Toggle sidebar

Proposal: Kasperi Kapanen for Brandon Montour (Keep it civil)

Sojourn said:
Not nearly as much as you seem to be suggesting.

But that was an excellent attempt to dismiss the point.
Click to expand...

The point is that you're trying to determine a development based on pure conjecture. Why value Montour over the higher drafted Kapanen when Kapanen is two years younger and was/is a better prospect at that age than Montour, and will most likely be playing solid minutes in the NHL at Montour's age?

Because he's putting better numbers in the AHL over a 19 year old Kapanen? Come on, that's weak.
 
go4hockey said:
Yes it is outlandish. Montour would be listed above Dermontt,Nielson and Carrick and that's not really even close to me. But keep looking thru your Leaf Blue glasses.
Click to expand...

Key word being "to me". It's an opinion, one of many, holding no more weight than any others. I think you are showing incredible bias if you don't believe it to be remotely close. It's all totally subjective. I noticed Zaitsev wasn't listed additionally. The whole point was a poster said Leafs had no D prospect remotely of the calibre of Montour, which clearly isn't the case. Dermott, Nielson, Montour are all in the same tier, while Zaitsev looks a tier above given how well he performed in the KHL and WHC. Add me to the pile who prefers Larsson to Montour.
 
Atomos2 said:
The point is that you're trying to determine a development based on pure conjecture. Why value Montour over the higher drafted Kapanen when Kapanen is two years younger and was/is a better prospect at that age than Montour, and will most likely be playing solid minutes in the NHL at Montour's age?

Because he's putting better numbers in the AHL over a 19 year old Kapanen? Come on, that's weak.
Click to expand...

And in two years, if Kapanen had improved at the level Montour had, you'd be over the moon with excitement.

That's the difference. It isn't weak. It just considers that different players develop at different rates. Montour's dramatic improvement is no guarantee of Kapanen's. When/if Kapanen does, then you can use that point. We know what Montour's improvement has been, and it's well above the level you would realistically expect of even good prospects.
 
Atomos2 said:
The point is that you're trying to determine a development based on pure conjecture. Why value Montour over the higher drafted Kapanen when Kapanen is two years younger and was/is a better prospect at that age than Montour, and will most likely be playing solid minutes in the NHL at Montour's age?

Because he's putting better numbers in the AHL over a 19 year old Kapanen? Come on, that's weak.
Click to expand...

Montour was drafted 55th so he was always seen as a boom or bust type. Hes killed his first AHL season. Even outscored shea theodore. RHD are always a hot commodity. Especially one on his ELC. If it wasn't for the ducks having a stacked D corp, Montour for sure would have seen some minutes last season. Saying Kapanen will be better because hes gonna see some time with the team that finished dead last season is a terrible argument.
 
Sojourn said:
And in two years, if Kapanen had improved at the level Montour had, you'd be over the moon with excitement.

That's the difference. It isn't weak. It just considers that different players develop at different rates. Montour's dramatic improvement is no guarantee of Kapanen's. When/if Kapanen does, then you can use that point. We know what Montour's improvement has been, and it's well above the level you would realistically expect of even good prospects.
Click to expand...

lindholmie said:
Montour was drafted 55th so he was always seen as a boom or bust type. Hes killed his first AHL season. Even outscored shea theodore. RHD are always a hot commodity. Especially one on his ELC. If it wasn't for the ducks having a stacked D corp, Montour for sure would have seen some minutes last season. Saying Kapanen will be better because hes gonna see some time with the team that finished dead last season is a terrible argument.
Click to expand...

First off, Montour is still a boom or bust type. He hasn't played in the NHL yet so until you can see if that offense translates to the NHL, he is still a boom or bust. As it was noted earlier by me, there have been examples where elite AHL offense hasn't been able to translate.

2nd, if in two years Kapanen is still in the minors, I'd be of the opinion he isn't all that valuable.

And yes, different players develop at different rates, but these players aren't NHLers yet so they aren't done developing. So we have no idea if their development inevitably leads to something at the NHL level or not. No one should be pimping Montour off like he is an "end result" because right now he's still an AHLer.

And saying Kapanen spending time on a bad NHL tteam makes him a better player is a bad argument. But saying that if Kapanen found more success at the NHL level it would be better than an equally aged AHL defenceman killing it at the AHL level, that's a damn decent argument.
 
AustonPowers said:
I think you are showing incredible bias if you don't believe it to be remotely close. It's all totally subjective. I noticed Zaitsev wasn't listed additionally. The whole point was a poster said Leafs had no D prospect remotely of the calibre of Montour, which clearly isn't the case. Dermott, Nielson, Montour are all in the same tier, while Zaitsev looks a tier above given how well he performed in the KHL and WHC. Add me to the pile who prefers Larsson to Montour.
Click to expand...
So, the Kings fan speaking in favour of his rival's prospect is showing "incredible bias", whereas the rather lone Leafs fan that thinks his team's prospects are all close is above any bias? That's definitely an opinion, and you can imagine what kind of weight others will see in it. Either way, you should stick to one line of reasoning. Either go with the not-really-too-true "it's all subjective" thing, but then you can't come up with absolute statements like "which clearly isn't the case" right next to it.
 
AustonPowers said:
Key word being "to me". It's an opinion, one of many, holding no more weight than any others. I think you are showing incredible bias if you don't believe it to be remotely close. It's all totally subjective. I noticed Zaitsev wasn't listed additionally. The whole point was a poster said Leafs had no D prospect remotely of the calibre of Montour, which clearly isn't the case. Dermott, Nielson, Montour are all in the same tier, while Zaitsev looks a tier above given how well he performed in the KHL and WHC. Add me to the pile who prefers Larsson to Montour.
Click to expand...

