Prospect Info: Why Our Prospects Seem To Struggle in the AHL

[OvermanKingGainer]

This is in response to a question posted on the trade board, but it is far more topical and discussion-worthy for me to respond to it here.

I dunno what they do in Stockton. Too many players go there and show regression. Maybe they should just give their rookies gifted spots and let them develop in Calgary?

There are a few reasons for this. Nothing too shocking but it is food-for-thought nonetheless.

1) Our AHLers Are Playing Sore
This sounds like an excuse, but that is not what I am getting at. If a player sacrifices some in-game performance to be in the weight room during hockey season, they are lauded and encouraged to do so. Once a player hits the NHL their weight room time is primarily to maintain muscle mass, not to gain, but in the AHL players are trying to get bigger, stronger, faster, DURING the season.

2) They were one of the youngest teams in the AHL
25, 26, 27, 28. 29 year old AHL veterans are often responsible for the boosting of the stats of prospects. Back when Feaster was GM, our AHL squad was rolling such names as 28 year old Ben Walter, 31 year old Krys Kolanos, and even 25 year old Ben Street... guys with no NHL potential but guys who could do details within games that helped our prospects focus on the offensive side of the game, whether that was winning a board battle or making a good (for an AHLer) play on the power play. The first thing Burke, Treliving, and Pascal did upon taking over was eliminate the veteran element. They still brought in the occasional vet - a guy like Mike Angeledis or Matt Frattin, but it was clear these players' roles would be marginal support roles, not to carry the prospects but to acquiesce to them.

What happens when you have the second youngest team in the AHL? Fewer degrees of freedom to make a mistake. Fewer degrees of freedom to lose a board battle or gamble on a takeaway knowing someone behind you will make it alright. Ultimately, less time simply dominating in the offensive zone as a team.

Imagine a line of:
Gaudreau-Lazar-Ferland

vs a line of
Gaudrau-Stajan-Chiasson

Line 1 may well be more talented, quick, skilled... but talent alone isn't going to get you points right away. Experience, physical development, all that can help. But in the AHL, the goal isn't just to develop one "Gaudreau"... it is to develop probably ten, fifteen different players that the organization believes could be NHLers someday. They are all quietly dragging each other down while pushing each other forward. And our management encourages this.

What did the defense pairings look like last year?

19 year old Kylington paired with 21 year old undrafted Doetzal
20 year old Andersson paired with 23 year old Wotherspoon.

How about the forward lines?

Some of them from my recollection were:

22 year old Jankowski paired with 20 year old Mangiapane and 25 year old Hathaway
21 year old Klimchuk paired with 25 year old Vey and 22 year old Shinkaruk
21 year old Lomberg paired with 21 year old Hunter Smith
And you still had:
23 year old Pribyl
22 year old Poirier
22 year old Caroll
20 year old undrafted Aagard playing some 4C and even 3C

Honestly, this isn't a team built to make the AHL playoffs. That they did was very much a testament to their collective offensive outburts and the fact that 24 year old David Rittich posted a .924 save percentage.

The power play was one place where the lack of experience was especially evident. As part of the Lazar trade, they acquired a guy named Kostka who single-handedly turned the Power Play around with his experience manning the point. That's not a knock on anyone, it's impressive how 19 year old Kylington was manning a PP1 in a pro league, but experience matters.

I'd also add that a player like Kylington is probably more suited to playing with higher-skill NHLers like Gaudraeu and Monahan, than with AHLers like Vey and Angeledis. It's not a pot shot, but some high-end passes just need high-end receivers to capitalize - a guy like Kostka can simplify. But that last paragraph is just wild conjecture.

3) No line is getting exaggerated ice time
As a carry-on from the above - many different players are being developed, it should be considered that Ryan Huska is rolling four lines pretty evenly most of the time. We have a way of estimating ice time based on the recorded events occurring on the ice. It's not perfect, but it does estimate - at 5 on 5 - whether players are sacrificing time on ice so their teammates can play. And that matters. Prospect-Stats has these stats.

I used two filters: 30 GP and Age. I only did the forwards here, but I'm sure if someone wants to do it, they can click the link above for the defensemen.

