My Prospect Rant

[hockeyfan125]

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.

They both have 20, and the point I'm making is Ryan Kesler has more offensive potential then most people give him credit for.
I know he isn't in Spezza's league, but its interesting anyways

 

[Vlad The Impaler]

They both have 20, and the point I'm making is Ryan Kesler has more offensive potential then most people give him credit for.
I know he isn't in Spezza's league, but its interesting anyways

What kind of offensive upside do you think people credit him for? And what kind of offensive upside do you think he has?

 

[Matty]

What kind of offensive upside do you think people credit him for? And what kind of offensive upside do you think he has?

I'd say his upside is 20-25g, 40-50pts 2nd line center. In today's NHL, those are great numbers for a guy who will likely face off against the other team's top players and put in a fair amount of PK time.

 

[Matty]

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?

Morrison is our 1st line center.

Linden has been a captain, has several 30+g seasons, and has 92pts in 112 playoff games.

Daniel Sedin just had a 54pts season with a +18 as a 23 year old. Are you suggesting that the Canucks should have gone after the high risk Brendl instead?

Of coarse, all teams should at times go after a riskier pick. But every year? Not a good plan.

BTW why would you consider Mo a safe pick (he was chosen in the 2nd round)? And Cooke and Chubbs were not even 1st rounders yet play important roles on a solid team. What more do you expect from the latter rounds?

 

[12# Peter Bondra]

Demitra was a high-risk player? Well, maybe he was but in the 9th round, it doesnt matter if he is or not. Not many guys make the NHL through the 9th round.

 

[trentmccleary]

Demitra was a high-risk player? Well, maybe he was but in the 9th round, it doesnt matter if he is or not. Not many guys make the NHL through the 9th round.

Ottawa scouts had him ranked late 1st, early 2nd round.
As they were scratching names off of their list, they noticed his name was still there around the 5th or 6th round... but assumed it was an oversite on their part (and thought he'd already been picked). Finally, they decided to go through every pick to double check and were ecstatic to get him in the 9th round.

They had most of his skills ranked as 8's or 9's across the board.
Ignore his draft position.

 

[PecaFan]

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

A guy drafted #133 in the 6th round is not a "safe" pick, a "sure thing" to play in the league like we're discussing.

That's a guy that's already seen as marginal, a guy who almost surely won't make it, as the 20 other other guys taken in that round prove. In fact, Ottawa thought Bryan Masotta and Mike Gaffney were better players, taking them earlier than Alfie.

 

[12# Peter Bondra]

Ottawa scouts had him ranked late 1st, early 2nd round.
As they were scratching names off of their list, they noticed his name was still there around the 5th or 6th round... but assumed it was an oversite on their part (and thought he'd already been picked). Finally, they decided to go through every pick to double check and were ecstatic to get him in the 9th round.

They had most of his skills ranked as 8's or 9's across the board.
Ignore his draft position.

Oh, ok. I take my point back. Didnt know that story.

 

[trentmccleary]

A guy drafted #133 in the 6th round is not a "safe" pick, a "sure thing" to play in the league like we're discussing.

That's a guy that's already seen as marginal, a guy who almost surely won't make it, as the 20 other other guys taken in that round prove. In fact, Ottawa thought Bryan Masotta and Mike Gaffney were better players, taking them earlier than Alfie.

Guys like Alfie, Dackell, Tormanen and Arvedson were "older" picks. The goal was to draft vet Euro players to improve the team ASAP.
There's no comparison between them and the younger players.

 

[Meat Wave]

The other way around, actually.

What makes you think so? Statistics?

 

[Epsilon]

I remember people being surprised that Eric Brewer went 5th overall over "sure thing" Daniel Tkaczuk.

 

[LaVal]

I remember people being surprised that Eric Brewer went 5th overall over "sure thing" Daniel Tkaczuk.

Daniel Tkaczuk was on his way to a good career before his concussion.

 

[Vlad The Impaler]

What makes you think so? Statistics?

Talent level. I just don't think Chipchura can be more than a very good 3rd liner, while I see Ladd as much more versatile and capable of working with high talent players. He's got a lot of smarts and playmaking for a guy who is seen as a future blue collar grinder.

Plus I really like what I saw of him two years ago. I think there is a nice offensive upside to him that is very understated. He has nicer hands than he has showed this year.

It is unlikely that he will be a 70 point player, but it is still more likely than Chipchura, IMO.

 

[Captain Conservative]

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

Aye.

 

[sunb]

Morrison is our 1st line center.

Linden has been a captain, has several 30+g seasons, and has 92pts in 112 playoff games.

Daniel Sedin just had a 54pts season with a +18 as a 23 year old. Are you suggesting that the Canucks should have gone after the high risk Brendl instead?

Of coarse, all teams should at times go after a riskier pick. But every year? Not a good plan.

BTW why would you consider Mo a safe pick (he was chosen in the 2nd round)? And Cooke and Chubbs were not even 1st rounders yet play important roles on a solid team. What more do you expect from the latter rounds?

