Proposal: Chicago - Toronto

[Randy Randerson]

Thats a pretty big statement to make. Panarins almost scored ppg last season. Chances of Marner doing that?

I agree that's a bit of an overstatement, but I think the "for the leafs" part is important. 19 year old prospect who's similar age to the rest of the core with all of his ELC years left and a sky-high ceiling suits our needs better at this stage of a rebuild than a 25 year old first line winger who's going to make 6.5mil

by the same token, Panarin's value to the Hawks is much higher because they're already contending and have the pieces to compliment Panarin already in their prime

 

[hawksrule]

No, you're missing the point of the analogy. You cannot judge a player based on an extremely small sample size (and as others have said, he was actually above a PPG in that tourney as an underager, so you're really grasping at straws here) when there's larger, more predictive data available. Kane was put in as an example to show you that my claim checks out - even the world's best players have bad games when it matters most. It has nothing to do with Kane's NHL success (obviously everyone knows he's a proven superstar), and it has everything to do with showing how the way you're evaluating Marner is inherently flawed.

And now you're creating a strawman since your other argument has been proven wrong. No one says Marner is a guarantee to be better than Panarin. Could he be? Yes. Could he bust or fall somewhere in between? Yes. Where the Leafs are in there development, trading Marner+ for Panarin doesn't make sense for them, and that's why the deal isn't being made. Not because people think he's McDavid. Stop projecting on others with this homerism bs.

I didn't judge him based on a small sample size. In fact I'm doing the opposite and withholding judgment until he proves himself against better competition. His failings in his one tournament against better competition gives me pause that the marner exuberance is premature. I'm not saying he won't be good. But for people to tout him having more potential than Matthews (I forget if that was you or someone else), or to pencil him in as a ppg nhl player (this has been done in marner threads incessantly), or to label him the next Patrick Kane (seen it dozens of times) is ludicrous. As I said, unbridled homerism.

 

[Falcons93]

I didn't judge him based on a small sample size. In fact I'm doing the opposite and withholding judgment until he proves himself against better competition. His failings in his one tournament against better competition gives me pause that the marner exuberance is premature. I'm not saying he won't be good. But for people to tout him having more potential than Matthews (I forget if that was you or someone else), or to pencil him in as a ppg nhl player (this has been done in marner threads incessantly), or to label him the next Patrick Kane (seen it dozens of times) is ludicrous. As I said, unbridled homerism.

You need to step back from the thread for a while.

It's really not ludicrous to suggest he may have more potential than Matthews. You haven't even watched Marner (that much is obvious at this point) and are using some made up narrative of him being bad at the WJC to fuel all of your posts. Complete nonsense.

 

[Menzinger]

Thats a pretty big statement to make. Panarins almost scored ppg last season. Chances of Marner doing that?

But it's not as simple as that - contract and age matter for players value to different teams.

Leafs are a rebuilding team that's starting from scratch. The bluechip prospect will hold more value to them than the proven vet in the middle of his prime.

 

[Prominence]

Panarin scored a ppg for the blackhawks, but would he be able to replicate it on the leafs? Just let the leafs do a proper rebuild and both players mean more to their respective teams .

 

[Mach85]

I didn't judge him based on a small sample size. In fact I'm doing the opposite and withholding judgment until he proves himself against better competition. His failings in his one tournament against better competition gives me pause that the marner exuberance is premature. I'm not saying he won't be good. But for people to tout him having more potential than Matthews (I forget if that was you or someone else), or to pencil him in as a ppg nhl player (this has been done in marner threads incessantly), or to label him the next Patrick Kane (seen it dozens of times) is ludicrous. As I said, unbridled homerism.

This "Marner exuberance" you claim needs to be capped is from the vast, vast minority of individuals that every fan base has. So you pointing that out really serves no purpose. No one here is saying he's a sure bet for anything. Talking about ceiling and likelihood to reach that ceiling are two different matters. It's possible Marner becomes a better scorer than Matthews (the poster who said that did not say it was a sure thing or even likely).

