Proposal: Bruins-Hurricanes

[PsychoDad]

So a winger with top 6 potential is worth a much as a guy with top pairing potential, oh wait I disagree with that it, must be motivated by hate right?

Lol, you are a funny guy.
So a guy who was 19 year old with following stats:
AHL: 28g 32 points
NHL: 97g 53 points
somehow only has top6 potential (potential!). Not 1st line potential, really?
But Slavin has 1st pairing potential... well, just because.

 

[GoldiFox]

Lol, you are a funny guy.
So a guy who was 19 year old with following stats:
AHL: 28g 32 points
NHL: 97g 53 points
somehow only has top6 potential (potential!). Not 1st line potential, really?
But Slavin has 1st pairing potential... well, just because.

You realize that the 1st line is part of a top-6 right? A top-6 constitutes the 1st and 2nd line. A forward with "top-6" potential has 1st line or 2nd line potential.

Slavin has 1st pairing potential because he is legitimately starting this season on the 1st pairing next to Justin Faulk. He showed he could be the #1 guy when Faulk went down last year, playing 25+ minutes a night regularly and looking very good doing it. All it takes is watching him a few games to see what everyone is talking about.

 

[PsychoDad]

You realize that the 1st line is part of a top-6 right? A top-6 constitutes the 1st and 2nd line. A forward with "top-6" potential has 1st line or 2nd line potential.

Slavin has 1st pairing potential because he is legitimately starting this season on the 1st pairing next to Justin Faulk. He showed he could be the #1 guy when Faulk went down last year, playing 25+ minutes a night regularly and looking very good doing it. All it takes is watching him a few games to see what everyone is talking about.

This statement is absurd.
Slavin has top6 potential, because top pairing is a part of it and he will play top pair.
Zach Trotman has 1st pairing potential, because he played there with Chara and looked okay.

 

[Boom Boom Apathy]

This statement is absurd.
Slavin has top6 potential, because top pairing is a part of it and he will play top pair.
Zach Trotman has 1st pairing potential, because he played there with Chara and looked okay.

Ok, Slavin has top 6 potential, we agree.

And hey, if Trotman is going currently scheduled to start on your top pairing this year, like Slavin is, then great.

 

[PsychoDad]

Ok, Slavin has top 6 potential, we agree.

And hey, if Trotman is going currently scheduled to start on your top pairing this year, like Slavin is, then great.

Listen, I don't care about Slavin. You like him, fine. He might be the next Bobby Orr for all I care.
Just because you think he is going to be good you don't need to make Pastrnak smaller than he is.
If Slavin has 1st pairing potential, than Pastrnak has 1st line RW potential, it's simple as that. Not top6, not top9, 1st line potential.

 

[Boom Boom Apathy]

Listen, I don't care about Slavin. You like him, fine. He might be the next Bobby Orr for all I care.
Just because you think he is going to be good you don't need to make Pastrnak smaller than he is.
If Slavin has 1st pairing potential, than Pastrnak has 1st line RW potential, it's simple as that. Not top6, not top9, 1st line potential.

Well, WE didn't make the statement about him having top 6 potential that got you so bent out of shape, it was a Canucks fan. And it wasn't a Canes fan that made the OP either (and I don't think he's a B's fan either).

 

[PsychoDad]

Well, WE didn't make the statement about him having top 6 potential that got you so bent out of shape, it was a Canucks fan. And it wasn't a Canes fan that made the OP either (and I don't think he's a B's fan either).

I'm so bent out of shape and you don't see a guy who also has Aho is in his nickname on this very page discussing exactly this issue. Whatever.

 

[Boom Boom Apathy]

I'm so bent out of shape and you don't see a guy who also has Aho is in his nickname on this very page discussing exactly this issue. Whatever.

He simply reacted to your post by stating that top line is included in top 6 and ended with " A forward with "top-6" potential has 1st line or 2nd line potential." He didn't say Pastrnik doesn't have 1st line potential, but it seems that's how you want to read it for some reason.

The rest of his post explained why Slavin why he has 1st pairing potential.

