My Prospect Rant

[hockeyfan125]

Here is my little rant about the whole thing of a "safer" prospect. People tend to value guys who are "safe" bets for the NHL much lower than longshot NHL'ers. If the player has great NHL skills (size, awareness, etc.), but maybe is not as flashy or fast...they get undervalued. All the prospect lists ignore "safer" prospects...I see it time and time again. People pick someone else because they feel the safer prospect has reached his potential, just because he is NHL ready at such a young age..

A few examples of this are: Ryan Kesler, Mark Stuart, Tim Gleason, Steve Eminger, among others. The chance that higher regarded players such as Stasnislav Chistov, Andrei Kotstistyn, and others become better players then these safer prospects is slim. The higher regarded players may have better skill...but I notice a lot of prospects getting overlooked at HF because they are NHL ready. Its like just because they have shown they have NHL skills, that they have hit there maximum, and that these wildcard players have better potentials...

there you go.

Click to read more...

 

[trentmccleary]

That's what you get for labelling your prospects with the appropriate number grades.
Had you been overly optimistic, like most boards here... then your prospects would have been top notch today.
Integrity is overrated, from what I gather.

 

[Ajacied]

Same reason why the Stars drafted Mark Fistric over Schremp..

 

[leafaholix*]

Same reason why the Stars drafted Mark Fistric over Schremp..

Same reason why the Maple Leafs drafted Scott Thornton (3rd overall) over Bill Guerin... and why the Carolina Hurricanes selected Andrew Ladd 4th overall. If you're in the 20's or later, it's not that bad to pick a safer prospect based on probability to play in the NHL... but in the teens and higher, big mistake.

 

[LaVal]

Same reason why the Maple Leafs drafted Scott Thornton (3rd overall) over Bill Guerin...

worked out better than the Islanders, Blackhawks, and Canucks picking Chyzowski, Bennett, and Herter.

 

[Captain Conservative]

Here is my little rant about the whole thing of a "safer" prospect. People tend to value guys who are "safe" bets for the NHL much lower than longshot NHL'ers. If the player has great NHL skills (size, awareness, etc.), but maybe is not as flashy or fast...they get undervalued. All the prospect lists ignore "safer" prospects...I see it time and time again. People pick someone else because they feel the safer prospect has reached his potential, just because he is NHL ready at such a young age..

A few examples of this are: Ryan Kesler, Mark Stuart, Tim Gleason, Steve Eminger, among others. The chance that higher regarded players such as Stasnislav Chistov, Andrei Kotstistyn, and others become better players then these safer prospects is slim. The higher regarded players may have better skill...but I notice a lot of prospects getting overlooked at HF because they are NHL ready. Its like just because they have shown they have NHL skills, that they have hit there maximum, and that these wildcard players have better potentials...

there you go.

Blah blah blah. Only idiots under-rate safer prospects, so don't worry about the idiots.

 

[hockeyfan125]

Blah blah blah. Only idiots under-rate safer prospects, so don't worry about the idiots.

It is these "idiots" that are the subject of my rant.

 

[Epsilon]

The counter-argument (to me) is that "safe" prospect seems to be a fairly subjective label. Anyone who plays a certain style is considered "safe" while anyone who doesn't, isn't. I'm sure there are people that thought Jason Bonsignore was a "safe prospect". It's the sort of designation that, when applied too simplistically, leads to articles like this:

http://slam.canoe.ca/HockeyNHLDraft97/jun22_stevenson.html

And just for some of the examples you used: Stanislav Chistov, despite having a poor season last year, has already played significantly at the NHL level, and was part of a big playoff run where he performed very well. That makes him "safer" in my mind than a lot of guys who haven't played at all in the NHL, but get called "safe" because they seem like grinders.

 

[sunb]

But the problem is, almost no safe prospects have a high offensive ceiling.

Unless you see a couple of generational gems like Lemieux or Ovechkin every year, almost all the safe prospects we will ever encounter are 3rd line grinders or two-way second-liners, 4th line checkers, defensive defensemen, shut-down defensemen, stay-at-home defensemen etc....

You hardly see any potential 1st liners or offensive playmaking defensemen who are labelled as "safe bets". I haven't seen many safe picks who are said to have game-breaking talent...

A team can't function with only safe picks. Many teams' strategy is to make as many hits as possible and hope one or two turns out to be homeruns. It is a hail-mary approach that stipulates at least one or two will connect in touchdowns.

Players like Naslund, Bertuzzi, Havlat, Iginla, Forsberg, Tkachuk, Demitra, Sakic etc... were all labelled as risky gambles while guys like the Sedins, Morrison and Linden were considered safe high picks. While drafting at the latter bunch ensures a higher efficiency rate, how do you compete with a team full of guys like Artem Chubarovs, Matt Cookes and Braydon Coburns?

