Prospect Info: 2017 CFHF Top 20 Prospects

Status
Not open for further replies.

Johnny Hoxville

The Return of a Legend
Jul 15, 2006
37,549
9,343
Calgary
Meth is right, it's the traditional definition. But let's be honest, we chat on Hockey's Future for a reason, we all like prospects. Talking about them with another adds to the hype which is where the homerism comes from. So I feel like the definition on this website in general has loosened, but in the true sense Meth is 100% right.
 

Tkachuk Norris

Registered User
Jun 22, 2012
15,600
6,639
If you had zero concerns about Gaudreau, you are more delusional than I ever thought, or you're outright lying to yourself.

Right.... because I knew Gaudreau would be a superstar and was willing to post that all over main boards for multiple seasons means I'm delusional...
 

Mr Snrub

I like the way Snrub thinks!
Oct 12, 2016
5,713
2,410
At this point I would say Jankowski/Valimaki are our only blue chip prospects. #2C and #4D at-minimum type talents. Fox/Kylington/Parsons might be better prospects than Valimaki (IMO they are) but there are valid reasons to be unsure about their floor.

Jankowski's floor is not a 2C. I agree with you that he has incredible potential and among the highest ceiling of anyone in our prospect pool, but there is a very good chance he never becomes more than a bottom six C.
 

MonarchFlames

Registered User
Sep 30, 2016
398
11
I wonder if you're signing that tune after he has played 10-20 games in the NHL (away from Troy Brouwer). Jankowski's floor is basically Sean Couturier.

Lol at that floor. His floor is a bust. His best is basically a shut down 3C. I don't get where you see his floor being Couturier and his ceiling is somehow Bergeron.
 

OvermanKingGainer

#BennettFreed #CurseofTheSpulll #FreeOliver
Feb 3, 2015
16,133
7,107
2022 Cup to Calgary
I see his floor as a 4C.

How is his floor a 4C? He can do everything proficiently at - at worst - a 3C level and most things at a 2C level and some things at a 1C level. Even if you are skeptical of his ability to score 55+ points, that is not true 2C production. Low-end 2C production is 38-42 points which a guy with Jankowski's vision, hockey sense, skill, size, skating, forechecking, and lane-reading ability could do in his sleep.

If everything possible went wrong in Jankowski's career he would still be a better hockey player than average 3Cs like Matt Stajan, Riley Sheahan, Ryan Spooner and Lars Eller.

His floor is a Sean Couturier / Nick Bonino tier low-end 2C. Guys who would only be 3Cs on stacked 1-2-punch teams, but are 2Cs. He actually skates better than both those guys, though. His ceiling is much higher, althugh Couturier hasn't hit his own ceiling yet.

But the common definition of blue-chipper doesn't just mean "really good prospect," though. Nor even "can't-miss prospect." It specifically refers to pre-draft consensus, and the prospects who are heavily scouted when they're younger, and are seen as locks to be immediate impactful players by just about everyone.

Think about how the term relates to blue-chip stocks, where it was borrowed from. A company can't just be called a blue-chip stock because it is trending upwards.

Here is the definition of blue-chip:

blue-chip
ˌblo͞oˈCHip/Submit
adjective
denoting companies or their shares considered to be a reliable investment, though less secure than gilt-edged stock.
of the highest quality.
"blue-chip art"

In 2014, while Gaudreau was a prospect, a team in need of an impact player the year afterwards would be very smart to trade for him (investment). They would still be trading for a prospect, but it would be a safe investment given we are talking about a guy who had dominated every level he had ever played at including the World Championships (to go with a nearly-exclusive 20-year-old Hobey Baker, NCAA championship, USHL rookie of the year, USHL championship).

If Gaudreau were not a blue chip prospect, Hartley would not have reserved a roster spot for him.

I disagree that it is a term reserved for draft day only. An example of a non-Flames blue-chip prospect to me is Sam Steel. He wasn't drafted high, but at present he is very much a near-lock to be an impact NHLer. Maybe not a star, but if your floor is a top six forward, which I think is fair to say about Steel, then you are blue chip. Or a year ago, Sebastian Aho... definitely a blue-chip prospect a year after his draft. Another one is Charlie McAvoy, he wasn't a blue chipper on draft day but he is now.
 
Last edited:

Mr Snrub

I like the way Snrub thinks!
Oct 12, 2016
5,713
2,410
I wonder if you're signing that tune after he has played 10-20 games in the NHL (away from Troy Brouwer). Jankowski's floor is basically Sean Couturier.

If he jumps into the NHL and immediately pushes one of Backlund or Monahan down the lineup, then sure, I'll believe his floor is a 2C, because that's what that would mean.

This is nonsense homerism. Jankowski could end up being a fantastic player but to say that at worst he's going to be as good as Bonino or Couturier is ridiculous. I would be happy if that's where he ended up.
 

