LW Arthur Kaliyev (2019, 33rd, LAK)

[bigdog16]

I mean, you mocked him for feasting on inferior competition in the OHL, suggested he's not dealing with any adversity, suggested he was drafted exactly where he should have been rather than higher, and mirrored scouts concerns about some old-club hockey bull**** like personality and effort...I'm just asking you to pick a hill and stand on it for my understanding. I'm open to real criticism, but like I said above, everyone's throwing around abstractions...I literally asked you what you'd like to see from him then and you couldn't answer. I asked what counts as adversity and you dodged. My mind's not made up, your responses are just DOA or missing altogether.

Those are questions we've all been trying to answer all thread, you know? It's not personal to you. Just trying to get insight.

If you bothered to read the few posts prior to that statement you would understand my context. Im saying lighting up a league that he already lit up isnt overcoming adversity, as someone suggested. He hasnt dealt with any adversity, but by many accounts he is a mental midget. So lets wait and see how he deals with adversity, that was my point. But of course, there are zero problems with him as a player. And you, a random hfboards poster, have more insight than the scouts who have talked to him face to face, talked to his coaches, his teammates, etc. How do you know what his personality is like? I think its pretty damn clear there is a reason, unknown to many, why he dropped. Shit like that doesnt just happen

 

[Frolov 6'3]

Garland was in his D+1, and actually the same age as Meier. In Garland’s D+2 he had 128pts and out scored his next closest teammate by 63points.

Also you mixed up Barzal and Meier’s draft position...

Call me confused as well.

Garland was an overager. Why did you bring him up ? Of course he was picked later than Meier and Barzal. Thats what the other poster was trying to say.

Not to mention, he is currently playing for the Yotes and is doing well.


I agree tearing up a junior league does not guarantee you anything but that is all we have right now...

 

[nbwingsfan]

Call me confused as well.

Garland was an overager. Why did you bring him up ? Thats what the other poster was trying to say.

Not to mention, he is currently playing for the Yotes and doing well.


I agree tearing up a junior league does not guarantee you anything but that is all we have right now...

Follow the thread.

The original poster said it’s hilarious to suggest Dach (picked 3rd) is a better player than Kaliyev because Kaliyev outscored him last season.

I brought up because Garland, at the same age as Meier, scored 128pts compared to Meier’s 90 yet was picked like 115spots later than him. He was not in his D+ 2 like the other poster was saying (who also mixed up Meier and Barzal’s draft position).

Also yes Garland is doing well in a sheltered role, yet is no where close to Meier or Barzal despite blowing them out of the water in Junior, like the original poster said matters so much.

And if you don’t like Garland comparison, use any draft ever and you’ll see Junior “stars” being picked later than average junior players who go on to be much better NHL players.

Junior stats really don’t matter a whole lot when projecting NHL players.

 

[Frolov 6'3]

Follow the thread.

The original poster said it’s hilarious to suggest Dach (picked 3rd) is a better player than Kaliyev because Kaliyev outscored him last season.

I brought up because Garland, at the same age as Meier, scored 128pts compared to Meier’s 90 yet was picked like 115spots later than him. He was not in his D+ 2 like the other poster was saying (who also mixed up Meier and Barzal’s draft position).

Also yes Garland is doing well in a sheltered role, yet is no where close to Meier or Barzal despite blowing them out of the water in Junior, like the original poster said matters so much.

And if you don’t like Garland comparison, use any draft ever and you’ll see Junior “stars” being picked later than average junior players who go on to be much better NHL players.

Junior stats really don’t matter a whole lot when projecting NHL players.

I followed the thread.

Once again, Garland was an overager. He was NOT picked in his draft year. He might have had 120+ points or the same birthyear but obviously lacked skill according to NHL teams.

What do you not understand ?

 

[nbwingsfan]

I followed the thread.

Once again, Garland was an overager. He was NOT picked in his draft year. He might have had 120+ points but obviously lacked skill according to NHL teams.

Thank you for repeating the point for me. Points don’t matter if scouts don’t think you have NHL skills or qualities. Hence why a guy like Dach gets picked 3rd overall and Kaliyev drops out of the 1st rd despite out scoring him.

FYI: Meier and Garland were both 1996 born despite Garland being draft eligible the season prior.

 

[Frolov 6'3]

Thank you for repeating the point for me. Points don’t matter if scouts don’t think you have NHL skills or qualities. Hence why a guy like Dach gets picked 3rd overall and Kaliyev drops out of the 1st rd despite out scoring him.

Thats not what I am talking about.

I am not new to hockey. At least come up with an example that is understandable (and of course there are plenty of examples) and not Garland.

 

[nbwingsfan]

Thats not what I am talking about.

