Girard is a pretty solid comp for Cagnoni if he hits his upside. It’s not overwhelmingly likely, but it’s definitely possible and even if he doesn’t it was a good 4th round risk to take.
Getting a Girard or Gostisbehere outcome out of Cagnoni would be fantastic. I'm not expecting anything better than that even if Cagnoni is successful, but that would be a phenomenal outcome for that pick and a very useful player (not a gamechanger, but a cost-controlled puckmoving second-pairing guy is an extremely useful piece, and getting someone like that somehow will be necessary to contending anyway).
Just ignore the resident naysayer, Cagnoni is small and skilled and that rubs some people the wrong way still in 2024.
Vlasic burner account confirmed.
My guess is training camp first. He's AHL eligible. Another year in the WHL to bulk up wouldn't be the worst thing, but I think he can play sheltered mins in the A.
Wouldn't you agree there is something fundamentally flawed about a model that gave Ryan Merkley a 85% chance to make the NHL (and 76% chance to be a star!) in January 2023? At that point I would just go back to the drawing board and start over.
They’re statistical models, so they only rely on the numbers. Outliers will always occur, which is why guys like Merkley fail and Chris Kreider succeed. It’s just another evaluation tool, that is by no means a guarantee, just like a feeling a scout gets because a player has a great motor or comes from a good family. Dismissing the statistical models because you don’t like how they felt about Merkley is shortsighted. They have their uses, and in this specific case, it’s telling us that Cagnoni has a good chance to succeed. Does that mean he will? Again, no. He’s got his warts too, just like Merkley. We’re all aware of the challenges he’s going to face due to his size, etc. The models are just a part of the evaluation process, and ultimately, we want him to succeed because if he does it’s good for the Sharks.
You have to separate the model and the math from those who talk about it.
Or we can have some humility and admit that NHL amateur scouts, most of whom have years if not decades of high level scouting and playing experience, watch each prospect play in person dozens of times, have the opportunity to meet with and interview the player and his teammates, coaches and family, have access to medical reports, etc. are better in the aggregate at evaluating prospects than a model that seems to rely exclusively on points.
The purpose of the model in question, as I understand it, is to say "players who scored like this turned into NHL players 50% of the time," and I have to assume that the facts bear that out.
To be clear, I think it's good that we signed Cagnoni to an ELC. I just think he should go back to Portland for another year.
Sorry Jux, but Girard was not a healthy scratch in the Avs Cup run. Barbashev broke his sternum with a dangerous hit and he was out.Girard is a pretty solid comp for Cagnoni if he hits his upside. It’s not overwhelmingly likely, but it’s definitely possible and even if he doesn’t it was a good 4th round risk to take.
Something something Sam Girard was a healthy scratch in the Avs Cup run