Here are the estimated TOI rankings.
Age 22-23
Jankowski - 20 of 45
Caroll - 27 of 45

Age 21-22
Shinkaruk - 17 of 52
Klimchuk - 19 of 52
Lomberg - 30 of 52
Poirier - 42 of 52
Smith - 50 of 52

Age 20-21
Mangiapane - 24 of 40

So already you can see that out of our 8 forward prospects aged 20-23, none were in the top quartile of estimated ice time at 5 on 5.

But are they producing when they are on the ice? That's what matters.

Same players, and their Points Per Estimated 60 Minutes in the grouping of players aged 18 to 23 with 30 AHL GP.

Jankowski - 3rd of of 153
Shinkaruk - 6th of 153
Klimchuk - 11th of 153
Smith - 37th of 153
Lomberg - 42nd of 153
Mangiapane - 67th of 153
Caroll - 68th of 153
Poirier - 74th of 153 and by now I trust you know of his personal problems hampering his performance.

4) They are facing top competition.
With no veterans to take on "AHL Backlund" type minutes, Huska is throwing the kids out against the dogs. The same website, Prospect-Stats, uses the estimated TOI stat to make a quality of competition stat - who was facing the toughest opponents by their estimated ice time?

Here's how they ranked:

Mark Jankowski - 1st of 153
Morgan Klimchuk - 2nd of 153
Andrew Mangiapane - 4th of 153
Hunter Shinkaruk - 5th of 153
Emile Poirier - 9th of 153
Ryan Lomberg - 13th of 153
Austin Caroll - 78th of 153
Hunter Smith - 123rd of 153

How's that for unsheltered? It stands to reason that the six guys in the top thirteen are being fast-tracked to the NHL by putting them into hard matchups against the biggest-minute AHL opponents whenever possible - no sheltering to pad their stats, this is all about making NHL-ready players out of AHL prospects.

Click to read more...

 

[Skobel24]

I'd lean towards lack of experience.

 

[Bounces R Way]

Maybe they're just not that good.

A better question is why are so many of these kids from Calgary ?

 

[DFF]

You are missing the biggest reason: They are not very good.

The lottery picks are already playing in Calgary. Rest of them are not as good as you think they are. It's been like that for the last 20 yrs, Tod Button sure knows how to pick them

 

[Guido Sarducci]

I don't know. But I have a few guesses.

If you can put a prospect into the NHL too soon, then you could also leave him down too long. Leland Irving might be an example of that. AHL All-Star in 2011 and Euro leagues by 2014. There are other examples of that too. I realize that every player is different but why should top rated prospects ever need more than two AHL seasons ?

This "we don't care about winning, we care about making NHLers" philosophy. That is garbage IMO. First of all, winning is the seed of winning. Second of all, they are not making NHLers. When was the last time the Heat/Flames/Knights were any good? I can't remember. If it means bringing in a few 27 year old ringers then just do it.

These players are very good in junior/college. That's how they got drafted in the first place. Let them stay there as long as possible. Parsons (Flames top prospect IMO) is likely going to the ECHL. Why not let him play as a 20 year old in London? Whatever London is doing with him is working. Kylington, same thing. Why a 19 year old in the AHL? Because of some stupid loophole?

Just my .02. Sorry to the Flames Mods if it seems negative about the Flames. But really, the last time the Heat gave the Flames an impact player was TJ Brodie. 6 years ago? I wouldn't post in HF Flames but OKG made a pretty worthwhile thread.

For Stockton guys I think Kulak and Hathaway will make the team. And Jankowski,Shinkaruk, Wotherspoon, and Andersson have outside shots. Rittich is #3 goalie. So, prospects wise, maybe things are getting better. But I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[Skobel24]

I don't know. But I have a few guesses.

If you can put a prospect into the NHL too soon, then you could also leave him down too long. Leland Irving might be an example of that. AHL All-Star in 2011 and Euro leagues by 2014. There are other examples of that too. I realize that every player is different but why should top rated prospects ever need more than two AHL seasons ?

This "we don't care about winning, we care about making NHLers" philosophy. That is garbage IMO. First of all, winning is the seed of winning. Second of all, they are not making NHLers. When was the last time the Heat/Flames/Knights were any good? I can't remember. If it means bringing in a few 27 year old ringers then just do it.

