Castagna and Walsh - The Worry Zone

[BearLover]

This was the ad hominem: "Is this going to be another case where you just insist that your humble, sober analysis is dead on, and just ignore the many other factors?" Pretty textbook ad hom—-direct insult, does not engage with the argument whatsoever.

Criticism of your analytical skills and your ability to take multiple, potentially contradictory factors into account when addressing other people's points, especially factors that seem obviously at odds with your expressed opinions, is absolutely not ad hominem. Saying that you're stupid and you fart a lot while addressing other people's points so your arguments are automatically invalid would be ad hominem.

No lol, both are very clearly ad hominem.

"An ad hominem attack is a logical fallacy where a person ignores an argument and instead attacks the character, motive, or attributes of the person making it."

It's literally the textbook definition. If the analysis is flawed, then show why. Don't insult the analytical skills of the arguer. This is grade school-level stuff.

[ugarte]

the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing nerds ad hom was a fallacy

[Beeeej]

This was the ad hominem: "Is this going to be another case where you just insist that your humble, sober analysis is dead on, and just ignore the many other factors?" Pretty textbook ad hom—-direct insult, does not engage with the argument whatsoever.

Criticism of your analytical skills and your ability to take multiple, potentially contradictory factors into account when addressing other people's points, especially factors that seem obviously at odds with your expressed opinions, is absolutely not ad hominem. Saying that you're stupid and you fart a lot while addressing other people's points so your arguments are automatically invalid would be ad hominem.

No lol, both are very clearly ad hominem.

"An ad hominem attack is a logical fallacy where a person ignores an argument and instead attacks the character, motive, or attributes of the person making it."

It's literally the textbook definition. If the analysis is flawed, then show why. Don't insult the analytical skills of the arguer. This is grade school-level stuff.

Incorrect. By "attribute" they mean things like your obesity or your snoring; ad hominem attacks are generally personal insults. The "attribute" being attacked here is literally the capacity to back up your arguments while not ignoring others' points, not a personal insult. Pointing out holes in your argument, however snarkily it was done, is the very antithesis of ad hominem.

[Pghas]

Yes, we are certainly in agreement that Castagna leaving, on the one hand, and Bancroft/Stanley leaving, on the other hand, are two very different things. If just Castagna signs, we aren't having this discussion. It's the Stanley departure that's truly surprising and causing me to look back and reflect on the fact that this type of departure is mostly unprecedented in Cornell history.

As to the hypothetical about the #1 pick - Cornell (also Quinnipiac) is totally noncompetitive for such a player and does not even attempt to recruit him.

Exactly.  And so the question becomes, does going down that path over the next few years make sense and if so, should they?  OR should they take advantage of the transfer portal, where someone who is both talented but disgruntled (perhaps about being displaced by said hypothetical #1 pick) would welcome the opportunity (and be duly loyal) to come to Cornell and be a part of building something, and would that something be able to finish the job?

[BearLover]

This was the ad hominem: "Is this going to be another case where you just insist that your humble, sober analysis is dead on, and just ignore the many other factors?" Pretty textbook ad hom—-direct insult, does not engage with the argument whatsoever.

Criticism of your analytical skills and your ability to take multiple, potentially contradictory factors into account when addressing other people's points, especially factors that seem obviously at odds with your expressed opinions, is absolutely not ad hominem. Saying that you're stupid and you fart a lot while addressing other people's points so your arguments are automatically invalid would be ad hominem.

No lol, both are very clearly ad hominem.

"An ad hominem attack is a logical fallacy where a person ignores an argument and instead attacks the character, motive, or attributes of the person making it."

It's literally the textbook definition. If the analysis is flawed, then show why. Don't insult the analytical skills of the arguer. This is grade school-level stuff.

Incorrect. By "attribute" they mean things like your obesity or your snoring; ad hominem attacks are generally personal insults. The "attribute" being attacked here is literally the capacity to back up your arguments while not ignoring others' points, not a personal insult. Pointing out holes in your argument, however snarkily it was done, is the very antithesis of ad hominem.

