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

[Beauterham]

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

I wouldn't mind to go to 20. We have quite a few guys with fringe NHL potential. And it's not like there is a lot else to talk about untill prospect camp starts...

 

[CoMoBlues]

I wouldn't mind to go to 20. We have quite a few guys with fringe NHL potential. And it's not like there is a lot else to talk about untill prospect camp starts...

For sure. If we have a deeper prospect pool we should have a larger poll, like 20.

Also, went Tucker. A man and his dream

 

[stl76]

Expected value = value if ceiling is achieved * percent likelihood of reaching ceiling

Let’s assign some semi-arbitrary numbers here and say a backup goalie has a value of 50 points and a third pairing dman has a value of 30 points. If Zherenko has a 50% chance of hitting his ceiling and Tucker has a 95% chance of at least being a third pairing dman, then Tucker had an expected value of 28.5 (.95 * 30 = 28.5) while Zherenko has an expected value of 25.

The numbers and players are chosen mostly for explanation purposes, but that’s the way I look at prospects when it comes to voting for a player with a low ceiling @Majorityof1 . If you want to get more complicated you could assign various weights and values based on different possible outcomes and the likelihood of said outcomes, but that’s the basic idea.

Expected utility hypothesis - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

The comparison isn’t between a prospect and an UFA, it’s between two prospects.

 

[stlbluz]

I keep coming up with Dvorsky

 

[STL fan in MN]

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

We usually go to 20-25 and given the increase depth of our prospect pool, I see no reason to not go that far.

Also gives us something to do before training camp too.

My list goes to 36.

 

[Stealth JD]

Still going with the talent of Vorobyov over the "depth"-upside of Tucker.

 

[Majorityof1]

Expected value = value if ceiling is achieved * percent likelihood of reaching ceiling

Let’s assign some semi-arbitrary numbers here and say a backup goalie has a value of 50 points and a third pairing dman has a value of 30 points. If Zherenko has a 50% chance of hitting his ceiling and Tucker has a 95% chance of at least being a third pairing dman, then Tucker had an expected value of 28.5 (.95 * 30 = 28.5) while Zherenko has an expected value of 25.

The numbers and players are chosen mostly for explanation purposes, but that’s the way I look at prospects when it comes to voting for a player with a low ceiling @Majorityof1 . If you want to get more complicated you could assign various weights and values based on different possible outcomes and the likelihood of said outcomes, but that’s the basic idea.

Expected utility hypothesis - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

The comparison isn’t between a prospect and an UFA, it’s between two prospects.

That's wrong. Expected value is the sum of all possible values multiplied by their likelihood, not just the ceiling. So you would need the likelihood of Zeherenko being a Elite times whatever value elite is + the likelihood he is a good but not elite starter times the value of that +...(every other possibility)...+ the liklihood he hits his floor times the value of that.

And Expected value isn't the end all be all. Some people are risk-seeking, and some are risk averse. Just look at casinos. Nobody would bet at a casino if you just looked at expected value. Expected value is always in the casinos favor (unless you are counting cards in black jack).

Finally, you are also wrong about not factoring in UFAs because you have to factor in opportunity cost. If we didn't have this player, who would we have instead? Should we trade Tucker or Voroybov? Tuckers Expected value may be higher, but at every point on his list of probabilities, we can get a near equivalent player from UFA, so his value is less than Voroybov.

 

[Majorityof1]

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).

If I conflated Tucker with a 6/7 D max, that was not intended. I was simplifying for the example. Tucker has 5D potential and maybe a guy who can be a 4 with a strong top 3. But its not much more than that. And the 4, even the strong 5 is pushing his ceiling.

I disagree with your analysis of cheap depth only being old or coming off bad seasons. I cited Acciari as a great example. You have to be shrewd about it, but there are absolutely guys out there you can grab with good scouting. There are 20 NHL D who are 33 or under, making $1.5M or less and whoplayed 15:45 or more last year. That is a minute more ice time than Tucker averaged last year.

