Prospect Info: 2018 Minnesota Wild Prospect Ranking - #6

[BagHead]

25 is as good as it gets? Someone should really let Vegas know. Haula and Marchessault at least. Not to mention McNabb and Engelland. Plus Schmidt who never played above 3rd pair before ending up the #1 on the Western Conference championship team. Good thing Karlsson managed his 78 point breakout last year or he'd be stuck a 15 point player forever. Good thing that Burns trade didn't come back to bite the Wild, because when he was 25 he was a 40 point-ish, often defensively questionable defender and in return they got so much "potential." Won't get better than that because all players develop along the exact same linear timeline. Because surely players not playing up in the lineup in their mid 20's can only be due to their abilities and not their team's existing depth pool, or when they began their professional development.

It's funny that Bruce didn't have a better option than Seeler to play 2nd pair LHD when he started.... 6th on the depth chart last year? Suter, Brodin, Reilly, Olofsson for sure, then Soucy is debatable. Reilly got traded for nearly nothing, Olofsson could be following in his footsteps, and Soucy already got pushed aside for Seeler by the end of the year. So yeah, he's a 3rd pairing defense. For now. Because the two ahead of him are established players while he still has to prove himself. Let's hope he doesn't get sent to Seattle only to break out because of his non-contextualized perception as a 3rd liner at 25 years old.

Got many examples that aren't on an expansion team? Yeah, oddities happen, but Burns and Seeler are very different players. Haula would not have scored 60 points on the Wild. Seeler is not a top 4 dman on the Wild. He could become one, but at 25, the odds are low.

 

[Aurinko]

Got many examples that aren't on an expansion team? Yeah, oddities happen, but Burns and Seeler are very different players. Haula would not have scored 60 points on the Wild. Seeler is not a top 4 dman on the Wild. He could become one, but at 25, the odds are low.

Haula did 12ppg´s this season, and those were not high quality passes. Neal/Perron did not actually feed him the goals. Haula is not a 2nd line forward (his GA and relative stats were awful this year), but he has a laser beam of a shot and belongs to the PP. In hindsight its easy to see, none of his career goals were dekes, none in the Wild just figured that his goals are based on accurate one-time shots that really shine in PP. He was never tested in the Wild power play...

What goes to Seeler.. Rookie bias is a commonly known statistical fact (first season is statistically better than the second) and players do have around 3 hot streaks during their career.. Seeler´s GA/60 & GF/60 were the best among our D. If he can keep up even close to what he did this year, his contract is a very high value contract. If you get a 1M guy playing like a 4M player, you have 3M to spend somewhere else.

 

[Goose312]

Got many examples that aren't on an expansion team? Yeah, oddities happen, but Burns and Seeler are very different players. Haula would not have scored 60 points on the Wild. Seeler is not a top 4 dman on the Wild. He could become one, but at 25, the odds are low.

Beauchemin, Gourde, Backes, Byfuglien, Zetterburg, Dadonov, Plekanec, Hoffman, Dzingel, Kunitz, Bozak, Hyman, Grabovski, Josh Bailey, Anders Lee, Hickey, Couturier, Rust, Sheary, Orlov, Niskanen, Ryan, Atkinson, Palmieri, Moore, Zuccarello, Desharnais, Bieska, Goligoski, Backlund, Giordano, Maroon, Russell, Letestu, Muzzin, Alec Martinez, Forbort, Burns, Pavelski, Braun, both Sedins, Sharp, Soderberg, Granlund, Zucker, Turris, Ekholm, Ellis, Bonino, Steen, Sobotka, Wheeler.

Is that enough? Tried to keep it pretty tight to players who entered the league, broke out, or had a major career uptick either in or after their 25 year old season. Picking out defenders was more difficult but there are many included. That's also only players that were active as of last year.

I'm not sure why Vegas should be discounted when part of my point is a guy like Seeler may not have gotten his real NHL debut because he was buried by organizational depth and started his professional career late. Vegas is a team full of players who were buried on the depth chart, and now many of them are breaking out. I also don't think Seeler is the next Burns and didn't even insinuate that to be my opinion. That was a comment on the statement that at 25 a player is more or less as good as they will ever be. Burns is just a perfect example that hits close to home of a player hitting their development and potential peak later in their career.

 

[Wabit]

The thing with Seeler is he is 25, but this will only be his 3rd pro season. He's improved each of his 2 previous seasons and hasn't hit that plateau in his pro development. If he had been in the organization since he was 18 or 20 then I'd be more apt to say "he is what he is" at this point. The college track makes things a little harder for me.

The 1st year was his transition to pro hockey (AHL) from college hockey. The 2nd year was mostly AHL with an introduction to NHL hockey. This being his 3rd year should be his full (ish) NHL season. This 3 year route is what you hope for from most every (non-elite) prospect.