I am just saying that you can't compete with a full team of solid two-way players. When I brought up examples of Morrison, Cooke and Chubarov, I wasn't trying to hint at their draft position but the fact that they are the type of safe players you might get in a draft if you were aiming at safety options.

 

[Hunter74]

Talent level. I just don't think Chipchura can be more than a very good 3rd liner, while I see Ladd as much more versatile and capable of working with high talent players. He's got a lot of smarts and playmaking for a guy who is seen as a future blue collar grinder.

Plus I really like what I saw of him two years ago. I think there is a nice offensive upside to him that is very understated. He has nicer hands than he has showed this year.

It is unlikely that he will be a 70 point player, but it is still more likely than Chipchura, IMO.

I agree with this statement.

I think Ladd gets alot of heat b/c he is not as flashy as most players drafted that high. He's not known for his big hits like Phaneuf but Ladd hits hard. Nor does Ladd have crazy speed like Ovechkin but Ladd is by no means slow of foot. Doesn't have the offensive vison of Crosby but sees the ice very well.

To me Ladd is just one of those guys that are a really good package that has skill, size and a very good attitude. Dont get me wrong I like Chipchura aswell and was hoping that my team would draft him. But I think that Ladds PowerForward upside should not be disregarded so quickly.


When I think of a safe pick I think of a guy like Eric Nystrom. The guy was drafted 10th overall pretty much b/c his game is so rounded. Of course tehy thought at the time he would be more offensive but they also new that if he didn't pan out offensively he woudl still be a very effective character 3rd liner who comes to play every shift. Maybe thats just the grinder type player that I seem to think of as a safer pick. Hear are a couple more names that I think of as safe picks for whatever reason Coburn, Upshall (dont understand whats taking him so long to make the NHL???), Weber, Chipchura, Richards, Stuart, Kesler and Parise. I dont know I what it is but when I think of role players I always feel as though they are the ones most likely to make it to the NHL b/c they are the ones who dont have egos and attitude problems. They just shut up and listen to what the coach tells them and then go out there and do it. Then if teammates dont do what the coach says they give em heck. Its the offensive types that are always makeing the coaches mad and I think that has alot to do wiht why offensive types are more likely to bust at the pro level. I dont consider elite prospects as safer picks b/c there elite there supposed to be able to make the NHL off of ther e incredible talent. Guys like Ovechkin, Crosby, Lehtonen, Malkin, Horton, Zherdev and maybe even Phaneuf who I kinda have him borderline as a safe pick/elite pick.

I dont beleive though that these so called safe picks are not gonna be very good offensive players in the NHL. I just feel if there offensive game goes in the tanks they will still be important members of a winning club b/c of there other valueable aspects of there game.

 

[Gwyddbwyll]

Oh, ok. I take my point back. Didnt know that story.

If anything it supports your point.

Im pretty dubious about that story. If Ottawa really had him so highly rated across the board, they should have picked him earlier, even if they only started noticing he was still there around the 6th round. But Demitra wasnt even their first pick in the 9th round. That indicates to me either gross unprofessionalism or that they felt he was, as you pointed out, a high-risk player. Even it was true, 25 or so other teams obviously had the same feeling, not even electing to draft him. I just cant believe they would be so slack about a player they had rated at 8's and 9's across the board. Maybe a player with mostly 3's and an occasional 8 (ie/ high risk) but not 8s and 9s.

 

[trentmccleary]

If anything it supports your point.

Im pretty dubious about that story. If Ottawa really had him so highly rated across the board, they should have picked him earlier, even if they only started noticing he was still there around the 6th round. But Demitra wasnt even their first pick in the 9th round. That indicates to me either gross unprofessionalism or that they felt he was, as you pointed out, a high-risk player. Even it was true, 25 or so other teams obviously had the same feeling, not even electing to draft him. I just cant believe they would be so slack about a player they had rated at 8's and 9's across the board. Maybe a player with mostly 3's and an occasional 8 (ie/ high risk) but not 8s and 9s.

It was a little strip down the right side of the front page of the Ottawa Citizen Sports section on that Monday in June of 1993. A story explaining the pick from the Ottawa scouts perspective and why they were so excited about it.
They didn't talk to any other teams scouts, but then again... most other teams scouts didn't draft Salo's, Rachunek's, etc in the later rounds of following drafts either.

Beyond Will Colbert (Ottawa 67's player), it's rare that we get more than a sentence on any Ottawa draft pick beyond the 3rd round. These things kind of stick out in ones memory.

 

[trentmccleary]

Im pretty dubious about that story (about Demitra).

http://groups.google.ca/groups?q=%2...tree.org&rnum=1

"Demitra was rated 11th by the European Scouting Bureau and 24th
by the Senator's scouting (which would place him at least in the top 50)
overall. His skating was rated a 9, his desire, attitude and hockey
sense were all rated 10 by the Central Scouting Bureau. Apparently, a
whole lot of teams assumed that he was already drafted earlier on so
Ottawa was able to walk away with the steal of the draft."

