Prospect Info: Who is the Blues #12 Prospect - 2023

[Stupendous Yappi]

Blues Prospects by Forum Ranking
1) Dalibor Dvorsky - 82%
2) Jimmy Snuggerud - 93%
3) Joel Hofer - 39%
4) Zachary Bolduc - 59%
5) Otto Stenberg - 42%
6) Jake Neighbors - 45.5%
7) Zach Dean - 64%
8) Theo Lindstein - 82%
9) Nikita Alexandrov - 39%
10) Michael Buchinger - 60%
11) Juraj Pekarcik - 37%

Click to read more...

 

[BlueDream]

Really like the look of our top 11. Lots of potential.

Now it’s Tucker’s turn.

 

[mab894]

I went Zherenko but again a toss-up between him and Tucker

 

[STL fan in MN]

Tucker and Zherenko are close. Both 7th rounders that have way exceeded expectations. But Tucker has reached the NHL and Zherenko hasn’t yet. Zherenko had the higher potential but Tucker has the more clear path.

I’ll go with Tucker here, but I do really like Zherenko and how he’s progressed in his career.

 

[Celtic Note]

Tucker is my guy here. But Z could be one of our better prospects if he reaches his potential.

 

[Stupendous Yappi]

I don't know how far we take this, but I think I'll keep making polls as long as people are voting and commenting. I still see a bunch of guys that I want to vote for who I think have a chance to make the big show.

 

[542365]

Went Tucker. Seems like a meat and potatoes 5/6 Dman. The type you love to have on your team and hate to play against.

 

[stl76]

Kessel deserves some serious consideration at this point IMO.

 

[STL fan in MN]

Kessel deserves some serious consideration at this point IMO.

He does. But so do a lot of others IMO. We have entered the mushy middle. Lots of guys here that could develop well and have NHL careers…or fall off and be career minor leaguers. I see a lot of guys in this range I value pretty similarly.

Tucker, Zherenko and Burns. I value the 3 of them about the same as Pekarcik.

But there’s others all about at the same level too.

Kessel was solid in the AHL last season. No standout attribute but he’s 6’3” and a righty. That has value.

Gaudet has shown promise in Jrs. Can he continue it at the pro level? TBD.

Loof has been pretty good in Liiga and has a nasty side. We’ll see how he translates that to the AHL this season.

Koromyslov is a bit underrated IMO as we don’t really get to see much of him but he played most of last season on the KHL’s best team as an 18-19 year old. Won’t put up a lot of points but his gaps and outlets are solid, he has size and he’s mean.

Dickinson was having a breakout season a then missed 1 1/2 years with a broken femur. He’ll have to make his return in pro hockey. Will be be able to regain his game and continue? The speed is certainly still there.

Robertsson hasn’t put up much points but he plays a mature game and seems to be transitioning himself from a scorer to a complimentary 3rd line winger type. That’s smart as that’s what he’ll need to be to make it.

Kaskimaki can absolutely fly and has shown flashes in Liiga. Maybe he could eventually carve out a bottom-6 career.

Peterson lacks skill and also lacks hockey sense. Normally that would eliminate a player from having an NHL career but he skates well, is big and good defensively. Having areas where he excels allows him to possibly carve out a niche role as a 4th line defensive type.

Vorobyov came out of nowhere and looked really good at prospect camp. He’s also put up good numbers in the VHL. He’s likely a long shot but he clearly has some talent.

Stancl is new. I don’t know a ton about him yet but he’s supposedly good defensively too.

Malmstrom was a good college d-man and Beck currently is one.

Many of these guys won’t make it but I see reasons why any of them could.

That leaves Fischer, Skinner, Laferriere, Cranley, Mayich, Susuyev, Abramov, Washkurak, Sim and Ellis. Some of these guys possibly have potential too.

There’s always surprises.

 

[Blueston]

Burns again. Much higher upside than guys like Tucker or Kessel. Further away so some risk, but fringe 3rd pairing guys are dime a dozen so I’m going with the guy who could actually make impact.

 

[Bluesguru]

Vote Loof!

 

[STL fan in MN]

Burns again. Much higher upside than guys like Tucker or Kessel. Further away so some risk, but fringe 3rd pairing guys are dime a dozen so I’m going with the guy who could actually make impact.

What is it you see in Burns?

