Prospect Info: 2017 CFHF Prospect Rankings: #10 RUN-OFF POLL

[FlamerForLife]

Spencer Foo (34.29%)
Morgan Klimchuk (14.29%)
Brett Kulak (28.57%)

Click to read more...

 

[Lunatik]

I went with Foo, but thought about going for Klimmer just to **** with people.

 

[Mr Snrub]

I still think Klimchuk has the ability to be something far more than a bottom six grinder.

 

[Tkachuk Norris]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Kulak is the next Ferland. For some reason our fan base prefers perceived potential over guys who actually have reached theirs (which most don't). I think we ranked Ferland at #11 too.

The guy picked from the same draft with 1 NHL game is ten spots higher then the guy with 30+ At a position that generally takes longer to make the show, doesn't make a ton of sense to me.

Ugh picked Klimchuk by accident.

 

[Lunatik]

Kulak has reached the potential of borderline NHLer, big ****ing deal. He's been a pro for 3 years, has played a mere 30 NHL games and he has done so at a position with very little organizational depth. Let's not pretend like he has made this great achievements, the guy couldn't even beat out Matt Bartkowski for a job.

 

[Johnny Hoxville]

Kulak is a nice young player, but he's not in the same caliber of tier that Brodie was, even Kylington for that matter. We are looking at a #5 Dman or at best, or a #4 at absolute best which is probably pushing it a bit. A nice prospect and all, but he's ceiling is what it is.

 

[Tkachuk Norris]

Kulak has reached the potential of borderline NHLer, big ****ing deal. He's been a pro for 3 years, has played a mere 30 NHL games and he has done so at a position with very little organizational depth. Let's not pretend like he has made this great achievements, the guy couldn't even beat out Matt Bartkowski for a job.

We have no depth at the NHL level at any position. That's not exclusive to the defense.

He has great potential. You slander him any chance you get, just like you did (actually still do) with Ferland. Prepare to be wrong.

 

[Lunatik]

We have no depth at the NHL level at any position. That's not exclusive to the defense.

He has great potential. You slander him any chance you get, just like you did (actually still do) with Ferland. Prepare to be wrong.

Slander him? Maybe you shouldn't use words you don't understand the meaning of. Just because I am not on my knees kissing Kulak's feet like you and a couple others do doesn't make it slander. I think his absolute peak is a #6 defenseman, he has done nothing to prove otherwise.

Kulak has great potential, like Klimchuk can't skate.

 

[Tkachuk Norris]

Kulak is a nice young player, but he's not in the same caliber of tier that Brodie was, even Kylington for that matter. We are looking a #5 Dman or at best, a #4 which is maybe pushing it a bit. A nice prospect and all, but he's ceiling is what it is.

I don't like putting ceilings on players. Go with the data you have (accomplishments) and not the data you think there will be in the future (perceived potential). Not that I think he's going to be a high end player. To me he's likely a David Schlemko. But putting ceilings on players in their early 20s is foolish. Anybody think Brodie or Giordano were potential top pair guys at that age?

He's 23 and the guys that become top pairing guys are the ones that get better every year. He's going to surprise some people eventually. But it's always the same crowd coming to squash down our mid-round NHL ready prospects because they struggled getting their feet wet in the toughest league in the world (which all young prospect do).

 

[Anglesmith]

I like Kulak a lot. Every part of his game is impressive in the NHL except for defence. To me, that is reminiscent of Brodie to some degree. But it is a big hurdle he is going to have to overcome.

 

[Flames Fanatic]

Anybody think Brodie or Giordano were potential top pair guys at that age?

Sure I agree, though I think it's worth noting that both guys have played at least a full season too by 23 (I think, I could be slightly wrong on Brodie, I just did quick lazy math on that one).

Schelmko would be a great comparison and I'd be thrilled if he turns into that.

 

[Anglesmith]

I've also been pretty heavily conditioned to expect nothing out of college UFAs. Even the good ones usually turn out to be kinda meh. So Spencer Foo doesn't really excite me. Maybe I'm over-generalizing, but it is what it is.

