Stutzle is an exceptional prospect and an exceptional player
Yes, he is, and was judged to be so at the time of the evaluation to keep him.
- especially in hindsight than at the time of the draft.
True, drafting is not an exact science. That's why they have camps where the player can be measured against other NHL players and prospects.
He didn't struggle to stay in his D-year league, Slafkovsky was sent down multiple times and struggled mightily in his draft year.
Maybe factual, but spun to exaggerate a point. He played 11 games in the U20 farm club, and 31 games in Liiga. He CRUSHED the U20 league when he still had 3 more years of eligibility, and in the regular pro team progressed in production and ice team during the season. He was top-6 in the playoffs among the forwards. That is exceptional for a draft eligible player in a pro league. "Struggled mightily" is absolutelly not a fair statement.
Overcame initial challenges as the youngest player in the pro league and then progressed mightily is a more fair assessment.
They're not the same tier of player today and not the same tier of prospect at any time in their respective careers. Slafkovsky might've styled on Team Kazakhstan toward the end of his D-year season but the sample size at these tournaments betrays the point -- he was never capable of making the jump to the NHL when just 6 months earlier he was struggling in Liiga.
About 50% of scouts had him as the #1OA pick, more than any other player. I do not think it is fair to toss out that "he was never capable" as if this was obvious and the opposite position was a total outlier.
Stutzle had double the ppg Slaf had in their respective rookie seasons.
Different tier of player, different tier of prospect, different tier of career ahead of them.
Yes, so Ottawa was right in Stutzle's case. He was ready and THEN benefitted even more from the challenge and rose further, quickly. But Stutzle did SO WELL that we have to agree that a player could be below Stutzle and still have been over a reasonably set bar.
The Habs, and some of you guys, disagree with the rest of us about Slafkovsky's readiness.
Yes, it is possible the Habs were wrong. In all fairness, this was a close call, not super obvious.
You in particular, often being of a different opinion than the so-called consensus, might want to refrain from using the fact that others agree with you as part of your argument. Besides, some of the people who agree that Slaf should not have been in the NHL said this because they were afraid he would do well and kill the tank season. This is one of hundreds of examples of how badly the promotion of a tanking perpsective messes up rational debate.
So be it. If you're proven right we will all be joyous and celebrating this new paradigm in prospect development where they're thrown to the NHL asap. It'll save us cap space, give us a ton of flexibility in roster management, and allow us to pump out skilled players with ease.
Rhetorical sleight of hand. This is absolutely
NOT a new paradigm - no way / no how.
This is the standard paradigm, the disagreement is whether Slafkovsky met the standard as Thornton, Lecavalier Hughes and others did before him. Absolutely nothing new about graduating top picks at 18, ESPECIALLY if they have NHL size and have played pro already.
Your trickery here is similar to the logical fallacy called "assuming your conclusion", with additional resemblance to how politicians spin things by using carefully chosen words designed to mislead.