 

[Majorityof1]

I have a question for anyone who votes for guys with limited ceilings. I do not understand voting for a guy who tops out at a third pair or 4th liner. That is almost worthless to me. I'd take someone who has a 5% chance of being a top 4 and 95% chance to bust over a guy who 100% will be a 6/7 D.

So the question is, with a guy like Tucker, what is the benefit of him over a comparable UFA? Generally, prospects are cheaper and have a chance at growth. But we can get a UFA on a 1 year deal that is comparable for not much more ($1-2M deal where $2M is better than he is). And he doesn't have much more untapped growth potential, so he's not likely to blossom into a top 4 guy before our eyes. So what is value as a prospect?

 

[Shwabeal]

I have a question for anyone who votes for guys with limited ceilings. I do not understand voting for a guy who tops out at a third pair or 4th liner. That is almost worthless to me. I'd take someone who has a 5% chance of being a top 4 and 95% chance to bust over a guy who 100% will be a 6/7 D.

So the question is, with a guy like Tucker, what is the benefit of him over a comparable UFA? Generally, prospects are cheaper and have a chance at growth. But we can get a UFA on a 1 year deal that is comparable for not much more ($1-2M deal where $2M is better than he is). And he doesn't have much more untapped growth potential, so he's not likely to blossom into a top 4 guy before our eyes. So what is value as a prospect?

I voted Zherenko so I'm not necessarily someone you're directing this question at, but his value is that he has already proven he can hang at the NHL level. Even if he tops out as a #6 dman, that's significantly more valuable than guys that don't even sniff the league (like most of the guys left on this list won't.)

People value prospects differently. You think this board's 6th ranked prospect, a former 1st round pick that has already played 52 games in the league, is a nothing burger. I think that's a significantly worse take than someone voting Tucker #12 over a bunch of other guys that will more than likely amount to nothing.

I personally don't see anyone left on this list that has even a 5% chance of being a top 4 d or top 6 forward so give me the guys that have at least shown the ability to be cheap depth at the NHL level.

 

[Majorityof1]

I voted Zherenko so I'm not necessarily someone you're directing this question at, but his value is that he has already proven he can hang at the NHL level. Even if he tops out as a #6 dman, that's significantly more valuable than guys that don't even sniff the league (like most of the guys left on this list won't.)

People value prospects differently. You think this board's 6th ranked prospect, a former 1st round pick that has already played 52 games in the league, is a nothing burger. I think that's a significantly worse take than someone voting Tucker #12 over a bunch of other guys that will more than likely amount to nothing.

I personally don't see anyone left on this list that has even a 5% chance of being a top 4 d or top 6 forward so give me the guys that have at least shown the ability to be cheap depth at the NHL level.

I know people value prospects differently. I am asking for the thinking behind how people value them. You say he is more valuable if he tops out at a #6 D. He makes $800k. Travis Hamonic signed for $1.1m and played top 4 minutes last year.

Not saying we definitely could have signed Hamonic, but guys who can play in the NHL are cheap. Tucker saves us $300k in cap but he is a worse D.

Or take Forwards. Would you really prefer Alexandrov at $816k if he had minimal more upside to Acciari at $1M last year?

As for Neighbours, I had him 9th. That's not a nothing burger. I just think he has limited upside and I value upside because cheap is only valuable when it's cheaper than a comparable UFA. And top end talent is far, far, far more difficult to acquire than bottom 6,/bottom pair players

Edit: Also you all will turn on him which makes little sense. We love cheap depth but we hate Mikkola because he is a cheap but flawed player.

 

[Blueston]

What is it you see in Burns?

Good size, mobility, physicality. Raw but some nice skills. Production was fair but on crappy team. Was playing up in lineup at u18 before injury (which opened ice time for Gibson to shine and get picked 30 spots ahead of him). If he can put it all together he has at least top 4 upside, if not better. He may well never put it all together, but as @Majorityof1 says there is more value in guy like burns with real upside than guy like Tucker who is already fringe nhl player with limited tools and 3rd pairing ceiling.

 

[Shwabeal]

I know people value prospects differently. I am asking for the thinking behind how people value them. You say he is more valuable if he tops out at a #6 D. He makes $800k. Travis Hamonic signed for $1.1m and played top 4 minutes last year.

