than the year previously. The only change that happened (beyond continued player development) last year is he went from 3rd line to 1st line. The production increased accordingly. The PP time did not change.

The only real difference between these two is Slaf jumped up to 17 minutes and top 6 in year 2 because there was no one in his way. Laf didn't get there until year 4. Top teams with Stanley Cup aspirations have slightly different deployment strategies than bottom feeders.

I'd also point out that in year 2 Lafreniere, in less minutes (4 whole minutes less per game!) and significantly less pp time, scored 19 goals to Slaf's 20. It's not Laf's fault that Kakko was a black hole and couldn't score if his life depended on it.

Even Strength year 2: Lafreniere: 19g, 10a, 29 pts Slafkovsky: 14g, 22a, 36pts

Now look who each played with during their times at even strength and try and tell me that Slafkovsky is much further along (other than in his organization's depth chart) than Lafreniere was at the same time?

 

[SnowblindNYR]

There was nothing erratic about Lafreniere's first 3 years. He was drafted on to a team with a strong top 6 so was slotted on the third line playing with fellow rookies and youngsters. Each season, in limited time and almost non existent pp time, Lafreniere put up more points than the year previously. The only change that happened (beyond continued player development) last year is he went from 3rd line to 1st line. The production increased accordingly. The PP time did not change.

The only real difference between these two is Slaf jumped up to 17 minutes and top 6 in year 2 because there was no one in his way. Laf didn't get there until year 4. Top teams with Stanley Cup aspirations have slightly different deployment strategies than bottom feeders.

I'd also point out that in year 2 Lafreniere, in less minutes (4 whole minutes less per game!) and significantly less pp time, scored 19 goals to Slaf's 20. It's not Laf's fault that Kakko was a black hole and couldn't score if his life depended on it.

Even Strength year 2: Lafreniere: 19g, 10a, 29 pts Slafkovsky: 14g, 22a, 36pts

Now look who each played with during their times at even strength and try and tell me that Slafkovsky is much further along (other than in his organization's depth chart) than Lafreniere was at the same time?

You're not being honest if you don't think his actual game improved and not just usage.