Av-merican wrote:
the Cunning Linguist wrote:
An
update from HF - Rodin seems to be impressing somebody over there... How do they Connauton and McNally ahead of Tanev?
Why wouldn't they? This is about upside/potential, not how good they are right this moment. Tanev's a good story, but you're honestly going to tell me he is a more talented player than Kevin Connauton?
Something just seems amiss here when they still project Hodgson at the top of the heap when, IMO, he hasn't been able to fulfil that promise at the AHL level. Likewise, Connauton over Tanev - upside/potential means nothing if it can't be translated to actual performance; in this case, Tanev was seen to be a better player than Connauton, especially for what the big team needs. The 'future' (upside/potential) means nothing if the player can't perform. Why even bother with updating this if it's about upside / potential? They can simply rank all the prospects according to where they were drafted. Hell, Patrick freaking White would still be near the top if he was still in the system if this was about upside.
No, I think current performance should reflect where these guys are; where they were drafted, etc. might be a good way to place them at the start, but their development should also be reflected. And while this will get me some heat with Cannots-nation, I think Hodgson's current performance warrants lowering his standing... It might also be unfair to lump them all in one list; centers should be compared to centers, goalies vs. goalies, etc...