Prospect Info: 2023 NHL Draft

[ChicagoBlues]

He’s only 26

He’s only 26 and can barely finish eating a baby.

He needs to go now.

 

[Blueston]

If we can get good value in the trade market for Barbashev we should sell him. You don't build your team around 3rd/4th liners. You use those 3rd and 4th liners to support your 1st and 2nd liners.

Barbie is more valuable than typical bottom 6er. He can play comfortably as supporting player in top 6, plays either center or wing, kills penalties, can pretty much play in any situation. Now he doesn't create much offense on his own and isn't likely to approach last year's numbers again, but if you can resign him at a decent number I would do so. Especially if we deal 90 and 91 for picks. There is value in having homegrown players who have won here and worked their way up lineup. It's part of how culture of team stays intact even as roster turns over.

 

[542365]

Excited from what I've read about this draft. I don't see the Blues being competitive for several more seasons, but if they can hit a homerun or two in this draft that could go a long way towards rebuilding on the fly. Best way out of this mess quickly is moving the Krug, Parayko, and Binnington contracts, but that seems unlikely. You might be able to find a dinosaur GM who would bite on Parayko, but the other two are stuck here unless we retain, which defeats the purpose of moving their deals. Have to be in the mindset of stockpiling picks and prospects the next couple of years while we wait for these deals to expire/become smaller and more palatable to other teams. Hanging on to guys like Barbie, ROR, Tarasenko only applies a bandaid to a gunshot wound. It hurts us in the long run and only marginally helps us in the short term. Just rip it off and lets get to work.

 

[Davimir Tarablad]

Everyone in the bottom 9 of the league has a greater than 10% chance of picking in the top 2. 10th-to-last has a 7.3% chance.

Not great odds, but you're in the running if your pre-lotto pick would fall into that 5-10 range.

 

[LGB]

If Barbie's demands are reasonable I think we should just sign him to a shorter term contract. If we're trading some guys for futures we need to fill the lineup. Should still be able to move him in the future if we wanted to.

 

[Brian39]

Even in a rebuild, I would love to re-sign Barby for a reasonable number. He was my favorite prospect for years and he is one of my favorite players on the team. He can positively contribute to an NHL lineup in any role/position you put him on a 2nd, 3rd or 4th line.

However, I don't see why he would have any interest in staying for a a below-market value deal. After his season last year, he has every reason to hit the market and try to sell his services at the rate of a legit top 6 player. His 49 even strength points last season was tied for 51st among NHL forwards. He was tied with Conor Garland, William Nylander, and Sam Reinhart, all of whom make at least $4.95M per year with term. Zibanejad, Hintz, Kuznetsov, and Kreider were all 70+ point guys who scored fewer even strength points than him.

Last year was the first season where he got genuine middle/top 6 minutes and he absolutely crushed it at even strength. However, he couldn't get consistent PP2 usage (14th on the team in PP TOI per game and 11th in total PP minutes). He's getting PP2 usage this year and isn't doing much with it. However, his even strength usage is down a bit and he is largely back to 3rd line duty.

I'd be shocked if he doesn't see himself as a top 6 player who could earn top 6 money and term. He should be selling himself as a top 6 forward in the UFA market and if he doesn't get offered a contract as such then he should be playing on a 1-2 year deal that comes with assurance that he will get 17 minutes a night with legit PP unit usage. I don't want to give him top 6 money/term and he has no reason to believe that his usage would suddenly change on the Blues next season. Barby should be trying to get $25M+ this summer and if he can't get it he should be exploring the marketplace to see if a team like Colorado, Tampa, Vegas, Edmonton, etc is interested in a cheap 1 year deal that puts him riding shotgun on a top end 1st or 2nd line.

It's not that I don't want to keep Barby. It's that I don't see why he would want to stick around unless we give him a contract well beyond what he's contributed in his 7 years as a Blue. I don't want to give him $20M+ and he owes it to himself to try and maximize his earnings through the rest of his 20s and early 30s.

 

[PocketNines]

One of the things I remember about the Cup year from the eye test was the sheer volume of Barbashev own zone turnovers. What I remember most about them is that Binnington absolutely saved Barbashev more than any other player, and so these turnovers were quickly forgotten. Barbashev was contributing and playing effectively otherwise but it was really noticeable compared to other forwards how often the puck would pop off the wall away from Barbashev and onto a player's stick in the slot for a point blank opportunity. "Barbashev is secretly awful defensively" has been a thought I've held. Then I recall seeing stats last year showing him as one of the worst defensive players among scoring forwards in the league.

