Is this our best prospect pool ever?

[Mike Liut]

Thallis and I were having a debate on the best Blues prospect pool in their history.

late 2000’s (Petro, EJ, Oshie, Perron, Eller, Cole, Berglund,)

2023 (Dvorsky, Snuggs, Bolduc, Neighbors, Dean, Stenberg, Lindstein)

Petro probably tips it towards the 2010 pool, but I think the 2023 forward group will be better. I know it’s hard to compare, because we are projecting this current pool. But there could also be some surprises in this current pool too such as Buchinger, Loof, Pekarcik etc.

Click to read more...

 

[STL fan in MN]

2010 pool wouldn’t include EJ or Perron but would include Schwartz and Tarasenko. Also wouldn’t include Eller depending on the exact date you were talking as he was traded to MTL for Halak the summer of 2010.

The current pool is pretty good but I don’t think it matches the 2010 pool unless a lot of these kids really hit or exceed their top end potential.

 

[Mike Liut]

2010 pool wouldn’t include EJ or Perron but would include Schwartz and Tarasenko. Also wouldn’t include Eller depending on the exact date you were talking as he was traded to MTL for Halak the summer of 2010.

The current pool is pretty good but I don’t think it matches the 2010 pool unless a lot of these kids really hit or exceed their top end potential.

I should have stayed with late 2000’s in my post and not included 2010.

This would be a great poll If somebody had the time to list each year and included all the prospects for that particular year.

 

[rumrokh]

Oshie, Perron, and Berglund were all arriving when they picked Pietro. They might have technically been prospects depending on arbitrary definitions, but it's hazy. They chose Schwartz and Tarasenko just before Pietrangelo's first full season. We aren't even at that point with this prospect pool. The only one who is likely to be a full time NHLer in the upcoming season is Neighbours and half of their best prospects were just chosen.

The real test, the real way to compare, will be what the pool looks like when the heart of that group is hitting the NHL. Because the Blues could go through some serious growing pains over the next few years, just like they did before picking Pietrangelo. No matter how good they project to become, if we have a situation with rookie or second year Snuggerud, Bolduc, Dean, and Dvorsky all in the starting lineup, that could be a rough growth/learning year or two. Maybe Dvorsky is the Pietrangelo of the group and the rest just happen to be behind relative to Oshie/Perron/Berglund, but maybe Snuggerud/Dvorsky/etc. are more equivalent to Oshie/Perron/Berglund and the Pietrangelo is still on the way out of that cycle.

It'll make more sense to me to compare with similar context to what we had at the points when Pietrangelo was selected and when Pietrangelo hit the NHL full-time.

 

[Mike Liut]

Oshie, Perron, and Berglund were all arriving when they picked Pietro. They might have technically been prospects depending on arbitrary definitions, but it's hazy. They chose Schwartz and Tarasenko just before Pietrangelo's first full season. We aren't even at that point with this prospect pool. The only one who is likely to be a full time NHLer in the upcoming season is Neighbours and half of their best prospects were just chosen.

The real test, the real way to compare, will be what the pool looks like when the heart of that group is hitting the NHL. Because the Blues could go through some serious growing pains over the next few years, just like they did before picking Pietrangelo. No matter how good they project to become, if we have a situation with rookie or second year Snuggerud, Bolduc, Dean, and Dvorsky all in the starting lineup, that could be a rough growth/learning year or two. Maybe Dvorsky is the Pietrangelo of the group and the rest just happen to be behind relative to Oshie/Perron/Berglund, but maybe Snuggerud/Dvorsky/etc. are more equivalent to Oshie/Perron/Berglund and the Pietrangelo is still on the way out of that cycle.

It'll make more sense to me to compare with similar context to what we had at the points when Pietrangelo was selected and when Pietrangelo hit the NHL full-time.

I get what you’re saying. We could easily be drafting in the top 10 a couple more times. Could also be adding picks / prospects for Vrana and Buchnevich too. We could be loaded with talent and ready to make a run in 2-3 years when the window opens.