OvermanKingGainer

#BennettFreed #CurseofTheSpulll #FreeOliver
Feb 3, 2015
16,133
7,107
2022 Cup to Calgary
If he jumps into the NHL and immediately pushes one of Backlund or Monahan down the lineup, then sure, I'll believe his floor is a 2C, because that's what that would mean.

That's gross hyperbole. Jankowski doesn't need to knock off Monahan/Backlund to be a 2C. He simply needs to play at a 2C level. Just as Brodie doesn't need to knock off Giordano to be a top pairing defenseman. Or Malkin doesn't need to knock of Crosby to be a 1C.

This is nonsense homerism. Jankowski could end up being a fantastic player but to say that at worst he's going to be as good as Bonino or Couturier is ridiculous. I would be happy if that's where he ended up.

And this... is the annual Jankowski pessimism we'll never be rid of.

Even ignoring that I have maintained a high floor for Jankowski for a long time, -
just based on last year, aside from Guentzal (Now a proven Top Line Forward) Jankowski was the best Under-23 player in the entire AHL last year.

Are you saying that there was not a single forward playing in the entire AHL with a 2nd line floor?

There is nothing homeristic about rating Jankowski where he rightfully belongs.

If anything, this is purely anti-AHL-Prospect bias - that is to say that if a player plays in the AHL their floor suddenly gets underrated. Jankowski is tracking just about right there with guys like Silvferberg, Bonino, Kadri, Killorn, Backes, Tyler Johnson, Stone, etc - all 2nd line or better two-way forwards. But people are always highly skeptical of players who dominate in the AHL, and reluctant to give them any credit but will openly glow about players dominating lesser leagues.

People are so afraid to be homers, that they are looking through an even less accurate reverse lens thinking they are being measured. I am so confident in Jankowski's floor I will close my account and not make another if he doesn't reach that Couturier level of play (38+ points with strong two-way game) within the next two years (barring major season-ending injuries of course). Quote me on that. 4C. No way on this planet is Mark Jankowski's floor a 4C.
 
Last edited:

FlamerForLife

Mon Seanahan
May 22, 2015
4,701
1,926
Calgary
http://www.flamesfrom80feet.ca/2017/08/ranking-calgary-flames-top-20-prospects.html

Darren Haynes' top 20:
1. Tyler Parsons
2. Mark Jankowski
3. Rasmus Andersson
4. Adam Fox
5. Juuso Valimaki
6. Dillon Dube
7. Spencer Foo
8. Jon Gillies
9. Oliver Kylington
10. Andrew Mangiapane
11. Emile Poirier
12. David Rittich
13. Brett Kulak
14. Morgan Klimchuk
15. Matthew Phillips
16. Hunter Shinkaruk
17. Daniel Pribyl
18. Josh Healy
19. Linus Lindstrom
20. Adam Ruzicka
 

MonarchFlames

Registered User
Sep 30, 2016
398
11
I will close my account and not make another if he doesn't reach that Couturier level of play (38+ points with strong two-way game) within the next two years

I'm looking forward to that day. Better keep your word. Just cause Couturier gets injured doesn't mean its only 38 pts. It's around 45+ pts and facing the hardest competition on the team. It'll be interesting to see Jankowski dethrone Backlund in the next two seasons for defensive responsibilities. Because that's what Couturier does.
 

Anglesmith

Setting up the play?
Sep 17, 2012
46,441
14,715
Victoria
If Gaudreau were not a blue chip prospect, Hartley would not have reserved a roster spot for him.

He didn't reserve a spot for him the year he was drafted. If he had, he'd probably have been a blue-chip prospect. He reserved a spot for him the year he turned pro, which was several years after the draft where nobody picked him for over three rounds. In those years, he had turned the doubters into believers through his play. But the fact alone that he had doubters when he was drafted is what by definition makes him not a blue-chip prospect.

Gaudreau turned into an 'A+' prospect for sure, but there's no way to wind back the clock and retroactively turn him into a sought-after sure-fire prospect at his draft.
 

OvermanKingGainer

#BennettFreed #CurseofTheSpulll #FreeOliver
Feb 3, 2015
16,133
7,107
2022 Cup to Calgary
He didn't reserve a spot for him the year he was drafted. If he had, he'd probably have been a blue-chip prospect. He reserved a spot for him the year he turned pro, which was several years after the draft where nobody picked him for over three rounds. In those years, he had turned the doubters into believers through his play. But the fact alone that he had doubters when he was drafted is what by definition makes him not a blue-chip prospect.

Gaudreau turned into an 'A+' prospect for sure, but there's no way to wind back the clock and retroactively turn him into a sought-after sure-fire prospect at his draft.

