Prospect Info: 2017-18 Stockton Heat & Prospect Stats/Discussion (CHL, NCAA, Europe, AHL, ECHL)

[Skobel24]

He's making a Starfox reference

HIT THE BOOST TO GET THROUGH

 

[Volica]

Big Rig Hunter Smith has been sent down to the ECHL.

I’m very happy this team has been drafting on skill and not plug.

 

[Mr Snrub]

Big Rig Hunter Smith has been sent down to the ECHL.

I’m very happy this team has been drafting on skill and not plug.

To be fair Smith looked like he'd make a pretty decent plug if he panned out. Also looked for a while like he had some good offensive upside outside of his plugginess.

 

[Volica]

To be fair Smith looked like he'd make a pretty decent plug if he panned out. Also looked for a while like he had some good offensive upside outside of his plugginess.

I'm happy with Calgary swinging for the fences with their picks now.
Less taking the safe Wotherspoon bet, more taking these kids who could potentially make some noise.

 

[BigRangy]

2-2 after 2 for Stockton vs San Jose

 

[Calgareee]

looks like the only line doing anything is

Mangiapaine - Jankowski - Hathaway

Mangi and janks both have 7 points in 4 games and Garnet has 6. No other forward has more than 1 point.

 

[Dack]

Valimaki had a goal and an assist tonight. He also had 7 shots which moves his total to 25 shots in 6 games so his shot generation has been good.

Phillips now leads the WHL in points. After adding an assist and the OT winner in his game tonight.

 

[Calculon]

Mangiapaine - Jankowski - Hathaway
would make for pretty good fourth line in the NHL right now. Maybe even a quality sheltered third line.

 

[Lunatik]

I'm happy with Calgary swinging for the fences with their picks now.
Less taking the safe Wotherspoon bet, more taking these kids who could potentially make some noise.

I think you need a combination of both. The reason for this is you need to develop a stream of good 4th liners, because when you become a contender, more often than not you cannot afford to keep them.

 

[FerklundCGY]

I think you need a combination of both. The reason for this is you need to develop a stream of good 4th liners, because when you become a contender, more often than not you cannot afford to keep them.

The great teams are the ones who find quality 4th liners for great prices.

Going into the draft thinking "we need some guys who can play on the 4th line in a couple years" is just disastrous thinking

 

[DFF]

I think you need a combination of both. The reason for this is you need to develop a stream of good 4th liners, because when you become a contender, more often than not you cannot afford to keep them.

They need to draft future NHLers...period

So far unless it's a lottery, it's a swing and miss

and you cant even say that with Bennett

 

[Lunatik]

The great teams are the ones who find quality 4th liners for great prices.

Going into the draft thinking "we need some guys who can play on the 4th line in a couple years" is just disastrous thinking

What a load of shit. The top teams almost always develop their own 4th liners, they leave when they've earned a larger payday.

And no one think oh I need to draft a 4th liner, they weigh the players potential, the players floor and the likelihood of them reaching that potential. They also look for guys with different varieties of skills.

 

[Volica]

I think you need a combination of both. The reason for this is you need to develop a stream of good 4th liners, because when you become a contender, more often than not you cannot afford to keep them.

I disagree for today’s NHL; because of the current market change for veterans. There a number guys who once upon of time would have found 1.5-2.0 million contracts signing for 660k.

I think you develop down the middle; and have someone who could step up and play on a third line anchor your fourth line and simply pick up near free vets to surround him.

In Calgary’s case a fourth line of:
Glass - Jankowski - Chiasson

Would likely be more effective than the current (most frequent):
Glass - Stajan - Brouwer

There’s no need to take ‘safe bets’ a la Bouma anymore in my opinion. Guys should show that they have high level skill in junior and in a perfect world could have a shot at being an impact NHLer.

It doesn’t take much proof.
Look at our current home grown, non obvious picks (Monahan, Chucky, Bennett). At 17/18 years old:
Gaudreau; tiny package, elite level skill.
Brodie; amazing skater, put up great numbers on an average team.
Backlund; thought to have elite offensive ability.
Ferland; was a dominant WHL player, along with being physical could score and fight with anyone.
Kulak; great skating, good offensive upside.