 

[Lunatik]

I've also been pretty heavily conditioned to expect nothing out of college UFAs. Even the good ones usually turn out to be kinda meh. So Spencer Foo doesn't really excite me. Maybe I'm over-generalizing, but it is what it is.

I don't expect a ton out of anyone left tbh, but I think Foo has upside. We will see though. But there have been some decent college UFA signings in the past (not from us)

 

[Flames Fanatic]

I've also been pretty heavily conditioned to expect nothing out of college UFAs. Even the good ones usually turn out to be kinda meh. So Spencer Foo doesn't really excite me. Maybe I'm over-generalizing, but it is what it is.

Agreed, for every Bozak there is a Gilroy or Morrison.

 

[Lunatik]

Agreed, for every Bozak there is a Gilroy or Morrison.

I'd say for every Bozak there is 30 Morrison's

I would also like to point out that Hathaway was a college UFA signing, as was Jooris.

 

[Flames Fanatic]

I'd say for every Bozak there is 30 Morrison's

I would also like to point out that Hathaway was a college UFA signing, as was Jooris.

So two fringe NHL players

 

[Lunatik]

So two fringe NHL players

Yes, but it is better than Morrison

I'd say that any more than a 4th line forward or 6/7 defenseman is amazing for a NCAA free agent.

 

[OvermanKingGainer]

Kulak is a nice young player, but he's not in the same caliber of tier that Brodie was, even Kylington for that matter. We are looking at a #5 Dman or at best, or a #4 at absolute best which is probably pushing it a bit. A nice prospect and all, but he's ceiling is what it is.

Kulak's ceiling is a better hockey player than guys like Russell / Stone whom have played huge minutes for us. Even if you want to call that a 4 or a 5, it's an important piece to have as guys like those are plus-assets.

Overall I see no reason Kulak can't top out as a Jake Muzzin tier strong all-around defenseman. It may not be for us so long as we're rolling a stacked blue line, but things also change quickly in that regard.

You break Kulak's game down and you have a player who:
- Can break the puck out with an excellent first pass
- Dominates the neutral zone with high-end skating ability and excellent gap control
- Is able to keep the puck low and get it on net at a steady rate offensively
- has a strong defensive stick to break up rushes that might have been sure goals
- is getting stronger in the corners/front of the net every year and has a project-able frame
- like most 23 year old defensemen, is not a finished product in his own zone

So I don't see where the short-selling of his ceiling comes from. He has a lot of tools, even if he's not an offensive juggernaut. People should remember that halfway into his draft year Kulak was 5'10 or so and then had a growth spurt. Like Jankowski he's still trying to fill out and learn to play like the big man that he has become. Unlike Wotherspoon he has aways had a lot of abilities that allow him to do things that can get him into trouble at times, which might make someone biased towards sheer simplicity see flaws.

 

[Flames Fanatic]

Kulak's ceiling is a better hockey player than guys like Russell / Stone whom have played huge minutes for us. Even if you want to call that a 4 or a 5, it's an important piece to have as guys like those are plus-assets.

Overall I see no reason Kulak can't top out as a Jake Muzzin tier strong all-around defenseman. It may not be for us so long as we're rolling a stacked blue line, but things also change quickly in that regard.

You break Kulak's game down and you have a player who:
- Can break the puck out with an excellent first pass
- Dominates the neutral zone with high-end skating ability and excellent gap control
- Is able to keep the puck low and get it on net at a steady rate offensively
- has a strong defensive stick to break up rushes that might have been sure goals
- is getting stronger in the corners/frontnof the net every year and has a project-able frame
- like most 23 year old defensemen, is not a finished product in his own zone

So I don't see where the short-selling of his ceiling comes from. He has a lot of tools, even if he's not an offensive juggernaut.

Personally I have more issue with the idea that he'll become a #4 this upcoming season consistently for the whole year. I more expect something similar to Bealieau, where he had really great stretches and looked like a #4 and then has stretches where he looks lost on the bottom pairing.