You are also over selling young guys who are filling these roles. While a 22-23 year old can be a bargain, they are also more mistake prone than vets. There is value in a steady guy who you know what you are getting vs a kid who will make a lot of mistakes, be overwhelmed and need coaching.

I am not saying a kid who can come in and be a bottom pair D for cheap with an outside shot at a being middle pair is worthless. I just don't think that value materializes much more if they can push beyond 4th line or 6th D territory. If they are a 4/5D or a 3rd line player, then you see some real bargain to their contract. But coming into a conversation like this and saying "He is already a 6/7 D" doesn't sell me at all unless you couple it with "and still has room to grow". Tucker is basically replacing Bortuzzo at that leve. We have signed Bortz under UFA contracts below $1.375M for the last 8 years.

 

[stl76]

That's wrong. Expected value is the sum of all possible values multiplied by their likelihood, not just the ceiling. So you would need the likelihood of Zeherenko being a Elite times whatever value elite is + the likelihood he is a good but not elite starter times the value of that +...(every other possibility)...+ the liklihood he hits his floor times the value of that.

And Expected value isn't the end all be all. Some people are risk-seeking, and some are risk averse. Just look at casinos. Nobody would bet at a casino if you just looked at expected value. Expected value is always in the casinos favor (unless you are counting cards in black jack).

Finally, you are also wrong about not factoring in UFAs because you have to factor in opportunity cost. If we didn't have this player, who would we have instead? Should we trade Tucker or Voroybov? Tuckers Expected value may be higher, but at every point on his list of probabilities, we can get a near equivalent player from UFA, so his value is less than Voroybov.

It’s most certainly not wrong lol. As I said, if you want to get more complicated you could assign various weights and values based on different possible outcomes and the likelihood of said outcomes, but that’s the basic idea.

Including replacement cost when evaluating prospects seems over the top to me but if you want to that’s fine. If you want to include opportunity cost of investing in one prospect over another that’s fine. If you want to include trade value and try to calculate how other GMs rate players that’s fine. If you’re more risk averse and value a higher floor or risk seeking and value pure upside that’s all fine. Feel free to make calculations as complicated as you want or come up with a completely different method that works for you. Throw literal darts at a board and you might be more accurate than our current rankings for all I know.

You asked for the thinking of picking a lower ceiling on your player. I never said it was the end all be all, but that is the thinking, for me at least.

 

[Majorityof1]

It’s most certainly not wrong lol. As I said, if you want to get more complicated you could assign various weights and values based on different possible outcomes and the likelihood of said outcomes, but that’s the basic idea.

Including replacement cost when evaluating prospects seems over the top to me but if you want to that’s fine. If you want to include opportunity cost of investing in one prospect over another that’s fine. If you want to include trade value and try to calculate how other GMs rate players that’s fine. If you’re more risk averse and value a higher floor or risk seeking and value pure upside that’s all fine. Feel free to make calculations as complicated as you want or come up with a completely different method that works for you. Throw literal darts at a board and you might be more accurate than our current rankings for all I know.

You asked for the thinking of picking a lower ceiling on your player. I never said it was the end all be all, but that is the thinking, for me at least.

Fair enough. If that is how you look at it, you are entitled to that.

But your definition of expected value was wrong. Just flat out wrong. you can call it something else, but it is not expected value. If favors players with a high liklihood to hit their ceilings. Look at these ranges of outcomes:

A: 100 @10%, 80 @30%, 70@ 30%, 65@ 30%
B: 60 @ 90%, 50 @ 10%. ,

Player A is clearly better. His floor is higher than B's Ceiling. But you're definition of EV would have him worse. You would multiple 100 x 10% and get 10 for the EV for A, vs 54 for player B. So by your definition of EV, player B is 5.4 times more valuable?

Edit: I am really not trying to be a dick saying you are wrong. I am sorry if it comes across that way. Expected Value is just a concept I have used a lot. I think you are missing out on it's meaning when you only looking at the high end.