Like, there’s no guys we’re dressing anyone who were good NHL bets; Bouma, Wotherspoon, Smith, Kanzig, etc etc have gone the way of the dodo. If while drafting the thought is: he’ll make a good bottom pairing guy... he shouldn’t be drafted.

 

[Lunatik]

I disagree for today’s NHL; because of the current market change for veterans. There a number guys who once upon of time would have found 1.5-2.0 million contracts signing for 660k.

I think you develop down the middle; and have someone who could step up and play on a third line anchor your fourth line and simply pick up near free vets to surround him.

In Calgary’s case a fourth line of:
Glass - Jankowski - Chiasson

Would likely be more effective than the current (most frequent):
Glass - Stajan - Brouwer

There’s no need to take ‘safe bets’ a la Bouma anymore in my opinion. Guys should show that they have high level skill in junior and in a perfect world could have a shot at being an impact NHLer.

It doesn’t take much proof.
Look at our current home grown, non obvious picks (Monahan, Chucky, Bennett). At 17/18 years old:
Gaudreau; tiny package, elite level skill.
Brodie; amazing skater, put up great numbers on an average team.
Backlund; thought to have elite offensive ability.
Ferland; was a dominant WHL player, along with being physical could score and fight with anyone.
Kulak; great skating, good offensive upside.

Like, there’s no guys we’re dressing anyone who were good NHL bets; Bouma, Wotherspoon, Smith, Kanzig, etc etc have gone the way of the dodo. If while drafting the thought is: he’ll make a good bottom pairing guy... he shouldn’t be drafted.

That's some revisionist history there Volica. Or probably more so the fact you have hindsight, which skews perspective.

When drafted...
Brodie was coming off a 30 point season. He didn't put up great numbers until his draft +1 season.
Backlund was a more safe pick than you make it sound as he only dropped in the draft due to a knee injury in his draft year; plus he was always known to be a good two-way guy.
Ferland had 9 goals, 28 points and 85 PIMs in his draft year, he wasn't drafted to be a scorer. He was drafted because he pounded the shit out of his opponents.
Kulak only had 24 points in his draft year and had played solid defensively for the Giants. He was a safer pick.

I also don't think you draft a guy thinking "oh he can play 4th line, he could be a 3rd pair guy". They draft guys with a combination of skillsets. Look at the Flames 2012 draft and it is exactly what I mean.

- Jankowski, big skilled center but a long term project.
- Sieloff, hard hitting, defensive defenseman.
- Gillies, big athletic goaltender.
- Kulak, all around defenseman with some size.
- Culkin, offensive minded defenseman.
- Gordon, high scoring winger with size.
- DeBlouw, defensive center.

Janko, Gillies and Kulak all were good picks. I still believe if injuries hadn't completely derailed their development than Sieloff and Culkin would be ahead of Kulak. Gordon and DeBlouw are busts but generally that is the case for 6th and 7th round picks.

 

[FerklundCGY]

What a load of ****. The top teams almost always develop their own 4th liners, they leave when they've earned a larger payday.

And no one think oh I need to draft a 4th liner, they weigh the players potential, the players floor and the likelihood of them reaching that potential. They also look for guys with different varieties of skills.

The only reason to go into a draft looking to draft players that can play on your 4th line a couple years down the road is to say that they were homegrown. There's literally no reason to draft someone to be a 4th line player in a couple years.

If you're drafting a high end talent or someone you think has a ton of potential but ends up being a 4th liner than sure, at least you were still drafting them for their talent. But if you're literally drafting players to fill out your 4th line over the years than good luck finding any success.

 

[Flames Fanatic]

The only reason to go into a draft looking to draft players that can play on your 4th line a couple years down the road is to say that they were homegrown. There's literally no reason to draft someone to be a 4th line player in a couple years.

If you're drafting a high end talent or someone you think has a ton of potential but ends up being a 4th liner than sure, at least you were still drafting them for their talent. But if you're literally drafting players to fill out your 4th line over the years than good luck finding any success.