No one has pencilled him in as a PPG player, but he certainly has the potential to be one. And that keeps being brought up ITT because keeping a player with that potential at Marner's age and controllability makes vastly more sense in the Leafs' current stage of roster construction than trading for Panarin, even if Panarin's more of a finished product. Several people have tried to explain this, and I'm not sure why it's so hard to grasp.

As for his "failings" in one tourney against better competition giving you pause: 1) He was over a PPG as an underager 2) the Pat Kane example shows that even the world's most elite and proven players can look bad over a several game period when it counts most. So with that in mind, there's no reason an objective person would ignore Marner's much larger sample of exceptional play and award-winning and focus on that tourney, except as a demonstration of bias. Which makes your homerism comments hilariously ironic.

 

[Kamiccolo]

ITT: People using a small wjc sample size where he was ppg as a source for him busting and not his 2+years on the OHL, his playoffs, or his preseason with the leafs so far.

It makes no sense for a team just coming out of a rebuild to trade a future core player for another core player entering his prime.

Same for hawks. Why try a guy in his prime for a prospect when you are trying to win at least another up while Kane and Toews + Keith are still in their glory days?

Just a bad proposal which has turned into an unjustified bash thread on both sides.

 

[hawksrule]

This "Marner exuberance" you claim needs to be capped is from the vast, vast minority of individuals that every fan base has.

I don't think so. It's an extremely popular sentiment among leafs dans.

So you pointing that out really serves no purpose. No one here is saying he's a sure bet for anything. Talking about ceiling and likelihood to reach that ceiling are two different matters. It's possible Marner becomes a better scorer than Matthews (the poster who said that did not say it was a sure thing or even likely).

See, you're missing the point. There's no value of pointing out something unlikely to come to fruition. If Marner is unlikely to be better than Matthews, someone claiming the possibility merely exists in the realm of possibility adds nothing to the conversation. If that's how you want to read his statement, feel free, but it being unlikely is not what was implied.

No one has pencilled him in as a PPG player, but he certainly has the potential to be one. And that keeps being brought up ITT because keeping a player with that potential at Marner's age and controllability makes vastly more sense in the Leafs' current stage of roster construction than trading for Panarin, even if Panarin's more of a finished product. Several people have tried to explain this, and I'm not sure why it's so hard to grasp.

Ahh, but that's not what is primarily being argued. Rather, Leafs fans in this thread question whether Panarin is truly an elite player, whether he is proven, is he any good away from Kane. The arguments I've responded to are not those that state what you posted above.

As for his "failings" in one tourney against better competition giving you pause: 1) He was over a PPG as an underager 2) the Pat Kane example shows that even the world's most elite and proven players can look bad over a several game period when it counts most. So with that in mind, there's no reason an objective person would ignore Marner's much larger sample of exceptional play and award-winning and focus on that tourney, except as a demonstration of bias. Which makes your homerism comments hilariously ironic.

Marner was not good in the tournament. I don't know what to tell you. I don't watch the world cup, but if Kane wasn't any good, whatever, i'm not worried about him in the least. If this was the first time he played superior players and faltered, I'd certainly have concerns. I'm being perfectly consistent. You're homerism is clouding your vision.

 

[Mach85]

I don't think so. It's an extremely popular sentiment among leafs dans.



See, you're missing the point. There's no value of pointing out something unlikely to come to fruition. If Marner is unlikely to be better than Matthews, someone claiming the possibility merely exists in the realm of possibility adds nothing to the conversation. If that's how you want to read his statement, feel free, but it being unlikely is not what was implied.



Ahh, but that's not what is primarily being argued. Rather, Leafs fans in this thread question whether Panarin is truly an elite player, whether he is proven, is he any good away from Kane. The arguments I've responded to are not those that state what you posted above.



Marner was not good in the tournament. I don't know what to tell you. I don't watch the world cup, but if Kane wasn't any good, whatever, i'm not worried about him in the least. If this was the first time he played superior players and faltered, I'd certainly have concerns. I'm being perfectly consistent. You're homerism is clouding your vision.