 

[STL fan in MN]

If I conflated Tucker with a 6/7 D max, that was not intended. I was simplifying for the example. Tucker has 5D potential and maybe a guy who can be a 4 with a strong top 3. But its not much more than that. And the 4, even the strong 5 is pushing his ceiling.

I disagree with your analysis of cheap depth only being old or coming off bad seasons. I cited Acciari as a great example. You have to be shrewd about it, but there are absolutely guys out there you can grab with good scouting. There are 20 NHL D who are 33 or under, making $1.5M or less and whoplayed 15:45 or more last year. That is a minute more ice time than Tucker averaged last year.

You are also over selling young guys who are filling these roles. While a 22-23 year old can be a bargain, they are also more mistake prone than vets. There is value in a steady guy who you know what you are getting vs a kid who will make a lot of mistakes, be overwhelmed and need coaching.

I am not saying a kid who can come in and be a bottom pair D for cheap with an outside shot at a being middle pair is worthless. I just don't think that value materializes much more if they can push beyond 4th line or 6th D territory. If they are a 4/5D or a 3rd line player, then you see some real bargain to their contract. But coming into a conversation like this and saying "He is already a 6/7 D" doesn't sell me at all unless you couple it with "and still has room to grow". Tucker is basically replacing Bortuzzo at that leve. We have signed Bortz under UFA contracts below $1.375M for the last 8 years.

Tucker is likely about the same level as Borts today but Borts never had #5, possibly #4 upside. He was signed as our #7 all of those contracts.

You make a good point though about how depth vets can generally be had for cheap…for now. But will that discount remain once the Cap starts going up again? Maybe somewhat but I doubt to the level it’s been at the last couple years. It’s those depth guys that are being squeezed, having to take less than their typical market value because the Cap’s barely moved in 3 years. With the current environment (that’s due to an unforeseen pandemic), the benefit of cheap, young players has been muted a bit. But once the Cap starts going up quite a bit starting next season, I’d bet the decent depth guys will start to command more and the historic benefit of cheap youth will return.

 

[Majorityof1]

Tucker is likely about the same level as Borts today but Borts never had #5, possibly #4 upside. He was signed as our #7 all of those contracts.

You make a good point though about how depth vets can generally be had for cheap…for now. But will that discount remain once the Cap starts going up again? Maybe somewhat but I doubt to the level it’s been at the last couple years. It’s those depth guys that are being squeezed, having to take less than their typical market value because the Cap’s barely moved in 3 years. With the current environment (that’s due to an unforeseen pandemic), the benefit of cheap, young players has been muted a bit. But once the Cap starts going up quite a bit starting next season, I’d bet the decent depth guys will start to command more and the historic benefit of cheap youth will return.

To the bolded....very good point. I still think it is easier to fill those bottom of the lineup roles. Players in those roles have less impact. I still think ceiling matters more. But if the increased cap goes toward the bottom of the lineup, then the value of lower ceiling players will rise. However, the extra cap can go to the top of the lineup players instead of the bottom. Like does the extra cap go to Tarasenko, Orlov, and guys like that who signed short term deals. They seem to be the ones getting squeezed out.

 

[STL fan in MN]

To the bolded....very good point. I still think it is easier to fill those bottom of the lineup roles. Players in those roles have less impact. I still think ceiling matters more. But if the increased cap goes toward the bottom of the lineup, then the value of lower ceiling players will rise. However, the extra cap can go to the top of the lineup players instead of the bottom. Like does the extra cap go to Tarasenko, Orlov, and guys like that who signed short term deals. They seem to be the ones getting squeezed out.

Pretty much everyone needing a new contract the last 2-3 years got squeezed.

I’m sure teams will continue to prioritize the top players but if a team really wants someone, they’ll offer just a bit more than what others can/will pay, even if we’re just talking a 3rd/4th line or 3rd pairing guy. I don’t think their pay will go up as much as the top guys but it’ll go up.

 

[Mike Liut]

I follow the Blues prospects pretty close. Who’s Zherenko?