 

[Chief]

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..

I think your whole premise on what makes a pick "safe" is a bit off. When NHL teams refer to prospects as "safe", it's not so much "because" they have a well-rounded game but rather the "reasons for" that well rounded game. It might seem like I'm splitting hairs but I think it's an important distinction.

Size is obviously part of it but besides having acceptable NHL size it's things like work ethic, team play and coachability that makes a player a safe pick. A player like Roman Tomanek showed flashes of offensive brilliance in his past but his lack of consistent effort, failure to adhere to coach's instructions and selfish play made him a riskier pick because he didn't have that solid base to build on. I guess you could make the same arguments about a player like Robbie Schremp. The safe picks have a solid base. They do the little things. They do what they're told. They sacrifice when necessary for the good of the team. It's these underlying factors that make that player a solid all around player and, as a result, a safer pick. Teams know they'll get some kind of value with a safe player. It won't be boom or bust.

When you look at how many draft picks actually become serviceable NHL players, you're still talking about a pretty exclusive club. NHL teams realize this and that's why you'll see some teams take a "safer" pick rather than a guy who had some moments of brilliance in his past. Of course, every team has their own decision-making process and they've got different reasons for thinking a player is safer or riskier than another. That's part of what makes the draft so interesting.

 

[PecaFan]

Guys like Alfie, Dackell, Tormanen and Arvedson were "older" picks. The goal was to draft vet Euro players to improve the team ASAP.

Right. So this guy was so "safe", that not only did they pass him over repeatedly that year, they and everyone else also completely ignored him for years before. Players that are guaranteed to be NHL'ers don't just remain available for years, which is how they become "older picks".

This is *clearly* a guy who was seen as having limited upside, and/or a late bloomer.

 

[PecaFan]

http://groups.google.ca/groups?q=%2...tree.org&rnum=1

"Demitra was rated 11th by the European Scouting Bureau and 24th
by the Senator's scouting (which would place him at least in the top 50)
overall. His skating was rated a 9, his desire, attitude and hockey
sense were all rated 10 by the Central Scouting Bureau. Apparently, a
whole lot of teams assumed that he was already drafted earlier on so
Ottawa was able to walk away with the steal of the draft."

Link doesn't work.

So if they were so sure they got the most massive steal of all time, remind me why they thought Christer Olssen was a better player?

 

[HOCKEY_GURU]

Let me answer this whole debate with an entirely new approach:

lets say theres 2 cases to invest in:

Case A) - (safe investment)
- 100 stocks are available (different companies)
- 10% will fail and net you zero return
- 90% will succeed and give you 5 times your initial investmnet.

thus on average youll get a return of $450 on your investment.

Case B) - (Risky investment)
- 100 stocks available
- 50% will fail and net zero $
- 50% will succeed and net 9 times initial investment
thus on average you'll get a return of $450 on your investment

so you see theres no better or worse investment in this case - and this can apply to hockey - theres high risk/high reward and lower risk lower reward players.

so how do we compare the two styles of drafting? just like investment you multiply the risk by the potential and get a return or rating - and this essentially is what the new rating system at HF is doing.

so:
player 1) 30 % chance of becoming a 9 (out of ten)
- thus his rating is thus 0.3*9= 2.7

player 2) 50 % chance of becoming a 7 (out of 10)
- thus his rating is 0.5*7=3.5

in this case it makes more sense to draft player 2 - and in essense this is how players should be ranked when doing a top 50 list - essentially a top 50 list is mixing apples and oranges ( safe bet versus higher reward - offence vs defence...etc etc)...and in the end its the on average value added that decides whats a good draft pick or not - of course theres team needs and a million other factors but this analogy made to put things in perspective

 

[trentmccleary]

Link doesn't work.

So if they were so sure they got the most massive steal of all time, remind me why they thought Christer Olssen was a better player?

The link worked off of the Sens board. I'm not sure what's going on here.

IMO, Demitra was treated very badly... in part because the organization was such a mess and new people were taking over.
He was sick of the organization and demanded an NHL contract after playing 3 years in the minors. It should also be noted that he did make the team when he was 18. But he broke his leg that year, went to the minors for rehab and was basically ignored except for the odd call up.

Pierre Gauthier was the one who traded him for nothing. He was overrated as a GM.

 

[trentmccleary]

Right. So this guy was so "safe", that not only did they pass him over repeatedly that year, they and everyone else also completely ignored him for years before. Players that are guaranteed to be NHL'ers don't just remain available for years, which is how they become "older picks".

This is *clearly* a guy who was seen as having limited upside, and/or a late bloomer.

Or someone who wouldn't come over. <-- just another option (not necessarily the case here)

Like I said, all 4 were supposed to be possible 3rd liners immediately.
Maybe other teams weren't as desperate as Ottawa?