Not saying we definitely could have signed Hamonic, but guys who can play in the NHL are cheap. Tucker saves us $300k in cap but he is a worse D.

Or take Forwards. Would you really prefer Alexandrov at $816k if he had minimal more upside to Acciari at $1M last year?

As for Neighbours, I had him 9th. That's not a nothing burger. I just think he has limited upside and I value upside because cheap is only valuable when it's cheaper than a comparable UFA. And top end talent is far, far, far more difficult to acquire than bottom 6,/bottom pair players

I just value someone demonstrating that they can be an NHL player. Floor is important to me, especially when we're talking about prospects that are in the teens of a team's prospect pool. We're talking about the guys that we are hoping can be the guys that fill in around the edges and surround our core players and prospects, that end up being the real needle movers, on the cheap. If I can save $300k-$500k on each of my bottom pair D, 3 4th liners and one of my 3rd line wingers without losing much on-ice impact simply by filling those spots with internally developed guys, I do that every chance I get.

I think the difference in how you and I vote on this is that I don't even think of players value as a prospect to the Blues organization. I look at who I think will be a better NHLer, whether here or on another team. I think Tucker and/or Alexandrov topping out as a #6 D or 4th line center/3rd line winger and bouncing around the league making $1-$2 million and carving out a 5-8 year career carries more value than a guy that I don't see topping that if they ever even reach that level.

I just don't see the upside in any of the prospects on this list that are further away from the NHL that makes them more valuable than someone who's done it. And granted, Tucker was a 7th round pick so a lot of these guys have more draft pedigree, which suggests they have a better chance of overcoming the hurdles that anyone drafted outside of the first two rounds has to overcome. I give value to the guy(s) that have already made that leap when it is such a hard thing to accomplish as a late pick.

 

[542365]

I just value someone demonstrating that they can be an NHL player. Floor is important to me, especially when we're talking about prospects that are in the teens of a team's prospect pool. We're talking about the guys that we are hoping can be the guys that fill in around the edges and surround our core players and prospects, that end up being the real needle movers, on the cheap. If I can save $300k-$500k on each of my bottom pair D, 3 4th liners and one of my 3rd line wingers without losing much on-ice impact simply by filling those spots with internally developed guys, I do that every chance I get.

I think the difference in how you and I vote on this is that I don't even think of players value as a prospect to the Blues organization. I look at who I think will be a better NHLer, whether here or on another team. I think Tucker and/or Alexandrov topping out as a #6 D or 4th line center/3rd line winger and bouncing around the league making $1-$2 million and carving out a 5-8 year career carries more value than a guy that I don't see topping that if they ever even reach that level.

I just don't see the upside in any of the prospects on this list that are further away from the NHL that makes them more valuable than someone who's done it. And granted, Tucker was a 7th round pick so a lot of these guys have more draft pedigree, which suggests they have a better chance of overcoming the hurdles that anyone drafted outside of the first two rounds has to overcome. I give value to the guy(s) that have already made that leap when it is such a hard thing to accomplish as a late pick.

This. I’m voting for the guy whose going to have an NHL career, even if it’s not a super high value one, over guys who will most likely be AHL/Euro league fodder even if they have a minuscule chance of becoming a more valuable player in the long run.

 

[Majorityof1]

I just value someone demonstrating that they can be an NHL player. Floor is important to me, especially when we're talking about prospects that are in the teens of a team's prospect pool. We're talking about the guys that we are hoping can be the guys that fill in around the edges and surround our core players and prospects, that end up being the real needle movers, on the cheap. If I can save $300k-$500k on each of my bottom pair D, 3 4th liners and one of my 3rd line wingers without losing much on-ice impact simply by filling those spots with internally developed guys, I do that every chance I get.

I think the difference in how you and I vote on this is that I don't even think of players value as a prospect to the Blues organization. I look at who I think will be a better NHLer, whether here or on another team. I think Tucker and/or Alexandrov topping out as a #6 D or 4th line center/3rd line winger and bouncing around the league making $1-$2 million and carving out a 5-8 year career carries more value than a guy that I don't see topping that if they ever even reach that level.

I just don't see the upside in any of the prospects on this list that are further away from the NHL that makes them more valuable than someone who's done it. And granted, Tucker was a 7th round pick so a lot of these guys have more draft pedigree, which suggests they have a better chance of overcoming the hurdles that anyone drafted outside of the first two rounds has to overcome. I give value to the guy(s) that have already made that leap when it is such a hard thing to accomplish as a late pick.

