Prospect Info: 2018-2019 Senators prospect watch part III

Status
Not open for further replies.

Micklebot

Moderator
Apr 27, 2010
53,145
30,369
What is important is tier 2 and tier 3. Having 9 guys in tier 2 and 6 more in tier 3 is amazing.

As discussed earlier, putting 9 of our prospects in the tier that is intended for prospects like Marner in is dubious at best. Brannstrom and Batherson are likely the only ones that could belong in tier 2, which would still be great. Everybody else should probably just be bumped one tier down a piece.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cosmix

Xspyrit

DJ Dorion
Jun 29, 2008
30,708
9,651
Montreal, Canada
As discussed earlier, putting 9 of our prospects in the tier that is intended for prospects like Marner in is dubious at best. Brannstrom and Batherson are likely the only ones that could belong in tier 2, which would still be great. Everybody else should probably just be bumped one tier down a piece.

Well, your reply was too fast, I was still finishing my post. Most of the time I press "post reply" before finishing and then edit because I don't want to lose my text for whatever reason. Happened before and it's not very fun.

So if you read my post now that it's finished, you probably wouldn't write this.
 

MatchesMalone

Formerly Innocent Bystander
Aug 29, 2010
1,612
1,071
Taking a look at their criteria for skaters eligibility...

"A skater no longer qualifies as an NHL prospect if he has played 25 games in the NHL in any campaign, regular season and playoffs combined, or 50 games total; or reaches age 27 by Sept. 15"

lol this is so random. The 50 games makes some sense but the 25 doesn't. It really isn't enough games to determine what a prospect could become at the NHL level. Nick Paul played 24 games in 2015-16, 1 more game and he would have been considered "graduated"? Yeah, doesn't work for me.

Also, 27 is a bit "old"considering hockey players primes nowadays, the 25 y/o benchmark of the hold HF criterias makes more sense. Really, haven't seen any prospects eligibility criterias that come close to the old HF ones.



I see a lot of people focus on that tier 1 but like the article states, most teams don’t even have one. The teams who do are the ones who drafted high very recently but most of the time, this type of prospects only stay there very shortly. Which prospects are currently in a tier 1? Hugues and Kakko? Don't think guys like Gusev, Hayton, Glass, Makar and Q. Hugues are in tier 1. Chabot was a beast in junior and just considered tier 2. Tkachuk was a 4th OA pick and also tier 2.

What is important is tier 2 and tier 3. Having 9 guys in tier 2 and 6 more in tier 3 is amazing. Even looking at tier 4, I see 3 guys who could jump in tier 2/3 this year in Crookshank, Tychonick and Gruden

Plus, their criterias make Wolanin and Balcers not eligible, 2 guys that would most likely be in tier 2. Laoie and Jaros aren't there either, 2 more guys in at least tier 3. Plus Paul possible tier 3/4

But yeah, "overrated pool"

That being said, HW need a tier between 2 and 3, guys that were talked about like Chabot, Batherson, Tkachuk, Marner, Nylander, etc are in a tier above guys like Formenton and Gustvasson for example. I think they'd need more tiers overall, at least 7

It could/should be more like that :

Tier 1 (blue-chip elite players, not many end up in that tier) : none

Tier 2 (high end prospects, most likely 1st line/1st pairing) : Batherson, Brannstrom

Tier 3 (very good prospects, most likely top-6/top-4) : Brown, Norris, Bernard-Docker, Thomson

Tier 4 (good prospects, most likely top-9/top-6) : Wolanin, Balcers, Søgaard, Formenton, Davidsson, Jaros, Gustavsson, Abramov, Chlapik, Daccord, Pinto, Lajoie

Tier 5 (decent prospects, could become NHL players but most likely in a role or their upside remains uncertain at the moment) : Hogberg, Crookshank, Gruden, Tychonick, Paul, Veronneau, Kelly, Alsing

Tier 6 (too early too say/most likely depth players) : Carcone, Mandolese, Nurmi, Guénette, Kastelic, Klimchuk, Englund, Loheit

Tier 7 (too late/almost no chance) : Beaudin, Burgess, Novak, Sturtz, Lodin

Like mentioned on HW, players can move around in tiers. I think Crookshank and Gruden move on to tier 4 this year, Guenette, Kastelic and Mandolese to tier 5. Can anyone moved from tier 4 to tier 3? Pinto or Sogaard maybe?

Well put together. I agree with pretty much all your tier placements, except I would have Gustavsson in tier 3.