You seem to be correlating blue-chip status with draft-night alone but there is no definition that emphasizes the night of the draft. I am saying that blue chip status is based on high floor + high trade value, not draft position. A blue chip prospect is a prospect a team thinks will make the NHL next year in an impact role. It can be a prospect who has spent some time developing.

Kyle Connor is a blue chip prospect. He had doubters on draft night.
Brock Boeser is a blue chip prospect. He had doubters on draft night.
Kiril Kaprizov is a blue chip prospect. Few of us had heard of him on draft night.
Pierre-Luc Dubois has doubters right now, but didn't on draft night. He is not blue chip, right now, even if he was on draft-night. But he could be considered blue chip again after a strong year and WJC.

There is fluidity in status. Blue-Chip just means that the risk is very low at that point in time.
 
Last edited:

Mr Snrub

I like the way Snrub thinks!
Oct 12, 2016
5,713
2,410
That's gross hyperbole. Jankowski doesn't need to knock off Monahan/Backlund to be a 2C. He simply needs to play at a 2C level. Just as Brodie doesn't need to knock off Giordano to be a top pairing defenseman. Or Malkin doesn't need to knock of Crosby to be a 1C.

Okay, I'll buy this. But I also think there's a big difference between "playing at a 2C level" and being deployed as one.

And this... is the annual Jankowski pessimism we'll never be rid of.

I said Jankowski has some of the highest potential of any of our prospects and you consider that pessimism? All I suggested was tempering expectations and not saying that the guy's absolute floor is Sean Couturier. How in the hell is that pessimism? Couturier is a great hockey player, I would be thrilled to see Jankowski be that good.

Even ignoring that I have maintained a high floor for Jankowski for a long time, -
just based on last year, aside from Guentzal (Now a proven Top Line Forward) Jankowski was the best Under-23 player in the entire AHL last year.

Are you saying that there was not a single forward playing in the entire AHL with a 2nd line floor?

No, I'm saying that floor and ceiling are different things. The fact that Jankowski was one of the best prospects in the AHL last year doesn't mean that he's one of the safest prospects in the AHL. Jankowski was a boom-bust prospect when he was drafted, and to an extent that's still true. He could still end up little beyond a role playing C who takes faceoffs and out-grinds other third and fourth lines. He's taken some great steps in the right direction, but he's also far from a sure thing.

There is nothing homeristic about rating Jankowski where he rightfully belongs.

If anything, this is purely anti-AHL-Prospect bias - that is to say that if a player plays in the AHL their floor suddenly gets underrated. Jankowski is tracking just about right there with guys like Silvferberg, Bonino, Kadri, Killorn, Backes, Tyler Johnson, Stone, etc - all 2nd line or better two-way forwards. But people are always highly skeptical of players who dominate in the AHL, and reluctant to give them any credit but will openly glow about players dominating lesser leagues.

I suppose that's why I hate Rasmus Andersson so much, because he plays in the AHL. No way do I consider him our out and out best prospect. Great argument, splendid.

It has nothing to do with Jankowski playing in the AHL. It's the second-best league in North America, undoubtedly top five worldwide. My assessment - that there is some possibility Jankowski will play at less than a top six level - is based on common sense.

People are so afraid to be homers, that they are looking through an even less accurate reverse lens thinking they are being measured. I am so confident in Jankowski's floor I will close my account and not make another if he doesn't reach that Couturier level of play (38+ points with strong two-way game) within the next two years (barring major season-ending injuries of course). Quote me on that. 4C. No way on this planet is Mark Jankowski's floor a 4C.

I'm not here to get into a pissing contest about whether Jankowski will bust or not, because I want him to succeed. Seeing him improve year after year makes me very excited.
 

Flames Fanatic

Mediocre
Aug 14, 2008
13,329
2,888
Cochrane
OKG hyping Jankowski to ridiculous levels again.

I think he has really good potential, but your level of his floor is just over the top hyperbole. He's not even a 100% guarantee to be an NHL player (even though I think the number that DOES guarantee him to be an NHL player is quite high). You can't say his floor is selke level defensive 2C if we can't guarentee he's going to be a full time NHL'er with 100% certainty.

This kind of over hyping is EXACTLY why Flames fans have a horrendous reputation on the main boards of HF. You can have super high expectations for a guy and an opinion, but don't go shoving it in other peoples faces when they disagree.
 

Skobel24

#Ignited
May 23, 2008
16,789
920
Winnipeg
When I think of a players floor, I think of "What will they be if their progression hits a ****ing wall and things start to turn south". I see that as a 4th line center. I think even if he hits that wall, his game is good enough to be a 4th line guy. As for his ceiling, I'd say if things go really well for him, he'll be a very strong middle 6 center.
 