No. It is true that "pointing our holes in your argument" is not ad hominem. However, that's not what adamw did. He said: "Is this going to be another case where you just insist that your humble, sober analysis is dead on, and just ignore the many other factors?" This does not engage with the current argument at all and certainly does not point out any holes in it. The "attribute" here is my capacity for "humble, sober analysis" (sarcasm) that I've purportedly shown in past arguments. This is very clearly an insult not at all tied to pointing out the holes in my current argument.

Moreover, even if his post did engage with my argument, that would not eliminate the capacity for ad hominem. For example, if I told you: "you are extremely stupid and a flawed debater because your argument fails for reasons X, Y, and Z," what I said would still be ad hominem even if it also contains elements that are not ad hominem.

[stereax]

hey anyone want some half finished poetry i wrote in my head caught in a thunderstorm in cortland waiting for the bus, or are we just gonna talk in circles about debate 101 all day?

[marty]

hey anyone want some half finished poetry i wrote in my head caught in a thunderstorm in cortland waiting for the bus, or are we just gonna talk in circles about debate 101 all day?

I vote for the poem.

[adamw]

Yes, we are certainly in agreement that Castagna leaving, on the one hand, and Bancroft/Stanley leaving, on the other hand, are two very different things. If just Castagna signs, we aren't having this discussion. It's the Stanley departure that's truly surprising and causing me to look back and reflect on the fact that this type of departure is mostly unprecedented in Cornell history.

In what way, shape or form is that "unprecedented"? In this thread alone, numerous examples have been pointed out of similar Cornell players leaving after their junior year.

You want sober empirical analysis? Go for it. When it comes, however, don't expect me not to point out the numerous holes in your theoretically "fully objective" analysis. My "analysis" never does satisfy your desire for some Empirical God to come down from the sky with all the numbers, flow charts and receipts enough to satisfy your thirst for information.  I suspect, however, that nothing would ever satisfy you.

So I'm comfortable with my analysis, based on what I know, which seems fairly apparently to me, given that I watch what's going on with every team, every year, for 30 years. And you can rely upon your analysis, and be worried and upset.  And I'll continue to point out what I know.  And you can point out your analysis.  And we can argue forever.

Beeej is the lawyer - and editor - so I let him decide what ad hominem is. I only know Ralph Kramden "homina, homina, homina"

[BearLover]

Yes, we are certainly in agreement that Castagna leaving, on the one hand, and Bancroft/Stanley leaving, on the other hand, are two very different things. If just Castagna signs, we aren't having this discussion. It's the Stanley departure that's truly surprising and causing me to look back and reflect on the fact that this type of departure is mostly unprecedented in Cornell history.

In what way, shape or form is that "unprecedented"? In this thread alone, numerous examples have been pointed out of similar Cornell players leaving after their junior year.

I'd argue it's "mostly unprecedented" in the sense that he is only the third Cornell player drafted in the fourth round or later to leave early in the last 30+ years, and because he does not project as an NHL player. He's the lowest drafted early departure among defensemen in the last 30+ years as well (and probably much longer, but I didn't look back that far).  It's been extremely rare for us to not retain this type of player.

[ugarte]

Yes, we are certainly in agreement that Castagna leaving, on the one hand, and Bancroft/Stanley leaving, on the other hand, are two very different things. If just Castagna signs, we aren't having this discussion. It's the Stanley departure that's truly surprising and causing me to look back and reflect on the fact that this type of departure is mostly unprecedented in Cornell history.

In what way, shape or form is that "unprecedented"? In this thread alone, numerous examples have been pointed out of similar Cornell players leaving after their junior year.

I'd argue it's "mostly unprecedented" in the sense that he is only the third Cornell player drafted in the fourth round or higher to leave early in the last 30+ years, and because he does not project as an NHL player. He's the lowest drafted early departure among defensemen in the last 30+ years as well (and probably much longer, but I didn't look back that far).  It's been extremely rare for us to not retain this type of player.

depends who is doing the projecting! you keep substituting your judgment for the people involved. ottawa was interested enough to buy him out of his senior year with $500K+ over the next three years (between bonuses and minor league salary) regardless of whether he ever makes the NHL. He's only 21 and regarded as a solid defensive defenseman who is likely to grow into his frame. He doesn't project as an NHL star but I think they see him as someone who will get to skate on the good ice.