 

[STL fan in MN]

I follow the Blues prospects pretty close. Who’s Zherenko?

2019 7th round pick. Russian goalie. Did well in Russia, then performed well in Liiga (Finland’s top league) in 2021-22. Then this past season he came to N.A. and earned the other AHL job behind Hofer. Looked very good and athletic and quickly adapted to the smaller ice surface. Put up a .913 SV% as a rookie.

He’s 6’4”, 200 lbs so has the prototypical size teams look for. After some other Russians were either detained or had trouble returning to N.A., he hid out in a hotel in another country, eventually got a visa to Canada and then once in Canada was able to get a visa to the US. He showed up without equipment and rusty as he wasn’t able to be on the ice a lot of last summer as he was hiding out in hotel rooms trying to make sure he could get out of Russia. Yet he still beat out the competition for the AHL backup job and performed well.

He ended up getting new equipment and…it’s pretty sick.

 

[Majorityof1]

I follow the Blues prospects pretty close. Who’s Zherenko?

I'm sorry. I don't want to gate keep and I don't want to be a jerk. You are obviosuly welcome to keep posting, voting and sharing your opinion. But somebody has got to say it. You do NOT follow Blues prospects closely if you don't know who Zherenko is.

He was our AHL team's back up goalie and he dressed 3 games for the Blues last year(although he didn't play). Someone who follows the Blues prospects closely might have noticed when he got called up and said "Hmmm, who is this guy?" then. If you follow Blues prospects closely, you should have had a half dozen sites bookmarked to look it up rather than asking.

 

[Celtic Note]

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.

I tend to see bottom 6 / 4 differently. I don’t think they are that interchangeable. There are players that play a winning brand of hockey, those that do not and some that fall in between. I like Tucker’s game a lot. He is solid defensively, he can play that grinding playoff style, makes good breakout passes/decisions and I think he has more offensive potential. Ultimately, his skating will probably limit him, but I still feel likeHe could end up a #4 if everything goes right. His floor is a 5/6 guy.

 

[Mike Liut]

I'm sorry. I don't want to gate keep and I don't want to be a jerk. You are obviosuly welcome to keep posting, voting and sharing your opinion. But somebody has got to say it. You do NOT follow Blues prospects closely if you don't know who Zherenko is.

He was our AHL team's back up goalie and he dressed 3 games for the Blues last year(although he didn't play). Someone who follows the Blues prospects closely might have noticed when he got called up and said "Hmmm, who is this guy?" then. If you follow Blues prospects closely, you should have had a half dozen sites bookmarked to look it up rather than asking.

I can name 20 Blues prospects off the top of my head but somehow don’t know who Zherenko is. Maybe because I don’t give a shit about goalies? Not sure why.

2019 7th round pick. Russian goalie. Did well in Russia, then performed well in Liiga (Finland’s top league) in 2021-22. Then this past season he came to N.A. and earned the other AHL job behind Hofer. Looked very good and athletic and quickly adapted to the smaller ice surface. Put up a .913 SV% as a rookie.

He’s 6’4”, 200 lbs so has the prototypical size teams look for. After some other Russians were either detained or had trouble returning to N.A., he hid out in a hotel in another country, eventually got a visa to Canada and then once in Canada was able to get a visa to the US. He showed up without equipment and rusty as he wasn’t able to be on the ice a lot of last summer as he was hiding out in hotel rooms trying to make sure he could get out of Russia. Yet he still beat out the competition for the AHL backup job and performed well.

He ended up getting new equipment and…it’s pretty sick.

That’s awesome. Thanks for posting

 

[Blueston]

Pretty much everyone needing a new contract the last 2-3 years got squeezed.

I’m sure teams will continue to prioritize the top players but if a team really wants someone, they’ll offer just a bit more than what others can/will pay, even if we’re just talking a 3rd/4th line or 3rd pairing guy. I don’t think their pay will go up as much as the top guys but it’ll go up.