I also don't buy that Lodin has "almost no chance" already, or else why on earth did they pick him in the 4th round? Anders Östberg had to have pushed really hard for them to go so off the board on this pick. This early on, he's pretty much putting his NHL career on the line with this pick. I've gotta believe he really thinks he knows/sees something everyone else is missing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Xspyrit

BondraTime

Registered User
Nov 20, 2005
28,479
23,062
East Coast
Well put together. I agree with pretty much all your tier placements, except I would have Gustavsson in tier 3.

I also don't buy that Lodin has "almost no chance" already, or else why on earth did they pick him in the 4th round? Anders Östberg had to have pushed really hard for them to go so off the board on this pick. This early on, he's pretty much putting his NHL career on the line with this pick. I've gotta believe he really thinks he knows/sees something everyone else is missing.
No different than the Burgess pick in the 4th, or the Boyle in the 4th. We make some questionable off the radar picks in that range, and they have usually not worked out as intended.

He’s the 4th guy they have drafted in the 4th since 2010 that was either not ranked at all, or ranked in the low 200’s.

Sorensen - Not ranked anywhere, not tendered a contract. Currently a good 3rd line player with Sam Jose.

Tim Boyle - Not ranked anywhere, few seasons in the Southern league and the ECHL, now retired.

Todd Burgess - Ranked as a possible late 7th, some independent services had him in the 100’s. Missed a season with a knee injury, currently entering his 3rd NCAA season as a 23-24 year old. Make or break season for him, has been a disappointment in the NCAA thus far.

Viktor Lodin - Not ranked anywhere. Entering another season in the SHL.

Hopefully Lodin works out and turns out to be a savvy pick. I can’t comment as I’ve never seen him play outside of looking a the limited highlights after the selection. We have a track record of selection guys from lower end leagues and unknown guys, usually higher than we need to, and thus far our average isn’t great in that respect.

Then we have guys like Shore/Novak/Analoski/Peltz/Leblanc/etc who were not ranked and unknowns who were taken later.

It’s not something new, the Sens have been making picks like this for a decade, and there is reason to be sceptical.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Bileur

MatchesMalone

Formerly Innocent Bystander
Aug 29, 2010
1,612
1,071
No different than the Burgess pick in the 4th, or the Boyle in the 4th. We make some questionable off the radar picks in that range, and they have usually not worked out as intended.

He’s the 4th guy they have drafted in the 4th since 2010 that was either not ranked at all, or ranked in the low 200’s.

Sorensen - Not ranked anywhere, not tendered a contract. Currently a good 3rd line player with Sam Jose.

Tim Boyle - Not ranked anywhere, few seasons in the Southern league and the ECHL, now retired.

Todd Burgess - Ranked as a possible late 7th, some independent services had him in the 100’s. Missed a season with a knee injury, currently entering his 3rd NCAA season as a 23-24 year old. Make or break season for him, has been a disappointment in the NCAA thus far.

Viktor Lodin - Not ranked anywhere. Entering another season in the SHL.

Hopefully Lodin works out and turns out to be a savvy pick. I can’t comment as I’ve never seen him play outside of looking a the limited highlights after the selection. We have a track record of selection guys from lower end leagues and unknown guys, usually higher than we need to, and thus far our average isn’t great in that respect.

Then we have guys like Shore/Novak/Analoski/Peltz/Leblanc/etc who were not ranked and unknowns who were taken later.

It’s not something new, the Sens have been making picks like this for a decade, and there is reason to be sceptical.

No argument here. Burgess looks like a total flop, and as I've discussed elsewhere (not sure if on this forum), I think the Tim Boyle pick is easily on the shortlist for worst draft picks of all time for this franchise.

I just wouldn't personally throw Lodin in the "too late/almost no chance" category already. I would put him in the unknown/uncertain category, which I guess would fall under his tier 6.
 

Xspyrit

DJ Dorion
Jun 29, 2008
30,708
9,651
Montreal, Canada
Well put together. I agree with pretty much all your tier placements, except I would have Gustavsson in tier 3.

I also don't buy that Lodin has "almost no chance" already, or else why on earth did they pick him in the 4th round? Anders Östberg had to have pushed really hard for them to go so off the board on this pick. This early on, he's pretty much putting his NHL career on the line with this pick. I've gotta believe he really thinks he knows/sees something everyone else is missing.

Thanks. I'm usually harder on goalies and never rank them as high as I should because that position is so volatile and hard to predict. But yeah, Gustvasson definitely has starter potential. That being said, I believe Sogaard has even better potential.

In Lodin's case, I don't pretend to know more than anyone else and I'd theoretically agree with you here, but the fact that he is already 20 y/o kinda make me lose faith. He'd need to have a serious breakout and rapid progression to establish himself as a legit prospect. But yeah, we can give them the benefit of the doubt on this, it remains to be seen what will happen in his case.
 