 

[GoldiFox]

I'm so bent out of shape and you don't see a guy who also has Aho is in his nickname on this very page discussing exactly this issue. Whatever.

I simply addressed your two points:

1) Top-6 does include 1st line. If it didn't than the Canuck's fan would have said "Pastrnak has 2nd line potential" which would clearly separate the two. I don't see how that is disputable.
2) I explained why Slavin might be considered to have 1st pairing potential. I was not trying to argue that "Slavin has top-pair potential rather than top-4 potential".

I wasn't trying to put a gap between the two players. Those were literally just the two points that you brought up.

 

[nmbr_24]

He simply reacted to your post by stating that top line is included in top 6 and ended with " A forward with "top-6" potential has 1st line or 2nd line potential." He didn't say Pastrnik doesn't have 1st line potential, but it seems that's how you want to read it for some reason.

The rest of his post explained why Slavin why he has 1st pairing potential.

I don't think "how you read it" is the issue, it is how it is stated. If he didn't mean exactly what it seems like he meant then he sure shouldn't have phrased it like that. In his terms there is a difference between top line and top six or he would not have phrased it that way.

I have never seen anyone call one player top line and another top six unless they are trying to differentiate a talent level.

 

[nmbr_24]

I simply addressed your two points:

1) Top-6 does include 1st line. If it didn't than the Canuck's fan would have said "Pastrnak has 2nd line potential" which would clearly separate the two. I don't see how that is disputable.
2) I explained why Slavin might be considered to have 1st pairing potential. I was not trying to argue that "Slavin has top-pair potential rather than top-4 potential".

I wasn't trying to put a gap between the two players. Those were literally just the two points that you brought up.

If he wasn't trying to differentiate between the two he would not have called one player top line and one player top six. We all know this, as I said, I have never seen anyone call one player top line and one player top six unless they meant to illustrate a difference in talent, I have never seen it.

 

[Boom Boom Apathy]

I don't think "how you read it" is the issue, it is how it is stated. If he didn't mean exactly what it seems like he meant then he sure shouldn't have phrased it like that. In his terms there is a difference between top line and top six or he would not have phrased it that way.

I have never seen anyone call one player top line and another top six unless they are trying to differentiate a talent level.

Meh, Aho M.O. didn't make the original statement that pysho reacted to, it was a Canucks fan. Aho simply said that top line includes top 6 and then went on to talk about the player he knows best, Slavin.

Much ado about nothing if you ask me, and certainly nothing that warranted the type of reaction from pyschodad (which had to be mod edited), but each to their own.

Like I said earlier in this thread, a fan of neither team made this OP and both teams seem to like the potential of their guy just fine and aren't motivated to move them. It's fans of other teams (Oilers and Canucks) in this thread that have made those types of inferences about Pastrnik.

 

[nmbr_24]

Meh, Aho M.O. didn't make the original statement that pysho reacted to, it was a Canucks fan. Aho simply said that top line includes top 6 and then went on to talk about the player he knows best, Slavin.

Much ado about nothing if you ask me, and certainly nothing that warranted the type of reaction from pyschodad (which had to be mod edited), but each to their own.

Like I said earlier in this thread, a fan of neither team made this OP and both teams seem to like the potential of their guy just fine and aren't motivated to move them. It's fans of other teams (Oilers and Canucks) in this thread that have made those types of inferences about Pastrnik.

I never implied that you made that statement, I simply wanted to say that I know where psychodad is coming from and that it really seemed like the person who posted that was trying to differentiate between the talent of those two players by saying one had top line talent and the other top 6 talent. I also said I have never seen anyone use those terms to do anything other than illustrate the difference between the two players and the problem is not with anyone's understanding of what was said, if he didn't mean to differentiate between the two then the problem is with the way he stated it and not with our understanding of his post. We all know that the top line is in the top six and we all know that when these two descriptions are made in contrast to each other it is to show the difference between the two. There is no need to make the comment that "the top line is in the top six". We know that, I am pretty sure everyone here knows that and I am pretty sure that everyone here understands that when you use descriptions that differ that you are doing it to show the difference between two things.

