Lets see:
Dansk - even though he is probably bad anyway
He's played 4 games. Young backup goaltending prospect, nothing special here.
Subban - never got an NHL job and was struggling at AHL as well
We're talking about a first round goalie prospect. This argument is so unbelievably disingenuous. He's 24, was 23 at the start of the season. At the same age, Carter Hutton, Corey Crawford, Pekka Rinne, Connor Hellebuyck, Frederik Anderson were all still mostly in the AHL. Jonathan Quick and Tukka Rask were also in their first NHL seasons at this age. He never got an NHL job because he was a freaking 21 year old and still learning the craft like you would expect any goalie to. That's why Boston signed him to a 5 year long deal and then resigned him on a 2 year deal.
Hunt - career minor leaguer
This argument is incoherent because it assumes that no other teams have career minor leaguers who surfaced late on their team or that Vegas has a disproportionate amount. Or at least, that's what you have to argue to have a coherent argument. Jordan Weal comes to mind first. Simply because a player was playing in the AHL and now plays in the NHL doesn't somehow imply that Vegas was full of fringe players. You need to prove an abnormality exists.
Engelland - nobody understood how he got that Calgary contract, was considered 7th defenseman at best, at the time
There's a thing called "construct validity", it means that there needs to be specific parameters to define what things qualify within a construct and what things don't. You basically do not have a coherent definition for what a "fringe" player is. It's simply a player you didn't think was that good. Engelland was fine with the Pens, perhaps some people were surprised he got a contract but there's no coherent argument that an athlete who had been in the NHL for years was a shock to get a one-way contract. Not only did he get a one-way contract, he was playing top 4 at times for the Flames in the following years. So is a fringe player a player without a one-way contract? A bottom 6/4 player? a player splitting time with the AHL? He's none of these. Suffice it to say, when Vegas acquired him, they knew he was not a scrub. Simply because at some point you didn't think he was a great player, completely irrelevant, and not in the least bit a coherent definition.
Merill - healthy scratch on one of the worst teams in league
And he's a healthy scratch with the Vegas Knights now.
Here's the largest logical flaw in your argument. It hearkens back to the Hunt argument.
Construct validity. If you define a fringe player as a player who is between the NHL and the AHL, then Vegas only has a hand-full of fringe players. Each club has a handful of fringe players. If you define a fringe player as a player who was a bottom 6/4 player or a common healthy scratch prior, then each other club also is comprised of over 50% fringe players. You need to come up with a coherent definition for "fringe player." It's not simply a player you used to think wasn't very good. Merill has been in the year for 5 years now, playing the last 3 entirely in the NHL. He was signed two a 2 year, one way contract. There's no definition under which he can be defined a "fringe player".
Sbisa - considered terrible for the most part of his career, most would have said he's on his way out of the league in the summer of '16
By who? By random anons on HF? This man was signed to a one-way, 3 year, 10.8
million dollar deal. The idea that he would have left the league the summer of 16', that was the summer he was recognized for his excellence with a selection to the silver medal winning Team Europe World Cup team. Stop talking about what "most would have said", he has had a huge NHL contract for years, he had a huge contract before then for 8.7 million signed with an entirely different club (so it wasn't merely a single GM's referendum). He's been given notable assignments on the teams he's been on, and he's hasn't been an elevator player in the least bit. He's not a fringe player. Again, returning to the concept of construct validity, if he's a fringe player, then the vast majority of NHL regulars would be defined as fringe players. You disliking his play, his play style, or thinking he got overpaid, that doesn't make foor a coherent definition.
Stoner - Ducks' 8th (?) defenseman last year
He hasn't played a single game this season. He's had no part in their success. Including him is a desperate move.
Theodore - always a good prospect but has never played full NHL season before
Before Anthony Mantha played his first full NHL season, he had never played a full NHL season. Before Brayden Schenn played his first full NHL season, he had never played a full NHL season. Before Sean Couturier played his first full NHL season, he had never played a full NHL season. This is the problem with you calling prospects "fringe players". They're prospects, they're developing. He graduated from an elevator player to the solid NHLer we all expected him to be this year, the year he was expected to graduate. By your definition, any player who does not immediately play in the NHL is a fringe player until he plays in the NHL. That's silly.
Bellemare - definition of fringe NHLer, nobody understood what was that 1.45 mil p.y. extension for
He's played the exact same role in Vegas as he did in Philly, with virtually the exact same production.
But ok, if Bellemare is the definition of a fringe NHLer, how are we defining one? By being part of the Philly PK unit? By having a one-way contract? By never riding the elevator with the AHL club? If it's simply because he's a bottom 6 forward them (and still is now), every team has 7 bottom 6 forwards (scratching one). Similarly defined, every team would have a majority of fringe players.
Carrier - in and out of the Sabres lineup the season before
In and out of the Knights lineup this season as well. You're having a really hard time showing that these scrubs are the ones driving this amazing season start.
Leipsic - career AHLer before this season
Two arguments relevant to this. First, the Hunt argument, about the need to prove anomaly or disproportionality. Then the argument about Theodore. Leipsic is 23, and has seen his AHL stats rise gradually year to year, this year was logically his NHL breakout season. They picked up exciting prospects. That's not equivalent to picking up fringe players, at least in no coherent definition.
