I find to many good players are being tied up as prospects and are not even being dressed but sitting in the minors. If they are calibur players they should be playing. Also large prospect rosters are used as injury protection which deters trading instead of developing future talent. I know some want more prospects so this will be a hard sell but I thought I would but it out there.
Colour me among those who think we should have more rather than less prospects.
But to respond to your criticisms;
- high caliber players sitting in the minors; I can't think of any other than Jason Pominville, but having a player sit in the minors unused only hurts the holding GM.
- Large prospect rosters as injury protection; not true IMO. If this were the case veteran NHL players with little future upside (say Richard Zednik or Todd Marchant) would be made into prospects with the intent of stashing them on the farm until injuries hit - except that isn't what happens. Virtually all prospects (I can't think of an exception off the top of my head) are actually 'prospects' - players whose future worth exceeds their present.
Large prospect rosters inhibit trading; On the contrary, I think large prospect rosters are the key to more trades! If we only had six prospects parting with two of them in a deal wipes out 1/3 of your farm team - whereas with 8 prospects parting with two only constitutes 1/4 of the squad - which means it hurts your team less to make the trade and thus makes the trade more likely.
It would take someone like Brian to review the data on last years trades, but I suspect that a wide majority of deals involved prospects or prospect picks.
Not even sure whether to comment... but I will ;-) I hated moving from 4-6 prospects as I thought it was bad for trading, then hated again the move from 6-8... but now I'm fine with as I find that I tend to have 8 prospects I'm really happy with and I enjoy trading them to help out with a run for the Predator + trade for draft more the next year that I'm happy with all over again.
That said Rob is 100% right that prospect drafting, and the more prospects we have, does hurt the ED and its VERY frustrating when a GM sits on a prospect and doesn't use + doesn't trade that prospect.
Sadly, "abuse" of a rule doesn't make it a bad rule. Not only do I strongly oppose a reduction in prospect #, but since the prospects run in 4 years cycles, I would also oppose a move to change even as soon as 2010-11 since that could affect teams who currently have a large number of "low year" prospects ie P2's, P1's in the upcoming draft who can now not keep all the guys they traded for assuming we would be allowed 8.
Hey - the ultimate way to 'control' prospects from becoming too powerful which includes addressing any worries about those GMs (myself included) who draft a prospect before NHL elgibile is to decrease length of service. i.e. 3 years + RFA.
One control on how powerful a prospect is that the better prospects tend to get drafted prior to their NHL eligibility.
The result is Crosby, Tavares, Stamkos, Hall, etc. aren't prospects for as long as others precisely because they were perceived as being more valuable.
Its a case where market forces and demand reduce the impact that otherwise might make prospects more lopsided.
11 comments:
I find to many good players are being tied up as prospects and are not even being dressed but sitting in the minors. If they are calibur players they should be playing. Also large prospect rosters are used as injury protection which deters trading instead of developing future talent. I know some want more prospects so this will be a hard sell but I thought I would but it out there.
Colour me among those who think we should have more rather than less prospects.
But to respond to your criticisms;
- high caliber players sitting in the minors; I can't think of any other than Jason Pominville, but having a player sit in the minors unused only hurts the holding GM.
- Large prospect rosters as injury protection; not true IMO. If this were the case veteran NHL players with little future upside (say Richard Zednik or Todd Marchant) would be made into prospects with the intent of stashing them on the farm until injuries hit - except that isn't what happens. Virtually all prospects (I can't think of an exception off the top of my head) are actually 'prospects' - players whose future worth exceeds their present.
Large prospect rosters inhibit trading; On the contrary, I think large prospect rosters are the key to more trades! If we only had six prospects parting with two of them in a deal wipes out 1/3 of your farm team - whereas with 8 prospects parting with two only constitutes 1/4 of the squad - which means it hurts your team less to make the trade and thus makes the trade more likely.
It would take someone like Brian to review the data on last years trades, but I suspect that a wide majority of deals involved prospects or prospect picks.
Oh I am so opposed to this option. 8 prospects is fine by me.
Not even sure whether to comment... but I will ;-) I hated moving from 4-6 prospects as I thought it was bad for trading, then hated again the move from 6-8... but now I'm fine with as I find that I tend to have 8 prospects I'm really happy with and I enjoy trading them to help out with a run for the Predator + trade for draft more the next year that I'm happy with all over again.
That said Rob is 100% right that prospect drafting, and the more prospects we have, does hurt the ED and its VERY frustrating when a GM sits on a prospect and doesn't use + doesn't trade that prospect.
Sadly, "abuse" of a rule doesn't make it a bad rule. Not only do I strongly oppose a reduction in prospect #, but since the prospects run in 4 years cycles, I would also oppose a move to change even as soon as 2010-11 since that could affect teams who currently have a large number of "low year" prospects ie P2's, P1's in the upcoming draft who can now not keep all the guys they traded for assuming we would be allowed 8.
A suggestion like this comming from the GM who has 14 prospects on his roster at the end of this year?!
Are you self loathing or what?
I like 8. If someone wants more (pointing finger), they are free to make trades to acquire more.
Just keep in mind that you can only have 8 at the end of the PrD.
lol ;-)
Hey - the ultimate way to 'control' prospects from becoming too powerful which includes addressing any worries about those GMs (myself included) who draft a prospect before NHL elgibile is to decrease length of service. i.e. 3 years + RFA.
One control on how powerful a prospect is that the better prospects tend to get drafted prior to their NHL eligibility.
The result is Crosby, Tavares, Stamkos, Hall, etc. aren't prospects for as long as others precisely because they were perceived as being more valuable.
Its a case where market forces and demand reduce the impact that otherwise might make prospects more lopsided.
OPPOSED.
Post a Comment