All this is to say that while I do like Barbashev, the Blues have only one identity at this point of the 22-23 season and it's a team that relentlessly gives the puck away in its own zone. This identity is a non-starter for competing. It's by no means just him, and I wouldn't even say he stands out to me watching them this year. (It's a pleasant surprise any time Faulk or Mikkola can actually clear the zone if the opposition is trying to keep it in). The Blues have to become a team that clears their zone if they are even going to pretend gesture in the direction of the Cup. If they do not extend Barbashev I will have mixed feelings because of the defensive liabilities.

 

[Blueston]

One of the things I remember about the Cup year from the eye test was the sheer volume of Barbashev own zone turnovers. What I remember most about them is that Binnington absolutely saved Barbashev more than any other player, and so these turnovers were quickly forgotten. Barbashev was contributing and playing effectively otherwise but it was really noticeable compared to other forwards how often the puck would pop off the wall away from Barbashev and onto a player's stick in the slot for a point blank opportunity. "Barbashev is secretly awful defensively" has been a thought I've held. Then I recall seeing stats last year showing him as one of the worst defensive players among scoring forwards in the league.

All this is to say that while I do like Barbashev, the Blues have only one identity at this point of the 22-23 season and it's a team that relentlessly gives the puck away in its own zone. This identity is a non-starter for competing. It's by no means just him, and I wouldn't even say he stands out to me watching them this year. (It's a pleasant surprise any time Faulk or Mikkola can actually clear the zone if the opposition is trying to keep it in). The Blues have to become a team that clears their zone if they are even going to pretend gesture in the direction of the Cup. If they do not extend Barbashev I will have mixed feelings because of the defensive liabilities.

He has in the past struggled defensively, especially at center, but seems that he has been much better defensively this year.

 

[oPlaiD]

One of the things I remember about the Cup year from the eye test was the sheer volume of Barbashev own zone turnovers. What I remember most about them is that Binnington absolutely saved Barbashev more than any other player, and so these turnovers were quickly forgotten. Barbashev was contributing and playing effectively otherwise but it was really noticeable compared to other forwards how often the puck would pop off the wall away from Barbashev and onto a player's stick in the slot for a point blank opportunity. "Barbashev is secretly awful defensively" has been a thought I've held. Then I recall seeing stats last year showing him as one of the worst defensive players among scoring forwards in the league.

All this is to say that while I do like Barbashev, the Blues have only one identity at this point of the 22-23 season and it's a team that relentlessly gives the puck away in its own zone. This identity is a non-starter for competing. It's by no means just him, and I wouldn't even say he stands out to me watching them this year. (It's a pleasant surprise any time Faulk or Mikkola can actually clear the zone if the opposition is trying to keep it in). The Blues have to become a team that clears their zone if they are even going to pretend gesture in the direction of the Cup. If they do not extend Barbashev I will have mixed feelings because of the defensive liabilities.

Barbashev has always had poor possession numbers and defensive numbers compared to his teammates.

I feel like he's one of those players whose on-ice impact is worse than it appears at a glance because he's involved in the more noticeable types of plays, like shots and hits. But you might not notice he was making that hit because he was out of position or made a poor play with the puck.

He had great numbers on the scoresheet last year, but I never felt like he was really a driver of much of his own success and benefit greatly from playing with skilled linemates in a mismatch situation thanks to our incredible forward depth last year.

All that said he's been a great player for us in the role we've had for him, but he's definitely not a player I'd look to sign, especially if his numbers last year have a big impact on his future contract.

 

[STL fan in MN]

In a vacuum, I’d love to keep Barbashev. He’s an effective support player that is versatile.

But I think the odds of him playing for the Blues again next season are low. My guess is that the Blues value him a good chunk lower than what Barbashev will be able to get on the free market. This is likely Barby’s one shot in his career to truly cash in. I expect him to take that shot.

That said, my opinion is based on an assumption. Army has obviously had convos with Barby/his agent so very likely knows where things stand and how likely it is they are able to agree to a contract extension.

