yogintheaveragebears
Registered User
- May 23, 2015
- 575
- 245
Prospect Info: 17-18 Blues Top Prospect #5
- Thread starter EastonBlues22
- Start date
- Status
But that's the thing...why isn't Sanford 'as good' as the rest of the top-10? He's actually skated in the NHL and didn't look over-whelmed...after putting up very good stats in college and the AHL. Sure, he needs to get stronger but he's on the cusp of actually being an NHL'er. Guys like Kyrou, Thomas and Kostin are being projected to develop linearly so in 2-3 years they'll end up better than Sanford is (or will be), but that's not always how development works. Some guys peak at 17...others can't get over the AHL-hump (Rattie anyone?).
The surprising thing would be if Thompson, Kyrou, Thomas, Kostin & Barbashev ALL became NHL'ers and ALL surpassed Sanford, because the chances are pretty decent that at least one, if not more, of those guys are going to get tripped up somewhere along the way. Saying so-and-so has a high floor isn't really true. The worst they could become is exactly what they are now: a very good amateur player. The only high-floor guys I see are Barbashev, Schmaltz and Sanford because they appear to have successfully navigated the development process and can contribute now, albeit in a limited capacity barring more growth. The rest of the guys are even bigger question marks, and not necessarily destined to become anything more than footnotes in a media guide along with Palushaj, Ponich, Junland, Wannstrom, Hjalmarsson, Soderberg, etc.
I don't see 'stud, top-line forward' when I look at Thompson, or Thomas or even Kostin. Maybe, if things break perfectly they can become 2nd liners in the NHL...but if I had to choose between Kostin or Sanford actually becoming that...I'd probably pick Sanford as things appear today.
- Jul 4, 2014
- 7,871
- 8,214
There is a lot of unnecessary back and forth in this thread (and the prior ones) about why one poster rated a particular prospect ahead of another. We could avoid a lot of this by simply acknowledging that everyone has a little different criteria for how we rank them, and that differing opinions is what advances discussions. The disagreements have been civil thus far, but they are becoming more frequent which leads me to believe that might not last much longer. Let's please just enjoy the fact that we have a lot of really nice prospects that will keep us entertained as Blues fans for the foreseeable future.
Most here are capable of having civil, rational discussions...I don't think we're in any danger of derailing the discussion. After all, these threads are designed to illicit discussion about each of the prospects and their rankings in relation to all of the rest. If this isn't the place to have a Thompson vs. Thomas discussion...or a Sanford vs. Kostin debate, then there isn't a place for that discussion.
It's the offseason, wth else are we supposed to do??
No but really tho, the "Dangle Pyramid" where you put guys into tiers is the best way to avoid all of this. We have 4 tiers, essentially:
Tier 1: Dunn, Walman, Kostin, Thompson, Kyrou, Barbashev, Husso
Tier 2: Sanford, Thomas, Blais, Schmaltz, Toropchenko, Stevens, Lindbohm, Musil, Mikkola, Fitzpatrick
Tier 3: Kaspick, Noel, Krag, Bleackley, Poganski, MacEachern, Opilka
Tier 4: Selman, Sergeev, Vannelli, Bourque, Andersson, Tschantz, Helt
Tier 1 are guys that will more than likely play in the NHL and have good potential to make a significant impact in areas of need.
Tier 2 are guys that will probably play in the NHL, and could be important pieces of the team but probably won't be the kinds of guys you "build around."
Tier 3 are guys who could conceivably play in the NHL one day, but there's a lot of work that needs to be done first, and a lot of stars will have to align. Not bad, but probably more role/depth players than anything.
Tier 4 are unknowns, but outlook is dim and/or dimming. If they make the Blues, it will be a big surprise, but conceivably they could provide AHL depth or something.
I would venture to guess that most people here would agree with that ranking generally. You could absolutely argue that Thomas or Sanford or some other guy from Tier 2 actually belongs in Tier 1, and vice versa. But trying to say definitively, once and for all, that Husso is better than Dunn, or Stevens is better than Blais, or Selman is better than Sergeev, or anybody in one tier is better than another, definitively, is sort of absurd and it leads to arguments for the sake of argument.
