Calder Finalists

[hf101]

What a year for rookies!  Lots of new talent emerging in the NHL this year.

 

Who do you think wins the Calder?

Who should have been a nominee?

[AJgoal]

I still think Panarin wins, but damn what a class this year.

[Holtbeast]

I think Artemi Panarin win this. Jack Eichel could have be on this list, but he wouldn't have beat Panarin.

[ScottM]

I think Panarin wins in a walk. McDavid would be in the thick of it without the injury. But when I say it's a walk, I mean no offense to any of the other rookies. I agree with @AJgoal that we had an impressive rookie class. That makes two years in a row that we've had that. The future is bright.

[AlaskaFlyerFan]

It will be a crime if Panarin wins.  He was in the KHL for parts of 7 seasons...7 SEASONS as a pro.  Plus he played with Kane all year.    I hope the Hockey Writers take all that into consideration.  

[TropicalFruitGirl26]

43 minutes ago, Holtbeast said:

I think Artemi Panarin win this. Jack Eichel could have be on this list, but he wouldn't have beat Panarin.

 

I had Jack Eichel picked when this topic was discussed earlier in the year, but yea, it's Panarin's to lose.

[TropicalFruitGirl26]

8 minutes ago, AlaskaFlyerFan said:

It will be a crime if Panarin wins.  He was in the KHL for parts of 7 seasons...7 SEASONS as a pro.  Plus he played with Kane all year.    I hope the Hockey Writers take all that into consideration.  

 

Meh, there have been BIGGER crimes committed when it comes to these awards in the past.

By definition, Panarin IS a rookie, has had the public eye almost all year, is on a high profile team with expectations of another Cup, and yes, playing with Kane helped him (but really, who is to say he doesn't have just as good a year sans Kane?).

 

Unfair? Maybe.

But then, these awards, as you know, have never been about being "fair"...at least not for the last couple decades anyways.

 

It's all about who LOOKS the best, while still putting on a very convincing argument on the ice.

And Panarin has certainly done that.

[Holtbeast]

15 minutes ago, TropicalFruitGirl26 said:

 

I had Jack Eichel picked when this topic was discussed earlier in the year, but yea, it's Panarin's to lose.

Jack had a great year, but it is hard to compare to what Panarin did.

[TropicalFruitGirl26]

8 minutes ago, Holtbeast said:

Jack had a great year, but it is hard to compare to what Panarin did.

Perhaps, but I was thinking more along the lines of "Eichel had less to work with in Buffalo than Panarin did in Chicago, yet still managed a comparable year"

 

Of course, like I already stated, the winners are usually the ones who not only put on a good on ice performance, but are on the team that can back him up too.

 

Just comparing Eichel and Panarin, while Panarin has the raw production numbers in terms of goals and assists, I think Eichel is not only the better defensive player, but more of a two way player with double the responsibility of Panarin, tends to grab the puck away from the opposition a bit more, and is more of a pure shooter (I believe he tends to shoot more than Panarin).

If Eichel had the supporting cast Panarin has in Chicago, this wouldn't even be a conversation, as Eichel would have this in the bag. I really think he is that good.

 

But, I know better. None of that other stuff will come into play....obviously, Eichel didn't make the cut, so that is moot anyways.

The award is STILL Panarin's to lose no matter how you slice it.

Hey, not Artemi's fault he plays on the Hawks. He is given opportunities to do things on a great team, and he gets the job done.

[Holtbeast]

Definitely Panarin had more weapons to work with. I agree though if the stats are anywhere near comparable the player that the team has more success usually gets that nod. Not always fair in my opinion.

[TropicalFruitGirl26]

The funny thing in all this Calder talk is, if you want to discuss complete positive IMPACT of one of these rookies on their respective teams, you GOTTA look at Gostisbehere.

 

The lone defenseman in this group or even from the guys who just barely didn't make the cut, I believe his presence and play did more, top to bottom for the Philadelphia Flyers (such as they are), than Panarin, McDavid, or even Eichel for their teams this year.

 

What I mean is, you take away Panarin from Chicago, and they are STILL a legit playoff, Cup contender.

Take away Eichel and McDavid from the Sabres and Oilers respectively, and yea, they'd be worse off, but as you can see by the standings, they STILL weren't good enough to be anywhere close to a post season spot.

 

But without Gostisbehere, I really believe the Flyers may have been in contention for the lottery pick....or somewhere close to it.

 

If the Calder were to be measured on total impact of a rookie on his team, then I think Gostisbehere wins this in a landslide.

 

But the way the NHL does this, well, there will be a footnote on Ghost's 2015-16 season that likely will read something like, "Great rookie season...especially FOR A DEFENSEMAN".

Nothing wrong with that, but that clearly shows the he never really was going to get a clean shot at the award with the likes of the other rookie, high profile FORWARDS around.

[pilldoc]

Panarin wins...BUT Ghost should give him a run for his money.  If it were not for the emergence of Ghost...the Flyers do not even sniff the playoffs.  Also, remember, Ghost is a defensemen scoring those points.   Had McDavid been healthy, it would have been his to lose.  He should not worry, in the coming years he will garner his share of hardware.

 

My head votes Panarin BUT my heart votes Ghost!

[Holtbeast]

10 minutes ago, pilldoc said:

Panarin wins...BUT Ghost should give him a run for his money.  If it were not for the emergence of Ghost...the Flyers do not even sniff the playoffs.  Also, remember, Ghost is a defensemen scoring those points.   Had McDavid been healthy, it would have been his to lose.  He should not worry, in the coming years he will garner his share of hardware.

 

My head votes Panarin BUT my heart votes Ghost!

I agree, a full year for Connor McDavid he wins this for sure.