I am not new to hockey. At least come up with an example that is understandable and not Garland.

Please explain why it is not “understandable” when Meier and Garland were the same age?

Take a look at the Byfield thread full with posters saying Byfield needs to be compared to Lafreniere’s 18/19 season because of Lafreniere’s late Birthday.

Which even if you want to say the comparison is wrong, Meier didn’t come close to Garland’s totals in his D+1 either, despite being a year older. So according to the original poster Garland must be the vastly better player, no?

 

[Frolov 6'3]

I give up.

 

[nbwingsfan]

I give up.

So let’s try this again, in Meier’s D+1 he scored 87pts despite being a year older than Garland. In Garland’s D+1, he scored 128pts.

So according to the original poster, Garland would go way ahead of Meier is a re-draft, since points are all the matters. Right?

 

[earthbound]

The difference is that Garland is 5'10" and was listed at 5'8" in 2015 and Kaliyev is 6'2". Yes, if Garland was 6'2" he would've been considered a top prospect in his draft+1. Even then, he's a winger playmaker. That just doesn't work well especially for small players. Recent example being Nikita Gusev. Kaliyev is a sniper. He's obviously never gonna be a superstar like Kane or Kucherov but he could be a 30-40 goal scorer like a Pacioretty or Tarasenko. Someone who makes your PP automatically good by virtue of scoring everytime you pass to him. Garland is too small to do much with the puck, unless he was as good as Gaudreau and Kane, which he obviously wasn't. Personally I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw Kaliyev wasn't picked in the 1st round. The NHL GMs definitely know something we don't about him because otherwise they willingly picked a potential depth player(example Beecher, Foote, Johnson) over a potential core player. Also Meier absolutely had a very disappointing draft+1, he didn't improve on his draft year, and outside of last year which looks like it might've been a fluke, has had a disappointing career altogether. Not really the best example. And this is bad timing for this argument too because Garland is having a much better season than Meier so far on a starless team. Like everyone though Kaliyev does has bust potential, and since he dropped out of round 1 there's obviously something wrong with him that we don't know about. A better example on your part would've been Drouin vs MacKinnon since they're same age, same team, and Drouin smashed MacKinnon's stats and basically had better stats than anyone in recent memory outside of McDavid, Crosby and Kane whereas MacKinnon had an average top 3 pick season. Too bad. That being said I think Dach was an awful awful pick, I have no idea why the Hawks wasted their 3rd overall pick, it's like they didn't get the memo that they won the lottery. Dach will probably be an NHLer but no way he becomes elite barring a miracle. At best he becomes a good player, who wants a good player 3rd overall? Why wouldn't you even try to take an elite player there? There's always an elite player picked 3-5th, one of Turcotte and Byram is almost definitely gonna be elite. I bet the Coyotes are VERY disappointed they took Strome over Marner 3rd even though they got Schmaltz for Strome...

 

[93LEAFS]

The difference is that Garland is 5'10" and was listed at 5'8" in 2015 and Kaliyev is 6'2". Yes, if Garland was 6'2" he would've been considered a top prospect in his draft+1. Even then, he's a winger playmaker. That just doesn't work well especially for small players. Recent example being Nikita Gusev. Kaliyev is a sniper. He's obviously never gonna be a superstar like Kane or Kucherov but he could be a 30-40 goal scorer like a Pacioretty or Tarasenko. Someone who makes your PP automatically good by virtue of scoring everytime you pass to him. Garland is too small to do much with the puck, unless he was as good as Gaudreau and Kane, which he obviously wasn't. Personally I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw Kaliyev wasn't picked in the 1st round. The NHL GMs definitely know something we don't about him because otherwise they willingly picked a potential depth player(example Beecher, Foote, Johnson) over a potential core player. Also Meier absolutely had a very disappointing draft+1, he didn't improve on his draft year, and outside of last year which looks like it might've been a fluke, has had a disappointing career altogether. Not really the best example. And this is bad timing for this argument too because Garland is having a much better season than Meier so far on a starless team. Like everyone though Kaliyev does has bust potential, and since he dropped out of round 1 there's obviously something wrong with him that we don't know about. A better example on your part would've been Drouin vs MacKinnon since they're same age, same team, and Drouin smashed MacKinnon's stats and basically had better stats than anyone in recent memory outside of McDavid, Crosby and Kane whereas MacKinnon had an average top 3 pick season. Too bad. That being said I think Dach was an awful awful pick, I have no idea why the Hawks wasted their 3rd overall pick, it's like they didn't get the memo that they won the lottery. Dach will probably be an NHLer but no way he becomes elite barring a miracle. At best he becomes a good player, who wants a good player 3rd overall? Why wouldn't you even try to take an elite player there? There's always an elite player picked 3-5th, one of Turcotte and Byram is almost definitely gonna be elite. I bet the Coyotes are VERY disappointed they took Strome over Marner 3rd even though they got Schmaltz for Strome...

Huh, most of the elite small players are playmaking wingers. St. Louis, Gaudreau, Marner, P. Kane, etc. I mean, Garland isn't that, but if you are undersized, the most likely path to the NHL is as a playmaking winger.

Kaliyev is a weird guy. His game is quite flawed, but he produces. There were also concerns about his personality, for L.A. fans who are familiar with the Dodgers, there have been loud whispers around the OHL that he's similar in make-up to a guy like Zach Grienke.

 

[Choralone]

If you bothered to read the few posts prior to that statement you would understand my context. Im saying lighting up a league that he already lit up isnt overcoming adversity, as someone suggested. He hasnt dealt with any adversity, but by many accounts he is a mental midget. So lets wait and see how he deals with adversity, that was my point. But of course, there are zero problems with him as a player. And you, a random hfboards poster, have more insight than the scouts who have talked to him face to face, talked to his coaches, his teammates, etc. How do you know what his personality is like? I think its pretty damn clear there is a reason, unknown to many, why he dropped. **** like that doesnt just happen

Beep bop boop. Context matters - the comment was made as a bit of a joke reply to your assertion in the post immediately prior. We know he didn't overcome cancer or the loss of his pog collection. What he does have, though, is a chip on his shoulder from where he was drafted. That's on record - unlike your stab in the dark as to what the scouts were thinking.

 

[dirk41]

There are several blog posts out there showing that NHL teams would have had better drafts if they simply selected the highest points per game.

It's weird to cite Garland here. Isn't he showing that NHL scouts were incorrect and that it would have been smarter to rely on simple stats?

 

[nbwingsfan]

The difference is that Garland is 5'10" and was listed at 5'8" in 2015 and Kaliyev is 6'2". Yes, if Garland was 6'2" he would've been considered a top prospect in his draft+1. Even then, he's a winger playmaker. That just doesn't work well especially for small players. Recent example being Nikita Gusev. Kaliyev is a sniper. He's obviously never gonna be a superstar like Kane or Kucherov but he could be a 30-40 goal scorer like a Pacioretty or Tarasenko. Someone who makes your PP automatically good by virtue of scoring everytime you pass to him. Garland is too small to do much with the puck, unless he was as good as Gaudreau and Kane, which he obviously wasn't. Personally I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw Kaliyev wasn't picked in the 1st round. The NHL GMs definitely know something we don't about him because otherwise they willingly picked a potential depth player(example Beecher, Foote, Johnson) over a potential core player. Also Meier absolutely had a very disappointing draft+1, he didn't improve on his draft year, and outside of last year which looks like it might've been a fluke, has had a disappointing career altogether. Not really the best example. And this is bad timing for this argument too because Garland is having a much better season than Meier so far on a starless team. Like everyone though Kaliyev does has bust potential, and since he dropped out of round 1 there's obviously something wrong with him that we don't know about. A better example on your part would've been Drouin vs MacKinnon since they're same age, same team, and Drouin smashed MacKinnon's stats and basically had better stats than anyone in recent memory outside of McDavid, Crosby and Kane whereas MacKinnon had an average top 3 pick season. Too bad. That being said I think Dach was an awful awful pick, I have no idea why the Hawks wasted their 3rd overall pick, it's like they didn't get the memo that they won the lottery. Dach will probably be an NHLer but no way he becomes elite barring a miracle. At best he becomes a good player, who wants a good player 3rd overall? Why wouldn't you even try to take an elite player there? There's always an elite player picked 3-5th, one of Turcotte and Byram is almost definitely gonna be elite. I bet the Coyotes are VERY disappointed they took Strome over Marner 3rd even though they got Schmaltz for Strome...

1. I did cite Drouin vs Mackinnon already

2. I am in no way comparing Garland to Kaliyev as players. I’m merely pointing out the flaw in the argument one poster used saying “LOL 100>70” as to why Kaliyev is better than Dach.

 

[bigdog16]

Beep bop boop. Context matters - the comment was made as a bit of a joke reply to your assertion in the post immediately prior. We know he didn't overcome cancer or the loss of his pog collection. What he does have, though, is a chip on his shoulder from where he was drafted. That's on record - unlike your stab in the dark as to what the scouts were thinking.

Or your stab in the dark assuming his personality or social problems arent an issue, after every team passed over him even though he put up 50+ goals, right? Yeah, everything seems to add up perfectly there...

 

[nbwingsfan]

There are several blog posts out there showing that NHL teams would have had better drafts if they simply selected the highest points per game.