Not only do I think that it is unlikely that Stanley would turn down that offer, I further assume that Jones-the-mentor (as opposed to Jones-the-guy-who-wants-to-win) would advise him to take it.

Hmm. I thought I posted this but apparently did not.

I don't think this is true at all. The higher draft pick is a higher investment...

Sounds like sunk cost fallacy. NHL teams are smart enough reevaluate and update their beliefs based on how guys perform, without leaning much at all on draft round. If we were discussing first rounders I'd agree with you, but once you're into the middle rounds that all goes out the window...

First, the sunk cost fallacy describes how people behave, not how economic models and beings of pure rationality are supposed to behave.

Second, the same attributes that make you a projectible high-round pick are probably still there 2-3 years later. Morgan Barron, for example, definitely outperformed his draft position and expectations (including at training camps) and nudged the Rangers towards yanking him out of school (regardless of COVID imo). If you take someone in a late round you're mostly only pulling them early if they develop on their own. If you take someone earlier you probably want to mold the clay.

[Pghas]

Yes, we are certainly in agreement that Castagna leaving, on the one hand, and Bancroft/Stanley leaving, on the other hand, are two very different things. If just Castagna signs, we aren't having this discussion. It's the Stanley departure that's truly surprising and causing me to look back and reflect on the fact that this type of departure is mostly unprecedented in Cornell history.

In what way, shape or form is that "unprecedented"? In this thread alone, numerous examples have been pointed out of similar Cornell players leaving after their junior year.

I'd argue it's "mostly unprecedented" in the sense that he is only the third Cornell player drafted in the fourth round or higher to leave early in the last 30+ years, and because he does not project as an NHL player. He's the lowest drafted early departure among defensemen in the last 30+ years as well (and probably much longer, but I didn't look back that far).  It's been extremely rare for us to not retain this type of player.

depends who is doing the projecting! you keep substituting your judgment for the people involved. ottawa was interested enough to buy him out of his senior year with $500K+ over the next three years (between bonuses and minor league salary) regardless of whether he ever makes the NHL. He's only 21 and regarded as a solid defensive defenseman who is likely to grow into his frame. He doesn't project as an NHL star but I think they see him as someone who will get to skate on the good ice.

Not only do I think that it is unlikely that Stanley would turn down that offer, I further assume that Jones-the-mentor (as opposed to Jones-the-guy-who-wants-to-win) would advise him to take it.

Yeah - Castagna got over $1 million a year for 3 years so chances are Calgary has him slotted into a middle 6 position at worst.  500k over 3 years is nice cheddar too and he can easily go back and finish his degree with $ in the bank.  So yeah he is just getting paid to walk away from a fourth year of Cornell hockey.

[BearLover]

Yes, we are certainly in agreement that Castagna leaving, on the one hand, and Bancroft/Stanley leaving, on the other hand, are two very different things. If just Castagna signs, we aren't having this discussion. It's the Stanley departure that's truly surprising and causing me to look back and reflect on the fact that this type of departure is mostly unprecedented in Cornell history.

In what way, shape or form is that "unprecedented"? In this thread alone, numerous examples have been pointed out of similar Cornell players leaving after their junior year.

I'd argue it's "mostly unprecedented" in the sense that he is only the third Cornell player drafted in the fourth round or higher to leave early in the last 30+ years, and because he does not project as an NHL player. He's the lowest drafted early departure among defensemen in the last 30+ years as well (and probably much longer, but I didn't look back that far).  It's been extremely rare for us to not retain this type of player.

depends who is doing the projecting! you keep substituting your judgment for the people involved. ottawa was interested enough to buy him out of his senior year with $500K+ over the next three years (between bonuses and minor league salary) regardless of whether he ever makes the NHL. He's only 21 and regarded as a solid defensive defenseman who is likely to grow into his frame. He doesn't project as an NHL star but I think they see him as someone who will get to skate on the good ice.

Not only do I think that it is unlikely that Stanley would turn down that offer, I further assume that Jones-the-mentor (as opposed to Jones-the-guy-who-wants-to-win) would advise him to take it.