These players are very good in junior/college. That's how they got drafted in the first place. Let them stay there as long as possible. Parsons (Flames top prospect IMO) is likely going to the ECHL. Why not let him play as a 20 year old in London? Whatever London is doing with him is working. Kylington, same thing. Why a 19 year old in the AHL? Because of some stupid loophole?

Just my .02. Sorry to the Flames Mods if it seems negative about the Flames. But really, the last time the Heat gave the Flames an impact player was TJ Brodie. 6 years ago? I wouldn't post in HF Flames but OKG made a pretty worthwhile thread.

For Stockton guys I think Kulak and Hathaway will make the team. And Jankowski,Shinkaruk, Wotherspoon, and Andersson have outside shots. Rittich is #3 goalie. So, prospects wise, maybe things are getting better. But I'll believe it when I see it.

The quality of the players is definitely an issue as well. The Jankowski line did incredibly well, and there are guys down there who are showing they should be there (Kylington, Andersson), but I do think they should bring in a few quality veterans to help support them. I don't mean guys like Bollig/Angelidis.

I've wondered if maybe the coaching staff is an issue, but I really have no clue what that group is like. I'd also stop wasting recalls on guys that have no future here (Linden Vey).

As for the bolded, there are countless reasons. Injuries, off ice issues, coaches mishandling them, their strengths in junior don't translate to pro hockey, ect. Sometimes players just can't make the adjustment to pro hockey either. Yakupov had so much talent, but his lack of IQ really didn't show until later on.

 

[OvermanKingGainer]

If you can put a prospect into the NHL too soon, then you could also leave him down too long. ... I realize that every player is different but why should top rated prospects ever need more than two AHL seasons ?

These players are very good in junior/college. That's how they got drafted in the first place. Let them stay there as long as possible. Parsons (Flames top prospect IMO) is likely going to the ECHL. Why not let him play as a 20 year old in London? Whatever London is doing with him is working.

These are two pretty contradictory paragraphs here... the answer to which I would say is:

- Players need to play, first and foremost. And they need to play their natural position. In Toronto, Burke sent Nazem Kadri down when he wasn't getting his 16+ minutes a game at centre, and it's a similar case here.
- At the same time, players need to be challenged against high competition. The higher the competition the better. And as the numbers I posted in OP show, even among AHLers, the Flames players are consistently facing top competition.

Kylington, same thing. Why a 19 year old in the AHL? Because of some stupid loophole?

Because it gave them maximum influence over his development from a coaching and strength gain perspect. They always had the option to send Kylington down to the WHL in Brandon if he seemed overwhelmed, but that was never an issue. What they have accomplished in the AHL is challenge him to play his game against grown men, but still . It's not a "loophole" at all.

But really, the last time the Heat gave the Flames an impact player was TJ Brodie. 6 years ago?

If you mean a star player, yes, TJ Brodie. But star players are rare. For instance our only prospects who have true "star" upside are:

Jankowski (who has 148 college games and 78 pro games played. In January 2013 Brodie had 248 OHL games, and 115 AHL games played and didn't break out for another calendar year)

Andersson. Who is a good prospect, but still only has 59 AHL games under his belt.

Kylington (Who is entering his 20 year old season, the same age as Brodie's rookie AHL season.)

Parsons (who is entering his first pro season, at a position where four-five pro seasons are not unheard of even for star NHLers)

Fox (who is still not ready for the pros)

Phillips (who is still not ready for the pros)

Valimaki (who we just drafted)

But the Flames have developed effective, impactful NHLers through the AHL under Huska.