Haha...precisely. I'd rather have a pointless discussion about hockey than a meaningful discussion about baseball, politics, work, parenting, etc. any day. Especially on the best site for rational, civil Blues-discussion that there is. Gotta pass the dog-days of summer somehow.
Majorityof1
Registered User
Why isn't Lindbohm rated more highly than Dunn? Lindbohm has skated in the NHL, and looked serviceable. He'd probably be a 3rd pairing on another team. Dunn hasn't proven anything and may just be a foot-note. Why isn't Jaskin more highly rated than Kostin? One has 190 games in the NHL and one has never played in North America. Why aren't you beating the drums for Sundqvist? Sundqvist has almost as much NHL ice-time as Bradford and a better AHL ppg last year.
And if you didn't think Bradford looked overwhelmed in the NHL, you weren't watching him outside of a few highlights. Without the puck, totally lost. In ANY board battle or semi-physical event, totally overwhelmed. On defense, lost. He has decent to good hands, decent vision, and spotty creativity. But otherwise, he's very very meh.
2 Minute Minor
Hi Keeba!
I enjoy that discussion and when folks explain their rationale for the choice they made. I haven't seen anything unpleasant.
Halak Ness Monster
Registered User
I'm not sure it's recency bias as much as it is draft ranking/selection and the position he plays.
It's pretty clear that guys drafted in the 1st round have far more success and the success only increases as you move up in the draft.
Thomas is a prospect that a lot of people had going in the 1st round in their mocks and a lot had him going in the 20-25 range. So he is a solid 1st round prospect and that is going to breed excitement.
Mix in the fact that he sounds like a natural center that has the two big keys in today's game: hockey sense and skating plus good passing ability and vision.
It just doesn't sound like much can stand in Thomas' way of becoming a solid 2nd/3rd line center. Kind of like Barbeshev a few years ago.
Sundqvist, Lindbohm and Jaskin have very limited upside. I think it's safe to say that Thompson's and Stamford's upside is pretty close to the same - 2nd line winger/center. Also, Dunn has outperformed Lindbohm in the AHL, so that's a tough position to push (Lindbohm > Dunn). While Bramford's contributions in the NHL were limited, he didn't look any worse than many kids getting their first taste of NHL action. He was very obviously learning on the job, and out of position...and easily over-powered...but that doesn't make him any less of a prospect than any other forward who would likely look the same, if not more overwhelmed, if given those minutes that Sanforth earned last year.
Vincenzo Arelliti
He Can't Play Center
I saw that Thomas was in Morty's Tier 2.
NOPE.
Tier 1 (High Floor, High Ceiling):
Dunn, Walman, Kostin, Thomas
Tier 2 (Low Floor, High Ceiling):
Barbashev, Thompson, Kyrou, Husso, Toropchenko
Tier 3 (High Floor, Low Ceiling):
Schmaltz, Sanford, Blais
Tier 4 (Low Floor, Low Ceiling):
Lindbohm, Mikkola, Fitzpatrick, Musil, Poganski
Tier 1 has Top 6 FWD/Top 4D skill that is likely to reach it.
Tier 2 has Top 9 FWD/Top 6D/Backup Goalie skill that is likely to reach it - but are just as likely to be Top 6 FWD, Top 4D, or a Starting Goalie.
Tier 3 has Top 9 FWD/Top 6D skill that is likely to reach it - but are unlikely to surpass that.
Tier 4 has Bottom 6 FWD/Bottom 6D/Backup Goalie skill that are moderately likely to reach it - but are very unlikely to surpass that.
The rest I either don't know enough about, or don't care to include them.
NOPE.
Tier 1 (High Floor, High Ceiling):
Dunn, Walman, Kostin, Thomas
Tier 2 (Low Floor, High Ceiling):
Barbashev, Thompson, Kyrou, Husso, Toropchenko
Tier 3 (High Floor, Low Ceiling):
Schmaltz, Sanford, Blais
Tier 4 (Low Floor, Low Ceiling):
Lindbohm, Mikkola, Fitzpatrick, Musil, Poganski
Tier 1 has Top 6 FWD/Top 4D skill that is likely to reach it.