Not really going off my own opinion - going mostly off buzz from scouts and publicly available reporting. For example, the Athletic's NHL prospect analyst Scott Wheeler listed Stanley as a "tier 3 prospect" and ranked him as the 10th best prospect in the Senators' 26th ranked farm system. Here's what Wheeler wrote a couple weeks ago:

10. Hoyt Stanley, RHD, 21, Cornell (No. 108, 2023)

Stanley was the best under-18 defenseman in the BCHL three seasons ago and earned a spot on the league's All-Rookie team after missing most of the prior season with a concussion. Then, as an 18-year-old freshman at Cornell, he looked like he belonged without standing out, which is kind of all you can hope for out of a player who has taken that path to playing college hockey (especially given his age at the time). He's now a junior, though, and his production hasn't taken a step despite expanded minutes — he averaged 20 per game last year and is up to 22 this year — and positive two-way results generally.

He's a long, mobile, pro-sized (6-3, 207 pounds) right-shot defenseman with impressive skating technique, enough ability to handle and maneuver with the puck on his stick, and a decent shot that I'd like to see him use more. He's still a little raw in some areas, but I expect him to blossom into a standout college defenseman as an upperclassman. He projects as an efficient, effective two-way D with some secondary puck-transporting elements, and I saw enough NHL potential to rank him No. 98 pre-draft (10 spots in front of where the Sens picked him) ahead of the draft. I'm not sure he has done enough to warrant an entry-level contract to this point, though, and while he's still young for a junior, the clock is now ticking.

[BearLover]

Yes, we are certainly in agreement that Castagna leaving, on the one hand, and Bancroft/Stanley leaving, on the other hand, are two very different things. If just Castagna signs, we aren't having this discussion. It's the Stanley departure that's truly surprising and causing me to look back and reflect on the fact that this type of departure is mostly unprecedented in Cornell history.

In what way, shape or form is that "unprecedented"? In this thread alone, numerous examples have been pointed out of similar Cornell players leaving after their junior year.

I'd argue it's "mostly unprecedented" in the sense that he is only the third Cornell player drafted in the fourth round or higher to leave early in the last 30+ years, and because he does not project as an NHL player. He's the lowest drafted early departure among defensemen in the last 30+ years as well (and probably much longer, but I didn't look back that far).  It's been extremely rare for us to not retain this type of player.

depends who is doing the projecting! you keep substituting your judgment for the people involved. ottawa was interested enough to buy him out of his senior year with $500K+ over the next three years (between bonuses and minor league salary) regardless of whether he ever makes the NHL. He's only 21 and regarded as a solid defensive defenseman who is likely to grow into his frame. He doesn't project as an NHL star but I think they see him as someone who will get to skate on the good ice.

Not only do I think that it is unlikely that Stanley would turn down that offer, I further assume that Jones-the-mentor (as opposed to Jones-the-guy-who-wants-to-win) would advise him to take it.

Yeah - Castagna got over $1 million a year for 3 years so chances are Calgary has him slotted into a middle 6 position at worst.  500k over 3 years is nice cheddar too and he can easily go back and finish his degree with $ in the bank.  So yeah he is just getting paid to walk away from a fourth year of Cornell hockey.

That assumes Castagna sticks in the NHL. If he ends up in the AHL, he makes a small fraction of that.

[stereax]

Yes, we are certainly in agreement that Castagna leaving, on the one hand, and Bancroft/Stanley leaving, on the other hand, are two very different things. If just Castagna signs, we aren't having this discussion. It's the Stanley departure that's truly surprising and causing me to look back and reflect on the fact that this type of departure is mostly unprecedented in Cornell history.

In what way, shape or form is that "unprecedented"? In this thread alone, numerous examples have been pointed out of similar Cornell players leaving after their junior year.

I'd argue it's "mostly unprecedented" in the sense that he is only the third Cornell player drafted in the fourth round or higher to leave early in the last 30+ years, and because he does not project as an NHL player. He's the lowest drafted early departure among defensemen in the last 30+ years as well (and probably much longer, but I didn't look back that far).  It's been extremely rare for us to not retain this type of player.

depends who is doing the projecting! you keep substituting your judgment for the people involved. ottawa was interested enough to buy him out of his senior year with $500K+ over the next three years (between bonuses and minor league salary) regardless of whether he ever makes the NHL. He's only 21 and regarded as a solid defensive defenseman who is likely to grow into his frame. He doesn't project as an NHL star but I think they see him as someone who will get to skate on the good ice.