That's fair if that is how you choose to value them. I'm not trying to change hearts and minds here. I find it an interesting discussion. It is kind of funny that we value prospects differently and are voting for the same guy.

As for players with higher ceilings, we have a few. Robertsson has a killer shot. I don't know what's holding back from getting ice time but he has skill to be a goal scoring middle 6 forward who can PK too.

@Blueston has talked abiut Burns. Fischer is a physical beast. Vorobyov looked real good in camp and has great skills. Koromyslov is getting KHL games at 19. Same with kaskimaki in Liiga. Dickson looks recovered from his injury with good speed and an impressive camp. They all have some shot at being more valuable than a #6 D

 

[Brian39]

I have a question for anyone who votes for guys with limited ceilings. I do not understand voting for a guy who tops out at a third pair or 4th liner. That is almost worthless to me. I'd take someone who has a 5% chance of being a top 4 and 95% chance to bust over a guy who 100% will be a 6/7 D.

So the question is, with a guy like Tucker, what is the benefit of him over a comparable UFA? Generally, prospects are cheaper and have a chance at growth. But we can get a UFA on a 1 year deal that is comparable for not much more ($1-2M deal where $2M is better than he is). And he doesn't have much more untapped growth potential, so he's not likely to blossom into a top 4 guy before our eyes. So what is value as a prospect?

I disagree with the starting point that a guy like Tucker has a ceiling of 3rd pair player (or simply #6D). I think that is his most likely outcome, but there is ceiling for more. Calling him 100% 6/7D is just not true. He could become 5D without a ton of surprise. And while I wouldn't bet money on it, I wouldn't be flabbergasted if he grew into a 4/5 tweener.

Those guys are far from worthless. And in a cap league where teams are always looking for D, having a guy that could fill such a role on a cost-controlled contract for a couple years is real value. There are currently 145 D men set to have a cap hit of $2M+ for 2023/24. That averages out to 4.5 D men per team making $2M+. Without a large chunk of luck, you're not getting a guy in UFA who can lead your bottom pair (and slide up onto the 2nd pair as needed) without putting some real money and term on the table. Having an internal guy fill that role that you can strongarm into cheap deals through his mid-20s has a real cap benefit.

Let's look at Connor Clifton. He played the 4th most total minutes for Boston's blue line last year, but they (justifiably) felt the need to upgrade. They brought in Orlov at the deadline, who promptly jumped him on the depth chart and bumped him to #5 ice time. Clifton played 14:50 a night in the playoffs. The year before, Clifton played the 6th most minutes per night among the Bruins D who were there all season and was their clear #6 in the playoffs. In 2020/21, he played 18:13 a night, which still wasn't in the top 4 of Bruins regulars (and they had a ton of injuries that year which forced him up the lineup when healthy). He doesn't do anything exceptionally well, but he is decent at a lot of things and (despite being small) plays a pretty physical game. He's absolutely not a legit top 4 D man in this league and his play/contribution has been that of a good bottom pair guy who can be a 4/5 tweener at his best. He better have a damn good partner if he is your #4 and you need a good enough bottom pair to limit his minutes in that role.

Because Boston got his RFA rights (he played 4 years NCAA, signed a 1 year AHL deal, then signed his ELC with the Bruins), they were able to pay him under $1M for his first 2 years seeing limited NHL time and then just $1M per year for the 3 years outlined above. That is well below the UFA market price for such a player. That contract walked him to UFA this summer, where he just got $3.33M x 3 years from Buffalo.

I don't think that we can sit here after Tucker's age 22 season and say that he couldn't turn into a Connor Clifton level player. Clifton made his NHL debut in his age 23 season and his age 22 season in the AHL was less impressive than what Tucker did in that league this year in his age 22 season. I think Tucker has a much higher chance of turning into a Connor Clifton level player than these boom/bust guys have of turning into top 6 or legit top 4 guys.

The value of these "safe" guys is that you can get 2-3 years of them being above-average bottom-half-of-the-lineup players on a cap hit that is $1M-$2M less than what you would have to pay to get that kind of guy in UFA. Or in the alternative, it keeps you from having to burn a 2nd or 3rd round pick each year to acquire such a rental who is cheap against the cap. The UFAs available at similar prices to what you can extend your own RFAs for are either 34+ year olds trying to wring 1-2 more seasons out of their bodies or guys coming off bad seasons that you are trying to rehabilitate. Neither lets you comfortably pencil them in as above-average in their role when you come to camp.