 

[2Pair]

Beauchemin, Gourde, Backes, Byfuglien, Zetterburg, Dadonov, Plekanec, Hoffman, Dzingel, Kunitz, Bozak, Hyman, Grabovski, Josh Bailey, Anders Lee, Hickey, Couturier, Rust, Sheary, Orlov, Niskanen, Ryan, Atkinson, Palmieri, Moore, Zuccarello, Desharnais, Bieska, Goligoski, Backlund, Giordano, Maroon, Russell, Letestu, Muzzin, Alec Martinez, Forbort, Burns, Pavelski, Braun, both Sedins, Sharp, Soderberg, Granlund, Zucker, Turris, Ekholm, Ellis, Bonino, Steen, Sobotka, Wheeler.

Is that enough? Tried to keep it pretty tight to players who entered the league, broke out, or had a major career uptick either in or after their 25 year old season. Picking out defenders was more difficult but there are many included. That's also only players that were active as of last year.

I'm not sure why Vegas should be discounted when part of my point is a guy like Seeler may not have gotten his real NHL debut because he was buried by organizational depth and started his professional career late. Vegas is a team full of players who were buried on the depth chart, and now many of them are breaking out. I also don't think Seeler is the next Burns and didn't even insinuate that to be my opinion. That was a comment on the statement that at 25 a player is more or less as good as they will ever be. Burns is just a perfect example that hits close to home of a player hitting their development and potential peak later in their career.

That list is so terrible that I'm not sure you even understand the argument? A handful of those players were still teenagers when they broke into the league. Beauchemin, Gourde, Hoffman, Bieksa and Kunitz are good examples of what you're trying to say. The rest range from being a stretch to flat out being brutal.

 

[Goose312]

That list is so terrible that I'm not sure you even understand the argument? A handful of those players were still teenagers when they broke into the league. Beauchemin, Gourde, Hoffman, Bieksa and Kunitz are good examples of what you're trying to say. The rest range from being a stretch to flat out being brutal.

The argument is in response to your post here:

1. I am saying that a 25 year old is pretty much out of potential. Seeler is what he is at this point. The chances of him ever being a top 4 defenseman are very slim.

2. I don't think Seeler is awful. In fact, I absolutely love his game, but that doesn't make him better than he is. I love Prosser's game as well.

3. Boudreau played him 20 minutes a night because he didn't have a better option. Soucy got first crack at it despite having zero experience.

4. Seeler is the defensive version of Kloos and Rau.

that a 25 year old is out of potential and Seeler is what he is at this point. So I provided a few players from Vegas who you could have made that same point until they got their shot to end up breaking out but was asked for more. So that's a list of players who based on their 25 year old selves were a far lesser version of the player they would become. The circumstances for them all aren't the same, some were already in the league but in lesser roles either due to their abilities at the time, or just not ready to take the next step because they were still developing their game in their mid 20's, or the depth of the team they were on didn't allow them a shot to prove themselves, or simply flat out misuse by their franchise. Some hadn't entered the league yet. But the thing all of those players have in common is they weren't out of potential at 25 as you are stating to be the case for Seeler.

He may end up what he is at this point and opinions vary on just what that might be, but he's going to get his shot even if it's just on the 3rd pair this season due to the existing depth chart. If he does well enough maybe that makes the guy ahead of him making nearly 6x as much expendable and Seeler ends up getting his real shot.

 

[2Pair]

The argument is in response to your post here:


that a 25 year old is out of potential and Seeler is what he is at this point. So I provided a few players from Vegas who you could have made that same point until they got their shot to end up breaking out but was asked for more. So that's a list of players who based on their 25 year old selves were a far lesser version of the player they would become. The circumstances for them all aren't the same, some were already in the league but in lesser roles either due to their abilities at the time, or just not ready to take the next step because they were still developing their game in their mid 20's, or the depth of the team they were on didn't allow them a shot to prove themselves, or simply flat out misuse by their franchise. Some hadn't entered the league yet. But the thing all of those players have in common is they weren't out of potential at 25 as you are stating to be the case for Seeler.

He may end up what he is at this point and opinions vary on just what that might be, but he's going to get his shot even if it's just on the 3rd pair this season due to the existing depth chart. If he does well enough maybe that makes the guy ahead of him making nearly 6x as much expendable and Seeler ends up getting his real shot.

Congrats you win the Senmantics Bowl. Nice job of twisting the argument until you get it to fit what you want to say. Bringing guys like Pavelski, Burns, Wheeler, the Sedins, and even Granlund and Zucker into a discussion about Seeler, really makes a ton of sense.

I'm talking about guys that don't even crack the NHL until they are 25 and how much you can realistically expect them to progress. You made a list of guys that had good years at the age of 25.

 

[Goose312]

Congrats you win the Senmantics Bowl. Nice job of twisting the argument until you get it to fit what you want to say. Bringing guys like Pavelski, Burns, Wheeler, the Sedins, and even Granlund and Zucker into a discussion about Seeler, really makes a ton of sense.

I'm talking about guys that don't even crack the NHL until they are 25 and how much you can realistically expect them to progress. You made a list of guys that had good years at the age of 25.