[JR Ewing]

Artemi Panarin outscored teammate Ilya Kovalcuk in 2015... Jack Eichel is NOT as good as him. Not yet, anyway.

 

[ScottM]

13 hours ago, TropicalFruitGirl26 said:

 

Meh, there have been BIGGER crimes committed when it comes to these awards in the past.

 

If you want a crime, look at 1990. Sergei Makarov won the Calder at age 31 after playing with the Red Army in the Soviet Union for years. Technically, he was eligible, but by no means was he a rookie. Yes, I know Panarin spent some time in the KHL, but he really only had two seasons in which he was a major contributor, and when you consider the gap between the leagues, this season was a major step forward. He fits within a much more logical definition of a rookie than what we had in 1990, so yes, there have been much bigger "crimes" in the past.

[radoran]

1 hour ago, ScottM said:

 

If you want a crime, look at 1990. Sergei Makarov won the Calder at age 31 after playing with the Red Army in the Soviet Union for years. Technically, he was eligible, but by no means was he a rookie. Yes, I know Panarin spent some time in the KHL, but he really only had two seasons in which he was a major contributor, and when you consider the gap between the leagues, this season was a major step forward. He fits within a much more logical definition of a rookie than what we had in 1990, so yes, there have been much bigger "crimes" in the past.

 

They changed the rule after Makarov. You have to be under 26 now.

[ScottM]

1 minute ago, radoran said:

 

They changed the rule after Makarov. You have to be under 26 now.

 

Right. A 31-year-old winning the award showed just how ridiculous it was with strong leagues in Europe to allow a guy that had been a professional for that long to win the award. I think it's ridiculous that it happened nonetheless.

[radoran]

Just now, ScottM said:

 

Right. A 31-year-old winning the award showed just how ridiculous it was with strong leagues in Europe to allow a guy that had been a professional for that long to win the award. I think it's ridiculous that it happened nonetheless.

 

It is - and refusing to call the KHL a "major professional league" is also silly.

 

If the KHL isn't a "major professional league" then then only "major professional league" is, by definition, the NHL. What else is there!?!?

 

I don't think Panarin should be eligible, either.

[Holtbeast]

With leagues like the KHL they need to come up with some sort of rule that constitutes how many seasons a player can play in a league like that before transferring to the NHL and still be considered a rookie. Or not allow them to be rookies at all if they play even 1 season.

[ScottM]

13 minutes ago, radoran said:

 

It is - and refusing to call the KHL a "major professional league" is also silly.

 

If the KHL isn't a "major professional league" then then only "major professional league" is, by definition, the NHL. What else is there!?!?

 

I don't think Panarin should be eligible, either.

 

I've never looked at analytics, admittedly, but my guess would be that the KHL is much, much closer to the AHL than the NHL. And yes, that would mean that the NHL is currently the only major league in the world. There has certainly been a change there in the last 25 years.

 

Honestly, I don't have a problem with Panarin's being eligible. If the KHL is not considered a "major" league, then I see no difference between players participating in it and participating in the minors here. Sure, you'll come across the odd NHL-caliber player there, but let's be honest: most of the guys who could compete in the NHL are doing so. If we have rules that are set up to allow guys who play a few seasons in the minors to be eligible for the Calder -- which is obviously the case -- I couldn't personally justify treating the KHL any differently.

 

Lest someone mention the WHA and the fact that Gretzky was ineligible for the Calder based on his play there, I don't think there's much debate at all that the WHA was closing the gap. Some of the sport's best players were there, and the NHL all but acknowledged that the WHA was a major league by participating in the merger. The WHA and the KHL are worlds apart, so while I agree with Gretzky's ineligibility, I would not agree with KHL players being ineligible as long as they satisfy the Calder rules. Should we see a closing of the gap in the future, however, I would recommend adjusting accordingly.

[AJgoal]

The question becomes then, if the KHL doesn't constitute a "major professional league," then why is that language even there? If there are no other major professional leagues in the world, just say, "in the NHL," and be done with it.

[Holtbeast]

1 hour ago, AJgoal said:

The question becomes then, if the KHL doesn't constitute a "major professional league," then why is that language even there? If there are no other major professional leagues in the world, just say, "in the NHL," and be done with it.

Well the KHL is sure different then Division 1 College Hockey.

[ScottM]

3 minutes ago, Holtbeast said:

Well the KHL is sure different then Division 1 College Hockey.

 

This is true, but so is, say, the AHL. As things stand now, I don't think you can include guys who have spent time in that league, and not guys who have spent time in the KHL. If we get a new official definition of rookie, fine. I just don't think the current definition of a rookie in the NHL could fairly exclude guys who have played in any other current league if they satisfy the other rules.

[Holtbeast]

9 minutes ago, ScottM said:

 

This is true, but so is, say, the AHL. As things stand now, I don't think you can include guys who have spent time in that league, and not guys who have spent time in the KHL. If we get a new official definition of rookie, fine. I just don't think the current definition of a rookie in the NHL could fairly exclude guys who have played in any other current league if they satisfy the other rules.

Maybe it is because the AHL is a North American league that is looked at by the NHL as an affiliate system to the major clubs. The KHL teams are not affiliated with the NHL teams and even though it is considered a development league throughout Russia and Europe there really are no ties to the NHL as a minor league system. I agree there needs to be rules put into place so a seasoned player from either the AHL or KHL who may be in their late 20's can be considered for this reward up against someone right out of college.

[ScottM]

@Holtbeast I really don't have a problem with the rules as they are. I'm perfectly fine with guys like Panarin, or last season, Stone getting consideration for or winning the Calder. I'd really only recommend a change if another league did noticeably strengthen to the point that it could be considered major. In that case, you'd obviously want to keep said league's alumni away from the trophy. Right now, however, with that league not existing, I'd leave well enough alone.