And his 2nd contract, he'll be a 7million dollar man. Which means, they'll be a few changes coming very soon with players & contracts in Edmonton.
- newmy

try 12M

The Calder Trophy isn't awarded to the best player playing in his first season of professional hockey. It's awarded to the best rookie in the NHL. Panarin fits that and the age requirements. Should guys who played in the AHL not be eligible since they were playing professional hockey too?
- eichiefs9

IMO players who have played 2yrs or more in the AHL shouldn't be eligible for the Calder either.
Calder should be for rookie player, then it even competition.

Just my opinion

This

The battle over the hardware is pretty irrelevant IMO.

The best rookie is mcdavid whether he wins the award or not. No debate.
Hell, maybe there is something to be said about playing the full season. And if they want to use that as a parameter for who gets it, that's fine.
- HB77

It's an award for who has the best first season in the NHL. They don't need to qualify it by saying "full season". It isn't an award for being the rookie with the most potential, or for the rookie that "could have done better if they had played more", it really is focused on just having the best first season. It isn't an insult to McDavid, but his season wasn't as good as it could have been because of his injury taking him out of the lineup for a long time. It is entirely possible that McDavid would be the leading rookie scorer had he stayed healthy. It's also possible he wouldn't be, if he had a slump and the long season may have taken more of a grind on him, the rest while injured probably did some good.

I just don't see how you can look at a guy who is among the league leaders in NHL scoring (9th) and say "You didn't have as good of a season as someone who played half the year". Doesn't make sense, any way you look at it.

It's an award for who has the best first season in the NHL. They don't need to qualify it by saying "full season". It isn't an award for being the rookie with the most potential, or for the rookie that "could have done better if they had played more", it really is focused on just having the best first season. It isn't an insult to McDavid, but his season wasn't as good as it could have been because of his injury taking him out of the lineup for a long time. It is entirely possible that McDavid would be the leading rookie scorer had he stayed healthy. It's also possible he wouldn't be, if he had a slump and the long season may have taken more of a grind on him, the rest while injured probably did some good.

I just don't see how you can look at a guy who is among the league leaders in NHL scoring (9th) and say "You didn't have as good of a season as someone who played half the year". Doesn't make sense, any way you look at it.
- breadbag

Are you attempting to say the injury helped Connor play better!?



You're entire premise is based on who played more games. And that's fine if you think that makes it definitive. You're even trying to use some strange logic because it can't be unequivocally disproven. (Maybe he woulda went cold- maybe the injury helped )
But if you'd like to get technical, in the games they've both played Connor is unequivocally better.
The better player is Connor without question. His ppg and sample size prove this.

But you're allowed to want to hand the hardware to the guy who played more games.

Essentially your logic top to bottom is flawed. If you just kept it to "panarin didn't break his collarbone in a freak accident and missed time. Therefore, he should get the award", it woulda be far more sound

Are you attempting to say the injury helped Connor play better!?



You're entire premise is based on who played more games. And that's fine if you think that makes it definitive. You're even trying to use some strange logic because it can't be unequivocally disproven. (Maybe he woulda went cold- maybe the injury helped )
But if you'd like to get technical, in the games they've both played Connor is unequivocally better.
The better player is Connor without question. His ppg and sample size prove this.

But you're allowed to want to hand the hardware to the guy who played more games.

Essentially your logic top to bottom is flawed. If you just kept it to "panarin didn't break his collarbone in a freak accident and missed time. Therefore, he should get the award", it woulda be far more sound
- HB77

I'm saying that a half season of scoring slightly more points isn't better than a full season of being a top scorer in the NHL. I know you want to try to put words in my mouth to further your argument, but get real. I'm not saying that the injury helped McDavid, but the extra rest probably didn't hurt him on his return. The first season in the NHL is a grind for young players who aren't used to the pace and the schedule. This whole blog was about McDavid having a good stretch since he returned from injury and I'm sure some of that is because of him coming back fresh. It is entirely possible he would have been a lot more worn down in February (like the majority of the NHL players who played through Oct-Jan)

Nothing flawed here and I can make it simple for you. Panarin had a more successful season, and yes it is likely because he didn't get injured. Doesn't change the fact that he had a better season. It is possible that McDavid would have had a better season, but that is based on assumptions. The biggest of those assumptions being that McDavid would have scored at the same pace while injured. I also think Gostisbehere at the end of the day may have an equally impressive season as Panarin.

I'm not saying it is all about games played, but it is more about total production, rather than some assumptions over PPG. Facts over assumptions.

I'm saying that a half season of scoring slightly more points isn't better than a full season of being a top scorer in the NHL. I know you want to try to put words in my mouth to further your argument, but get real. I'm not saying that the injury helped McDavid, but the extra rest probably didn't hurt him on his return. The first season in the NHL is a grind for young players who aren't used to the pace and the schedule. This whole blog was about McDavid having a good stretch since he returned from injury and I'm sure some of that is because of him coming back fresh. It is entirely possible he would have been a lot more worn down in February (like the majority of the NHL players who played through Oct-Jan)

Nothing flawed here and I can make it simple for you. Panarin had a more successful season, and yes it is likely because he didn't get injured. Doesn't change the fact that he had a better season. It is possible that McDavid would have had a better season, but that is based on assumptions. The biggest of those assumptions being that McDavid would have scored at the same pace while injured. I also think Gostisbehere at the end of the day may have an equally impressive season as Panarin.

I'm not saying it is all about games played, but it is more about total production, rather than some assumptions over PPG. Facts over assumptions.
- breadbag

It is all about games played.
You just wanna dress IT up as something more.
In the same number of games and sample size, mcdavid blows Panarin away.
And isn't playing with league mvp either.

You say- " I'm not saying the injury helped, but it didn't hurt"
That's the same thing. Of course it hurt. He didn't get to play the games, and therefore in your eyes, shouldn't get the trophy because the other guy didnt break his collar bone in a freak accident. You even say ppg doesn't matter! That's exactly like saying more games and therefore points matters.
It's not words in Your mouth, it's essentially your entire premise when one boils it down.
You can't use ppg.
You can't use stats during the time they've both been playing.
You can't use age.
You can't use linemates.
You certainly can't use pure skill.
You can't use defensive numbers.

But you can use games played.


As I said, if you wanna use games played as a reason to give the trophy. That's fine. And as I said, maybe there is something about playing a full season. But for any other reason, connor is by far the leagues best rookie. Like not even really close actually. He's putting up top few numbers In the league actually. Let alone just rookies