 

[Thallis]

Oshie, Perron, and Berglund were all arriving when they picked Pietro. They might have technically been prospects depending on arbitrary definitions, but it's hazy. They chose Schwartz and Tarasenko just before Pietrangelo's first full season. We aren't even at that point with this prospect pool. The only one who is likely to be a full time NHLer in the upcoming season is Neighbours and half of their best prospects were just chosen.

The real test, the real way to compare, will be what the pool looks like when the heart of that group is hitting the NHL. Because the Blues could go through some serious growing pains over the next few years, just like they did before picking Pietrangelo. No matter how good they project to become, if we have a situation with rookie or second year Snuggerud, Bolduc, Dean, and Dvorsky all in the starting lineup, that could be a rough growth/learning year or two. Maybe Dvorsky is the Pietrangelo of the group and the rest just happen to be behind relative to Oshie/Perron/Berglund, but maybe Snuggerud/Dvorsky/etc. are more equivalent to Oshie/Perron/Berglund and the Pietrangelo is still on the way out of that cycle.

It'll make more sense to me to compare with similar context to what we had at the points when Pietrangelo was selected and when Pietrangelo hit the NHL full-time.

Perron and EJ had their rookie years in the 2008 season which we drafted Pietrangelo after, but 2009 was the year when the kid line came together and played oshie and Berglund's rookie years. Honestly I tried to used the wayback machine to look at our pool on old hockey's future just to see some names because there were definitely some guys who were fairly well touted that never really made it. Some names I remember: Sergei Andronov, Aaron Palushaj, and Jonas Junlad. Don't really know where in the mix in terms of timeline they were so I didn't include them but prospects in general have serious recency bias involved. I think this question might be one we can raise in 3 years or so seriously, but I don't think 3 firsts leaves us competitive with 2008.

 

[rumrokh]

Perron and EJ had their rookie years in the 2008 season which we drafted Pietrangelo after, but 2009 was the year when the kid line came together and played oshie and Berglund's rookie years. Honestly I tried to used the wayback machine to look at our pool on old hockey's future just to see some names because there were definitely some guys who were fairly well touted that never really made it. Some names I remember: Sergei Andronov, Aaron Palushaj, and Jonas Junlad. Don't really know where in the mix in terms of timeline they were so I didn't include them but prospects in general have serious recency bias involved. I think this question might be one we can raise in 3 years or so seriously, but I don't think 3 firsts leaves us competitive with 2008.

Right. It could go either way (even wildly so), but I think the current pool just lacks the context for comparison. Not in a hindsight kind of way, but just that I can't figure out a stage of development from back then that clearly compares. The best point really isn't even with Perron and EJ's rookie years and Oshie and Berglund on the doorstep. Because that's a first overall pick stepping in. The Blues' current group has exciting depth and upside, but it's an awkward comparison because at every point along the way in the late 2000's and early 2010's, they had multiple guys or much higher end picks being selected or hitting the NHL. We're just not there yet with these guys unless Bolduc and Dean really turn heads this Fall.

 

[Mike Liut]

This will be an interesting debate in years to come.

 

[HighNote]

Perron and EJ had their rookie years in the 2008 season which we drafted Pietrangelo after, but 2009 was the year when the kid line came together and played oshie and Berglund's rookie years. Honestly I tried to used the wayback machine to look at our pool on old hockey's future just to see some names because there were definitely some guys who were fairly well touted that never really made it. Some names I remember: Sergei Andronov, Aaron Palushaj, and Jonas Junlad. Don't really know where in the mix in terms of timeline they were so I didn't include them but prospects in general have serious recency bias involved. I think this question might be one we can raise in 3 years or so seriously, but I don't think 3 firsts leaves us competitive with 2008.