Not only do I think that it is unlikely that Stanley would turn down that offer, I further assume that Jones-the-mentor (as opposed to Jones-the-guy-who-wants-to-win) would advise him to take it.

Yeah - Castagna got over $1 million a year for 3 years so chances are Calgary has him slotted into a middle 6 position at worst.  500k over 3 years is nice cheddar too and he can easily go back and finish his degree with $ in the bank.  So yeah he is just getting paid to walk away from a fourth year of Cornell hockey.

Those numbers are standard ELC money and don't necessarily mean Calgary has him slotted anywhere, but yeah - very possible he's going to be a middle-six C with the Flames to start next year, if only for Calgary to see what they have.

[stereax]

Yes, we are certainly in agreement that Castagna leaving, on the one hand, and Bancroft/Stanley leaving, on the other hand, are two very different things. If just Castagna signs, we aren't having this discussion. It's the Stanley departure that's truly surprising and causing me to look back and reflect on the fact that this type of departure is mostly unprecedented in Cornell history.

In what way, shape or form is that "unprecedented"? In this thread alone, numerous examples have been pointed out of similar Cornell players leaving after their junior year.

I'd argue it's "mostly unprecedented" in the sense that he is only the third Cornell player drafted in the fourth round or higher to leave early in the last 30+ years, and because he does not project as an NHL player. He's the lowest drafted early departure among defensemen in the last 30+ years as well (and probably much longer, but I didn't look back that far).  It's been extremely rare for us to not retain this type of player.

depends who is doing the projecting! you keep substituting your judgment for the people involved. ottawa was interested enough to buy him out of his senior year with $500K+ over the next three years (between bonuses and minor league salary) regardless of whether he ever makes the NHL. He's only 21 and regarded as a solid defensive defenseman who is likely to grow into his frame. He doesn't project as an NHL star but I think they see him as someone who will get to skate on the good ice.

Not only do I think that it is unlikely that Stanley would turn down that offer, I further assume that Jones-the-mentor (as opposed to Jones-the-guy-who-wants-to-win) would advise him to take it.

Not really going off my own opinion - going mostly off buzz from scouts and publicly available reporting. For example, the Athletic's NHL prospect analyst Scott Wheeler listed Stanley as a "tier 3 prospect" ranked as the 10th best prospect in the Senators' 26th ranked farm system. Here's what Wheeler wrote a couple weeks ago:

10. Hoyt Stanley, RHD, 21, Cornell (No. 108, 2023)

Stanley was the best under-18 defenseman in the BCHL three seasons ago and earned a spot on the league's All-Rookie team after missing most of the prior season with a concussion. Then, as an 18-year-old freshman at Cornell, he looked like he belonged without standing out, which is kind of all you can hope for out of a player who has taken that path to playing college hockey (especially given his age at the time). He's now a junior, though, and his production hasn't taken a step despite expanded minutes — he averaged 20 per game last year and is up to 22 this year — and positive two-way results generally.

He's a long, mobile, pro-sized (6-3, 207 pounds) right-shot defenseman with impressive skating technique, enough ability to handle and maneuver with the puck on his stick, and a decent shot that I'd like to see him use more. He's still a little raw in some areas, but I expect him to blossom into a standout college defenseman as an upperclassman. He projects as an efficient, effective two-way D with some secondary puck-transporting elements, and I saw enough NHL potential to rank him No. 98 pre-draft (10 spots in front of where the Sens picked him) ahead of the draft. I'm not sure he has done enough to warrant an entry-level contract to this point, though, and while he's still young for a junior, the clock is now ticking.

every draft prospect guy fucking sucks at evaluation lmao, from my experience. a BUNCH of them mostly just go "points good".

anyway if they want Stanley as an upside bottom four minute muncher with a sneaky shot, I mean, that's what he is rn.