Pastrnak has top line potential, Slavin has top line potential, top pairing D usually have more value than top line wingers.

No insults there, no trying to downplay anyone's value, just the way it is.

 

[Boom Boom Apathy]

I never implied that you made that statement, I simply wanted to say that I know where psychodad is coming from and that it really seemed like the person who posted that was trying to differentiate between the talent of those two players by saying one had top line talent and the other top 6 talent. I also said I have never seen anyone use those terms to do anything other than illustrate the difference between the two players and the problem is not with anyone's understanding of what was said, if he didn't mean to differentiate between the two then the problem is with the way he stated it and not with our understanding of his post. We all know that the top line is in the top six and we all know that when these two descriptions are made in contrast to each other it is to show the difference between the two. There is no need to make the comment that "the top line is in the top six". We know that, I am pretty sure everyone here knows that and I am pretty sure that everyone here understands that when you use descriptions that differ that you are doing it to show the difference between two things.

Fair enough, I can't try to understand what the Nucks fan meant, nor what biases he has or doesn't have..some goes for the Oilers fan who made similar comments so I won't try to. I also can't control how people interpret things.

The way Pyscodad responded in the first place (thus the bent out of shape comment) is what led to some of additional comments, in fact, if it wasn't for that, I wouldn't have even weighed in. You seem like a reasonable poster so I think you would agree that when you post in the manner he did, you incite responses in a similar manner. That's just the way it is.

 

[PsychoDad]

Fair enough, I can't try to understand what the Nucks fan meant, nor what biases he has or doesn't have..some goes for the Oilers fan who made similar comments so I won't try to. I also can't control how people interpret things.

The way Pyscodad responded in the first place (thus the bent out of shape comment) is what led to some of additional comments, in fact, if it wasn't for that, I wouldn't have even weighed in. You seem like a reasonable poster so I think you would agree that when you post in the manner he did, you incite responses in a similar manner. That's just the way it is.

So let me summarize: you don't know what the Canucks fan meant (who has some sort of agenda, because he continuously describes Pastrnak as a top6 potential guy, but Slavin as a young top pairing defenseman, stated as a fact), to whom I have responded. But somehow you feel obliged to continuously talk down to me without having any point in this conversation (value of Pastrnak that is) whatsoever.

 

[Carolinas Identity*]

So let me summarize: you don't know what the Canucks fan meant (who has some sort of agenda, because he continuously describes Pastrnak as a top6 potential guy, but Slavin as a young top pairing defenseman, stated as a fact), to whom I have responded. But somehow you feel obliged to continuously talk down to me without having any point in this conversation (value of Pastrnak that is) whatsoever.

a) - he is right you know

2) - you sort of answered your own question at the end there

 

[Dr Danglefest]

Does anyone else find it absurd that there has been 5 pages of both fan bases saying how much neither team has interest in the OP?

Like it's not even about value...Canes fans apparently don't value Pasta as a top 6 guy and Bruins fans apparently don't value Slaavin as a top 4 guy so whay is this pissing math still going on?

Bruins say No
Canes say No
/Thread

 

[Glove Malfunction]

I simply addressed your two points:

1) Top-6 does include 1st line. If it didn't than the Canuck's fan would have said "Pastrnak has 2nd line potential" which would clearly separate the two. I don't see how that is disputable.
2) I explained why Slavin might be considered to have 1st pairing potential. I was not trying to argue that "Slavin has top-pair potential rather than top-4 potential".

I wasn't trying to put a gap between the two players. Those were literally just the two points that you brought up.

The point is, by limiting Pastrnak to "top 6" potential, you're implying he's going to top out as a second liner. And by propping Slavin as a "top pairing" D, the implication is that he will be a first pair. Why not characterize Slavin as a top 4, since, you know, the first pairing is included in that. There's an implicit difference in how you described the two players that places a higher defined ceiling on Slavin. That's what he took issue with.