Just to give some context as to what kind of prospects we're talking about here, those 3 guys you mention were all taken mid-2nd round to mid-3rd round. Going back the last 5 years (starting 2018) here are our picks in that same window of the draft:

Burns (74)
Pekarcik (76)
Kaskimaki (73)
Buchinger (88)
Robertsson (71)
Peterson (86)
Loof (88)
Alexandrov (62)
Ellis (93)
Perunovich (45)

I'm not sure how high we were on those 3 guys back then, but none of the players I listed really knock my socks off and they are the most recent players picked in that window. They're in that tier of guys where if you end up getting a bottom 6 forward, 3rd pairing defenseman, or backup goalie out of them, you're happy. Anything more than that and the pick was a steal. If they don't end up making it to the NHL, it's disappointing but not the end of the world. Realistically, you really only need 2 or 3 of these guys to end up as NHL'rs to have gotten good value. It's the guys taken in the 1st round and early in the 2nd that you're counting on becoming "something."

Now, if you had a crystal ball and you told me that any 3 player combination of Dvorsky, Stenberg, Snuggerud, Bolduc, Neighbours, or Dean ended up not making the NHL, then I'd be very disappointed.

 

[Thallis]

Just to give some context as to what kind of prospects we're talking about here, those 3 guys you mention were all taken mid-2nd round to mid-3rd round. Going back the last 5 years (starting 2018) here are our picks in that same window of the draft:

Burns (74)
Pekarcik (76)
Kaskimaki (73)
Buchinger (88)
Robertsson (71)
Peterson (86)
Loof (88)
Alexandrov (62)
Ellis (93)
Perunovich (45)

I'm not sure how high we were on those 3 guys back then, but none of the players I listed really knock my socks off and they are the most recent players picked in that window. They're in that tier of guys where if you end up getting a bottom 6 forward, 3rd pairing defenseman, or backup goalie out of them, you're happy. Anything more than that and the pick was a steal. If they don't end up making it to the NHL, it's disappointing but not the end of the world. Realistically, you really only need 2 or 3 of these guys to end up as NHL'rs to have gotten good value. It's the guys taken in the 1st round and early in the 2nd that you're counting on becoming "something."

Now, if you had a crystal ball and you told me that any 3 player combination of Dvorsky, Stenberg, Snuggerud, Bolduc, Neighbours, or Dean ended up not making the NHL, then I'd be very disappointed.

Looking back at our draft picks, it wasn't Andronov, it was Lemytugov I was remembering. I remember folks being higher on him and Junland specifically because of their play in Peoria and thinking they were about ready to take the next step soon but ended up bolting to the KHL in Andronov's case or signing in the SHL in Junland's case. I was more using them examples of guys who outright busted that we forgot since the bias is going to be towards the guys who carved out careers. Phil McRae is probably a better example, would have been the 1st pick of the 2nd round today and only played 15 games at the NHL level.

Right. It could go either way (even wildly so), but I think the current pool just lacks the context for comparison. Not in a hindsight kind of way, but just that I can't figure out a stage of development from back then that clearly compares. The best point really isn't even with Perron and EJ's rookie years and Oshie and Berglund on the doorstep. Because that's a first overall pick stepping in. The Blues' current group has exciting depth and upside, but it's an awkward comparison because at every point along the way in the late 2000's and early 2010's, they had multiple guys or much higher end picks being selected or hitting the NHL. We're just not there yet with these guys unless Bolduc and Dean really turn heads this Fall.

I agree and that's kind of the point I'm trying to make here. We're not at the stage where we've made the selections that really have the kind of pedigree you can expect to compete with those late 00s picks. I think we'll end up getting there, but that's another discussion entirely.

 

[Celtic Note]

This might be the best depth we have had. However, we don’t have a potential franchise guy like Petro. DD might be close, but I wouldn’t put him up there with Petro.

 

[Mike Liut]

This might be the best depth we have had. However, we don’t have a potential franchise guy like Petro. DD might be close, but I wouldn’t put him up there with Petro.

yeah, I agree. Petro tips the scale. But I do think this forward group will be better.

 

[PerryTurnbullfan]

I thought about back in 1976 when he drafted Federko, Sutter, and Luit in the same draft. We also had Mike Zuke, Jack Brownschidle and Mike Eaves in the fold. They all ended up being good pros.