Of course saying he might have more potential than Matthews adds something to the conversation lol. Posters were saying "why wouldn't Leafs fans do this deal" and it was used as a supporting point as to why they'd want to hang onto him - his potential. It's directly relevant. All prospects have risk. As for the bold, you state you're just concerned about defending Panarin as an elite player. Yet you've spent a lot of time on Marner. That's pretty inconsistent.

I'm not sure what tournament you were watching. Over a PPG as an underager (a 19-year-old's tourney) and was thought to be one of the better players on a disappointing team along with Strome. I don't know what you expected him to do, dominate like a man among boys on a team where everyone else played like crap and the elite players were older than him? You continue to miss the point about the Kane example. I've said this about 3 times: it's not about being "worried" about Kane - you don't need to respond with that. It's about showing that you can't evaluate a player on one or two games when there's a much larger sample size to go on.

Marner faced Strome in a playoff series and dominated him. He had one of the highest PPG in the OHL playoffs and mem cup history, as an 18-year-old. Yet he had one or two bad games and all of a sudden his potential is in doubt. If that isn't bias, I certainly question your knowledge of statistics. As far as me now being accused of homerism, that's pretty telling of the quality of your argument, considering I haven't stated what team I cheer for and I don't have an avatar or team-based username, or even a location.

 

[hawksrule]

Of course saying he might have more potential than Matthews adds something to the conversation lol. Posters were saying "why wouldn't Leafs fans do this deal" and it was used as a supporting point as to why they'd want to hang onto him - his potential. It's directly relevant. All prospects have risk. As for the bold, you state you're just concerned about defending Panarin as an elite player. Yet you've spent a lot of time on Marner. That's pretty inconsistent.

I'm not sure what tournament you were watching. Over a PPG as an underager (a 19-year-old's tourney) and was thought to be one of the better players on a disappointing team along with Strome. I don't know what you expected him to do, dominate like a man among boys on a team where everyone else played like crap and the elite players were older than him? You continue to miss the point about the Kane example. I've said this about 3 times: it's not about being "worried" about Kane - you don't need to respond with that. It's about showing that you can't evaluate a player on one or two games when there's a much larger sample size to go on.

Marner faced Strome in a playoff series and dominated him. He had one of the highest PPG in the OHL playoffs and mem cup history, as an 18-year-old. Yet he had one or two bad games and all of a sudden his potential is in doubt. If that isn't bias, I certainly question your knowledge of statistics. As far as me now being accused of homerism, that's pretty telling of the quality of your argument, considering I haven't stated what team I cheer for and I don't have an avatar or team-based username, or even a location.

Fine, Nick Schmaltz has the potential to be better than Matthews and Marner combined. I don't believe it, but it exists in the realm of possibility. Does that make it a meaningful addition to the conversation?

Your point about Kane is misguided no matter how many times you repeat it. A poor small sample size doesn't mean anything about a proven player. Regarding an unproven player like Marner, the one small sample against better competition may be a sign of things to come. It's apples and oranges.

He beat up on Germany or whatever lousy teams you played. If you watched the whole tournament (which I'm doubting based on this conversation) he was not good. Spin the stats to soothe your doubts, that's fine.

If you're not a Leafs fan, that's fine, no one cares.

 

[Mach85]

Fine, Nick Schmaltz has the potential to be better than Matthews and Marner combined. I don't believe it, but it exists in the realm of possibility. Does that make it a meaningful addition to the conversation?

Your point about Kane is misguided no matter how many times you repeat it. A poor small sample size doesn't mean anything about a proven player. Regarding an unproven player like Marner, the one small sample against better competition may be a sign of things to come. It's apples and oranges.

He beat up on Germany or whatever lousy teams you played. If you watched the whole tournament (which I'm doubting based on this conversation) he was not good. Spin the stats to soothe your doubts, that's fine.

If you're not a Leafs fan, that's fine, no one cares.

Nick Schmaltz does not have that potential, that's an obtuse statement to make. Each player has a likely ceiling and floor, and Marner is closer to a Matthews level of prospect (being a top 5) pick, than a Schmaltz is.