There is a difference though between 4/5 d and 6/7d. The former can be valuable and make $2-3mm. The latter is lucky to make $1mm. Marco was the former, Borts the latter. If folks think Tucker can be 4/5 guy there is real value there, even though would be complimentary guy and not core. But if we think he is 6/7 guy, those really are a dime a dozen and generally available as near league minimum guys or even as waiver claims. I think Tucker projects as 6/7 guy, like Borts, which is why even though I like him as prospect and glad to have him in lineup, I don’t think he merits ranking this high.

 

[Robb_K]

For me it's between Robertsson and Burns. Defencemen are harder to predict, as they usually mature later. So, I went with Robertsson's offensive upside. Even if there is not enough room in the Top 9 for him, he'd be able to be traded off as part of a package for a Top 4 D-man IF he becomes a 20 goal 45-50 point scorer.

 

[stl76]

Fair enough. If that is how you look at it, you are entitled to that.

But your definition of expected value was wrong. Just flat out wrong. you can call it something else, but it is not expected value. If favors players with a high liklihood to hit their ceilings. Look at these ranges of outcomes:

A: 100 @10%, 80 @30%, 70@ 30%, 65@ 30%
B: 60 @ 90%, 50 @ 10%. ,

Player A is clearly better. His floor is higher than B's Ceiling. But you're definition of EV would have him worse. You would multiple 100 x 10% and get 10 for the EV for A, vs 54 for player B. So by your definition of EV, player B is 5.4 times more valuable?

Edit: I am really not trying to be a dick saying you are wrong. I am sorry if it comes across that way. Expected Value is just a concept I have used a lot. I think you are missing out on its meaning when you only looking at the high end.

No worries, I don’t look only at high end when voting on a list like this - was just using a truncated example to try to lay out the concept and show some logic behind choosing a prospect with a lower ceiling.

My own ranking is way less complicated. I take in some consideration of where I think a prospect will most likely end up in the long run and how likely they are to make an impact in the NHL. It’s basically a vague guesstimate of what their impact will be if any, and I do tend to value prospects closer to making an impact or at least making the NHL over a long shot even if the long shot has a higher ceiling.

 

[Brian39]

I disagree with your analysis of cheap depth only being old or coming off bad seasons. I cited Acciari as a great example. You have to be shrewd about it, but there are absolutely guys out there you can grab with good scouting.

Acciari missed 62 games the year before we signed him. In the playoffs that season, he had 0 points and a -5 through 9 games and played just 9:55 (13th among the 15 forwards who saw any playing time for Florida in the playoffs that year). He was scratched in one of Florida's playoff games that year and I honestly don't recall whether it was a healthy scratch or due to injury/suspension.

The Acciari we signed was absolutely coming off a bad season. It was a great gamble at $1.25M on a 1 year deal and he proved that he could stay healthy and effective. And after proving that, he earned himself a 3 year deal at $2M per season. It takes him through his age 34 season and includes a modified NTC. I have major doubts that he will still be worth that by year 3 (which is fine for the team who gave it to him since they are all in for the next 2 seasons).

Acciari was a successful gamble, but it is really, really hard to hit on these every year across multiple positions.

There are 20 NHL D who are 33 or under, making $1.5M or less and whoplayed 15:45 or more last year. That is a minute more ice time than Tucker averaged last year.

And a third of them aren't NHL caliber D. Gross, Sweezey, Pouliot, Carrick, Reilly, Radish, and Wolanin all played less than 20 NHL games and were signed to go to the AHL and be used as an injury call up.

Even more are NHL-caliber, but barely. Most the guys on that list struggle to be the #6 on a competent NHL blue line. Outside of a couple guys, these are players that you bring in to be the #6 or #7 D man on your team and you are likely in big trouble if you brought them in to do more than that. There are a few exceptions.

Haakanpaa is a nice bottom pair D that handled top 4 duty well last year. Getting him at $1.5M was a nice piece of business for Dallas. With that said, this is year 3 of the 3 year deal they gave him and he was far from a clear-cut #5 when they signed him. It was a good (small) gamble by them back in 2021.