Looking back at the rosters, you also had Bruce Affleck, Ed Staniowski

 

[TK 421]

The one aspect I really like about this current pool is that it features several guys that could end up at center. The Blues having a deep group of quality center options in their prospect pool is a rarity most years in this teams existence. With Thomas as the 1C already locked in and multiple vets that can play there right now the team can afford to blend them into that group over the course of several seasons. This and having 7 1sts from the last 4 drafts are the strengths of the current pool. Yes they have depth beyond that but having Dvorsky, Stenberg, Dean as potential long term centers behind Thomas is better than the vast majority of prospect center groups we've had since I started following this team in the mid 80's. I mean how many years did we bemoan our lack of quality centers before watching that deficiency evaporate over one off season and win our first Cup? I'm sure the answer for most of us is.... lots. Lots of years with a deficient pro center group at the NHL level. So when you see a notable group like Dvorsky, Stenberg and Dean you can't help but be excited about the potential NHL group we could end up with.

Now the flip side and ultimately why this can't be the best pool we've ever had. Theo Lindstein. That's it, that's your potential top 4 D list. Theo needs help in his age range and the Blues still lack a potential top pair D in their pool and until that deficiency is addressed I have a tough time ranking this group amongst our best despite the strong center depth. Still love our current pool, 7 1sts in 4 drafts by a team that knows how to extract value from late 1sts is nothing to scoff at. I'd say our talent base is excellent, we just need a couple more high end pieces including a top pair D and another high end forward like Dvorsky and we should get a crack at one in '24.

 

[stlbluz]

We should be able to add some D depth in the next draft.

Also, don't sleep on Loof.

 

[TK 421]

We should be able to add some D depth in the next draft.

Also, don't sleep on Loof.

If by depth you mean using our '24 1st on a potential top pair D then I agree. If you mean we'll address D with our pair of 2nds then sure that helps but there's a desperate internal need for a top pair guy and you have to take a chance on developing one using high end draft capital once in a while. Obviously quality defenders can be found throughout the 2nd round and even into the 3rd but statistically speaking the top pair guys are likelier to be found in the 1st. Can't keep addressing this particular need in the 2nd and later, eventually you have to use the high 1st on a D to get a chance at a real difference maker.

Loof looks like a 3rd pair maybe indistinguishable from our other potential 3rd pair D in system, nothing special and certainly not good enough for me to forget about our lack of a single potential top pair D. I don't view him as even 2nd pair potential but I concede he could end up being that guy. Just not seeing a lot of likelihood of that happening and depth players aren't going to solve our particular need on defense. I mean if the player just isn't there when we walk up to the stage then fine, I get it. But if we're looking at an equally rated D vs a F then you take your shot on the D and hope you can develop him correctly. The good news is that all it takes is one guy better than Lindstein to make the D prospect group look much better and the other future spots can be filled by the depth guys/ UFA signings/ and trades.

 

[britishblue]

Guess it depends on how you define prospects.

Going in to the 2008 season our top prospects would have been what Petro, Eller, Cole, Bergy, Oshie as former 1sts.

EJ and Perron had just finished rookie seasons.

Junland, Pulashaj and Junland as solid prospecta in the system.

That is head and sholders above our current crop.

That being said if we have a couple more bad years that could change.

 

[Mike Liut]

Guess it depends on how you define prospects.

Going in to the 2008 season our top prospects would have been what Petro, Eller, Cole, Bergy, Oshie as former 1sts.

EJ and Perron had just finished rookie seasons.

Junland, Pulashaj and Junland as solid prospecta in the system.

That is head and sholders above our current crop.

That being said if we have a couple more bad years that could change.

I’m hoping this current forward group exceeds that one with Snuggs, Dvorsky, Bolduc, Dean, Stenberg, Neighbors and Alexandrov.

