Prospect Info: Flames prospect rankings: #8 RUN-OFF POLL

[Lunatik]

Lol sorry for locking this.

that is some top notch moderating AS

 

[Tkachuk Norris]

Yep. Great season. 9 points in the AHL... And I'm the one 'making things up' LMAO

 

[RedHot]

Klimchuk had a bad year. Why is that so hard for some posters to say?

 

[Ace Rimmer]

Yep. Great season. 9 points in the AHL... And I'm the one 'making things up' LMAO

Yes.

He's never produced at the AHL level, or Prospect tourneys, or anytime he's played at a higher level.

His one full season in the AHL was not great. I concede that this statement is accurate, given his storied 59 AHL game career.

Producing at the junior level is meaningless to me.

Is it?
Then why do you bother to follow up with this?

His production never increased really from his draft year. That's a concern.

(I know the answer... confirmation bias)

He's not at all a great skater.

This has been beaten to death already, it just re-affirms your level of knowledge of the player.

I expect little guys to be fast.

6 feet tall is a "little guy" now? When did that change?

 

[Lunatik]

Klimchuk had a bad year. Why is that so hard for some posters to say?

It was poor offensively. It was not "bad". Some of us know there is more to the game than just point production though.

 

[Tkachuk Norris]

^ wow Ace. Lost a lot of respect for you in that post. I'm not making stuff up. Klimmer isn't that good. Try throwing it into my face when the guy has done anything noteworthy...

Just keep listening to the guy that thought the Backlund contract was horrible. The guy who has spent 1000s of messages defending Joe Colbourne, Morgan Klimchuk, Brandon Bollig, Matt Stajan, Derek Engelland. Saying it was smart to release Paul Byron. Saying that Hiller is better then Ramo or Ortio. He's clearly a hockey genius

You guys are right. Klimchuk is awesome wow.

 

[Tkachuk Norris]

Also it's really funny that last offseason I was 'making stuff up about Klimchuk'.... And then he proceeded to have his 9 point season where he looked largely out of place.

 

[InfinityIggy]

^ wow Ace. Lost a lot of respect for you in that post. I'm not making stuff up. Klimmer isn't that good. Try throwing it into my face when the guy has done anything noteworthy...

Why? He clearly points out contradictions in your argument.

 

[OvermanKingGainer]

Yeah even before his AHL rookie season I wasn't really all that high on Klimchuk. I just don't see what separates him from your typical AHL/NHL tweener.

Size? nope. He's 5'11.5" and not the heaviest body on that frame.
Footspeed? nope. He's unable to create any real separation from opposing skaters.
Skill? Does his skill, even if he puts up better AHL stats, separate him from a Kenny Agostino or Max Reinhart type tweener? I think there's some skill there, but I don't think he was ever as skilled as a guy like Granlund or Baertschi.

Basically Klimchuk's selling point is "work ethic". I'd rather have a guy who adds something useful to that work ethic like Hathaway (Size) or Byron (Speed) or Shinkaruk (Skill).

 

[InfinityIggy]

Yeah even before his AHL rookie season I wasn't really all that high on Klimchuk. I just don't see what separates him from your typical AHL/NHL tweener. Size? nope. Footspeed? nope. Skill? Does his skill, even if he puts up better AHL stats, separate him from a Kenny Agostino or Max Reinhart type tweener?

Basically Klimchuk's selling point is "work ethic". I'd rather have a guy who adds something useful to that work ethic like Hathaway (Size) or Byron (Speed) or Shinkaruk (Skill).

For me personally, the reason I have always been 'high' on Klimchuk is that he has never been 'bad' at any facet of his game. It's true, he lacks elite qualities but he seemed so well-rounded as a player in junior. I have always thought he could become a player like Lee Stempniak.

It's true his production in the AHL this season is a concern. As has been pointed out though, he was under utilized by Huska, mostly in third-line and PK roles.

I want to see how he performs this year in the AHL. If his poor production continues then I would concede that he is likely not an NHL player. I have faith he is going to have a good year though.

 

[Tkachuk Norris]

Why? He clearly points out contradictions in your argument.

No he basically questioned my credibility and said i made things up. If you think he's good. And a fast skater. Good for you. You're entitled to your opinion. But to say I'm just blatantly making stuff up is just low.