- Ferland (15G last year. He's taken strides everywhere he's been, the numbers weren't there in the AHL under Huska but that can be attributed to all the same reasons as my OP post)
- Granlund (scored 20G last year. The Flames naturally preferred Bennett over him as a center, but he's coming off a season where he addressed his biggest NHL concern (puck possession)
- Baertschi (20G / 21A in his last 82 NHL GP. Also had his worst PPG average under Huska, but arguably took his biggest individual strides under him. The fact that his numbers rebounded when he was traded to Utica reflects how Huska's more focused on what the individual is doing rather than their production. On the flip side of that is Shinkaruk, whose numbers declined under Huska - but that doesn't mean Shinkaruk regressed.
- Kulak has taken a ton of strides forward from where he was at in October 2014. Defensemen do take longer to mature but given that he was already better in the NHL than our other bottom pair guys, I'd already consider him a success story. Where he tops out (3rd pair, 2nd pair), we still don't know, but he has added the polish AND strength necessary to be an NHL defenseman for a long time over the last three seasons. He isn't a finished product, but neither was Giordano at the same age. And I still think Kulak has some muscle to add to his frame.
- I'm not sure he's an "impact" NHLer, simply because the talent was never there, but Hathaway is what I would call a success story for Huska. The polish in his game whenever called up to the NHL is self-evident.

For Stockton guys I think Kulak and Hathaway will make the team.

Two guys who outside of an ATO spent pretty much their entire AHL careers under Huska. They are the first wave of guys who have known no other AHL coach. Although personally, I could see them waiving Hathaway because Brouwer is our 4RW.

And Jankowski,Shinkaruk, Wotherspoon, and Andersson have outside shots.

At making the team out of camp? Maybe. Jankowski and Andersson are waiver-exempt so sending them down is easy.

Personally though, I would say Jankowski is an NHLer right now, despite the ease of sending him down. I was as in-favour of having him play last year in the AHL as anyone, but he is ready for a new challenge.

I also think Morgan Klimchuk is the other closest thing to an NHLer we have.

So, prospects wise, maybe things are getting better. But I'll believe it when I see it.

But judging them by counting stats in the AHL isn't going to accomplish much, for the reasons I outlined in my earlier post. You really need to judge them by what they are, not their production, which as we've already seen with Shinkaruk and Baertschi, is not independant of the team they are on.

 

[Mr Snrub]

There are real problems with our development system, especially when it comes to defense. Plenty of spots were up for grabs through the last five years and we had quite a few guys who had a legit shot at being NHL defensemen but whiffed on it after extended time in the AHL. Seems like they have to be a real innate talent (see Brodie) to be able to make it past Huska and co., but that's not the way it ought to be. There's no reason Wotherspoon shouldn't be a regular #5 by now.

 

[Calculon]

Maybe the Flames just suck at developing mid-level talent?

Wait, there's no maybe about it.

Would be nice if the Flames, as an organization, could look in the mirror and ask themselves what they're doing wrong instead of just always deflecting responsibility. The key might be a philosophical change; namely to stop being so hysterically afraid of rookie mistakes costing them a playoff spot. Instead, believe the core is good enough to get them there and that the experience gained over the course of a season will pay off.

The AHL stuff seems relatively simple; prospects come in, have some initial success only to fall into the Flames' pit of despair, i.e., of 'well, you could probably make the jump to the NHL but another year of development never hurt anyone." The players being human after all, lose motivation, stagnate and regress. Then it's time to move onto the next batch.

 

[InfinityIggy]

In terms of team success its #2: They were one of the youngest teams in the AHL

All the other points apply to some or all AHL teams.

In terms of individual progression of players the NHL, I think that's a debate with a lot of answers.

 

[Mr Snrub]

Maybe the Flames just suck at developing mid-level talent?

Wait, there's no maybe about it.

Would be nice if the Flames, as an organization, could look in the mirror and ask themselves what they're doing wrong instead of just always deflecting responsibility. The key might be a philosophical change; namely to stop being so hysterically afraid of rookie mistakes costing them a playoff spot. Instead, believe the core is good enough to get them there and that the experience gained over the course of a season will pay off.

The AHL stuff seems relatively simple; prospects come in, have some initial success only to fall into the Flames' pit of despair, i.e., of 'well, you could probably make the jump to the NHL but another year of development never hurt anyone." The players being human after all, lose motivation, stagnate and regress. Then it's time to move onto the next batch.

If we start to have real success and become a cap team in the same vein as Chicago or Pittsburgh, (three cups would be nice too, while we're at it...) management's hand might be forced into that sort of a philosophical shift.