That sample size means everything when we're not discussing the quality of the players, but using the two players' trajectories an an illustration of what is poor quality data (small sample size, historical precedent of even the best players varying widely in performance in short tourneys) vs good and predictive data (career performance accumulated over multiple seasons). I'll keep repeating the example until you understand that I'm not comparing Marner to Kane. I'm making a statement about small sample size vs large sample size.

Here's another: Steven Stamkos had a poor tourney his first time at the WJC. He turned out just fine. There are many other examples of NHL stars on Panarin's level and better who did the same. Yet you insist on taking one or two bad games and seeing that as predictive of Marner's potential over reams of other evidence (draft pedigree, scouting reports, multiple seasons of stats, postseason record performances, hardware after hardware)

That's the great thing about stats - they're concrete, and not based on your subjective evaluation of opinions that don't match yours (yet contain persuasive arguments) as homerism (a lot of homers here, even non-Leafs fans). As for my evaluation of Marner's play, here's a statement from Corey Pronman:
"Marner was a little up and down at the tournament, but in totality he played very well." It's clear one of us is spinning things here, and it's not me.

 

[Halla]

Fine, Nick Schmaltz has the potential to be better than Matthews and Marner combined. I don't believe it, but it exists in the realm of possibility. Does that make it a meaningful addition to the conversation?

Your point about Kane is misguided no matter how many times you repeat it. A poor small sample size doesn't mean anything about a proven player. Regarding an unproven player like Marner, the one small sample against better competition may be a sign of things to come. It's apples and oranges.

He beat up on Germany or whatever lousy teams you played. If you watched the whole tournament (which I'm doubting based on this conversation) he was not good. Spin the stats to soothe your doubts, that's fine.

If you're not a Leafs fan, that's fine, no one cares.

spin the stats..lol.
the stats are there. 4g/2A/6pts in 5 games. He was expected to be better, but so were strome, virtanen and the rest of team Canada.

OHL MVP
CHL MVP
Playoff MVP
Memorial Cup MVP

I think at the end of the day, marner had a pretty good draft+1 no?
55g,105a,160pts in 75 games.

but yeah, keep going back to those 5 games against the top 19 years olds in the world where marner scored 4 times but apparently is a sign of things to come. 4 pts in 5 preseason games thus far btw.

leafs keep marner and let the hawks worry about panarin

 

[Halla]

I don't think so. It's an extremely popular sentiment among leafs dans.



See, you're missing the point. There's no value of pointing out something unlikely to come to fruition. If Marner is unlikely to be better than Matthews, someone claiming the possibility merely exists in the realm of possibility adds nothing to the conversation. If that's how you want to read his statement, feel free, but it being unlikely is not what was implied.



Ahh, but that's not what is primarily being argued. Rather, Leafs fans in this thread question whether Panarin is truly an elite player, whether he is proven, is he any good away from Kane. The arguments I've responded to are not those that state what you posted above.



Marner was not good in the tournament. I don't know what to tell you. I don't watch the world cup, but if Kane wasn't any good, whatever, i'm not worried about him in the least. If this was the first time he played superior players and faltered, I'd certainly have concerns. I'm being perfectly consistent. You're homerism is clouding your vision.

Kane was a ghost, also yeah the homerism is the other way around here. its downright foolish to ignore 78 games of junior play (reg season,playoffs,mem. cup) where marner got 172 pts and then focus on his 4 goal in 5 games tourney as an 18 year old.

this one needs to be locked up. hawks arent getting a matthews,marner,strome, laine,puljujarvi or whatever they think panarin is worth. see saad deal for value (young roster forward, 2nd-3rd liner, 4th rd)

 

[Halla]

ITT: People using a small wjc sample size where he was ppg as a source for him busting and not his 2+years on the OHL, his playoffs, or his preseason with the leafs so far.

It makes no sense for a team just coming out of a rebuild to trade a future core player for another core player entering his prime.

Same for hawks. Why try a guy in his prime for a prospect when you are trying to win at least another up while Kane and Toews + Keith are still in their glory days?

Just a bad proposal which has turned into an unjustified bash thread on both sides.