Sebastian Aho has turned into a nice NHL-regular bottom pair guy at a great contract. He also never made it to UFA. His own team signed him before the UFA window opened in 2022.

Benning was a clear #6, but a decent #6 when he signed for $1.25M AAV to play up the lineup in San Jose. It was a 4 year commitment.

Looking at this year's options you have a couple guys.

Hamonic is well worth the $1.1M he'll get this year. He made UFA, but re-signed with Ottawa. Who knows what offers he had, but at the end of the day he chose the cheap 2 year deal (with full NMC) from the team he was already on.

I love the Gustafsson signing for the Rangers. Under $1M for him was fantastic and I think he is more than a replacement level #6 D.

I've never been a big Kulikov fan, but he's adequate as a bottom pair guy. $1M is good value on a 1 year deal from Florida.

We're not as enticing as the Rangers, the no-tax states, the coastal states, etc. We're not going to win the bidding war with cheap contracts when these teams are in the running against us. A handful of examples of value either re-signing with their existing team or choosing these appealing markets doesn't tell me that we can reliably acquire #5 D for peanuts.

You are also over selling young guys who are filling these roles. While a 22-23 year old can be a bargain, they are also more mistake prone than vets. There is value in a steady guy who you know what you are getting vs a kid who will make a lot of mistakes, be overwhelmed and need coaching.

I'm not just selling his ability at 22. I'm rating him as a prospect based on how much he can contribute to the team over the remaining 4 years of team control. I'd say that getting him at $800k (warts and all) right now puts him about at a wash for 2023/24 as a more steady vet making $1.2M. The value comes from the potential to be better than (or as good) as such a vet in 2024/25 and the potential to then be a legit #5 (or maybe a hair better) for $1M+ less than UFA market for 2025/26 and 2026/27.

If he busts, then he won't provide any surplus value (just like a boom/bust 19 year old who busts). But he also won't be a net drain to the team. The reason I'm valuing him more than other prospects who have higher upside is because I don't see drastically higher upside out of any specific prospect left and I think that their odds to hit their ceiling are lower than Tucker's.

I am not saying a kid who can come in and be a bottom pair D for cheap with an outside shot at a being middle pair is worthless. I just don't think that value materializes much more if they can push beyond 4th line or 6th D territory. If they are a 4/5D or a 3rd line player, then you see some real bargain to their contract. But coming into a conversation like this and saying "He is already a 6/7 D" doesn't sell me at all unless you couple it with "and still has room to grow".

I absolutely coupled the 'what he is now' with the fact that he still ahs room to grow. I'm not trying to convince you to select Tucker or of anyone else's opinions. You asked for the thought process behind valuing low ceiling players and I talked about that.

Tucker is basically replacing Bortuzzo at that leve. We have signed Bortz under UFA contracts below $1.375M for the last 8 years.

FWIW, we gave up a not-insignificant asset for Bortz. We gave up a 25 year old Cole for a 25 year old Bortuzzo who was a pending RFA. We gave him a 2 year deal as an RFA and then the next 3 contracts we gave him were all extensions signed way before he ever had the chance to go UFA. He's an example of how quality bottom pair D men require more investment than simply scouring UFA for bargains.

 

[Blueston]

Acciari missed 62 games the year before we signed him. In the playoffs that season, he had 0 points and a -5 through 9 games and played just 9:55 (13th among the 15 forwards who saw any playing time for Florida in the playoffs that year). He was scratched in one of Florida's playoff games that year and I honestly don't recall whether it was a healthy scratch or due to injury/suspension.

The Acciari we signed was absolutely coming off a bad season. It was a great gamble at $1.25M on a 1 year deal and he proved that he could stay healthy and effective. And after proving that, he earned himself a 3 year deal at $2M per season. It takes him through his age 34 season and includes a modified NTC. I have major doubts that he will still be worth that by year 3 (which is fine for the team who gave it to him since they are all in for the next 2 seasons).