In general, it's also a problem that small-market teams have. With fewer fans of the Flames in general, there is less interest on a wider level in the farm system. Add that to the fact that the Heat are in California, nowhere near any Flames fans, and the problem only gets bigger. Look at the examples I mentioned above - Scranton and Rockford are both pretty near to Pittsburgh and Chicago. There's widespread interest in both teams and they play where that interest is. (On this topic, the idea of an affiliate in Saskatoon or something is sort of appealing, despite the fact that, y'know, Saskatoon...)

If fans don't want to go to the games, the team loses money and has to move. No money and no job security means you end up hiring second-rate staff and coaching. League egality isn't all about the salary cap.

 

[Johnny Hoxville]

Maybe the Flames just suck at developing mid-level talent?

Wait, there's no maybe about it.

Would be nice if the Flames, as an organization, could look in the mirror and ask themselves what they're doing wrong instead of just always deflecting responsibility. The key might be a philosophical change; namely to stop being so hysterically afraid of rookie mistakes costing them a playoff spot. Instead, believe the core is good enough to get them there and that the experience gained over the course of a season will pay off.

The AHL stuff seems relatively simple; prospects come in, have some initial success only to fall into the Flames' pit of despair, i.e., of 'well, you could probably make the jump to the NHL but another year of development never hurt anyone." The players being human after all, lose motivation, stagnate and regress. Then it's time to move onto the next batch.

I don't want to agree with you, because this is a very cynical outlook on things. But if you look at the last 10 years or so, it's pretty hard to say your wrong. Something is up with our farm system, and having a Treliving here and putting Pascal in charge of the Heat, I hope that changes things. But honestly last year Kulak was probably the only one that was really ready and he was kept down there for expansion reasons. This year we should have more guys pushing for spots.

 

[Fig]

What is the average graduation rate and age of other organizations? I seem to recall the Ducks with a few later aged graduates whereas we on occasion lament the prospects being buried under veterans, yet those prospects are younger than some of the great late round picks of other teams.

Some of the more NHL ready guys like Janko (22) and Foo (23) are straight up older than guys we lament like Klimchuk and Shinkaruk whom many seemed to expect to play in the NHL at 20/21 or are bust. Brodie graduated at age 21. Gaudreau graduated age 21.

Is age 21 the threshold? Or did we end up with a ton of busts? Did we end up with a ton of late bloomers? Or did we just bury our talent?

Shink doesn't seem ready and also redundant in our lineup (22)
Poirier isn't ready, but he's been slightly derailed, now back on track. (22)

Klimchuk seems ready (22)
TSpoon sorta seems ready (24/D)
Kulak seems ready (23/D)

Some posters want Mangiapane up (21)
IMO Lomberg is more ready than Mangiapane (22)

What's a more "reasonable" average age for the position our prospects were picked?

Early 1st
Late 1st

2nd/3rd
4th/5th
6th/7th

IMO, Ward was a big issue as well. Many of the prospects we lost in that time period other than Barts never made anything of themselves. Is Huska on the right track?

 

[Volica]

What's a more "reasonable" average age for the position our prospects were picked?

Early 1st
Late 1st

2nd/3rd
4th/5th
6th/7th

A) Early first (1-3): 18 or 19
B) Earlier first (4-10): 19 or 20
C) Mid firsts (10-20): 20-21

D) Late 1sts (20-31) + 2nd Rounders: 21-22
E) Everything else: Crap-shoot, 22+

Reasoning:
A) You get a kid that high, you kind of hope you're getting a talent that can hang in the NHL already. Worst case they spend 1 year in junior again.
B) These guys can sometimes step in right away (Look at our guys), but normally require at least one more year of junior. They get specific instructions from their teams about what they need to work on; they might do an AHL/NHL split in their D+2
C) You're talking about guys with talent that still need to develop a bit more; normally 1 or 2 years more of junior, then a season splitting some AHL/NHL time.
D) These are guys you're still high on, but have major parts of their game that need work. You more or less let them play out their junior career, even if it means spending the 19-20 year old season there. 1 year in the AHL to learn the ropes, by year 2 of the AHL you're kind of banking on them to either figure it out or define a new role for them (they might have been a skill top 6'er in junior, but that hasn't translated, so you start working on their move to a more bottom 6 role).
E) A 3rd round pick and a 5th round pick need seasoning, so really, it's no different than a late-first or 2nd rounder, except with more holes you need to work on. There's a chance they bridge those faster and find their way into the NHL quicker though (see Johnny or Brodie).