If the Blues go into sell mode in Feb/March, if I was Army, I’d try to re-sign who I wanted to keep. But if those players don’t re-sign then, then I’d look to trade pretty much every pending UFA. That may be hard with ROR and Tarasenko as they have NTCs but Barby doesn’t have that protection.

 

[Brian39]

That may be hard with ROR and Tarasenko as they have NTCs but Barby doesn’t have that protection.

ROR has zero trade protection.

His contract is absolutely perfect to trade as a rental. The $7.5M AAV isn't all that high, he can't veto a trade to any team and his salary is only $1M so retaining 50% requires almost no financial hit for ownership beyond the bonus check that they wrote him over the summer. If the receiving team needs to find a 3rd team to retain more for cap purposes, that team would be shelling out very, very little money.

 

[Mike Liut]

I’d like to get a decent prospect along with a 1st for ROR and Tarasenko and 2nds for Barbs and Mikkola.

 

[Memento]

Okay, I understand that the top guys (Bedard, Fantilli, Michkov) are as good as at least 2015, but I want to know how deep this class overall is. I've heard that it's shades of 2003, but I'm not entirely sure myself.

If it's a deep class, I'd be fine with dealing Tarasenko and O'Reilly for picks, maybe even Barbashev, Mikkola, and Greiss for extra picks; we definitely need a jolt to our prospect pool when Neighbours and Alexandrov eventually graduate this year and when Bolduc and Snuggerud graduate in the near future.

As for thoughts one which players will be available when we pick, I have yet to get into it, so I won't embarrass myself further.

 

[STL fan in MN]

ROR has zero trade protection.

His contract is absolutely perfect to trade as a rental. The $7.5M AAV isn't all that high, he can't veto a trade to any team and his salary is only $1M so retaining 50% requires almost no financial hit for ownership beyond the bonus check that they wrote him over the summer. If the receiving team needs to find a 3rd team to retain more for cap purposes, that team would be shelling out very, very little money.

Damn, you’re right. How did Tim Murray get ROR to sign a 7-year deal with absolutely no trade protection?!

 

[Brian39]

Damn, you’re right. How did Tim Murray get ROR to sign a 7-year deal with absolutely no trade protection?!

Lots of money.

He made ROR the 5th highest paid center in the league coming off a 55 point season before he ever played a game in Buffalo. At the time that contract was signed, ROR had played at a 55 point pace for 3 of his previous 4 seasons. The lone outlier saw him play at a 65 point pace. He was building his reputation as a great shut down center, but he hadn't yet become the elite faceoff man, hadn't gotten into the top 3 of Selke voting, and was still well shy of the player Bergeron was in 2015.

Despite that, Buffalo gave him almost the same cap percentage Bergeron got as a 27 year old in 2013 coming off the Bruins' 2nd trip to the Cup Final in 3 years. Due to cap increases, the actual AAV was about $700k a year more than Bergeron got.

On top of giving him an AAV fit for a legit top 10 NHL center before he had actualized as that, they also front loaded the deal and made it almost exclusively signing bonus money. $45.5M of the $52.5M total value was paid out via signing bonus and he made $28.5M real dollars in the first 3 years of the deal.

ROR's on ice play grew into that deal and the cap increasing by $10M by year 4 of the deal helped age it very well. But it was above market value at the time it was signed. ROR got himself out of Colorado because he felt they weren't valuing him appropriately and he then signed a deal that prioritized his earnings over stability in his new city.

Edit: this was also during the time where NTCs and NMCs that hadn't kicked in yet could be voided by the receiving team in a trade. He wasn't eligible for trade protection in his first year in Buffalo, so they theoretically could have traded him to a team that would then refuse to honor the clause. Probably not a huge factor in his decision, but trade protection clauses didn't used to be as valuable for young guys than they are now.

 

[Mike Liut]

Is the 8OA going to be a difference maker? I’m not sure, but hopefully he’s a stud. And a couple late 1sts and a 2nd and maybe a good prospect.

I don’t see next years team being any better. Probably a top 10 also.

We need to hit on these picks

 

[Brockon]

Okay, I understand that the top guys (Bedard, Fantilli, Michkov) are as good as at least 2015, but I want to know how deep this class overall is. I've heard that it's shades of 2003, but I'm not entirely sure myself.