 

[Brian39]

If by depth you mean using our '24 1st on a potential top pair D then I agree. If you mean we'll address D with our pair of 2nds then sure that helps but there's a desperate internal need for a top pair guy and you have to take a chance on developing one using high end draft capital once in a while. Obviously quality defenders can be found throughout the 2nd round and even into the 3rd but statistically speaking the top pair guys are likelier to be found in the 1st. Can't keep addressing this particular need in the 2nd and later, eventually you have to use the high 1st on a D to get a chance at a real difference maker.

I get your point, but I'll take best player available instead of drafting for positional need every time when we're talking about premium picks.

I'm thrilled with Dvorsky and preferred him over every D left on the board. There were no D taken between our Stenberg pick and our Lindstein pick, so I have zero issue with us going forward again with our second 1st rounder. Gulyayez was the only other D taken between pick #25 and pick #42. He is smaller and I'm not sure he fits the mold of what we need on the blueline, even though he is very talented. I have no issue taking Stenberg/Lindstein instead of picking Lindstein/Gulyayev.

I prefer Snuggy over either of the 5 D drafted in the next 20 picks.

In 2021 there were 6 more forwards and a goalie picked after Bolduc before we saw 4 D get picked in the last 8 picks of the 1st round.

In 2020, no D men went in the 1st round after we selected Neighbours. A decent chunk went in the first half of the 2nd round, but none of them have 10 career NHL games yet.

Jury is still way out on these prospects, but I think it is fair to say that going for D with these picks would have been leaving talent on the table compared to selecting the forwards we clearly liked more. Looking at our drafts since the Cup win, I think there is a pretty solid argument to make that we were choosing between (what we believed was) 1st-round talent forwards or 2nd round talent D men. I'll chase talent over position every day.

 

[TK 421]

I get your point, but I'll take best player available instead of drafting for positional need every time when we're talking about premium picks.

I'm thrilled with Dvorsky and preferred him over every D left on the board. There were no D taken between our Stenberg pick and our Lindstein pick, so I have zero issue with us going forward again with our second 1st rounder. Gulyayez was the only other D taken between pick #25 and pick #42. He is smaller and I'm not sure he fits the mold of what we need on the blueline, even though he is very talented. I have no issue taking Stenberg/Lindstein instead of picking Lindstein/Gulyayev.

I prefer Snuggy over either of the 5 D drafted in the next 20 picks.

In 2021 there were 6 more forwards and a goalie picked after Bolduc before we saw 4 D get picked in the last 8 picks of the 1st round.

In 2020, no D men went in the 1st round after we selected Neighbours. A decent chunk went in the first half of the 2nd round, but none of them have 10 career NHL games yet.

Jury is still way out on these prospects, but I think it is fair to say that going for D with these picks would have been leaving talent on the table compared to selecting the forwards we clearly liked more. Looking at our drafts since the Cup win, I think there is a pretty solid argument to make that we were choosing between (what we believed was) 1st-round talent forwards or 2nd round talent D men. I'll chase talent over position every day.

Obviously you would have to actually have D worth it to take. You brought up the most recent '23 draft but that was a really light 1st rd for D, I researched the D group available pretty extensively and had a very short list of guys I really liked in the 1st and I had exactly ONE GUY rated top pair potential in Simashev. My other two favs besides him ended up going in the 2nd and 3rd rounds (Strbak, Brzustewicz). I didn't like the group as a whole so I certainly wouldn't be suggesting that the Blues should have taken a D in place of Dvorsky or Stenberg(Stenberg was my pick at 25).

What I am suggesting is that the '24 group of D has several top pair potential players clustered up near the top and quite a few more ranked 1st rd as of right now. Obviously that can and probably will change by the time the draft rolls around BUT....if that holds to be true and a D we really like is available when we pick that we truly feel is the best guy available, we should go ahead and select him. I'm not saying reach with a high 1st, I'm saying get in range to maybe have a shot at a player you really like. If the talent just isn't there then it isn't there obviously. Again, drafting really high helps tremendously when pursuing these rare commodities but my approach to drafting is the opportunistic method you described. You can only play the cards you're dealt and these drafts vary so much year to year in value. What I'd like to see is the Blues draft another Pietrangelo should they get the opportunity, you know, no big deal or anything.