Sens of Anarchy

Registered User
Jul 9, 2013
65,007
49,540
Strange to see Soogard ahead of Thomson, particularly on a Pronman list given he typically undervalues young goalies
Formenton over Brown is a strong endorsement of Formenton as well.
I like seeing Batherson #1 .. I think he deserves it.
JBD tends to get undervalued as well.
 

Micklebot

Moderator
Apr 27, 2010
53,145
30,369
Another take on ranking our prospects
NHL farm system rankings: Best, worst prospect pipelines for 2019-20, from 1 to 31

I don't like the Norris over Brown ranking but overall its not bad

He put out his top 100 (in another article for 1-50 and 51-100 via twitter) a bit before that article, in case you are wondering, here is how he sees things:

Brannstrom 21st
Batherson 33rd
Brown 69th
Norris 72nd
Thomson 86th
Formenton 93rd
Daccord not ranked in top 100
Bernard Docker not ranked in top 100
Davidsson not ranked in top 100
Soogard not ranked in top 100

So, Norris over Brown was apparently a flip flop with no additional viewings... though they were close in his rankings to the point that perhaps he views them as equal (along with Wilde and Tippett who slot in between them),.
 

FormentonTheFuture

Registered User
Sep 29, 2017
7,761
3,732
He put out his top 100 (in another article for 1-50 and 51-100 via twitter) a bit before that article, in case you are wondering, here is how he sees things:

Brannstrom 21st
Batherson 33rd
Brown 69th
Norris 72nd
Thomson 86th
Formenton 93rd
Daccord not ranked in top 100
Bernard Docker not ranked in top 100
Davidsson not ranked in top 100
Soogard not ranked in top 100

So, Norris over Brown was apparently a flip flop with no additional viewings... though they were close in his rankings to the point that perhaps he views them as equal (along with Wilde and Tippett who slot in between them),.
So why would Formenton be above Brown and Norris then?
 

Hale The Villain

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Apr 2, 2008
25,658
13,243
Strange to see Soogard ahead of Thomson, particularly on a Pronman list given he typically undervalues young goalies

Should be nothing strange about it.

Thomson was a reach in the 1st. Probably should have went in the 2nd, and below Sogaard at that.
 

FormentonTheFuture

Registered User
Sep 29, 2017
7,761
3,732
Should be nothing strange about it.

Thomson was a reach in the 1st. Probably should have went in the 2nd, and below Sogaard at that.

Disagree with that but everyone's gonna have different rankings. After seeing Thomson play I don't think he was a reach. He's going to have a big year in Finland IMO. I wouldn't rank any of our goalie prospects over him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Xspyrit

Micklebot

Moderator
Apr 27, 2010
53,145
30,369
Should be nothing strange about it.

Thomson was a reach in the 1st. Probably should have went in the 2nd, and below Sogaard at that.
Most rankings had Soogard lower, mkeens, FC, McKenzie for example. Also, as i said, Pronman is typically biased against goalies more so than most.
 

Micklebot

Moderator
Apr 27, 2010
53,145
30,369
How did Bernard-Docker hurt them so badly?
Pronman seems to like flashy offensive players more, and typically values forwards above dmen. I think this is more about his typical bias in terms of what he values in a prospect.

Who knows, maybe he's just super high on Brown, Norris, Formenton, Thomson, Soogard, and the 11 farm systems ahead of ours...
 

MatchesMalone

Formerly Innocent Bystander
Aug 29, 2010
1,612
1,071
Thanks. I'm usually harder on goalies and never rank them as high as I should because that position is so volatile and hard to predict.

Yeah I guess a lot of people have the same idea, "goalies are voodoo" seems like almost a mantra for some. I'm kinda the opposite, if there is a goalie who I think there is a substantial chance will become a legit high-level starter in the league, I rank them higher than anybody else does.

I always give a major boost for high-end upside, even if it is pretty unlikely. Cus you can have a dozen prospects with NHL potential, but if one of those longshot superstars hit, that's the difference-maker. Hence why I have Abramov over Davidsson when most people are saying Davidsson was the bigger piece in that trade.

Without wanting to go into too much detail on the value of goalies, one center or one defenseman can only make so much of a difference in a game - they're just one of five players on the ice at a time, only playing, at best, a third or a quarter of each game, so you've gotta draft or acquire a bunch of good ones, one or two isn't gonna do it.

Ok, yes, goalies are voodoo, but if you hit on one of those guys, not necessarily a first tier elite goalie even, but a second tier all-star calibre keeper, then you've got that position locked down for the next six or eight years, 60 games a year, 60 minutes a game, and maybe the entire playoffs.

So yeah, even though it is so difficult to predict an 18 or 20 year old goalie, if it seems like they have a legit chance of being one of those guys, I'm gonna rate them higher than everybody else does.