Or it's getting so late in the draft that you have a guy with a 1% chance to be an middle six forward, or a 20% chance to be a 4th liner, you probably take the 20% chance.

I'm all for taking the Phillips, Mangipane's, Foxes, etc of the world. But at some point a scout can look at a guy and say "I will stake my career that this guy will not be an NHL player, but I would give it a coin toss this guy could be a 4th line mucker", you can comfortably take the mucker.

 

[FerklundCGY]

Or it's getting so late in the draft that you have a guy with a 1% chance to be an middle six forward, or a 20% chance to be a 4th liner, you probably take the 20% chance.

I'm all for taking the Phillips, Mangipane's, Foxes, etc of the world. But at some point a scout can look at a guy and say "I will stake my career that this guy will not be an NHL player, but I would give it a coin toss this guy could be a 4th line mucker", you can comfortably take the mucker.

If scouts didn't do their job good enough over the course of the last 3-4 years leading up to the draft and can't identify talent into the later rounds than they shouldn't be employed.

 

[Flames Fanatic]

If scouts didn't do their job good enough over the course of the last 3-4 years leading up to the draft and can't identify talent into the later rounds than they shouldn't be employed.

I'm not sure that is a fair assessment. Some years, there legitimately just isn't 217 players worth drafting.

 

[FerklundCGY]

I'm not sure that is a fair assessment. Some years, there legitimately just isn't 217 players worth drafting.

Here are the players drafted in the 7th round since 2000 until 2011 that have played over 200 NHL games:

Henrik Lundqvist
Matthew Lombardi
Paul Gaustad
Antti Miettinen
Derek Boogaard
Cristobal Huet
David Moss
Johnny Oduya
Marek Svatos
Joe Pavelski
Kyle Brodziak
Troy Brouwer
Matt Hunwick
Chris Campoli
Joe Vitali
Sergei Kostitsyn
Colin Greening
Anton Stralman
Patric Hornqvist
Derek Dorsett
Erik Condra
Carl Gunnarsson
Justin Braun
Jason Demers
Matt Bartkowski
Erik Haula
Jordan Nolan
Ondrej Palat

That's 28 players that were drafted in the 7th round over the course of 12 drafts that went on to have solid careers. The bolded are the players that (in my opinion) have been 4th line forwards or #6-#7 D for the majority of their careers.

As you can clearly see, not only are their very few players drafted in the 7th round that carved out careers as a "4th line mucker", the number of really good quality players far outnumbers those so-called muckers.

If you're drafting players to fill out your 4th line in the 7th round over players that have even a 7% (28players/12yrs=2.33per draft.... 2.33/30=7%) chance of becoming a quality player than you're setting yourself up for failure

 

[OvermanKingGainer]

That's some revisionist history there Volica.

Ferland had 9 goals, 28 points and 85 PIMs in his draft year, he wasn't drafted to be a scorer. He was drafted because he pounded the **** out of his opponents.

That's revisionist history actually. Ferland was buried on the bottom of the roster in Brandon and Calgary's scouts believed there was more there than the numbers showed.

Here's a quote from Tod Button, from that draft:

"[Ferland] is an inexperienced player. He played Midget AA and we knew about him then because he was a scorer. He went to Brandon which is a good team and didn't play much. It was a big jump for him. A good learning experience. If he does the proper conditioning over the summer...he has a chance to play in their top six."

That sounds like a player who they felt had a lot of "upside" flags and that he could go onto to score a shade under 50 goals and 95+ points a couple years later was probably something they projected or anticipated to some extent.

Just like how last year, his play with Gaudreau and Monahan was something anticipated by Hartley when he said he had All Star potential, and by Conroy saying he had 20 goal potential.

Kulak only had 24 points in his draft year and had played solid defensively for the Giants. He was a safer pick.

Button also said something similar about Kulak after that particular draft:

"Kulak and (Ryan) Culkin are very similar players. Both are puck-moving, steady defencemen. We think Kulak has more offence to give. And Culkin can play any situation — a shut-down guy or join the rush."