 

[Mr Snrub]

Personally I have more issue with the idea that he'll become a #4 this upcoming season consistently for the whole year. I more expect something similar to Bealieau, where he had really great stretches and looked like a #4 and then has stretches where he looks lost on the bottom pairing.

But are there really people who are saying that about Kulak, that he'll look like a vet already? I pump his tires often and I think he has a good shot at becoming a well-rounded #3 someday but I'm expecting him to be easily our worst defenseman this year if he makes the team.

 

[OvermanKingGainer]

Personally I have more issue with the idea that he'll become a #4 this upcoming season consistently for the whole year. I more expect something similar to Bealieau, where he had really great stretches and looked like a #4 and then has stretches where he looks lost on the bottom pairing.

I'll leave you to your devices on the Beaulieu comparision but I'll say this:

Minutes define a vast majority of what people consider to be consistency. Players who play less minutes have more issues being consistent because they can't make up a bad play with five good ones. A big minutes player like Monahan can be AHL caliber for half a season but finally "click" for the other half and no one will question their consistency. A player like Ferland can barely ever hit the ice, play well 90% of the time, but never have a dominating game because they are never on the ice long enough to do so, and the knock on them becomes consistency somehow. It's magnified with defensemen. If Stone has a bad game, we chalk it off as a bad game. Kulak has a bad game, he may not see the ice for another two months. Defensemen can even have solid games that appear to have been weak because the goalie didn't make a routine save, and there go the minutes.

 

[Mr Snrub]

I'll leave you to your devices on the Beaulieu comparision but I'll say this:

Minutes define a vast majority of what people consider to be consistency. Players who play less minutes have more issues being consistent because they can't make up a bad play with five good ones. A big minutes player like Monahan can be AHL caliber for half a season but finally "click" for the other half and no one will question their consistency. A player like Ferland can barely ever hit the ice, play well 90% of the time, but never have a dominating game because they are never on the ice long enough to do so, and the knock on them becomes consistency somehow. It's magnified with defensemen. If Stone has a bad game, we chalk it off as a bad game. Kulak has a bad game, he may not see the ice for another two months. Defensemen can even have solid games that appear to have been weak because the goalie didn't make a routine save, and there go the minutes.

Ah, we're finally at that point in the offseason. Getting a tingly nostalgic feeling

 

[Anglesmith]

Ah, we're finally at that point in the offseason. Getting a tingly nostalgic feeling

Honestly, Monahan wasn't far off from being AHL-calibre in the first half of the season. The point of contention was that OKG was alleging that that was what he was, when most of us were just frustrated at it being a bad stretch.

 

[Flames Fanatic]

I'll leave you to your devices on the Beaulieu comparision but I'll say this:

Minutes define a vast majority of what people consider to be consistency. Players who play less minutes have more issues being consistent because they can't make up a bad play with five good ones. A big minutes player like Monahan can be AHL caliber for half a season but finally "click" for the other half and no one will question their consistency. A player like Ferland can barely ever hit the ice, play well 90% of the time, but never have a dominating game because they are never on the ice long enough to do so, and the knock on them becomes consistency somehow. It's magnified with defensemen. If Stone has a bad game, we chalk it off as a bad game. Kulak has a bad game, he may not see the ice for another two months. Defensemen can even have solid games that appear to have been weak because the goalie didn't make a routine save, and there go the minutes.

Young players are inconsistent, be sure to halt the presses.

Bealieau was an example of consistency, not play style. Apologies if that was unclear.

Monahan played well under his usual levels. I would have argued it was still NHL caliber, as there is a distinct difference between even a 4th line center and someone who is AHL caliber. But I still hold to that I believe he was playing injured for the first chunk of last season, recovering from the injury that left him out of the World Cup.

Otherwise it feels like you are blaming me/other posters for what is the responsibility of the NHL coach to realize.

 

[Lunatik]

Honestly, Monahan wasn't far off from being AHL-calibre in the first half of the season. The point of contention was that OKG was alleging that that was what he was, when most of us were just frustrated at it being a bad stretch.

I hate defending OKG, but he was only calling him a 3rd liner. Someone else called him an AHLer.