But yeah, Gustvasson definitely has starter potential. That being said, I believe Sogaard has even better potential.

I've been working on a project for a while now trying to rank and rate hockey leagues (who knows if I'll ever finish), and I have the SHL third. The CHL leagues aren't in the top 20. So when Søgaard tears up the WHL at 18, that's great, but it's a far cry from being among the best goalies in the SHL at 18 and 19.

Don't get me wrong, I love Søgaard, and I don't disagree that he may have higher upside than Gustavsson. But to me their upsides are pretty close - if Søgaard's is higher, it's not by too much. And when the upsides are that close, the edge goes to the guy who is proven at the significantly higher level.
 
Last edited:

Xspyrit

DJ Dorion
Jun 29, 2008
30,708
9,651
Montreal, Canada
Yeah I guess a lot of people have the same idea, "goalies are voodoo" seems like almost a mantra for some. I'm kinda the opposite, if there is a goalie who I think there is a substantial chance will become a legit high-level starter in the league, I rank them higher than anybody else does.

I always give a major boost for high-end upside, even if it is pretty unlikely. Cus you can have a dozen prospects with NHL potential, but if one of those longshot superstars hit, that's the difference-maker. Hence why I have Abramov over Davidsson when most people are saying Davidsson was the bigger piece in that trade.

Without wanting to go into too much detail on the value of goalies, one center or one defenseman can only make so much of a difference in a game - they're just one of five players on the ice at a time, only playing, at best, a third or a quarter of each game, so you've gotta draft or acquire a bunch of good ones, one or two isn't gonna do it.

Ok, yes, goalies are voodoo, but if you hit on one of those guys, not necessarily a first tier elite goalie even, but a second tier all-star calibre keeper, then you've got that position locked down for the next six or eight years, 60 games a year, 60 minutes a game, and maybe the entire playoffs.

So yeah, even though it is so difficult to predict an 18 or 20 year old goalie, if it seems like they have a legit chance of being one of those guys, I'm gonna rate them higher than everybody else does.


I've been working on a project for a while now trying to rank and rate hockey leagues (who knows if I'll ever finish), and I have the SHL third. The CHL leagues aren't in the top 20. So when Søgaard tears up the WHL at 18, that's great, but it's a far cry from being among the best goalies in the SHL at 18 and 19.

Don't get me wrong, I love Søgaard, and I don't disagree that he may have higher upside than Gustavsson. But to me their upsides are pretty close - if Søgaard's is higher, it's not by too much. And when the upsides are that close, the edge goes to the guy who is proven at the significantly higher level.

It's not really just that "goalies are voodoo" but for a start they don't have as much value in a trade. Look how the Sens acquired Bishop in the first place, he was probably the best and most ready goalie outside of the NHL and the cost was a 2nd round pick... People crapped on Murray a lot for what he got in return then but Conacher (who looked like a good up-and-coming forward) and a 4th was already worth more than what we paid, but still not the value you would have seen for a forward/D-man of the same caliber.

They also take a long time to develop in most cases and their development curve isn't nearly as linear, most can boom or bust at any moment.

That being said, I agree in general that maximum upside should be the biggest factor when evaluating a prospect. Still, several people hang on to the idea "but he's more NHL ready, therefore he should be voted in first". That's how you sometimes see a potential grinder voted over a potential top-6 forward who isn't as close as ready. Then on top of these 2 factors, you have the boom/bust factor that has to be taken into account, which explain why Davidsson could be voted over Abramov. In that comparison, junior game translation to the pro game is also an important factor. Davidsson has already played pro and looked more comfortable in transition.

I understand your point about goalies value, sometimes they make a big difference in the game (see Carey Price) and I am a goalie myself by the way so I know a lot about that :)sarcasm:) lol but at the NHL level, most goalies will/should be good enough to minimize that impact.

I also agree that Sogaard and Gustavsson have close upside, which is both starter potential with possible dominance. They're both Scandinavians (bias for me) but Sogaard has such an incredible size that he could be dominant if he focus on athleticism and quickness. The reason why I am giving him a slight edge now is that Gus transition to the pro game hasn't been smooth so Sogaard gets the benefit of the doubt for now that he will make a smoother one. Both are very good prospects but like I have been saying, we have a lot of quality prospects at the moment and people are used that prospects that got voted #11 and #15 must not be "that good". It just speaks volumes about the current prospect pool (that is way undervalued by some sources (like 12th), but rightfully ranked by some others (4th/5th))
 

Sens of Anarchy

Registered User
Jul 9, 2013
65,007
49,540
8-21 in Pronman's list


Kelly at 12? Abramov at 9 , 1 spot below JBD? Daccord?

Not sure how Pronman ranks them like this
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->