The nature of the NHL's salary cap rules are that you need to have a number of guys on value contracts up and down your lineup in order to offset mistakes (every team has them) and the guys genuinely earning big money. The best avenue for value contracts in the bottom half of your lineup come from the depth prospects that you develop into real NHL players (and then use every CBA/negotiation tool at your disposal to nickel-and-dime them in the short term while setting them up to hit UFA at 27 or 28 and get a nice payday from another team).

 

[Shwabeal]

As for players with higher ceilings, we have a few. Robertsson has a killer shot. I don't know what's holding back from getting ice time but he has skill to be a goal scoring middle 6 forward who can PK too.

@Blueston has talked abiut Burns. Fischer is a physical beast. Vorobyov looked real good in camp and has great skills. Koromyslov is getting KHL games at 19. Same with kaskimaki in Liiga. Dickson looks recovered from his injury with good speed and an impressive camp. They all have some shot at being more valuable than a #6 D

Yeah, I can see how different people might put higher value on those guys since they see upside. I think any one of them could be players in the league, it just takes a lot of squinting for me trying to see the future for them that isn't as a depth guy. It could just be my own lack of ability to rate prospects that are 3-4 years away that bakes some bias in for known, but unspectacular prospects.

I had kind of forgotten about Robertsson. I really liked him when he was drafted, but, as you mentioned, his lack of ice time makes him a hard read. It's hard to see a guy getting such little playing time and doing very little with the little he's given and see a future with him as an impact NHLer. At the time he was drafted, I had a bit of the same vibes I get from Stenberg as someone that can move up and down the lineup and be a swiss army knife type winger. there just hasn't been much since he was drafted that lets me project him as anything special at this point.

Edited to add a question, not specifically directed at you, but do we think that people's way to evaluate prospects has shifted a bit now that we are in a different position than we have been in for that last decade? As in, are people that may have typically valued floor more in years past, now leaning more towards upside because we need some of these lower end prospects to surprise to get this team back to contender status?

 

[LetsGoBooze]

I don't know how far we take this, but I think I'll keep making polls as long as people are voting and commenting. I still see a bunch of guys that I want to vote for who I think have a chance to make the big show.

Take it to 15, thats a good spot where all the remaining kids are gonna be a similar tier.

 

[Brian39]

Take it to 15, thats a good spot where all the remaining kids are gonna be a similar tier.

I'd second that number. I'm down to 2 prospects that I like/know enough to write about. After that, I have a couple more that I'd be comfortable voting for, but I'd have very little conviction behind those votes. I'd keep voting up to 20, but my last few votes would just be the result of taking the word of posters here that I respect.

 

[Reality Czech]

I just value someone demonstrating that they can be an NHL player. Floor is important to me, especially when we're talking about prospects that are in the teens of a team's prospect pool. We're talking about the guys that we are hoping can be the guys that fill in around the edges and surround our core players and prospects, that end up being the real needle movers, on the cheap. If I can save $300k-$500k on each of my bottom pair D, 3 4th liners and one of my 3rd line wingers without losing much on-ice impact simply by filling those spots with internally developed guys, I do that every chance I get.

I think the difference in how you and I vote on this is that I don't even think of players value as a prospect to the Blues organization. I look at who I think will be a better NHLer, whether here or on another team. I think Tucker and/or Alexandrov topping out as a #6 D or 4th line center/3rd line winger and bouncing around the league making $1-$2 million and carving out a 5-8 year career carries more value than a guy that I don't see topping that if they ever even reach that level.

I just don't see the upside in any of the prospects on this list that are further away from the NHL that makes them more valuable than someone who's done it. And granted, Tucker was a 7th round pick so a lot of these guys have more draft pedigree, which suggests they have a better chance of overcoming the hurdles that anyone drafted outside of the first two rounds has to overcome. I give value to the guy(s) that have already made that leap when it is such a hard thing to accomplish as a late pick.

Great post, you summarized it better than I could have.

 

[LGB]

I think there is a chance Tucker surprises us and becomes a top 4 D.