 

[ezcreepin]

Obviously you would have to actually have D worth it to take. You brought up the most recent '23 draft but that was a really light 1st rd for D, I researched the D group available pretty extensively and had a very short list of guys I really liked in the 1st and I had exactly ONE GUY rated top pair potential in Simashev. My other two favs besides him ended up going in the 2nd and 3rd rounds (Strbak, Brzustewicz). I didn't like the group as a whole so I certainly wouldn't be suggesting that the Blues should have taken a D in place of Dvorsky or Stenberg(Stenberg was my pick at 25).

What I am suggesting is that the '24 group of D has several top pair potential players clustered up near the top and quite a few more ranked 1st rd as of right now. Obviously that can and probably will change by the time the draft rolls around BUT....if that holds to be true and a D we really like is available when we pick that we truly feel is the best guy available, we should go ahead and select him. I'm not saying reach with a high 1st, I'm saying get in range to maybe have a shot at a player you really like. If the talent just isn't there then it isn't there obviously. Again, drafting really high helps tremendously when pursuing these rare commodities but my approach to drafting is the opportunistic method you described. You can only play the cards you're dealt and these drafts vary so much year to year in value. What I'd like to see is the Blues draft another Pietrangelo should they get the opportunity, you know, no big deal or anything.

I think that's agreeable. From what I've heard about next year, it's supposed to be heavier with defenseman, so you'd like to see the Blues grab a top end talent on defense. I think it's probably easier to stomach a "reach" in the first round if it's like within a few selections, but when you're drafting in the top 10, you need to maximize what you think is the best talent. If that's defense, then sweet grab him. But if you're having to reach for a 14th ranked guy at 6th overall, then that feels much worse from a fan perspective. I don't really have an issue with the Blues drafting, so I take it they've done their research, but when you see something like Simashev at 6 when he was projected somewhere in the teens, it feels really, really bad.

 

[TK 421]

I think that's agreeable. From what I've heard about next year, it's supposed to be heavier with defenseman, so you'd like to see the Blues grab a top end talent on defense. I think it's probably easier to stomach a "reach" in the first round if it's like within a few selections, but when you're drafting in the top 10, you need to maximize what you think is the best talent. If that's defense, then sweet grab him. But if you're having to reach for a 14th ranked guy at 6th overall, then that feels much worse from a fan perspective. I don't really have an issue with the Blues drafting, so I take it they've done their research, but when you see something like Simashev at 6 when he was projected somewhere in the teens, it feels really, really bad.

Simashev was my only D rated as top pair potential in '23 but as you said there were forwards on the board that you shouldn't pass on to take him, so I agree and it's really a perfect example of a reach. 6'5 Bill Armstrong is a giraffe collector and that worked out very well for us recently getting Dvorsky.

 

[Mike Liut]

This prospect pool will turn out to be the best in Blues history. We are going to add another top 10 pick this year too.

 

[Snubbed4Vezina]

I was actually just talking to someone about that. I can't recall the Blues having a deeper prospect pool. To accomplish that without spending an extended period of time in the basement is impressive.

 

[Reality Czech]

This prospect pool will turn out to be the best in Blues history. We are going to add another top 10 pick this year too.

Bold prediction, but I can see why you're optimistic. This is why I don't stress too much about the team's performance because most things balance out in life. We all want to have a Cup contending team, but when we aren't so good we can at least get some exciting prospects for the future. It's pretty impressive to get so many quality players with only one lottery pick to work with and this goes back to guys like Thomas, Kyrou, Parayko as well. Neighbours is looking like a real steal at 26 and so is Snuggles at 23.

It sucked seeing the Cup team fall apart and guys like ROR and Tarasenko leave town, but the flip side was being able to get Lindstein and Stenberg so I think long term it's gonna work out just fine.