Quoting: ZiggyPalffy
Just look at what you just said. A 10 game stint on the worst team in the league where he was almost a point per game ON THE WORST TEAM IN THE LEAGUE. Players don't just play 18+ mins a game in a 2C role on a terrible team and do that good and fail after that. All the evidence to suspect Vilardi will continue to be a good 2C is there. Sorry im not letting you discount what he's done in order to claim Sergachev is worth both him AND a 1st.
So let's flip the two and pretend Sergachev was on the Kings the last 3 years, would his value be as high as you are claiming and would he have been as productive on a league bottom team? Absolutely not.
Sergachev is a great player and everybody on here knows I love him, but you are overselling the crap out of him to justify what you claimed he is worth and I'm not falling for it.
Good day sir.
Literally my last sentence - not denying it was good, but giving such high expectations for the guy for a relatively good period of 10 games is just naive.
As for Sergachev playing for the Kings, his value might be tad lower than it currently is in Tampa, but by the same token the Kings as a team would likely be better, because their D would get MASSIVELY better. Currently I think their LHDs are the worst in the league. Sergachev would make it exponentially better. Also take into consideration that Vilardi would've never made his 10 game debut in a solid team of Tampa - and thus the only thing you've currently based his value on would've never happened. And this is exactly why this flipping of situation never works - the circumstances change too.
For the sake of argument, let's compare the guy to a completely random C prospect that debuted last year, Alex True for instance.
Vilardi scored
- 25 points in AHL in 32 games
- 7 points in NHL in 10 games
True scored
- 25 points in AHL in 40 games
- 4 points in NHL in 12 games
Vilardi's numbers are better, but not by a huge amount. The numbers between these players are somewhat comparable to each other. Yet absolutely no one considers True to be a TOP6 F, a prospect with that kind of potential or even an actual NHL player for that matter. Why would Vilardi be considered something like that with relatively comparable numbers then?
My stance is still the same. Vilardi is a potential C prospect, but as of now he's still nothing but a prospect, and he should be valued thusly. For a young established NHL D-man I consider a TOP6 prospect and a first rounder to be a relatively normal price.