Really it depends on the player. Would I be disappointed to see Andersson or Fox not get to the NHL until they were 23-24? Yeah, a bit actually. Would I be bummed out if Josh Healey doesn't lace it up for Calgary until he's 25? No, not at all.

 

[Tkachuk Norris]

We have as many young players as any team in the league. We haven't had good prospects prior to the 2011 draft. Since that point I think we've produced as many NHL players as any team. To me, we are fine.

If we gave a problem it's with upper managements unwillingness to play young guys with upside (ie Kulak/Andersson/Jankowski) over junk old veterans (ie Grossman/Bartkowski)

 

[Fig]

A) Early first (1-3): 18 or 19
B) Earlier first (4-10): 19 or 20
C) Mid firsts (10-20): 20-21

D) Late 1sts (20-31) + 2nd Rounders: 21-22
E) Everything else: Crap-shoot, 22+

Reasoning:
A) You get a kid that high, you kind of hope you're getting a talent that can hang in the NHL already. Worst case they spend 1 year in junior again.
B) These guys can sometimes step in right away (Look at our guys), but normally require at least one more year of junior. They get specific instructions from their teams about what they need to work on; they might do an AHL/NHL split in their D+2
C) You're talking about guys with talent that still need to develop a bit more; normally 1 or 2 years more of junior, then a season splitting some AHL/NHL time.
D) These are guys you're still high on, but have major parts of their game that need work. You more or less let them play out their junior career, even if it means spending the 19-20 year old season there. 1 year in the AHL to learn the ropes, by year 2 of the AHL you're kind of banking on them to either figure it out or define a new role for them (they might have been a skill top 6'er in junior, but that hasn't translated, so you start working on their move to a more bottom 6 role).
E) A 3rd round pick and a 5th round pick need seasoning, so really, it's no different than a late-first or 2nd rounder, except with more holes you need to work on. There's a chance they bridge those faster and find their way into the NHL quicker though (see Johnny or Brodie).

Really it depends on the player. Would I be disappointed to see Andersson or Fox not get to the NHL until they were 23-24? Yeah, a bit actually. Would I be bummed out if Josh Healey doesn't lace it up for Calgary until he's 25? No, not at all.

Not trying to target you, but then, I have some questions.

Looking at 2013, lots of guys in the late first did not look to establish themselves until last season. Theodore, Dano, Hartman, McCarron etc. Then we look at the group between Lazar and Poirier which doesn't look like they're too far either. It's almost as if that group is 1 year slower than the average draft group.

It's not exactly like our ground is super far off either. Our group at least seems close to the average. Seemingly our prospects are a few years behind some of the current ones establishing themselves (Hartman, Dano, Theodore) and the ones that seemed like they were on track were only Mantha and Burakovsky.

Poirer - Derailed 2 seasons for personal reasons
Klimchuk - 1-2 seasons for injuries
Lazar - 1 season due to mono, 1 season due to being rushed?
Shinkaruk - No idea. Maybe just isn't the right size and style to be in NHL?

Honestly, I'm not even sure whether to mention another +1 due to expansion draft.

Honestly, our group in 2013 is in the latter half. We're looking at guys like Mueller, Rychel, Gauthier as peers. But IMO, weirdly enough, they all look like they could be NHL regulars with a year or two of additional development.

Kulak (23)
TSpoon (24)

If we bother counting (not sure if we should) the expansion +1 burying of these two guys, then we also have to consider that defensemen take an extra season or two to develop. Is Brodie a norm in terms of late round picks? Or a home run pick like Slavin and Pesce in Carolina which IMO isn't the norm? I would like to know what average age other dmen entered the league if not drafted in the first round.

So if we look at the Ducks, are Kulak and TSpoon closer to a Brandon Montour (Age 23 into league) or Korbinian Holzer (26) in terms of development?

Is that age expectation actually realistic?