I don't think Klimchuk is that great. Simple as that. If he turns out to be, great. But anyone that thinks a nine point season in the AHL from a sub 6 ft, non physical forward is anything to be excited about. They are kidding themselves.

Anyway. I knew I shouldn't have said anything about Klimchuk as he usually gets me into trouble on this board but I opened my big fat mouth. I won't be posting on Klimchuk until the day we don't re-sign him, or until he makes the NHL. In which time I'll congratulate him for proving the haters (me) wrong. If he turns out to be something good, then throw it in my face and I'll be glad to eat crow.

 

[Ace Rimmer]

^ wow Ace. Lost a lot of respect for you in that post. I'm not making stuff up. Klimmer isn't that good. Try throwing it into my face when the guy has done anything noteworthy...

Just keep listening to the guy that thought the Backlund contract was horrible. The guy who has spent 1000s of messages defending Joe Colbourne, Morgan Klimchuk, Brandon Bollig, Matt Stajan, Derek Engelland. Saying it was smart to release Paul Byron. Saying that Hiller is better then Ramo or Ortio. He's clearly a hockey genius

You guys are right. Klimchuk is awesome wow.

That's a quality deflection from the counter-point to your initial argument, well done.

First off, because I agree with someone you don't like or agree with, doesn't mean that's how I formed my opinion of Klimchuk, or how I value him as a prospect. I just pointed out the statements that you made that are outright fabrications.

There's a middle ground between "awesome" and "isn't that good" and Klimchuk falls somewhere in that range.

 

[InfinityIggy]

No he basically questioned my credibility and said i made things up. If you think he's good. And a fast skater. Good for you. You're entitled to your opinion. But to say I'm just blatantly making stuff up is just low.

I don't think Klimchuk is that great. Simple as that. If he turns out to be, great. But anyone that thinks a nine point season in the AHL from a sub 6 ft, non physical forward is anything to be excited about. They are kidding themselves.

Anyway. I knew I shouldn't have said anything about Klimchuk as he usually gets me into trouble on this board but I opened my big fat mouth. I won't be posting on Klimchuk until the day we don't re-sigh him. If he turns out to be something good, then grow it in my face and I'll be glad to eat crow. But I seriously doubt I see that day happening.

I don't see it that way though. For example you stated that 'producing at the junior level is meaningless to me.', but then also stated that: 'His production never increased really from his draft year. That's a concern.'

That is a genuine contradiction in your statements. I think you should take the opportunity to clarify your opinion there. I don't think you should be cross with Ace for pointing it out.

 

[Anglesmith]

No he basically questioned my credibility and said i made things up. If you think he's good. And a fast skater. Good for you. You're entitled to your opinion. But to say I'm just blatantly making stuff up is just low.

I don't think Klimchuk is that great. Simple as that. If he turns out to be, great. But anyone that thinks a nine point season in the AHL from a sub 6 ft, non physical forward is anything to be excited about. They are kidding themselves.

My understanding is people aren't excited about his season last year, they're excited in spite of it. As long as a prospect isn't stagnating in development or showing attitude concerns, a poor offensive season isn't a huge deal. Shinkaruk had a pretty poor offensive season post-draft, but in the end does that matter? No.

I agree this year is make or break for Klimmer. When he was drafted, I wasn't as excited about him as many were, but I'm willing to wait and see with him like I am with any prospect our scouts pick. Making bold statements and predictions isn't worth the trouble and regret at the end of the day, to me at least.

 

[OvermanKingGainer]

I don't see it that way though. For example you stated that 'producing at the junior level is meaningless to me.', but then also stated that: 'His production never increased really from his draft year. That's a concern.'

That is a genuine contradiction in your statements. I think you should take the opportunity to clarify your opinion there. I don't think you should be cross with Ace for pointing it out.

That's not a contradiction. Statement A refers to the absolute value of Junior stats in evaluation. Statement B refers to the value of a clear upward trend in progression. They are mutually exclusive.

 

[InfinityIggy]

That's not a contradiction. Statement A refers to the absolute value of Junior stats in evaluation. Statement B refers to the value of a clear upward trend in progression. They are mutually exclusive.

It is a contradiction. Making a blanket statement that production in junior is meaningless (thus encompassing all production while in jr, regardless of year), would include production improvements year over year in junior also meaningless because of the fact that production is in junior, and therefor meaningless.

Put another way, if junior stats are meaningless you cannot use them as an indicator of upward progression. Because they are meaningless.