 

[GoldiFox]

The point is, by limiting Pastrnak to "top 6" potential, you're implying he's going to top out as a second liner. And by propping Slavin as a "top pairing" D, the implication is that he will be a first pair. Why not characterize Slavin as a top 4, since, you know, the first pairing is included in that. There's an implicit difference in how you described the two players that places a higher defined ceiling on Slavin. That's what he took issue with.

I'm not implying anything. These were arguments from a Vancouver Canucks fan. I'm not characterizing either player except in the way that they were originally presented. That should be fairly clear from the of quotes, if one bothered to read them without implying the wrong basis.

I fail to see why "top-6" potential implies "potential 2nd liner". It seems to me that if one thought a player only had second line potential, they would say "Second line potential" and not "top-6" potential. Top-6 is a subset which includes both the 1st and 2nd line. This was what I said, it isn't really disputable.

 

[Glove Malfunction]

I'm not implying anything. These were arguments from a Vancouver Canucks fan. I'm not characterizing either player except in the way that they were originally presented. That should be fairly clear from the of quotes, if one bothered to read them without implying the wrong basis.

I fail to see why "top-6" potential implies "potential 2nd liner". It seems to me that if one thought a player only had second line potential, they would say "Second line potential" and not "top-6" potential. Top-6 is a subset which includes both the 1st and 2nd line. This was what I said, it isn't really disputable.

Sorry that I stated it was you, I read the thread quickly. That said, you completely missed the point.

 

[Carolinas Identity*]

Does anyone else find it absurd that there has been 5 pages of both fan bases saying how much neither team has interest in the OP?

Like it's not even about value...Canes fans apparently don't value Pasta as a top 6 guy and Bruins fans apparently don't value Slaavin as a top 4 guy so whay is this pissing math still going on?

Bruins say No
Canes say No
/Thread

curious to know what this is

i recently received my doctorate in maths, but have never heard of "pissing maths"

is this a new field i am unawares with?

 

[cptjeff]

curious to know what this is

i recently received my doctorate in maths, but have never heard of "pissing maths"

is this a new field i am unawares with?

Calculating the velocity and trajectory of fluids in an arc? Throw in some turbulent versus laminar flow calculations, and you could figure out some things to math.

 

[Alberta_OReilly_Fan]

pastrnak already is number 1 on bruins right wing depth chart... has played the majority of his games skating with either krejci or spooner on the ' scoring line'

and is averaging roughly 45 points per 82 games played. to say he might have the potential to become a top 6 forward is insulting to your own intelligence.

now if you wanted to say he has potential to be an elite top 20 winger, we might have something to talk about. he certainly isnt there yet

lots of players play a role... because the team is weak and has no better options. zach trottman was skated in a first pair role last year but was probably the 60th best guy in that role. just because a player is used in a role doesnt make him elite in that role... or even competent.

bruin fans look forward to a happy future with pastrnak being a force on our first line. theres no fault to uneducated fans of other teams if they cant see it. im sure they have kids, we dont know about.

slavin might be special one day but when ive seen him play, he hasnt impressed me...

if im king of the world... and decesion maker for boston... i say this idea is dead in the water... but its not because i feel any need to run down slavin. honestly i dont know him.

this is strictly about being high on pastrnak. sorry doubters, but thats how bruin nation feels about our shinny new toy

 

[JOKER 192]

How about just taking no for an answer? No, Okay?

 

[PsychoDad]

I'm not implying anything. These were arguments from a Vancouver Canucks fan. I'm not characterizing either player except in the way that they were originally presented. That should be fairly clear from the of quotes, if one bothered to read them without implying the wrong basis.

I fail to see why "top-6" potential implies "potential 2nd liner". It seems to me that if one thought a player only had second line potential, they would say "Second line potential" and not "top-6" potential. Top-6 is a subset which includes both the 1st and 2nd line. This was what I said, it isn't really disputable.

You quoted my reply to the canucks guy, but somehow you are not the part of the conversation now, okay. And yes, top 6 includes 1st and 2nd line, just as top9 or top 12 does. So why not say - has top9 potential? Okay, let me tell you about my Slavin projection - "Will be a professional hockey player". Now isn't it a great potential evaluation? And hardly disputable, isn't it? Not very constructive though.