I think its just two hawks fans doing that. like I said earlier if a hemsky (younger at the time than panarin with two 70+ seasons) for toews thread popped up prior to toews rookie season, they would have defended their guy until they were blue in the face.

a lot of similarities with the leafs and hawks of about 2008.
they will grow with matthews,marner,nylander,rielly,gardiner,andersen etc and laugh off these silly attempts at a shortcut

 

[hawksrule]

Nick Schmaltz does not have that potential, that's an obtuse statement to make. Each player has a likely ceiling and floor, and Marner is closer to a Matthews level of prospect (being a top 5) pick, than a Schmaltz is.

That sample size means everything when we're not discussing the quality of the players, but using the two players' trajectories an an illustration of what is poor quality data (small sample size, historical precedent of even the best players varying widely in performance in short tourneys) vs good and predictive data (career performance accumulated over multiple seasons). I'll keep repeating the example until you understand that I'm not comparing Marner to Kane. I'm making a statement about small sample size vs large sample size.

Here's another: Steven Stamkos had a poor tourney his first time at the WJC. He turned out just fine. There are many other examples of NHL stars on Panarin's level and better who did the same. Yet you insist on taking one or two bad games and seeing that as predictive of Marner's potential over reams of other evidence (draft pedigree, scouting reports, multiple seasons of stats, postseason record performances, hardware after hardware)

That's the great thing about stats - they're concrete, and not based on your subjective evaluation of opinions that don't match yours (yet contain persuasive arguments) as homerism (a lot of homers here, even non-Leafs fans). As for my evaluation of Marner's play, here's a statement from Corey Pronman:
"Marner was a little up and down at the tournament, but in totality he played very well." It's clear one of us is spinning things here, and it's not me.

And I think it's obtuse to say Marner has Matthews' potential. See how this works?

We have an abundance of data points of Kane playing against top competition. What you're referring to is obviously an outlier. There are few data points of Marner playing superior competition. That doesn't make those games conclusive, but it doesn't make them irrelevant either. Apples and oranges, although feel free to stick with your faulty logic.

Lol @ citing Stamkos as evidence for your ill-defined point.

Right, stats are concrete and can't be spun

I don't think any objective fan who watched the games (and I'll take your silence as a tacit acknowledgement you didn't) would say he played well. Glowing praise by Pronman

 

[Mach85]

And I think it's obtuse to say Marner has Matthews' potential. See how this works?

We have an abundance of data points of Kane playing against top competition. What you're referring to is obviously an outlier. There are few data points of Marner playing superior competition. That doesn't make those games conclusive, but it doesn't make them irrelevant either. Apples and oranges, although feel free to stick with your faulty logic.

Lol @ citing Stamkos as evidence for your ill-defined point.

Right, stats are concrete and can't be spun

I don't think any objective fan who watched the games (and I'll take your silence as a tacit acknowledgement you didn't) would say he played well. Glowing praise by Pronman

A guy universally thought of as a top 5 prospect outside of the NHL having a hard ceiling of a 1st overall pick is quite different than saying a late first-rounder could be better than Marner and Matthews combined. One is possible the other is gross hyperbole.

So no evidence is good enough for you. Everything is explained away as not credible. "lol" and "facepalm" are not rebuttals. Stamkos scored 1 goal in 7 games in his first taste of WJC competition and it didn't portend a disappointing career, why should it for Marner? And there are many similar examples. What you're citing as predictive (and remember, Marner scored 4 goals and was over a PPG), performance in a short tourney, has been shown repeatedly to not be predictive of future star potential. So why is that your sole evidence? Pretty clear that's an argument with a poor foundation.

I'm sorry, a guy who gets paid for his opinion on players and watches hundreds more games than you a year, and talks to actual NHL scouts - his opinion is laughed off? How about Bob McKenzie who said Marner had "a slow start to the tourney but was electrifying when it counted?" I'm sure you'll find some way to shrug off that as well, instead of actually conceding you might be wrong.Because hawksrule knows better than actual professionals.