 

[PecaFan]

http://slam.canoe.ca/HockeyNHLDraft97/jun22_stevenson.html

That article really isn't about the same thing at all. That's an article that thinks a guy should be drafted *solely* because of where he was born. It was insane then, it's still insane.

My problem with drafting "safe" comes down to four words: No guts, no glory. Or as Dad always used to say, Never up, never in.

Yes, if you draft safe, you can avoid drafting complete busts. But you'll also avoid drafting a superstar.

 

[Epsilon]

That article really isn't about the same thing at all. That's an article that thinks a guy should be drafted *solely* because of where he was born. It was insane then, it's still insane.

For hack writers like that, those two concepts are interchangeable.

I agree completely with the rest of your post BTW.

 

[Vlad The Impaler]

and why the Carolina Hurricanes selected Andrew Ladd 4th overall.

... who still looks like a very nice selection, no matter what you say.

 

[hockeyfan125]

2 goals for Kesler today! 20 on the season...same as Jason Spezza

 

[trentmccleary]

My problem with drafting "safe" comes down to four words: No guts, no glory. Or as Dad always used to say, Never up, never in.

Yes, if you draft safe, you can avoid drafting complete busts. But you'll also avoid drafting a superstar.

Alfredsson was brought over to try out as a 3rd line, checking winger.

Not every safe prospect has the limitted career that scouts have predicted for them.

 

[leafaholix*]

... who still looks like a very nice selection, no matter what you say.

They could have done a lot better.

 

[Jason MacIsaac]

Maybe in many's opinion but last years draft sucked. Everyone who was selected after him where risky picks in one way or another.

 

[leafaholix*]

Maybe in many's opinion but last years draft sucked. Everyone who was selected after him where risky picks in one way or another.

I'd say Ladd is pretty much on the same level as Chipchura, both are safe bets to play in the NHL... yet one went #18, the other at #4.

I've discussed this before, no need to discuss it again.

 

[Captain Conservative]

2 goals for Kesler today! 20 on the season...same as Jason Spezza

Plus Kesler was drafted TWO WHOLE YEARS before Spezza.

 

[sunb]

Plus Kesler was drafted TWO WHOLE YEARS before Spezza.

Two whole years after, is what I think you meant to say.

 

[leafaholix*]

Two whole years after, is what I think you meant to say.

I think some people don't realize that Kesler isn't 2 years younger than Spezza, he's only about 14 months younger. Ryan Kesler was eligible for the 2002 draft.

 

[sunb]

I think some people don't realize that Kesler isn't 2 years younger than Spezza, he's only about 14 months younger. Ryan Kesler was eligible for the 2002 draft.

Spezza has a young birthdate. Out of the 30 first rounders in his draft year, Jason Spezza was the 6th youngest. He was even a year younger than some of the them. Other younger than him were only younger by 1 - 2 months. So you're basically comparing Kesler to a player who had a lucky birthdate.

Kesler was eligible for the 2002 draft but he had an NCAA commitment. I don't think it is fair for you to critisize him because of that. When Danny Heatley was drafted in 2000, he was 14 months older than Marian Gaborik and was more than 1.5 years older than some of the other first rounders. Thats the way the NCAA functions.

 

[Cat Called Bobcat]

2 goals for Kesler today! 20 on the season...same as Jason Spezza

I thought Kesler had 19 goals? And Spezza has 22....Spezza also has 31 more points than Kesler, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.

 

[Habitantpeasoup]

I'd say Ladd is pretty much on the same level as Chipchura, both are safe bets to play in the NHL... yet one went #18, the other at #4.

I've discussed this before, no need to discuss it again.

I Agree except Chipchura's offensive upside may be higher.

 

[leafaholix*]

Spezza has a young birthdate. Out of the 30 first rounders in his draft year, Jason Spezza was the 6th youngest. He was even a year younger than some of the them. Other younger than him were only younger by 1 - 2 months. So you're basically comparing Kesler to a player who had a lucky birthdate.

Kesler was eligible for the 2002 draft but he had an NCAA commitment. I don't think it is fair for you to critisize him because of that. When Danny Heatley was drafted in 2000, he was 14 months older than Marian Gaborik and was more than 1.5 years older than some of the other first rounders. Thats the way the NCAA functions.

I don't care who Kesler was drafted with... point is that Spezza isn't all that much older than Kesler... not like it seems, as one is a 2001 pick and the other is a 2003 pick.

Ryan Kesler was eligible for 2002.

 

[Vlad The Impaler]

I Agree except Chipchura's offensive upside may be higher.

The other way around, actually.