We have as many young players as any team in the league. We haven't had good prospects prior to the 2011 draft. Since that point I think we've produced as many NHL players as any team. To me, we are fine.

If we gave a problem it's with upper managements unwillingness to play young guys with upside (ie Kulak/Andersson/Jankowski) over junk old veterans (ie Grossman/Bartkowski)

As much as I'd like to think it's a little bit of column A and column B, I am actually not sure. Did management actually try to bury those two in the expansion draft? Or is it a problem in Abbotsford/Adirondack/Stockton?

I've shared the theory that Bartkowski is on the same level as those two, but played in the NHL as a salary bonus for being expansion fodder. Perhaps we can add the expansion conspiracy in as well. IMO Barts is not playing a single NHL regular season game next season over Kulak and TSpoon.

Grossman I have no idea. He was signed to a weird deal to maximize LTIR. Maybe Gully thought a vet would learn his system faster than a kid?

Janko was an AHL rookie last season. You cannot be serious in thinking he was buried from the NHL this past season, no? If he doesn't play next season, ok, consider panicking.

Again, I am not attacking anyone's opinion, but until I see statistically that we are completely below average on prospects, I'm not willing to panic and believe it's management playing below par vs other organizations.

For instance, many like to slag Sutter for the poor drafting. But Sutter as GM knew he needed to develop the scouting department. Scouting was better after he left than when he took on the role. Similar things happened under Feaster, but both were playing catch up vs the league.

The farm however has dealt with a lot of moves and IMO a farm coach that was not interested in developing prospects (Ward), but winning to try and move up to a NHL gig (IMO). I don't think many noticed that our current management spent time to try and set up a system in the minors that was more similar to our current NHL system. This is a recent development.

QC/Saint John/Abbotsford/Adirondack/Stockton/Kansas is IMO another example of catch up. But it goes beyond that. If anyone has any idea how different the styles were in the minors/farm system vs NHL since 2010, I'd love to know if the prospects were at a disadvantage from the start. As far as I know, it's closer now, but I'm not super confident in such a statement. Farm team rankings are easily looked up, style and coaching stuffs however, not so much.

 

[Bounces R Way]

The AHL is not a developmental league. Don't know why it's so often viewed as one. Unless you're the Detroit Red Wings, most farm teams have middling success graduating players to the NHL.

The developmental side is the acclimation to living the pro life. Getting in the gym every day, learning to play systems, working on their game, making a salary and living on their own, etc. The Heat are really young, the more time these prospects get to do develop the better. They will still get call ups, problem is there's limited opportunity when the Flames acquire players like Bartkowski, Brouwer, and Lazar. I hope to see at least one player stick with the big club this season. Kulak or Jankowski being the most likely IMO.

 

[Volica]

Not trying to target you, but then, I have some questions.

Is that age expectation actually realistic?

Not sure why you add the first statement when I even mention at the end, it really depends on the prospect? I more or less gave a range; you tend not to know too much about a prospect drafted past the 1st 10-15 picks until after their D+2 season for the most part anyways, but I think a certain hope comes with a player being picked early.

All players develop differently. Like in 2014; is Pastrnak or Point falling in that draft? Not a chance. There's a perfectly plausible situation that Jankowski doesn't establish himself as an NHL regular until he's 24. There were guys picked 120+ picks after him that are NHL'ers already. And yet many view Janko as our top prospect, yet if we use an age range, this kid's already in bust territory.


You want to see your prospects making it to the NHL; if you look at those successful teams from the last 20 years, it doesn't matter when they get there, as long as when they do, they make an impact.

 

[OvermanKingGainer]

You are missing the biggest reason: They are not very good.

The lottery picks are already playing in Calgary. Rest of them are not as good as you think they are.

Here are some tweets by Leafs blogger Ziggy_14 just a few hours ago, about a trio of Flames prospects who are not as good as I think they are.

 

[Fig]

The AHL is not a developmental league. Don't know why it's so often viewed as one. Unless you're the Detroit Red Wings, most farm teams have middling success graduating players to the NHL.