And I didn't tacitly acknowledge anything because I have nothing to prove to you. I deal in evidence, not silly games of "I don't like your opinion so you must not have watched the games/you must be a Leafs fan"

 

[hawksrule]

So no evidence is good enough for you. Everything is explained away as not credible. "lol" and "facepalm" are not rebuttals. Stamkos scored 1 goal in 7 games in his first taste of WJC competition and it didn't portend a disappointing career, why should it for Marner? And there are many similar examples. What you're citing as predictive (and remember, Marner scored 4 goals and was over a PPG), performance in a short tourney, has been shown repeatedly to not be predictive of future star potential. So why is that your sole evidence? Pretty clear that's an argument with a poor foundation.

I'm sorry, a guy who gets paid for his opinion on players and watches hundreds more games than you a year, and talks to actual NHL scouts - his opinion is laughed off? How about Bob McKenzie who said Marner had "a slow start to the tourney but was electrifying when it counted?" I'm sure you'll find some way to shrug off that as well, instead of actually conceding you might be wrong.Because hawksrule knows better than actual professionals.

Because plucking one guy who had a bad WJC and a good career is laughable evidence of whatever murky point you're trying to illustrate.

You obviously didn't watch the games.

Now you're upset that I don't buy platitudes?

 

[Mach85]

Because plucking one guy who had a bad WJC and a good career is laughable evidence of whatever murky point you're trying to illustrate.

You obviously didn't watch the games.

Now you're upset that I don't buy platitudes?

Nope. I already said he is just one example. There are quite a few guys who had bad WJCs and were stars in the NHL. I suggest you look through the tournament results. But that's something that a guy who is objective and doesn't have his mind already made up would do.

Platitudes? Is that what you call analysis that doesn't fit your narrative?

 

[Space Coyote]

Marner at 19 is a better prospect than Panarin.

Marner has the potential to be a better player than Panarin at 24. Will he ever get there? Who knows?

 

[Halla]

Because plucking one guy who had a bad WJC and a good career is laughable evidence of whatever murky point you're trying to illustrate.

You obviously didn't watch the games.

Now you're upset that I don't buy platitudes?

I watched every game that both canada and US were a part of.
Marner wasnt "bad". more was expected of him, yet he was easily canadas best player in the elimination game. also 4g,2a,6pts in 5 games is still decent.

you are making way too much a deal out of an 18 year olds WJHC tourney where he still led the team in scoring. let it go. you know toews had 0g,2a in his first would juniors then 4g,3a,7pts in 6 games in his 2nd? was that a sign of things to come? surely you wouldnt argue his 9pts in 12 games was him not being able to compete against higher competition. this schmaltz kid you seem to love could muster only a single assist in his draft +1 world junior tourney. a sign of things to come?

 

[Halla]

Marner at 19 is a better prospect than Panarin.

Marner has the potential to be a better player than Panarin at 24. Will he ever get there? Who knows?

no one even knew who panarin was until he was about 22-23. he was playing beer league hockey in russia at the same time marner is about the make the NHL. we are more than happy with our guy

 

[Brew]

Lol, it's a big question, will Marner ever be as good as Panarin.

Lol how good is Panarin without Kane? Chicago is gonna need to find space to sign him. Good luck.

 

[hawksrule]

Nope. I already said he is just one example. There are quite a few guys who had bad WJCs and were stars in the NHL. I suggest you look through the tournament results. But that's something that a guy who is objective and doesn't have his mind already made up would do.

Platitudes? Is that what you call analysis that doesn't fit your narrative?

That's a non-sequitur. No one said a bad WJC = a bad NHL career. But that doesn't make it a positive, nor irrelevant.

"Electrifying when it counted." Given that Canada had an awful WJC and went out meekly, that's not Bobby Mac's most inspired work.

 

[Confucius]

That's a non-sequitur. No one said a bad WJC = a bad NHL career. But that doesn't make it a positive, nor irrelevant.

"Electrifying when it counted." Given that Canada had an awful WJC and went out meekly, that's not Bobby Mac's most inspired work.

So how was Panarins last tournament, the WCH?

 

[hawksrule]

So how was Panarins last tournament, the WCH?

Didn't watch.