If it's a deep class, I'd be fine with dealing Tarasenko and O'Reilly for picks, maybe even Barbashev, Mikkola, and Greiss for extra picks; we definitely need a jolt to our prospect pool when Neighbours and Alexandrov eventually graduate this year and when Bolduc and Snuggerud graduate in the near future.

As for thoughts one which players will be available when we pick, I have yet to get into it, so I won't embarrass myself further.

I've also heard Leo Carlsson is making moves up the standings and is trending towards a top 5 selection that would have easily gone in the top 3 in most other draft years.

Last year at 16 he got
35gp 3-6-9 in the SHL

This year he's put up
21gp 2-11-13 in the SHL

Those are pretty impressive numbers for any top tier men's league for a U-18 player coming into the NHL draft.

I can't speak to the overall draft depth, but I certainly know that the top end is drawing a bunch of attention.

 

[Brian39]

Okay, I understand that the top guys (Bedard, Fantilli, Michkov) are as good as at least 2015, but I want to know how deep this class overall is. I've heard that it's shades of 2003, but I'm not entirely sure myself.

If it's a deep class, I'd be fine with dealing Tarasenko and O'Reilly for picks, maybe even Barbashev, Mikkola, and Greiss for extra picks; we definitely need a jolt to our prospect pool when Neighbours and Alexandrov eventually graduate this year and when Bolduc and Snuggerud graduate in the near future.

As for thoughts one which players will be available when we pick, I have yet to get into it, so I won't embarrass myself further.

It is supposed to be deep.

Scott Wheeler made sure to include depth as part of his rationale in comparing it to 2015: The class of 2023 is shaping up to be a special one. This draft will be my 10th doing this work and I believe it has a real chance to challenge 2015 as the best age group I’ve scouted to date, led by a stellar — and deep — collection of high-end forwards and three A-plus prospects at the very top.

Corey Pronman described it as 5-8 prospects deeper than usual: After you get past the top four players, the draft looks a little deeper than your typical pool. At this time of year I usually have 25-28 players with high grades on my list; as of now I’m at 33.

I don't think that the depth is as impressive as the collection of talent at the very top, but everything I've seen and heard suggests that it is a good year to have any pick in the 1st round. We've had 8 picks between 17-35 in the last 7 years. We picked Kyrou, Thompson, Thomas, Kostin, Bokk, Neighbours, Bolduc, Snuggy. The jury is still very out on the last 3, but that is a 60% big success rate in the previous 5.

Bolduc and Snuggy both seem to be developing nicely and if just one of the 3 current 1st round prospects turns into a legit top 6 guy, that's a 50% big success rate at turning mid-late 1sts into true difference makers. I'll take those odds even if the draft is only slightly deeper than usual.

On a related note, Yzerman seems to love all of my favorite players and they currently hold our 2nd rounder that might wind up in the top 40. If they stay in the hunt and we fall out, I wouldn't mind prying that pick back from them in a deal for Barbie. I don't think he's worth quite a 1st rounder as a rental (especially if there are tons of sellers in the market), but I would also like more than a pick in the 50s. Splitting the difference would be nice.

I also like the trade the Coyotes made last year with their surplus of late 1sts and early 2nds. They packaged the #27, #34, and #45 for the #11 and used it to pick Connor Geekie. If we're not as bullish on the depth of the draft but acquired a few picks in the 25-50 range, you can try to package them and snag that last top 10(ish) guy on your board.

All in all, this would be a great year to have 4 or 5 picks in the first couple rounds. If things don't change by a noticeable margin, we should move anyone who isn't in the plans to be here next year.

 

[PocketNines]

Under a scenario where they trade all 4 UFAs for reasonable prices* and drop a bit in the standings and get jumped by only one team in the lottery, we'd be looking at these assets for a retool:

– 8th overall pick (they're 10th now, they might drop to 7th, get jumped by one lottery winner)
– 20-something pick
– 20-something pick
– 50-something pick
– 50-something pick
– a couple of short-term serviceable Sanfords

*Reasonable prices
1st + Sanford caliber forward for ROR
1st + Sanford caliber forward for Tarasenko
2d for Barbashev
2d for Mikkola

This is probably a conservative idea of what the 4 UFAs would return. Maybe ROR can get a 1st + really good prospect when someone panics. Maybe Detroit offers our 2d rounder (low 40s) instead of a 50-something return. There's always the puncher's chance to snag a top 3 pick, which would land a franchise caliber player. It's a nice fantasy to think of getting a top 3 franchise forward and then hitting on both of the 20-something picks.