Opinions hold more or less weight than others based on the arguments brought fourth to support them. Such arguments have been provided for why Montour is a better prospect than our guys, but there hasn't really been any counter-arguments provided.

I'm not going to get into talking about tiers and such, as that is completely subjective and offers no real value.
 
4thline said:
Milano, Kapanen, Scherbak, Kempe, Tuch etc = all comparable level prospects.

Montour =/= Rielly



Dumb post is dumb.


The time to get Montour was last summer when he was still more of a wildcard. Keeping up that brief stint over a full season sky rockets him.. Him and Carrick were the guys that I wanted one of as undervalued (due to pedigree) offensive rhd prospects, glad we got one. Edge Montour right now, but not as big as most think. Don't underestimate the perspective impact of being "the guy" vs. sharing the load.
Click to expand...
Montour still had to compete with Shea Theodore as well as AHL veterans for his ice time. He earned everything he received TOI wise and PP wise, San Diego was also an AHL playoff team so it wasn't like the whole strategy was play the kids and be damned if we're terrible....they were trying to win and he was a major part of it.
 
KEEROLE Vatanen said:
Montour still had to compete with Shea Theodore as well as AHL veterans for his ice time. He earned everything he received TOI wise and PP wise, San Diego was also an AHL playoff team so it wasn't like the whole strategy was play the kids and be damned if we're terrible....they were trying to win and he was a major part of it.
Click to expand...

There's earned and then there's earned. Yes he was up to the challenge and we shouldn't take away from that and what he did but no one on that team (other than Theodore, and you play 2 d at a time) was a legit threat to out play him, and no other prospect needed those minutes.

He carried the mail, and as I guy that was a strong advocate for trading for him last year rather than stamping my feet and saying theodore or bust I feel vindicated, but don't make it seem like he forced his way onto a powerhouse. If he didn't do what he did the gulls were not a playoff team.
 
Kasperi Kapanen is son of legendary Sami Kapanen, very good NHL-calibrated forward, so there's lots of potential to release swiftly. Toronto need not to trade him soon and cheap.
 
Atomos2 said:
The point is that you're trying to determine a development based on pure conjecture. Why value Montour over the higher drafted Kapanen when Kapanen is two years younger and was/is a better prospect at that age than Montour, and will most likely be playing solid minutes in the NHL at Montour's age?

Because he's putting better numbers in the AHL over a 19 year old Kapanen? Come on, that's weak.
Click to expand...

Just going to address this too.

Comparing players and prospect at the same age isn't always the best way to go about things. Development often happens in leaps, and what a prospect was at an earlier age is often not representative for what he is later on.

I think the best way to compare prospects of different ages would be this:

Is it likely (over 50% chance) that the younger prospect will be as good as the older when he reaches the same age? Then he's probably a similar prospect.

I think Kapanen's trajectory puts him at or around Montour's level at the same age. I think the average trajectory of Dermott and Nielsen puts them a bit lower than that.

That leaves us at at the final point. Even if they would be similar level of prospects, you want the more developed, established guy. There's no reason to choose "could do" over "can do".
 
Nithoniniel said:
Just going to address this too.

Comparing players and prospect at the same age isn't always the best way to go about things. Development often happens in leaps, and what a prospect was at an earlier age is often not representative for what he is later on.

I think the best way to compare prospects of different ages would be this:

Is it likely (over 50% chance) that the younger prospect will be as good as the older when he reaches the same age? Then he's probably a similar prospect.

I think Kapanen's trajectory puts him at or around Montour's level at the same age. I think the average trajectory of Dermott and Nielsen puts them a bit lower than that.

That leaves us at at the final point. Even if they would be similar level of prospects, you want the more developed, established guy. There's no reason to choose "could do" over "can do".
Click to expand...

That entire last paragraph is bang on. The rest of it is a good point, but unfortunately I can't really comment on the Toronto prospect's trajectories. I don't know enough about them, and haven't seen enough about them, and I won't pretend otherwise.

Regarding the last paragraph, and particularly the last sentence, I wish more people understood that. It doesn't just apply to prospects, either, but established NHL talent. Too often the potential to be as good(or better) seems to outweigh the currently contributing player. It's a bit strange, when you stop and think about it. It's a gamble.
 
sansabri said:
Why? We have plenty of forward prospects already.
Click to expand...

We have plenty of gritty two way bottom 6 prospect yes

Hudon is allright, but he screams middle 6 forward for me. Scherbak has been disappointing since we drafted him. Not much to look forward

Kapanen would bring an offensive talent that we desperately need in our prospect pool
 
Hulleux said:
We have plenty of gritty two way bottom 6 prospect yes

Hudon is allright, but he screams middle 6 forward for me. Scherbak has been disappointing since we drafted him. Not much to look forward

Kapanen would bring an offensive talent that we desperately need in our prospect pool
Click to expand...

Kapanen projects to be a middle/bottom 6er himself. I'd take Lehkonen over him.
 
Now Kap is a bottom 6 winger :laugh:

He just put up some impressive numbers in the AHL as the youngest player in the league and has all the tools to be a top 6 winger. Not saying the leafs wouldn't trade him for Montour but people are severely undervaluing Kapanen
 
I'd wait till before the expansion draft before trying to beef up the blue line.

Kapanen does have talent, and played as a 19 year old in the AHL last year. The Leaf Dmanprospects aren't all bad either....Valiev, Dermott, Neilson who are with the Marlies this year certainly have NHL potential.
Reilly, Gardiner, Zaitsev, Carrick certainly can be competent NHLers also.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom