Of Nonis, Babcock & who the heck is going to be running this asylum on draft day

[Kin]

what about the draft record?  Our first round picks under the burke and nonis era have been meh, and there have been no late round finds.

I think the drafts under Nonis have been pretty good.

 

[cw]

I would think so, but that may not have been the case with Burke as he was reported to have autonomy.

All a team can do is hire the best people, and trust that they will make good decisions for the organization going forward.  Clearly Nonis hasn't accomplished this.  But he knows the game better than the people who hired him, so they have to be able to trust him to make those decisions.  Although, maybe not so much now. 

No, I mean a team can do one more thing which is the most crucial. They can give them meaningful autonomy, not the "autonomy" that Burke had where he could do whatever he wanted so long as it fit into the narrow constraints of the "never rebuild" philosophy MLSE used for so long. JFJ didn't have that and he made bad decisions, Burke didn't and he made bad decisions, Nonis didn't and he made bad decisions.

But now it seems like Shanahan does and, since he was brought on board, what has Nonis done? Largely good things. Signed Winnik and Santorelli, traded Clarkson, got good returns on the players that were dealt at the deadline, drafted Nylander. Throw in some things that are either largely inconsequential(Robidas) or uncertain(Gardiner) and you're left with a list of things that actually sort of reflect well on what anyone who's running a rebuilding team will have to do, identify good bargain UFAs that can be dealt, draft well, clear up bad salary...that's what Nonis has done since MLSE pulled their heads out of their butts.

I'm not 100% on bringing Nonis back because if Shanahan thinks that the team needs a real architect going forward besides him then yeah, this summer might be a good time to identify that guy and let him institute a long range strategy but if Shanahan wants to be that guy then I think Nonis has done pretty well with the things he'll be asked to do. So the conversation should definitely happen but I don't think Nonis should be fired as a punitive measure for decisions that really don't reflect on what he's going to be tasked with over the next year or two.

I simply can't buy all of that.

Let's ignore for the moment the notion that the GM has any say over the direction of the club (ie rebuild vs retool). Let's accept for the sake of avoiding argument your premise of MLSE insisting that no rebuild transpire and therefore, the decision for the retooling effort is all on the MLSE board.

This tag-team of Burke-Nonis took over a 24th place club and attempted to retool it. Six seasons later, they're a 25th place club. It's hard for me to accept that Nonis should not be held accountable or responsible for any part of failing to make much progress retooling the club. They really haven't made much progress there in my opinion.

[sarcasm]Imagine Nonis trying to say "We knew all along that spending six seasons of trying to retool was going to be a complete waste of time and money and we're glad the MLSE board finally has come around to our way of thinking so they can finally let us rebuild the team. Now all we have to do is find a way to dump the $200 mil in contracts we've committed to the retooling direction over the next 3-4 years. Maybe we can stash some more hurt guys ...."[/sarcasm]

I think a number of posters on this site could have done a better retooling job than Burke-Nonis.

Something in the theme: it's all the board's fault and Burke-Nonis don't have to take any responsibility for the last six seasons just doesn't work for me. Not a chance. There's no way those two promised the MLSE board the results we've experienced. There's no doubt in my mind those two fell short of what they told the MLSE board they were going to achieve. And it's not a good thing for an organization to not hold it's employees/management accountable.

 

[ZBBM]

Especially when a bunch comes off in July, Frattin and Bodie could conceivably be called up, etc.

Almost like he mentions that!

Nowhere does he say they are committed to spending $51 million this year on the players.  Showing the cap floor number is to put into perspective how much financial clout the Leafs' ownership has - they are able to commit right now to spending as much on non-playing salary as the NHL cap floor is.

It couldn't be clearer: Right now, Toronto is committed to spending almost $51.5 million on players who are not in their NHL lineup.   That's just the fact of the matter.  They are committed to that right now.

Good grief, Potvin.

Sentence #1:
The salary cap floor is $51M.

Sentence #2:
Right now, Toronto is committed to spending almost $51.5 million on players who are not in their NHL lineup.

Are those two sentences wholly disconnected?  Are they in different paragraphs, separated by dozens of words?  Or are they side by side for a reason? 

It's a freaking comparison, man.  And as I said, a lousy one for several reasons.  If he wants to make the point that TO has $51M+ in nonplaying salary, all he has to do is say that.  It has nothing to do with the cap floor -- the only reason to drag that in is to make his "thought" a lame cheap shot at the richdumb Leafs.

 

[Kin]

This tag-team of Burke-Nonis took over a 24th place club and attempted to retool it. Six seasons later, they're a 25th place club. It's hard for me to accept that Nonis should not be held accountable or responsible for any part of failing to make much progress retooling the club. They really haven't made much progress there in my opinion.

Despite not really being inclined to buy your premise that we have to tie Nonis and Burke together as if they're two parts of a larger whole, even if we do both guys have been held accountable. Burke got fired and I don't really think at this point there's a credible way to look at the Shanahan hiring as not also being a Nonis demotion. He was, at one point, making all of the hockey decisions for the team and now I think the general consensus is that he's not.

At this point MLSE, and Shanahan, have to look at Nonis with I want to say three years left on his deal and decide whether they want to make use of the skills he's displayed over the last year or if they want to consign him to the pile of guys they're paying to not work for the club. 

Something in the theme: it's all the board's fault and Burke-Nonis don't have to take any responsibility for the last six seasons just doesn't work for me. Not a chance. There's no way those two promised the MLSE board the results we've experienced. There's no doubt in my mind those two fell short of what they told the MLSE board they were going to achieve. And it's not a good thing for an organization to not hold it's employees/management accountable.

Again, Burke-Nonis is not a person. Brian Burke is a person who ran the club for a while and he got fired. Dave Nonis is a person who ran the club for a while but he's not really running the club anymore.

The MLSE board can hold as many people accountable for not walking on water as per board request as they want, I'm just not going to pretend that they'd be doing so in an honest effort to improve the club as opposed to just giving people another scapegoat to cover up for their incredibly poor stewardship. I'm trying to get at what I think is the more important consideration which is given his revised remit if Dave Nonis is going to be good at what he's being asked to do in the near future. I think that what Nonis has done in the past year is a sign that he very well could be.

Like I said in the post you quoted, the conversation about whether or not to bring back Nonis should happen but the conversation should be about the future and not the past. If they think there's someone out there better suited for what they want Nonis to do in the months or years ahead? Fine, make that call. I just don't see the point in firing him because he tried to do the impossible task his bosses asked of him but frequently, and to be fair sometimes spectacularly, ran into the brick wall of reality.

 

[Chev-boyar-sky]

That assumes ALL the rumours said "Mantha and a 1st" or prospect and a 1st.

It doesn't assume that. Even if you want to use Mantha and a 1st as a hypothetical then the point is fundamentally the same and inescapably true, you can't assess the "value" of what was being discussed without factoring in what legitimate assets were coming Toronto's way. You're right that holding a portion of Phaneuf's salary and taking Weiss' contract would load the deal unfairly financially but the money is only a portion of the consideration. Here's a Red Wing blogger weighing in on how fair the hypothetical deal would be if it was only with the Leafs retaining salary:

http://www.wingingitinmotown.com/2015/3/2/8135705/nick-kypreos-weighs-on-trade-rumors-maple-leafs-dion-phaneuf-to-detroit

I will walk backwards into hell before I deal up a player like Anthony Mantha for Dion Phaneuf, even if Toronto was retaining $2 million+ worth of salary.

One blogger's opinion? Sure. But again as I said in my post, I'd feel exactly the same way about it only reversed. Mantha and a 1st for Phaneuf and only one of those two bitter pills? I couldn't say yes fast enough and if there's a situation where you can't say yes fast enough to a hypothetical trade it's a pretty safe bet that it's not going to materialize in the real world.

I just don't think it's that unrealistic. Mantha was picked 1 spot before Gauthier.

If the Leafs were in the reverse position, would you be ok with them moving Gauthier and a 1st (DET as of today would have the 23rd pick) while shedding a $4.9M mistake of a contract for Phaneuf with 2M retained over 6 years of the remainder of the contract? It's basically a #2/3 D-man for free for 3 years before paying him $5M for the last 3.

I mean we're not talking about Mackinnon here or any of the other elite top draft picks from the 2013 draft (his stats this year in the AHL are average).

DET obviously decided to go the temporary route so the point is somewhat moot, but I think the Leafs can find that type of value if they retain salary and eat a contract in return. (Disregard this post if I misunderstood your position!)

 

[Kin]

I just don't think it's that unrealistic. Mantha was picked 1 spot before Gauthier.

That's not how prospects work. Players from that draft have had almost two years of development since then. Their values aren't tied to where they were taken in the draft.

 

[Redleaf]

what about the draft record?  Our first round picks under the burke and nonis era have been meh, and there have been no late round finds.

Connor Brown looks like a pretty decent late round pick.

 

[hockeyfan1]

That assumes ALL the rumours said "Mantha and a 1st" or prospect and a 1st.

It doesn't assume that. Even if you want to use Mantha and a 1st as a hypothetical then the point is fundamentally the same and inescapably true, you can't assess the "value" of what was being discussed without factoring in what legitimate assets were coming Toronto's way. You're right that holding a portion of Phaneuf's salary and taking Weiss' contract would load the deal unfairly financially but the money is only a portion of the consideration. Here's a Red Wing blogger weighing in on how fair the hypothetical deal would be if it was only with the Leafs retaining salary:

http://www.wingingitinmotown.com/2015/3/2/8135705/nick-kypreos-weighs-on-trade-rumors-maple-leafs-dion-phaneuf-to-detroit

I will walk backwards into hell before I deal up a player like Anthony Mantha for Dion Phaneuf, even if Toronto was retaining $2 million+ worth of salary.

One blogger's opinion? Sure. But again as I said in my post, I'd feel exactly the same way about it only reversed. Mantha and a 1st for Phaneuf and only one of those two bitter pills? I couldn't say yes fast enough and if there's a situation where you can't say yes fast enough to a hypothetical trade it's a pretty safe bet that it's not going to materialize in the real world.

I just don't think it's that unrealistic. Mantha was picked 1 spot before Gauthier.

If the Leafs were in the reverse position, would you be ok with them moving Gauthier and a 1st (DET as of today would have the 23rd pick) while shedding a $4.9M mistake of a contract for Phaneuf with 2M retained over 6 years of the remainder of the contract? It's basically a #2/3 D-man for free for 3 years before paying him $5M for the last 3.

I mean we're not talking about Mackinnon here or any of the other elite top draft picks from the 2013 draft (his stats this year in the AHL are average).

DET obviously decided to go the temporary route so the point is somewhat moot, but I think the Leafs can find that type of value if they retain salary and eat a contract in return. (Disregard this post if I misunderstood your position!)

Re: the article -- don't think Red Wings fans would have been happy if the had gone through and thereby losing a prospect like Mantha, as opposed to Maple Leaf fans who would have welcomed the deal.

Note that there's a poll button at end of article where out of 1886 respondents 92% think the Red Wings "dodged a bullet", while only 8% feel they didn't.
On a large scale, the results would most likely yield approximately the same response/vote results.

 

[Rebel_1812]

what about the draft record?  Our first round picks under the burke and nonis era have been meh, and there have been no late round finds.

I think the drafts under Nonis have been pretty good.

well then check our the drafts from 2009 to the present.  Notice how few of those players have NHL games played let alone more then 82 games played.  If would want to talk about talent, none of those players have been an allstar and it is unlikely any will.

 

[Chev-boyar-sky]

I just don't think it's that unrealistic. Mantha was picked 1 spot before Gauthier.

That's not how prospects work. Players from that draft have had almost two years of development since then. Their values aren't tied to where they were taken in the draft.

In those 2 years Mantha had a very good year in the Q (but it's the Q) and has had a worse PPG than Nylander who's 2 years his junior on a much better AHL team in Grand Rapids.

Conor Garland is having a similar year to Mantha's great year in the Q on a much worse team and isn't even projected as a 1st rounder (and is 1 and a half years younger).

Mantha's a good player, but there's a reason he went #20. 2 years of development haven't changed that much.

I saw a recent post somewhere that Andreas Athanasiou ranked as the better prospect of the 2 and he was a 4th rounder 1 year earlier. Pulkkinen looks as good if not better (although he's older) as another 4th rounder.

I mean maybe the point is the Leafs are asking for the wrong prospects, I don't know. Instead of Mantha (because he's so amazing), maybe it's Pulkkinen and Athanasiou AND a 1st.

Point is the financial implications of taking on a Weiss AND eating salary on a Phaneuf deal have to be compensated in a good return.

 

[Kin]

In those 2 years Mantha had a very good year in the Q (but it's the Q) and has had a worse PPG than Nylander who's 2 years his junior on a much better AHL team in Grand Rapids.

He also missed most of camp and the first two months of the season with a broken leg and, despite your claims, I think it's actually a fair bet that being on Grand Rapids has given Mantha fewer offensive opportunities than he's used to and Nylander, on a not very good Marlies club, is probably getting a lot of prime offensive ice time. That said I can't claim that I've seen a second of an AHL game this year so as you were.

In the HF pre-season prospect rankings, Mantha was rated the #7 best prospect in Hockey, ahead of both Reinhart brothers and Filip Forsberg(Here). When NHL.com put together a list of the best 60 prospects in hockey before the season, Mantha ranked 10th(Here). TSN.com had him as the 11th best prospect in their mid-season rankings(And so on). If you're wondering, he ranks above Nylander in all of those rankings.

I can't for a second pretend I'm an expert on the prospect scene but it's pretty clear that Mantha is viewed as an Elite NHL prospect. At the very least Nylander's equal. I don't know where you read that Detroit has multiple prospects better than him but, well, wherever it was I think you'd have to agree that it's not a particularly popular opinion.

I saw a recent post somewhere that Andreas Athanasiou ranked as the better prospect of the 2 and he was a 4th rounder 1 year earlier. Pulkkinen looks as good if not better (although he's older) as another 4th rounder.

Ok so, again, you can't measure draft picks by where they were taken once they're a few years out. That was my point. I guess we agree.

I mean maybe the point is the Leafs are asking for the wrong prospects, I don't know. Instead of Mantha (because he's so amazing), maybe it's Pulkkinen and Athanasiou AND a 1st.

Point is the financial implications of taking on a Weiss AND eating salary on a Phaneuf deal have to be compensated in a good return.

Ok, well, if the Maple Leafs were the only team that had to agree to the trade for it to go down, I'd want Mantha, Pulkkinen, 8 first round picks and the publishing rights to Motown Records' back catalog. Sadly, Detroit has to agree to some of this and it's pretty clear that when the Leafs asked for Mantha and a first in the deal you're talking about they made a hard pass.

If I were a Red Wings fan I'd ask, can they sign someone in the off-season who can give them 70-80% of what Phaneuf can? Or, as happened, can they trade for someone who can do that for a much smaller price? The answer to both is probably yes. Given that, I'd urge the Red Wings to do the same thing I did when the Leafs were thinking of dealing one of Rask or Pogge to get Raycroft. Don't choose either. Go sign someone, get most of what Phaneuf will give you and hang onto your top prospects. Zetterberg and Datsyuk aren't getting younger and Phaneuf doesn't turn the team into an elite contender so if you've got someone who's hailed as one of the better prospects in the game at his position...don't force things.

The Leafs are a highly motivated seller on Phaneuf. You can say they "have to get" what you consider a good return on him if they eat that salary but what if no one wants to offer it? What are the Leafs going to do, hold onto Phaneuf for the next 7 years out of spite? The market is what is and what we just saw is that it ain't Mantha and a first.

 

[Kin]

well then check our the drafts from 2009 to the present.  Notice how few of those players have NHL games played let alone more then 82 games played.  If would want to talk about talent, none of those players have been an allstar and it is unlikely any will.

I really don't know how to make "under Nonis" any clearer.

 

[Deebo]

well then check our the drafts from 2009 to the present.  Notice how few of those players have NHL games played let alone more then 82 games played.  If would want to talk about talent, none of those players have been an allstar and it is unlikely any will.

I really don't know how to make "under Nonis" any clearer.

That's only 2 drafts though,  there aren't any results to evaluate them by yet. Which picks stand out to you as future impact NHL players?

 

[Kin]

That's only 2 drafts though,  there aren't any results to evaluate them by yet. Which picks stand out to you as future impact NHL players?

Sure, but my praise was fairly muted there. I said they struck me as "pretty good" considering that we don't have a ton to base that on. I like the Nylander pick and there were definitely people in the Nick Ritchie or Nikolaj Ehlers camps. I like Gauthier and don't fall into the "only swing for the fences" side of things. I think Bibeau is putting up pretty solid numbers in the AHL for a 20 year old goalie. I thought Valiev looked pretty promising.

Considering they didn't have their 2nd round picks in either draft(and both picks were spent in pretty defensible deals) I think they look alright.

 

[Chev-boyar-sky]

In those 2 years Mantha had a very good year in the Q (but it's the Q) and has had a worse PPG than Nylander who's 2 years his junior on a much better AHL team in Grand Rapids.

He also missed most of camp and the first two months of the season with a broken leg and, despite your claims, I think it's actually a fair bet that being on Grand Rapids has given Mantha fewer offensive opportunities than he's used to and Nylander, on a not very good Marlies club, is probably getting a lot of prime offensive ice time. That said I can't claim that I've seen a second of an AHL game this year so as you were.

In the HF pre-season prospect rankings, Mantha was rated the #7 best prospect in Hockey, ahead of both Reinhart brothers and Filip Forsberg(Here). When NHL.com put together a list of the best 60 prospects in hockey before the season, Mantha ranked 10th(Here). TSN.com had him as the 11th best prospect in their mid-season rankings(And so on). If you're wondering, he ranks above Nylander in all of those rankings.

I can't for a second pretend I'm an expert on the prospect scene but it's pretty clear that Mantha is viewed as an Elite NHL prospect. At the very least Nylander's equal. I don't know where you read that Detroit has multiple prospects better than him but, well, wherever it was I think you'd have to agree that it's not a particularly popular opinion.

I saw a recent post somewhere that Andreas Athanasiou ranked as the better prospect of the 2 and he was a 4th rounder 1 year earlier. Pulkkinen looks as good if not better (although he's older) as another 4th rounder.

Ok so, again, you can't measure draft picks by where they were taken once they're a few years out. That was my point. I guess we agree.

I mean maybe the point is the Leafs are asking for the wrong prospects, I don't know. Instead of Mantha (because he's so amazing), maybe it's Pulkkinen and Athanasiou AND a 1st.

Point is the financial implications of taking on a Weiss AND eating salary on a Phaneuf deal have to be compensated in a good return.

Ok, well, if the Maple Leafs were the only team that had to agree to the trade for it to go down, I'd want Mantha, Pulkkinen, 8 first round picks and the publishing rights to Motown Records' back catalog. Sadly, Detroit has to agree to some of this and it's pretty clear that when the Leafs asked for Mantha and a first in the deal you're talking about they made a hard pass.

If I were a Red Wings fan I'd ask, can they sign someone in the off-season who can give them 70-80% of what Phaneuf can? Or, as happened, can they trade for someone who can do that for a much smaller price? The answer to both is probably yes. Given that, I'd urge the Red Wings to do the same thing I did when the Leafs were thinking of dealing one of Rask or Pogge to get Raycroft. Don't choose either. Go sign someone, get most of what Phaneuf will give you and hang onto your top prospects. Zetterberg and Datsyuk aren't getting younger and Phaneuf doesn't turn the team into an elite contender so if you've got someone who's hailed as one of the better prospects in the game at his position...don't force things.

The Leafs are a highly motivated seller on Phaneuf. You can say they "have to get" what you consider a good return on him if they eat that salary but what if no one wants to offer it? What are the Leafs going to do, hold onto Phaneuf for the next 7 years out of spite? The market is what is and what we just saw is that it ain't Mantha and a first.

Those lists are great and all, but I think they show just how flawed those types of lists can be.

The first one lists a score and the probability of success. Mantha is an 8.0 with a probability of success of C. There are a host of players ranked lower than him with an 8.0 with a probability of B (which I assume means they're less likely to bust or drop in ranking). So he's got the same score but is less likely to reach it but he's ranked higher than those players?Why? Now maybe they're in love with his potential but he's done nothing as of yet to warrant it. Do that list over again and he probably ranks under Kevin Hayes 

Here are some players he's listed above who are having good to great NHL seasons (where they obviously got it wrong) in those first link of players.

Teravainen #10 (scoring better than Mantha in the AHL)
Vasilevskiy  #15
Gibson      #16
Gaudreau  #19 (whoops)
Forsberg    #20 (massive fail)
Kucherov    #22
Lindholm    #24
Burakovsky  #27
Horvat        #34

There's a bunch of other players you could argue deserve to be above him too (obviously hindsight is 20/20 but Ristolainen, Pouliot, Dumba, Mrazek, G. Reinhart).

The second link had this gem.

"That offensive ability likely will earn him a full-time spot on one of the top three lines in Detroit this season."

Umm, no.

The third one, takes out all the players in the first couple lists who've gone on to pass him and lists him against younger players mostly still in junior.

I mean, Pulkkinen who's a well regarded prospect, is leading the AHL in scoring and doesn't even appear on the list (?).

I'll give you that he's well regarded and a "top prospect" according to many, but he's yet to produce like one at a meaningful level IMO. Most top prospects are playing in the NHL by 20.

Hyperbole aside (Mo-town records foolishness), what the Leafs asked for is the type of value they should be looking for from an NHL team. Detroit didn't want to give it, so be it but Clarkson getting dealt shows me that teams will pay for a team to eat a contract and retain salary. We saw it a fair amount at this years deadline with Coburn/Yandle and a few others. If they can't find it this off-season, I'm sure they will as there are less years and dollars on Phaneuf's contract.

 

[Kin]

Here are some players he's listed above who are having good to great NHL seasons (where they obviously got it wrong) in those first link of players.

Typically when people try to assess prospects the aim is to try and get a handle on the players they'll eventually be, not on how good they'll be in the upcoming year. Your interpretations are short-sighted to say the least.

The second link had this gem.

"That offensive ability likely will earn him a full-time spot on one of the top three lines in Detroit this season."

Umm, no.

You might have missed the bit where he broke his leg in the middle of training camp. There's really no way to know how that affected how Detroit managed him this year.

I mean, Pulkkinen who's a well regarded prospect, is leading the AHL in scoring and doesn't even appear on the list.

My god. It's almost like when scouts assess a player, unlike you they don't just rank them according to point totals in the current season.

Hyperbole aside (Mo-town records foolishness), what the Leafs asked for is the type of value they should be looking for from an NHL team. Detroit didn't want to give it, so be it but Clarkson getting dealt shows me that teams will pay for a team to eat a contract and retain salary. We saw it a fair amount at this years deadline with Coburn/Yandle and a few others. If they can't find it this off-season, I'm sure they will as there are less years and dollars on Phaneuf's contract.

I don't see how the Clarkson deal is in anyway relevant and the Yandle/Coburn trades were straight up instances of players on reasonable contracts for reasonable term being dealt on the basis of the quality of players they are and how they could help the teams they were going to. They aren't situations where an overpaid player with huge term left is being shopped because his team desperately wants to be rid of him.

And I really wouldn't count on Phaneuf becoming more valuable as time passes.

 

[Chev-boyar-sky]

Here are some players he's listed above who are having good to great NHL seasons (where they obviously got it wrong) in those first link of players.

Typically when people try to assess prospects the aim is to try and get a handle on the players they'll eventually be, not on how good they'll be in the upcoming year. Your interpretations are short-sighted to say the least.

The second link had this gem.

"That offensive ability likely will earn him a full-time spot on one of the top three lines in Detroit this season."

Umm, no.

You might have missed the bit where he broke his leg in the middle of training camp. There's really no way to know how that affected how Detroit managed him this year.

I mean, Pulkkinen who's a well regarded prospect, is leading the AHL in scoring and doesn't even appear on the list.

My god. It's almost like when scouts assess a player, unlike you they don't just rank them according to point totals in the current season.

Hyperbole aside (Mo-town records foolishness), what the Leafs asked for is the type of value they should be looking for from an NHL team. Detroit didn't want to give it, so be it but Clarkson getting dealt shows me that teams will pay for a team to eat a contract and retain salary. We saw it a fair amount at this years deadline with Coburn/Yandle and a few others. If they can't find it this off-season, I'm sure they will as there are less years and dollars on Phaneuf's contract.

I don't see how the Clarkson deal is in anyway relevant and the Yandle/Coburn trades were straight up instances of players on reasonable contracts for reasonable term being dealt on the basis of the quality of players they are and how they could help the teams they were going to. They aren't situations where an overpaid player with huge term left is being shopped because his team desperately wants to be rid of him.

And I really wouldn't count on Phaneuf becoming more valuable as time passes.

So they're basing it on what, their skill sets alone? I don't think so (though maybe they are which is why they screwed up so badly).

A 120 pt season in the Q was good enough for 7th ahead of Gibson who already had success in a full season in the AHL as well as a few games in the NHL?

Better than Forsberg with a mostly successful campaign in the AHL as a 19 year old (who's now a full blown NHL star and likely the Calder winner).

Gaudreau who won the Hobey and outscored all players not named Kevin Hayes by close to 30 pts in the NCAA?

Kucherov who had very good production in the AHL in 13-14 and some NHL success last year in 50 games (who's now lighting is up)?

It's as if, had they actually looked at their respective productions in leagues that are better indicators of success at the NHL level, they may have had a list that was more on target.

 

[Kin]

So they're basing it on what, their skill sets alone?

Their skill sets relative to their age and how their skills will translate to the NHL level. It's not an easy thing to project out and is far more complicated than just looking at AHL or junior scoring numbers.

You can say "they got it wrong" or some variation of it all you want but all it's saying to me is that you don't fundamentally understand the concept of what a prospect is. These people, when they put together these lists, are not trying to guess who's going to score the most points in the AHL next season. They're not even trying to guess who's going to be the best NHL rookie. You're taking a snapshot and trying to apply it to people who are doing long-term thinking.

A 120 pt season in the Q was good enough for 7th ahead of Gibson who already had success in a full season in the AHL as well as a few games in the NHL?

Again, it's about skill sets and how those points are scored. Mantha, in addition to having a big scoring year in the Q, also had a terrific WJC. Again, this is not a "who is going to have the best year next year" list. It's about who will eventually become the best pro hockey player. How many hockey players have had good rookie seasons and then petered out? Lots.

Here's a list of players and I want you to see if you can tell me what they have in common:

Christian Laflamme
Sheldon Souray
Jamie Allison
Pavel Trnka
Andrei Zyuzin

Give up? They were all rookie defensemen in 1997-1998 who scored more points than rookie forward Joe Thornton. So did eventual offensive juggernaut Chris Phillips. Joe Thornton wasn't anywhere near the scoring lead for rookies that year. Sergei Samsonov, his teammate and only 8 months older than Thornton that year, won the Calder by virtue of outscoring Thornton by 40 points. Joe Thornton was still the best prospect in hockey that year.

Regardless, you can rail about how scouts are really dumb for not just judging things on point totals all you want. You can't deny that Mantha is widely regarded as an elite prospect. That's just a fact.

It's as if, had they actually looked at their respective productions in leagues that are better indicators of success at the NHL level, they may have had a list that was more on target.

And just like that we've found the last Justin Azevedo supporter.

 

[Chev-boyar-sky]

So they're basing it on what, their skill sets alone?

Their skill sets relative to their age and how their skills will translate to the NHL level. It's not an easy thing to project out and is far more complicated than just looking at AHL or junior scoring numbers.

You can say "they got it wrong" or some variation of it all you want but all it's saying to me is that you don't fundamentally understand the concept of what a prospect is. These people, when they put together these lists, are not trying to guess who's going to score the most points in the AHL next season. They're not even trying to guess who's going to be the best NHL rookie. You're taking a snapshot and trying to apply it to people who are doing long-term thinking.

A 120 pt season in the Q was good enough for 7th ahead of Gibson who already had success in a full season in the AHL as well as a few games in the NHL?

Again, it's about skill sets and how those points are scored. Mantha, in addition to having a big scoring year in the Q, also had a terrific WJC. Again, this is not a "who is going to have the best year next year" list. It's about who will eventually become the best pro hockey player. How many hockey players have had good rookie seasons and then petered out? Lots.

Here's a list of players and I want you to see if you can tell me what they have in common:

Christian Laflamme
Sheldon Souray
Jamie Allison
Pavel Trnka
Andrei Zyuzin

Give up? They were all rookie defensemen in 1997-1998 who scored more points than rookie forward Joe Thornton. So did eventual offensive juggernaut Chris Phillips. Joe Thornton wasn't anywhere near the scoring lead for rookies that year. Sergei Samsonov, his teammate and only 8 months older than Thornton that year, won the Calder by virtue of outscoring Thornton by 40 points. Joe Thornton was still the best prospect in hockey that year.

Regardless, you can rail about how scouts are really dumb for not just judging things on point totals all you want. You can't deny that Mantha is widely regarded as an elite prospect. That's just a fact.

It's as if, had they actually looked at their respective productions in leagues that are better indicators of success at the NHL level, they may have had a list that was more on target.

And just like that we've found the last Justin Azevedo supporter.

There are a lot of things wrong with many things mentioned in your post.

First of all Azevedo (who had remarkably similar point production in the same levels of hockey as Mantha to date) wasn't drafted until he was 20 years old and didn't go until the 6th round. It wasn't as if anyone thought much of his game. Mantha was drafted at 18 (the year he was turning 19) and in the 2 years since has very Justin Azevedo-like production. I would argue that that isn't necessarily a good thing.

The Joe Thornton comparison is just silly. First of all he was a #1 pick. He was drafted at 18 having scored 122 in junior as a 17 year old (something Mantha didn't do until he was 19. He skipped the AHL completely so his rookie year as an 18 year old was understandably rocky. He had 41 pts as a 19 year old and was a 60 pt player at 20 (Mantha's current age) in the NHL.

Souray was a 3rd rounder at 18 and didn't debut in the NHL until 21. His production in the AHL the 2 years prior was underwhelming, so it's not very surprising that he didn't have a season of note offensively for a good few years later.

There's nothing there that's similar at all, and no one in there right mind would compare the production of an 18 year old #1 overall to a 21 year old who outscored him by 3 pts.

So I'd say draft position combined with production at various ages are actually extremely good indicators of future production. Or course there are exceptions to rules.

Now others may rank Mantha higher, but I'd say it's pretty telling that Nylander has a comparable (slightly higher actually) than Mantha and he's 2 years younger. He's also the higher pick. Time will tell if that is the case.

I'd have to look into to back it up further, but most of the best prospects in hockey (or future stars) are in the NHL with decent production, or tearing up the AHL (at a quick glance it's true of Thornton, Perry, Kessel, Getzlaf, Malkin, Perry, Toews, Kane, Kopitar, Crosby, Nash, JVR, Lupul, Bergeron, Karlsson). 

I mean Lindholm as a #5 overall had  a .36 PPG as a 19 year old on a pretty bad Carolina teambut Mantha is the better prospect?

 

[Kin]

So I'd say draft position combined with production at various ages are actually extremely good indicators of future production. Or course there are exceptions to rules.

At this point you're not even holding true to whatever bizarre internal logic you were using just a few posts ago. In one post you're asking why Pulkinnen(4th round choice, 23 years old) isn't rated higher than Mantha(1st round pick, 20 years old) and now, when you're given a concrete example of how bogus that is all of a sudden it's unfair to compare players of different ages and different draft positions based on one year's production. At some point you're just talking to hear your own voice.

Leaving aside that you ignored Samsonov(same age as Thornton, also a top ten pick, outscored him by 40 points) you're ignoring again that most of those guys were defensemen. That's how bad Thornton's production was. But most people know that part of that is that Samsonov was put in a position to succeed. He got top line time, PP time. Thornton was buried on the 4th line. Things like that affect production and they're not a reflection of a prospect's abilities. How many Grand Rapids games do you watch? How is Mantha being used? How did they shield him coming back from his injury? What sort of a defensive player is he? How does he use his size compared to Nylander. Those are the things scouts take into consideration beyond just the points column of a box score.

Fact is, everyone who's looking at him with even slightly more sophistication then a five second trip over to Hockeydb is rating him as one of the top prospects in the league.

Now others may rank Mantha higher, but I'd say it's pretty telling that Nylander has a comparable (slightly higher actually) than Mantha and he's 2 years younger. He's also the higher pick. Time will tell if that is the case.

Interestingly enough I'm not overly concerned with where Mantha rates on your idiosyncratic list of top prospects AHL scorers. Scouts are high on him. He was great at the WJC. Detroit's fans seem to have absolutely no interest in trading him.

So taking it back to Phaneuf, they can ask for a prospect like Mantha all they want in return for eating money but Detroit made the smart move and had no interest in it. When the Leafs try to trade Phaneuf in the off-season they're still going to have to compete with teams going out and spending money on a defenseman vs. spending the price in picks and prospects you think Phaneuf is "worth". If I'm a GM, I'll spend cap dollars gladly before 1st round picks and top prospects.