Acciari was a successful gamble, but it is really, really hard to hit on these every year across multiple positions.



And a third of them aren't NHL caliber D. Gross, Sweezey, Pouliot, Carrick, Reilly, Radish, and Wolanin all played less than 20 NHL games and were signed to go to the AHL and be used as an injury call up.

Even more are NHL-caliber, but barely. Most the guys on that list struggle to be the #6 on a competent NHL blue line. Outside of a couple guys, these are players that you bring in to be the #6 or #7 D man on your team and you are likely in big trouble if you brought them in to do more than that. There are a few exceptions.

Haakanpaa is a nice bottom pair D that handled top 4 duty well last year. Getting him at $1.5M was a nice piece of business for Dallas. With that said, this is year 3 of the 3 year deal they gave him and he was far from a clear-cut #5 when they signed him. It was a good (small) gamble by them back in 2021.

Sebastian Aho has turned into a nice NHL-regular bottom pair guy at a great contract. He also never made it to UFA. His own team signed him before the UFA window opened in 2022.

Benning was a clear #6, but a decent #6 when he signed for $1.25M AAV to play up the lineup in San Jose. It was a 4 year commitment.

Looking at this year's options you have a couple guys.

Hamonic is well worth the $1.1M he'll get this year. He made UFA, but re-signed with Ottawa. Who knows what offers he had, but at the end of the day he chose the cheap 2 year deal (with full NMC) from the team he was already on.

I love the Gustafsson signing for the Rangers. Under $1M for him was fantastic and I think he is more than a replacement level #6 D.

I've never been a big Kulikov fan, but he's adequate as a bottom pair guy. $1M is good value on a 1 year deal from Florida.

We're not as enticing as the Rangers, the no-tax states, the coastal states, etc. We're not going to win the bidding war with cheap contracts when these teams are in the running against us. A handful of examples of value either re-signing with their existing team or choosing these appealing markets doesn't tell me that we can reliably acquire #5 D for peanuts.


I'm not just selling his ability at 22. I'm rating him as a prospect based on how much he can contribute to the team over the remaining 4 years of team control. I'd say that getting him at $800k (warts and all) right now puts him about at a wash for 2023/24 as a more steady vet making $1.2M. The value comes from the potential to be better than (or as good) as such a vet in 2024/25 and the potential to then be a legit #5 (or maybe a hair better) for $1M+ less than UFA market for 2025/26 and 2026/27.

If he busts, then he won't provide any surplus value (just like a boom/bust 19 year old who busts). But he also won't be a net drain to the team. The reason I'm valuing him more than other prospects who have higher upside is because I don't see drastically higher upside out of any specific prospect left and I think that their odds to hit their ceiling are lower than Tucker's.


I absolutely coupled the 'what he is now' with the fact that he still ahs room to grow. I'm not trying to convince you to select Tucker or of anyone else's opinions. You asked for the thought process behind valuing low ceiling players and I talked about that.



FWIW, we gave up a not-insignificant asset for Bortz. We gave up a 25 year old Cole for a 25 year old Bortuzzo who was a pending RFA. We gave him a 2 year deal as an RFA and then the next 3 contracts we gave him were all extensions signed way before he ever had the chance to go UFA. He's an example of how quality bottom pair D men require more investment than simply scouring UFA for bargains.

We have signed borts to multiple contract but none at more than 1.375aav. So we like him a lot but don’t value his role that much. Tucker could be the same. Really good 6/7d are nice to have but still worth a fraction of 4/5 guys.

 

[joe galiba]

We have signed borts to multiple contract but none at more than 1.375aav. Do we like him a lot but dint value his role that much. Tucker could be the same. Really good 6/7d are nice to have but still with a fraction of 4/5 guys.

I am not sold on Tucker as a solid 5/6 yet, but he seems at minimum to be what Bortz should be and that is a 7 who can play 30 to 40 games and not hurt the team