Additionally, Kulak grew about 3" his draft year which affected his strength as he was a pencil. Not like he was a physically safe bet.

 

[Lunatik]

You mean to tell me the head scout hypes up draft picks? You could find that same shit said about practically any draft pick.

 

[Volica]

That's some revisionist history there Volica. Or probably more so the fact you have hindsight, which skews perspective.

First.
Rich. All I'm going to say.

When drafted...
Brodie was coming off a 30 point season. He didn't put up great numbers until his draft +1 season.
Backlund was a more safe pick than you make it sound as he only dropped in the draft due to a knee injury in his draft year; plus he was always known to be a good two-way guy.
Ferland had 9 goals, 28 points and 85 PIMs in his draft year, he wasn't drafted to be a scorer. He was drafted because he pounded the **** out of his opponents.
Kulak only had 24 points in his draft year and had played solid defensively for the Giants. He was a safer pick.

Next. Incorrect.
Brodie was coming off a 30 point season as the highest scoring defenceman on a fairly weak Saginaw team loaded with young Dmen. I know you really wouldn't fact check or anything, not your style; but the guy was playing top minutes only behind an overager.

Backlund was being pegged as a scoring and PP guy after his showing at the U-18. He was the leading scorer at that tournament and increased his stock. He was a top European skater (2 I think?); while I think he may have pegged himself as 'two-way forward' I think most people were looking at his offensive output especially at the U-18s (read NHL scouting reports on him, they're hard to find); that and he was far and away the BPA at 24. He was riddled with injury and a question mark (hence falling to 24), this wasn't a 'safe pick' by any stretch.

Kulak was playing top 4 at the age of 16/17. That's a value pick, not a safe pick. They were hoping to get him to that level in the NHL; not to be a bottom pair safety pick.

Ferland, see above.

I also don't think you draft a guy thinking "oh he can play 4th line, he could be a 3rd pair guy". They draft guys with a combination of skillsets. Look at the Flames 2012 draft and it is exactly what I mean.

- Jankowski, big skilled center but a long term project.
- Sieloff, hard hitting, defensive defenseman.
- Gillies, big athletic goaltender.
- Kulak, all around defenseman with some size.
- Culkin, offensive minded defenseman.
- Gordon, high scoring winger with size.
- DeBlouw, defensive center.

Janko, Gillies and Kulak all were good picks. I still believe if injuries hadn't completely derailed their development than Sieloff and Culkin would be ahead of Kulak. Gordon and DeBlouw are busts but generally that is the case for 6th and 7th round picks.

Also, you just made my point; so I'm not sure why you're so quick to try and show how wrong I am (not that it's surprising). The 2012 draft is perfect example of what I'm trying to discuss. They took 7 picks, all of 1 (their throwaway pick) was a safe one.
Jankowski was a pure gamble.
Sieloff was a guy who was playing huge minutes in the USHL in a major role. His mix of skating and physicality wasn't a typical bottom pairing safety pick.
Goalies don't mean much because they're pure gambles.
Kulak was playing top 4 minutes as a kid, you're hoping to get more of that.
Culkin was a good skating who was playing top 4 for his team. Again, same as Kulak; these are value picks.
Gordon, same thing. Kid who scored 30 goals as a 17 year old. Value pick.

I think you missed the point, for the sake to try and argue. I'm pointing more at drafts like:
2002-2010 (clearly there are some exceptions) but there are names on this list that were literally grinders on their team being picked with 3rd rounders.

Even to your point; picks like Kanzig, Smith, Harrison, etc... what combination of anything do these guys have. Big isn't a combination of anything.

 

[FerklundCGY]

You mean to tell me the head scout hypes up draft picks? You could find that same **** said about practically any draft pick.

You made an awful point and were proven wrong many times. Own up to it.

 

[Lunatik]

You made an awful point and were proven wrong many times. Own up to it.

It's opinions, how is that proving me wrong? Look up any Flames draft pick, they always hype them up to be more.

 

[OvermanKingGainer]

"Ferland was a scorer" - the person who drafted Ferland
"Ferland wasn't drafted to be a scorer" - person on a message board