You know Seeler turned 25 in June? So this year will be his 25 year old season. It's just as much semantics to say "he is what he is at 25" when he is technically 25 despite never actually playing a second of hockey as a 25 year old. And that's exactly why I made the list. It used to be the standard that players didn't enter the league until their early 20's except in rare exceptions. A 24-25 year old player 20 or 30 years ago would have been a bit behind schedule, but nothing remarkable. Now younger players are making an immediate impact and the expectation has suddenly shifted to a player at 25 can't amount to anything because they haven't gotten their shot yet?

 

[2Pair]

You know Seeler turned 25 in June? So this year will be his 25 year old season. It's just as much semantics to say "he is what he is at 25" when he is technically 25 despite never actually playing a second of hockey as a 25 year old. And that's exactly why I made the list. It used to be the standard that players didn't enter the league until their early 20's except in rare exceptions. A 24-25 year old player 20 or 30 years ago would have been a bit behind schedule, but nothing remarkable. Now younger players are making an immediate impact and the expectation has suddenly shifted to a player at 25 can't amount to anything because they haven't gotten their shot yet?

You really are outstanding with the semantics. Does anything in my argument change if I call Seeler a guy with 22 career games at the age of 25?
Good job on the bolded though. Tons of people making that argument.

 

[Goose312]

You really are outstanding with the semantics. Does anything in my argument change if I call Seeler a guy with 22 career games at the age of 25?
Good job on the bolded though. Tons of people making that argument.

I really don't understand how you think this is at all semantics. It's not like there's a lot to infer from "I am saying that a 25 year old is pretty much out of potential. Seeler is what he is at this point." There's really not a whole lot you can interpret from that then what you literally said. If you think I was supposed to just imply that you mean "25 year olds who are just starting in the NHL..." then I really guess sorry for not making a huge leap in meaning to determine what you were really trying to say. I'm not really sure how I'm twisting the argument of a 25 year old being all they will ever be by looking at previous players who didn't break out until they were 25 or later.

Personally I think your argument gets weaker when pointing to games played as well as age. You are making an absolute statement based a guy in his 2nd professional year having played 27 games. That's all you need to know with seemingly near certainty that he is now all he is meant to be in the NHL? If he was 25, had played 6 years in the AHL, got occasional callups and failed to stick, sure more final value could be determined due to their inability to stick. Or even if he was 25 and had 6 NHL seasons under his belt, he's probably a mostly known commodity with a smaller chance for a future breakout. But that's not the context here. The context is him being in just his 2nd pro season and surpassing multiple other professionals on the depth chart to end up on the NHL roster, eventually playing up in a bigger role when injuries necessitated it and looking just fine doing so gives me greater confidence that he will end up a good player. From that I interpret that he has the ability to be a greater player, though also the risk of not living up to his short NHL career thus far due to the brief nature of his career to date. That's why I think he's still a prospect. The possibility of being better while also not being a fully known commodity.

 

[2Pair]

I really don't understand how you think this is at all semantics. It's not like there's a lot to infer from "I am saying that a 25 year old is pretty much out of potential. Seeler is what he is at this point." There's really not a whole lot you can interpret from that then what you literally said. If you think I was supposed to just imply that you mean "25 year olds who are just starting in the NHL..." then I really guess sorry for not making a huge leap in meaning to determine what you were really trying to say. I'm not really sure how I'm twisting the argument of a 25 year old being all they will ever be by looking at previous players who didn't break out until they were 25 or later.

Personally I think your argument gets weaker when pointing to games played as well as age. You are making an absolute statement based a guy in his 2nd professional year having played 27 games. That's all you need to know with seemingly near certainty that he is now all he is meant to be in the NHL? If he was 25, had played 6 years in the AHL, got occasional callups and failed to stick, sure more value could be determined due to their inability to stick. Or even if he was 25 and had 6 NHL seasons under his belt, he's probably a mostly known commodity with a smaller chance for a future breakout. But that's not the context here. The context is him being in just his 2nd pro season and surpassing multiple other professionals on the depth chart to end up on the NHL roster, eventually playing up in a bigger role when injuries necessitated it and looking just fine doing so gives me greater confidence that he will end up a good player. From that I interpret that he has the ability to be a greater player, though also the risk of not living up to his short NHL career thus far. That's why I think he's still a prospect. The possibility of being better while also not being a fully known commodity.

1. Guys that haven't established themselves in the NHL by the age of 25, usually don't. There are of course exceptions to this, so no need for silly lists.
2. Of the small group of guys that do enter the league at that late stage, most are of the 4th line, 3rd pair, backup goalie variety. Again, I'm sure you can probably provide a few examples of the contrary.
3. Of that already small group of 4th line type players, very few ever progress beyond the level of player that they were at when they entered the league. Seeler will most certainly be a better player than he was this year, but the level of progress is almost guaranteed to be less than what you would expect out of a teenager.

All of this is of course just a long ass way to say that a defenseman who plays a very basic, stay at home, chip it in chip it out, 3rd pair style of play at the age of 25. Isn't very likely to become a skilled, puck handling/moving top 4 defenseman.