Fun fact of the day: the Blues drafted the 11th and 13th highest scoring forwards from the 2003 draft.

 

[LGB]

It's not going to happen, but we should be embracing the tank ASAP. This team is not a contender. If we wait until the TDL we'll end up with like the 12th pick rather than potentially a top 7 pick.

 

[Mike Liut]

It's not going to happen, but we should be embracing the tank ASAP. This team is not a contender. If we wait until the TDL we'll end up with like the 12th pick rather than potentially a top 7 pick.

Yup. But I’m afraid Army is going to wait and hope the team catches fire and squeaks into the playoffs……

Only to lose in rd 1.

 

[DatDude44]

I would do regrettable things to get Leo Carlsson in a blue note…..

Don’t get me started on Bedard…..

 

[TheOrganist]

Lots of money.

He made ROR the 5th highest paid center in the league coming off a 55 point season before he ever played a game in Buffalo. At the time that contract was signed, ROR had played at a 55 point pace for 3 of his previous 4 seasons. The lone outlier saw him play at a 65 point pace. He was building his reputation as a great shut down center, but he hadn't yet become the elite faceoff man, hadn't gotten into the top 3 of Selke voting, and was still well shy of the player Bergeron was in 2015.

Despite that, Buffalo gave him almost the same cap percentage Bergeron got as a 27 year old in 2013 coming off the Bruins' 2nd trip to the Cup Final in 3 years. Due to cap increases, the actual AAV was about $700k a year more than Bergeron got.

On top of giving him an AAV fit for a legit top 10 NHL center before he had actualized as that, they also front loaded the deal and made it almost exclusively signing bonus money. $45.5M of the $52.5M total value was paid out via signing bonus and he made $28.5M real dollars in the first 3 years of the deal.

ROR's on ice play grew into that deal and the cap increasing by $10M by year 4 of the deal helped age it very well. But it was above market value at the time it was signed. ROR got himself out of Colorado because he felt they weren't valuing him appropriately and he then signed a deal that prioritized his earnings over stability in his new city.

Edit: this was also during the time where NTCs and NMCs that hadn't kicked in yet could be voided by the receiving team in a trade. He wasn't eligible for trade protection in his first year in Buffalo, so they theoretically could have traded him to a team that would then refuse to honor the clause. Probably not a huge factor in his decision, but trade protection clauses didn't used to be as valuable for young guys than they are now.

How do you just rattle off information like this in every post? You have to had worked in the NHL in some capacity.

Under a scenario where they trade all 4 UFAs for reasonable prices* and drop a bit in the standings and get jumped by only one team in the lottery, we'd be looking at these assets for a retool:

– 8th overall pick (they're 10th now, they might drop to 7th, get jumped by one lottery winner)
– 20-something pick
– 20-something pick
– 50-something pick
– 50-something pick
– a couple of short-term serviceable Sanfords

*Reasonable prices
1st + Sanford caliber forward for ROR
1st + Sanford caliber forward for Tarasenko
2d for Barbashev
2d for Mikkola

This is probably a conservative idea of what the 4 UFAs would return. Maybe ROR can get a 1st + really good prospect when someone panics. Maybe Detroit offers our 2d rounder (low 40s) instead of a 50-something return. There's always the puncher's chance to snag a top 3 pick, which would land a franchise caliber player. It's a nice fantasy to think of getting a top 3 franchise forward and then hitting on both of the 20-something picks.

Fun fact of the day: the Blues drafted the 11th and 13th highest scoring forwards from the 2003 draft.

I have to be honest: I’m stunned that Lee Stempniak had almost 500 career points.

 

[ChicagoBlues]

How do you just rattle off information like this in every post? You have to had worked in the NHL in some capacity.

He doesn't. He's mentioned that he avidly peruses relevant websites during his downtime at work.

We all certainly appreciate the diligence and the time spent navigating and becoming comfortable with those sites.

 

[TheOrganist]

He doesn't. He's mentioned that he avidly peruses relevant websites during his downtime at work.

We all certainly appreciate the diligence and the time spent navigating and becoming comfortable with those sites.

Right. And Tony Soprano worked for Barone Sanitation.