It's weird to cite Garland here. Isn't he showing that NHL scouts were incorrect and that it would have been smarter to rely on simple stats?

No not really. If we’re going simply off Junior point totals then Garland would be a top 5-10 pick in a re-draft and an NHL star instead of a VERY sheltered top 6 Tweener (if that).

 

[nbwingsfan]

Or your stab in the dark assuming his personality or social problems arent an issue, after every team passed over him even though he put up 50+ goals, right? Yeah, everything seems to add up perfectly there...

No way for us to know if he has social issues. Maybe scouts just didn’t like the other holes in his game? Wouldn’t be the first high scoring junior player to drop because teams don’t like how their game will translate

 

[ijuka]

No not really. If we’re going simply off Junior point totals then Garland would be a top 5-10 pick in a re-draft and an NHL star instead of a VERY sheltered top 6 Tweener (if that).

It's statistics, based on averages.

That doesn't mean it holds true in every case.

 

[Agent Zuuuub]

Huh, most of the elite small players are playmaking wingers. St. Louis, Gaudreau, Marner, P. Kane, etc. I mean, Garland isn't that, but if you are undersized, the most likely path to the NHL is as a playmaking winger.

Kaliyev is a weird guy. His game is quite flawed, but he produces. There were also concerns about his personality, for L.A. fans who are familiar with the Dodgers, there have been loud whispers around the OHL that he's similar in make-up to a guy like Zach Grienke.

what makes kaliyevs game "quite flawed"?

 

[nbwingsfan]

It's statistics, based on averages.

That doesn't mean it holds true in every case.

I have never once said it does. It’s amazing how people can’t read back in a thread to get the context of an argument.

This all stemmed from a poster stating “Kaliyev>Dach” because “100>70”. All I’ve done is point out that major flaw.

 

[ijuka]

I have never once said it does. It’s amazing how people can’t read back in a thread to get the context of an argument.

This all stemmed from a poster stating “Kaliyev>Dach” because “100>70”. All I’ve done is point out that major flaw.

So if I point out that McDavid had more points than Marner and hence McDavid is the better player, that proves him right, then?

 

[Choralone]

Or your stab in the dark assuming his personality or social problems arent an issue, after every team passed over him even though he put up 50+ goals, right? Yeah, everything seems to add up perfectly there...

Nah, that's not how it works. You don't get to slag someone's character based on not having the answer as to why he dropped. Just say "we don't know" and leave it at that, instead of throwing it out there that he is "a mental midget". Got any links to these "many accounts"?

Scouting is such an inexact science it's hilarious to assume that because some group-think went on with teams in the first round in not selecting him, they somehow have some sort of correct and deep insight into his character and worthiness as a hockey player. Scouts miss in drafts all the time - sometimes badly.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

If you bothered to read the few posts prior to that statement you would understand my context. Im saying lighting up a league that he already lit up isnt overcoming adversity, as someone suggested. He hasnt dealt with any adversity, but by many accounts he is a mental midget. So lets wait and see how he deals with adversity, that was my point. But of course, there are zero problems with him as a player. And you, a random hfboards poster, have more insight than the scouts who have talked to him face to face, talked to his coaches, his teammates, etc. How do you know what his personality is like? I think its pretty damn clear there is a reason, unknown to many, why he dropped. **** like that doesnt just happen

My point is what you're saying argues with itself. Dropping in the draft because people allegedly think you're a schmuck isn't adversity? If he's a 'mental midget,' shouldn't he be falling apart right now instead of getting better? Again, it begs my initial question--what else can he do at this point to impress or overcome the abstract criticisms? You might not have an answer--hell, none of us do, as I said, we've been looking at it all thread--but writing it off to 'bad personality' is, frankly, horse shit.

People are throwing around contradictory abstractions with no concrete evidence to slag the player. You say you have no problem with him, but your descriptions seem to disagree.

Basically, it seem like your premise and the premise of several others is "we know all we can know about him until he gets to the nhl and nothing he does in the meantime matters." But I get the feeling if he was struggling that wouldn't be the case...

 

[93LEAFS]

what makes kaliyevs game "quite flawed"?

Lack of effort in defensive and all-around game. Not a great skater especially explosiveness wise (which is significant in-game, when it really is your first 3 strides that will create seperation if you'll get any). Basically a 75ft player at this point in time.

 

[nbwingsfan]

So if I point out that McDavid had more points than Marner and hence McDavid is the better player, that proves him right, then?

*Sigh*

No. As already stated (many times), there are a million factors as to why a player is viewed as a better prospect than another. Simply stating “100 Junior points>70 Junior points” as the reason why Kaliyev is a better player than Dach is just idiotic.