Haula - talks about leaving to KHL during arbitration process in 2015, was in the lineup for 2 out of 10 games in the playoffs that year
So he's a scrub because two-three years ago he was benched during the playoffs for a few games. What about the ensuing season where he scored 34 points and 4 points in 5 playoff games, not with the Knights. What about his nomination to the Finnish world cup team? Also, not with the Knights. Furthermore, I must remind you, your argument was that these players were fringe players prior to receiving an opportunity with Vegas. "
That's a team of fringe players who were given a chance to succeed"... Haula may have had one rough season, but he proved himself long prior to his arrival at Vegas. He earned a two year, one way, 2 million dollar contract prior to his arrival in Vegas. He was not a fringe player when he arrived in Vegas. He was given his chance prior to Vegas, and succeeded. Remember this when we get to Marschessault and talk about a 51 point player prior to Vegas...
Lindberg - a lot like Bellmare, someone barely good enough for the 4th line just with offensive touch
He's scoring at a lower clip this season with Vegas than he was prior with New York. This "opportunity" for Lindberg has done his career detriment, not aid. Calling someone with over 50 points in the NHL in the past two years a "fringe player". Again, definitions, they're incredibly important. So is anyone under 30 points a season a fringe player? What makes Lindberg a "fringe player"? I don't know any team which would consider someone who regularly scores over 20 points a season a fringe player. If you can't even define your terms, you don't have an argument.
Nosek - not an NHL player before the season
I mentioned this above with Jankowski, Hathaway, Frk, I mentioned it above with Jordan Weal. You need to prove an abnormality, not an occurence.
Tuch - good prospect but again, not an NHL player before this season
Same exact argument as Theodore and Subban. The idea that we are calling first round draft picks fringe players is ludicrous. Prospects are prospects. Before all of them were NHL players, they were not NHL players, that's intrinsic within the definition.
Schmidt - this is Vegas #1 D we are talking about, often a healthy scratch a season before for Caps.
Again, define your terms. There is no coherent definition under which Schmidt is a fringe player. He was scratched a handful of games last season, one the team that won the president's cup and had one of the best defensive corps in the league, and still played 60 games despite an injury. He played the majority of two deep playoff runs on a loaded team. Definitions, again, need to be clear and succinct.
I think this is a pretty long list of truly fringe guys.
Well, seeing that most those players by intuitive and common sense measures are not fringe players, and you couldn't bring yourself to offer a coherent definition of what a fringe player entails, not really.
However, the bigger problem here is your initial statement. I will quote it again. "
That's a team of fringe players who were given a chance to succeed"
That statement implies that the team is either comprised completely or primarily of fringe players. You did not mention Fleury, you did not mention Miller, Eakin, Karlsson, Perron, Smith, Neal. These players have been the ones primarily responsible for the team's success, and not the players you mentioned. You omitted them because they do not fit your narrative. However, this alone completely invalidates your argument that the success of the Knights is due to a core of fringe players who were given a chance to succeed. It wasn't.
Now, regarding Marchessault case, 1) he was offered 750k per season, some European team with big bucks offers him a job does he not take it? Sure these things don't happen almost at all but that brings us to: 2) Marchessault is basically Pirri, Pulkkinen, Omark or what not who finally made it. Like Parenteau or Moulson have before him. The former 3 guys are in/on their way to Europe. At the AHL level they are basically at the same tier but at some point some of them get the full time job and some don't. If not for Florida, Marchessault is likely not an NHLer at this point.
1. Are you kidding? The contract was a two-year one-way contract. A one year contract is defined by minor league appearance pay not being prorated. That means if he played minors they would have to pay him the same salary as if he played in the NHL. That heavily indicates that he would play in the NHL that season and he did. Given the chance to play, it is unlikely that he would choose otherwise simply because he isn't Russian and wants to play in the NHL. As you even admitted, these things don't happen almost at all.
But let's talk finances just for a second. The only league that has any teams that offer an even remotely similar salary is the KHL. Not a single member of the top 30 KHL earners is North American, and 29 are Russian. The average import receives 300-500k dollars. It is highly unlikely that a team would be willing to put in the money. Players like our Olympic Candidate Linden Vey, Rob Klinkhammer, Gilbert Brule, etc likely did not perform their ways to a one-way contract. In that situation a prorated 2 way contract would be less lucrative than a KHL deal. In situations where a one-way deal is present, a KHL team will probably not match unless the player himself is Russian. So your guess that he was close to going to Europe? Probably a bad guess.
2. Which leads me to my second point. Marschessault earned that one way contract with his play the year prior for Tampa under a two-way contract as a 24 year old. We don't know what the other deals on the table were. Perhaps other teams offered him a one-way contract and he chose Florida because there is no state income tax. Perhaps he chose them for the vision they had for his usage. Perhaps other teams offered him two-way contracts. We'll never know, but to suggest that he was saved by some lucky break instead of earning his one way contract with a solid showing for the Lightning in the regular and postseason the year before is being presumptuous.
And the final problem again is that your argument suggests because of Vegas we were revealed a group of new stars who wouldn't be in the NHL if not for the formation of Vegas. Marschessault scored 51 points, 30 goals the season before. Barring a brutal accident or a horrific stroke of bad luck there was no way he was not going to be in the NHL. Vegas knew they were getting a star when they got Marschessault, and that's exactly what he's been.
Another funny thing. Just today I saw Jakub Jerabek got his first NHL assist(s). The man was a beast for Podolsk in the KHL last year. This year, it took 17 games to get a single point.
I don't disrespect the Canadian nationalteam. I used to watch Chris Lee play for Metallurg. Kevin Poulin played this season in the EBEL, the Austrian league. Recently I haven't kept up as much but I also watched a lot of Dinamo Riga where Karl Stollery plays and some Dinamo Minsk where Gragnani, Klinkhammer, Howden... Good professional hockey players for sure. But if they were in the NHL, they would be fringe players at best, not stars.