The developmental side is the acclimation to living the pro life. Getting in the gym every day, learning to play systems, working on their game, making a salary and living on their own, etc. The Heat are really young, the more time these prospects get to do develop the better. They will still get call ups, problem is there's limited opportunity when the Flames acquire players like Bartkowski, Brouwer, and Lazar. I hope to see at least one player stick with the big club this season. Kulak or Jankowski being the most likely IMO.

Hmm... it is obviously a lower tier. On top of that, conditioning stints are done there, younger kids needing to round out their game before "graduating" to the NHL go there. There might be a difference in our opinion of the definition of "developmental league", but many players do "develop" in the minors.

If it's not a developmental league, then maybe there is an opportunity to get ahead of other teams by making it one, no? Because I don't see other teams deciding to veteran load their AHL rosters to win it all and then brag about it. They want kids to take the reigns and figure out how to play better, then make it to the bigs, no?

Not sure why you add the first statement when I even mention at the end, it really depends on the prospect? I more or less gave a range; you tend not to know too much about a prospect drafted past the 1st 10-15 picks until after their D+2 season for the most part anyways, but I think a certain hope comes with a player being picked early.

All players develop differently. Like in 2014; is Pastrnak or Point falling in that draft? Not a chance. There's a perfectly plausible situation that Jankowski doesn't establish himself as an NHL regular until he's 24. There were guys picked 120+ picks after him that are NHL'ers already. And yet many view Janko as our top prospect, yet if we use an age range, this kid's already in bust territory.


You want to see your prospects making it to the NHL; if you look at those successful teams from the last 20 years, it doesn't matter when they get there, as long as when they do, they make an impact.

I think I misread that second part or missed it. My bad.

But I am curious to know if if that draft class for whatever reason graduated a year late, then were buried last season for the expansion. OKG's stats above seemed to possibly hint at it. Last time we made the playoffs, we had all sorts of graduation from the farm. Maybe there will be another sudden surge of graduates after this dry spell?

 

[Dack]

Here are some tweets by Leafs blogger Ziggy_14 just a few hours ago, about a trio of Flames prospects who are not as good as I think they are.

I wonder how accurate their ice time estimates are. They do show well for Stockton though basically no one gets overplayed and they all produce at an above average rate while facing high QOC with a low QOC.

Also I think a lot of developing players is just giving them a chance and getting lucky. I think the Sens probably thought they were giving Mike Hoffman one last show me contract when he was 24 and then all of the sudden he exploded in the AHL and they got a first line winger out of it. I think a lot of the young guys could play in the NHL right now or in a year but most of them won't get a chance.

 

[JPeeper]

Here are some tweets by Leafs blogger Ziggy_14 just a few hours ago, about a trio of Flames prospects who are not as good as I think they are.

I don't get your post. Based on these graphs they are actually fairly good no? Getting 1st/2nd line points by playing with 3rd line teammates and getting 3rd line minutes. These graphs show they are good.

But your post is saying you think they are good, correct? So don't you and the graphs mean the same thing? Just curious because I think all 3 of these guys are great prospects.

 

[Bjornar Moxnes]

Here are some tweets by Leafs blogger Ziggy_14 just a few hours ago, about a trio of Flames prospects who are not as good as I think they are.

For QoT does the lower mean worse team mates, or better team mates? It may seem like a stupid question, but I'm asking because playing with good team mates could mean a lower QoT ranking, as they consider it a disadvantage to your overall rankings for having better team mates (Aka team mates could inflate your states).

 

[Ace Rimmer]

From what I've seen in the past, the percentages of a hockey player carving out a career in the NHL (200+ games) is approximately:

1st round pick: 50% (ish)
2nd-nth round pick: 12% (ish) - most of those odds being from 2nd round picks, which the Flames used to give away like candy.

Currently the Flames have three first round picks on the Stockton roster, Jankowski Poirier and Klimchuk. Odds are only one (maybe two) of those will be an NHL player.

For the remaining what, 23 players? Maybe we'll see three of those guys in NHL sweaters for a portion of their career. One of those 23 already carved out his NHL career. Compare that against the high hopes of Kylington (mine) Andersson, Kulak, Mangiapane, Dube, et al. and you begin to understand where the disappointment comes from. Where the perceived "failure of development" comes from.

It's not a failure of the system, it's simple math.