Tier 2 has Top 9 FWD/Top 6D/Backup Goalie skill that is likely to reach it - but are just as likely to be Top 6 FWD, Top 4D, or a Starting Goalie.
Tier 3 has Top 9 FWD/Top 6D skill that is likely to reach it - but are unlikely to surpass that.
Tier 4 has Bottom 6 FWD/Bottom 6D/Backup Goalie skill that are moderately likely to reach it - but are very unlikely to surpass that.
The rest I either don't know enough about, or don't care to include them.
Last edited:
Majorityof1
Registered User
But you said he didn't look overwhelmed. "He's actually skated in the NHL and didn't look over-whelmed". That's a direct quote. So you meant he is just less overwhelmed than another prospect might be? Then we are on a slippery slope, as you are projecting his upside. He may never get over being overwhelmed in the NHL.
I disagree about Jack Sparrow's upside. I don't see it much different from Sundqvist's tbh. #82's max is a 3rd liner who can maybe play top 6 in an injury pinch. He's Berglund without the elite possession and good defense, but some better playmaking. That is based on his skill set and progression that I have seen. I may be wrong, but it is not based on bias against traded players or anything of the like. I just don't like his skill-set. With Thomspon, I have definite concerns but at least his shot is near elite and his skating is really good for his size. Those are things he can build on. 82 doesn't have anything like that.
The Lindbohm v Dunn comparison was reductio ad absurdum. I didn't actually believe it. I was trying to distill your argument to its essence and then apply it to situations to show how ridiculous the argument is. Just because an older player currently has similar or better stats than a prospect, that does not meant the older player is better or more valuable. Maybe I overshot the mark with some of them, but I stand by the proposition that comparing stats between a 19 year old with high upside and a 22 year old with minimal upside is fruitless.
It comes down to a disagreement about potential. And that's fine. I just resent the implication that it is some bias, and not an honest appraisal of ability.
Vincenzo Arelliti
He Can't Play Center
Vincenzo Arelliti
He Can't Play Center
shpongle falls
Ass Möde
I'm going with Tage Thompson with #5, although it's really close between him and Thomas and Kryou. I just like Thompson's size/shot/hands combo he's got, and he should be very coachable.
I'm kind of surprised with all the votes for Husso already but I'm not mad at it, I'm super excited for Husso as well after a solid rookie year in the AHL.
I'm kind of surprised with all the votes for Husso already but I'm not mad at it, I'm super excited for Husso as well after a solid rookie year in the AHL.
DatDude44
Hmmmm?
- Feb 23, 2012
- 6,151
- 2,907
i'm kinda on the boat that we should have a separate ranking for our goalie specs.
I went tage here, i think the sky is the limit for someone with his size, hands and finishing abilities. Honestly i love robert thomas too but just went with tage, i could easily wake up tomorrow and choose thomas they're that close for me.
I went tage here, i think the sky is the limit for someone with his size, hands and finishing abilities. Honestly i love robert thomas too but just went with tage, i could easily wake up tomorrow and choose thomas they're that close for me.
EastonBlues22
Registered User
I think he's in the top 10, though towards the bottom.
My biggest issue with guys like Sanford is that his only real hope of being a top 6 player rests on him becoming a lot stronger and adapting to play a game that effectively leverages his size. He simply doesn't have the sort of skating, skill, or shot that will let him be a productive top 6 player without that ability.
The first half of that hurdle is relatively easy. He's still young and he has the frame, to it simply boils down to desire, knowledge, and work ethic. The second half is the problem for me. He simply doesn't have those tendencies/instincts in his game right now. He essentially needs to relearn how he plays the game, which is way harder to do than it sounds.
I think it's unlikely to happen, so I'm not very high on his upside. As he stands now, he can still be an effective 3rd liner anyway if he fills out a bit and refines his current game. I think that's a reasonable projection, and there's value in that.
You're not the first person I've seen say this and.... it's like we're watching two different players. His skating is not an issue at all for me, and will continue to improve as he adds strength. His skill, right now, is about all he has, because he's definitely not going through people at the moment. And his shot, unless you're talking about him going golfing from the blue line like Parayko does, in which case of course he doesn't have that kind of shot, is terrific. His hands in close are terrific, and he's able to roof shots in a blink of an eye.