 

[Tkachuk Norris]

I don't see it that way though. For example you stated that 'producing at the junior level is meaningless to me.', but then also stated that: 'His production never increased really from his draft year. That's a concern.'

That is a genuine contradiction in your statements. I think you should take the opportunity to clarify your opinion there. I don't think you should be cross with Ace for pointing it out.

Ok I contradicted myself. Let me clarify. Shouldn't have said junior scoring doesn't matter. Obviously that's false when trying to project prospects. However, my problems were never with Morgan as a junior player. In fact several times I've said he was a great junior player. My problem is just that I don't see him translating to the pros. So I wasn't at all surprised he didn't do well last year.

Concern 1:
Didn't see a large increase in Junior production during his years.

Concern 2:
Fails the eyeball test in prospect tourneys/ camps. Doesn't seem explosive; rarely creates chances. Furthermore, he didn't produce in those tourneys either.

Concern 3:
Struggled to produce offence at the pro level.

Obviously Junior scoring matters. But not every junior scorer moves onto be a good pro. There are multiple concerns I've had with him and hes never done anything to dispel those concerns.

 

[InfinityIggy]

Ok I contradicted myself. Let me clarify. Shouldn't have said junior scoring doesn't matter. Obviously that's false when trying to project prospects. However, my problems were never with Morgan as a junior player. In fact several times I've said he was a great junior player. My problem is just that I don't see him translating to the pros. So I wasn't at all surprised he didn't do well last year.

Concern 1:
Didn't see a large increase in Junior production during his years.

Concern 2:
Fails the eyeball test in prospect tourneys/ camps. Doesn't seem explosive; rarely creates challenge. Furthermore, he didn't produce in those tourneys either.

Concern 3:
Struggled to produce offence at the pro level.

Obviously Junior scoring matters. But not every junior scorer moves onto be a good pro. There are multiple concerns I've had with him and hes never done anything to dispel those concerns.

Thanks for clarifying.

I think all of your concerns are legitimate, I already talked about #3 in an earlier post so I will skip past it.

Regarding his jr production I don't think Klimchuk ever projected as an 'elite' or even 'high level' scoring talent even before being drafted. The reason he was a 1st round selection in my opinion, was that his game was incredibly well rounded for a junior player. I think that is a pretty uncommon trait for players of that age, and it is one of the reasons I was very happy with the selection.

Regarding #2, I agree Klimchuk is not an 'explosive' player. That may be a facet that holds him back from being an NHL player. However I think he makes up for this by being positionally very strong, and playing a 200-foot game. No, he isn't the most physical specimen either, saying he is slightly undersized wouldn't be wrong. Again though I think he plays a more cerebral game than he is given credit for which helps make up for it.

Time will tell though, I agree with others that this is a make or break year for him.

 

[OvermanKingGainer]

However I think he makes up for this by being positionally very strong, and playing a 200-foot game.

Pretty much every 23-29 year old, non top-line forward plays a 200-foot game.

Let me put it like this. Take away draft status, and basically Klimchuk projects to be what Josh Jooris or Freddie Hamilton are. Another name I'll toss out there is Richard Panik. Sure, we'll say that's an NHLer. A strong utility player. A guy who can play up the lineup even. But... not a guy whose value-added really has teams penciling them into their top 9.

 

[InfinityIggy]

Pretty much every 23-29 year old, non top-line forward plays a 200-foot game.

Let me put it like this. Take away draft status, and basically Klimchuk projects to be what Josh Jooris or Freddie Hamilton are. Another name I'll toss out there is Richard Panik. Sure, we'll say that's an NHLer. A strong utility player. A guy who can play up the lineup even. But... not a guy whose value-added really has teams penciling them into their top 9.

So it's a good indicator for success then yes? As the players who are not top line players, and do not play a 200-foot game don't stick in the NHL.

I think your Panik comparable is a reasonable one, although I think Klimchuk has more offensive upside than that. So, yes if Klimchuk becomes similar to Panik he is an NHL player, a utility player ect.

This works both ways though, if we take away draft position Klimchuk turning into a solid, reliable 200-foot bottom 6 player is a success.

Now you may say that with a 1st round pick we should be shooting for top-6 talent and I think that is reasonable. However that is more a discussion about the Flames scouting/drafting policies (at the time) than it is of Klimchuk as a prospect.