MonarchFlames

Registered User
Sep 30, 2016
398
11
When I think of a players floor, I think of "What will they be if their progression hits a ****ing wall and things start to turn south". I see that as a 4th line center. I think even if he hits that wall, his game is good enough to be a 4th line guy. As for his ceiling, I'd say if things go really well for him, he'll be a very strong middle 6 center.

Agreed with this! And there's nothing wrong with a middle 6 center.
 

Volica

Papa Shango
May 15, 2012
21,390
11,074
But the common definition of blue-chipper doesn't just mean "really good prospect," though. Nor even "can't-miss prospect." It specifically refers to pre-draft consensus, and the prospects who are heavily scouted when they're younger, and are seen as locks to be immediate impactful players by just about everyone.

Think about how the term relates to blue-chip stocks, where it was borrowed from. A company can't just be called a blue-chip stock because it is trending upwards.

I disagree with this assessment or description, tremendously.

By this definition a player drafted between 1-10 could only be a blue-chip prospect. Players can certainly, certainly develop into blue-chip prospects. Gaudreau developed into a Blue-chip prospect in his last two seasons in the NCAA; similar to how Fox has gone from 'undersized Dman, going to a weird sports school' to a potential top 5 prospect in our system...

If we even look a MW def:
one that is outstanding: such as
a : an outstandingly worthwhile or valuable property or asset
b : an athlete rated as excellent or as an excellent prospect

You know it's summer, when people are throwing jabs at a definition :laugh:
 

Volica

Papa Shango
May 15, 2012
21,390
11,074
http://www.flamesfrom80feet.ca/2017/08/ranking-calgary-flames-top-20-prospects.html

Darren Haynes' top 20:
1. Tyler Parsons
2. Mark Jankowski
3. Rasmus Andersson
4. Adam Fox
5. Juuso Valimaki
6. Dillon Dube
7. Spencer Foo
8. Jon Gillies
9. Oliver Kylington
10. Andrew Mangiapane
11. Emile Poirier
12. David Rittich
13. Brett Kulak
14. Morgan Klimchuk
15. Matthew Phillips
16. Hunter Shinkaruk
17. Daniel Pribyl
18. Josh Healy
19. Linus Lindstrom
20. Adam Ruzicka

Being completely honest, that top 5 is fairly interchangeable; and this season we could really see some jumping around from any of them to rank 1.

We have a really, really, really solid prospect pool. The first time, in a long time.
 

Anglesmith

Setting up the play?
Sep 17, 2012
46,441
14,715
Victoria
I disagree with this assessment or description, tremendously.

By this definition a player drafted between 1-10 could only be a blue-chip prospect. Players can certainly, certainly develop into blue-chip prospects. Gaudreau developed into a Blue-chip prospect in his last two seasons in the NCAA; similar to how Fox has gone from 'undersized Dman, going to a weird sports school' to a potential top 5 prospect in our system...

If we even look a MW def:
one that is outstanding: such as
a : an outstandingly worthwhile or valuable property or asset
b : an athlete rated as excellent or as an excellent prospect

You know it's summer, when people are throwing jabs at a definition :laugh:

I'm not throwing jabs. It's a definition; it is what it is. I guess the traditional definition has just been eroded over time, which happens. It's fine, as long as everyone knows what you're talking about. But if you call Gaudreau a blue-chip prospect by the looser modern definition, you're going to get disagreement from people who hold to the more strict traditional definition.

:dunno:
 

Volica

Papa Shango
May 15, 2012
21,390
11,074
I'm not throwing jabs. It's a definition; it is what it is. I guess the traditional definition has just been eroded over time, which happens. It's fine, as long as everyone knows what you're talking about. But if you call Gaudreau a blue-chip prospect by the looser modern definition, you're going to get disagreement from people who hold to the more strict traditional definition.

:dunno:

Not you. You only defend jabbers ;)

I really can't imagine Darryl Sutter sitting in a room pissed off that someone referred to a D+3 player a blue-chip prospect as that didn't have the same meaning as when he was nearing the end of his career.

I think of a guy currently like Thomas Chabot.
In his draft year, he was selected 18th. Now, it was an excellent draft year, but in no ways was he considered a blue chip prospect. Move forward a year, he's considered one of the best defensive prospects in the NHL and certainly a blue-chip prospect.

I really don't think the definition has changed in 20+ years, it's simply people's interpretation of what the definition 'was' that's really up for debate here. As long as the kid's an NHL definition rookie, and has significant achievable NHL upside... you're talking blue chip.
 
Last edited:

herashak

Registered User
Mar 24, 2013
5,364
558
No doubt Gaudreau was a blue chip prospect before coming into his first pro season. Having 2 ppg in his sophomore year and then turning NHL dmen like Josi out in the WHC made him one.

Flames fans knew that but a lot of people doubted it.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->