He's like Thompson in that his game isn't built around his size, it's built around his skill. They weren't big when they learned their skill games, and now that they've got the frames, they need to put muscle on it. You are expecting that, in order for Sanford to be successful, he'll have to become more like Jaskin or Berglund, and basically just play based on his size. Just use the size to grind. I don't see that happening at all, you're absolutely right. Adding size/strength for Sanford will never be about that. It will be about holding off the backcheck and staying on his skates long enough to let the skill take over. Absorb some hits, and then break towards the net, deke, and roof it. That's not "relearning" his game, it's complementing it with something that you've admitted won't be that hard to do. His hockey IQ is absolutely there already, his body just can't do the things his mind can, not because he can't pull it off, but because he's getting knocked down before he can.
Idk, it's not important to me that you change your mind about it. But there are different viewpoints about it.
EastonBlues22
Registered User
There's a difference between skating not being a weakness, and it being a strength that he can use to create offense. His skating is not an issue, but it's not a weapon, either. He's not out there generating offense with his short area quickness, agility, or top end speed.
I agree that his hands in tight are soft, but there's nothing spectacular about his velocity or release that makes his normal wrist or slap shots a notable weapon. Compare his shot to someone like Thompson's, a similar player with a much better shot toolbox, and Sanford's simply pales in comparison.
A guy who doesn't have an obvious way to create space for himself and who is only really a scoring threat near the net (IMO) has a 3rd liner's offensive skill set. That doesn't doom him to irrelevance. It just acts as an expectation cap for what he's able to accomplish on the ice.
YMMV, but I don't see the hand quickness and short area quickness to break down a defense and drive the net with any regularity, so you're right in that I think he needs to learn to use his body more effectively to become a consistent offensive threat (which is what separates top 6 play from bottom 6 play, IMO). Not necessarily "grinding", per se, but adeptly shielding the puck as he leverages his size to move through space in lieu of simply creating it (if that description works). Even that might not be enough to make him a top 6 player, but it would almost guarantee that he would be an effective 3rd liner.
There's a chance he can get by on skill alone, but I think the deck is heavily stacked against him in that regard given what I'm currently seeing. If you think he can do that on skill alone based on what you're seeing now, then I think that's the crux of where our opinions diverge.
We'll see how it plays out. I'd love for him to become a top 6 player. I just don't think it will happen.
Vincenzo Arelliti
He Can't Play Center
I see Sanford as a weaker version of Thompson, and I view Barbashev as a stronger version of Sanford (for different reasons). Barbashev has the playstyle and the muscle that Sanford currently doesn't have, and Thompson has the better shot. Sanford just doesn't stack up to either as is, and that's not meant to be an insult. He's a decent player - he's just not a likely future Top-6 player. All three players could end up as 3rd or 2nd liners, but none of them have the skills to make them likely 1st line caliber players.
I really agree with Easton's take on speed - there IS a big difference between skating not being a liability and skating being a weapon. This is my main complaint with Barbashev, Thompson, and Sanford. Without speed as a weapon, they're going to need two, or even three more near-elite skills to make them good Top-6 players. I definitely don't see that with Sanford right now, and the jury is still out on Thompson and Barbashev, imo.
I really agree with Easton's take on speed - there IS a big difference between skating not being a liability and skating being a weapon. This is my main complaint with Barbashev, Thompson, and Sanford. Without speed as a weapon, they're going to need two, or even three more near-elite skills to make them good Top-6 players. I definitely don't see that with Sanford right now, and the jury is still out on Thompson and Barbashev, imo.
Evocable Manager
Registered User
LetsGoBLUES91
Registered User
- Jan 8, 2013
- 9,158
- 3,096
Barbashev is a nice prospect but having him over Thompson, Thomas, Kyrou, or Husso is crazy to me.
Vincenzo Arelliti
He Can't Play Center
I can completely understand all but Thomas - depending on what you value in a prospect for rankings. I can sort of understand ranking him above Thomas if you put a lot into the "what have you done for me lately in the NHL" basket.
- Status
Ad
Latest posts
-
-
-
RD Axel Sandin Pellikka - Skellefteå, SHL (2023, 17th, DET)- Latest: ItWasJustified