 

[OvermanKingGainer]

This works both ways though, if we take away draft position Klimchuk turning into a solid, reliable 200-foot bottom 6 player is a success.

Sure. But not when players showing more are there on the board. Kulak, Wotherspoon, even Ryan Culkin. Then as I mentioned earlier, Garnet Hathaway. Dillon Dube looks like Matthew Lombardi from his Phoenix days. (AKA with Hands). Or a guy like Tuulola.

Really, we're brimming with talent and that's not a knock on Klimchuk. I just see his projection as lagging behind better players. What makes him a better prospect than Linus Lindstrom?

So it's a good indicator for success then yes? As the players who are not top line players, and do not play a 200-foot game don't stick in the NHL.

Yes, but it also means there's a lot of competition. If you have two players who have a two-way game, then do you pick the 5'11.5", 190lb, not-that-fast guy, or do you pick the 6'3", 215lb, just-as-fast guy?

 

[InfinityIggy]

Sure. But not when players showing more are there on the board. Kulak, Wotherspoon, even Ryan Culkin. Then as I mentioned earlier, Garnet Hathaway. Dillon Dube looks like Matthew Lombardi from his Phoenix days. (AKA with Hands)

Really, we're brimming with talent and that's not a knock on Klimchuk. I just see his projection as lagging behind better players.

Well regarding Kulak, Wotherspoon, Culkin we may have to agree to disagree, I see them as #5-#6-#7 D personally. Hathaway whom I really like, is 24. If he sticks in the NHL at this point, which I hope he does he was great last year, it'll likely only be as a 4th line guy. I think Klimchuk still has potential above that level.

I can see the argument for Dube though. Him and Pollock I think are two guys who are flying too low on our radar right now, and they both have real middle-six upside.

 

[Lunatik]

So it's a good indicator for success then yes? As the players who are not top line players, and do not play a 200-foot game don't stick in the NHL.

I think your Panik comparable is a reasonable one, although I think Klimchuk has more offensive upside than that. So, yes if Klimchuk becomes similar to Panik he is an NHL player, a utility player ect.

This works both ways though, if we take away draft position Klimchuk turning into a solid, reliable 200-foot bottom 6 player is a success.

Now you may say that with a 1st round pick we should be shooting for top-6 talent and I think that is reasonable. However that is more a discussion about the Flames scouting/drafting policies (at the time) than it is of Klimchuk as a prospect.

Forwards taken in the back third of the 1st round rarely become top 6 talents, that is one of the biggest problems with some fans and how they evaluate prospects. They get disappointed easily because they have too high of expectations for certain draft positions.

IMO a more realistic way of looking at it is:

1-10: 1st line
11-20: 2nd line
21-30: 3rd line
2nd round: 4th line
3rd Round and later: utility players

 

[OvermanKingGainer]

Well regarding Kulak, Wotherspoon, Culkin we may have to agree to disagree, I see them as #5-#6-#7 D personally.

Um, First of all, a bottom pair two-way D is still more valuable than a bottom line forward like Panik.

Second, Kulak and Wotherspoon both still have #3 and #4 upside respectively. Nothing in their skillsets holds them back from those projections. Heck, Kulak outproduced Klimchuk in less games in the AHL at the same age while playing the less offensive position.

Hathaway whom I really like, is 24.

So? That's only three years older than Klimchuk. In three years what will Klimchuk add that will put him ahead of Hathaway? Their skating is at a similar level, their two-way game is at a similar level, except Hathaway is a total ****-disturber with perfect size and a net-front presence.

 

[Anglesmith]

Forwards taken in the back third of the 1st round rarely become top 6 talents, that is one of the biggest problems with some fans and how they evaluate prospects. They get disappointed easily because they have too high of expectations for certain draft positions.

IMO a more realistic way of looking at it is:

1-10: 1st line
11-20: 2nd line
21-30: 3rd line
2nd round: 4th line
3rd Round and later: utility players

Of course, that's an oversimplification, because players can fall lower in the rankings because of probability, not just because of ceiling. 21-30 can be a guy you want to be a top-liner, but you know there's a lower likelihood of him reaching that (Mark Jankowski), or it can be a guy you want for your fourth line, but you are fairly confident in him reaching it.

Johnny Gaudreau was not drafted to be a utility player, obviously. If he hadn't turned out to be a top-6 forward, he'd be looking for a new career.