Prospect Info: 2019-20 Flyers Prospects - Top 30 SKATERS, #20

[Larry44]

And how many international games has Attard played?

0

Ginning is a year younger & has played around 70 international games.

Not to mention Ginning has 88 games in Sweden’s top professional men’s league at age 19.

But tell me about Attard’s 19 y/o season in the USHL.

Ginning not only played for Sweden's travel teams, he's been named the captain of his cohort. He's got a much better chance of playing in the NHL than several of the guys on this list ahead of him. I hope he makes it.

 

[Magua]

At 22 years old, Kalynuk should have a big season if he is anything close to a top 10 prospect.

In his third college season, Kalynuk has yet to show anything that makes him better than Friedman.

He has already had big seasons on a team seriously lacking forward talent in a good conference (not unlike his USHL numbers being suppressed), and that's why he should already be a top 10 prospect. Those who regularly watch him are calling their shot: he has real NHL potential -- and not just as a fringe guy. Like top 4/PP2 potential.

Comments like the second line just show me you haven't watched (enough of) him. Friedman played in the WCHA, and while it wasn't easy to watch Bowling Green games at the time, his Phantoms tenure has shown his offense didn't translate. He's a fine depth guy, but there's just not enough puck skill and creativity and deception. Kalynuk oozes these things in a bigger package, and while he'll need to tone down the risks, he has an uncommon aggressiveness. You're better off comparing him to a B-version of Sanheim/Myers. He'll need to clean his defensive technique, but again, he's aggressive and smart and no shrinking violet, and I'll be damned if he's not a superb transition player.

 

[Magua]

If the argument is: Ginning has more perceived value than XYZ players on the board......I'd agree. But this isn't a value chart; it's a talent depth chart.

Playing in the NHL -- because the NHL community often incorrectly evaluates certain attributes leading to a "floor" (which Ginning has in spades) -- isn't all it's cracked up to be. If you're a sub-replacement player but playing regularly for your NHL team, that's a negative. If you're the spare part you're treated as, you aren't negatively impacting your team. Unless you know when to sell high of course. Hagg actually hurts the Flyers; Reece Willcox doesn't. Give me a Vecchione over a VandeVelde.

Now, that's where the evaluation of skill-set comes into predicting that. I don't see much talk about skill-set by the white knights. I see an absence of it, with the void filled by letters sewn on jerseys. But if so many of us negative value Nancies got all this wrong with Hagg, there's hope for Ginning yet! No one who ever played for a World Junior team because of politics has ever not panned out.

 

[Captain Dave Poulin]

This poll is officially stupid.

 

[Magua]

This poll is officially stupid.

Let me try to make it REALLY official:

Where would we rank Colby Cohen today, if he was our prospect? Lot of great qualities.

 

[DrinkFightFlyers]

Oh I see what you're saying. People in general are too reactionary and lash out at the easy target.

Yeah, I wouldn't boo Andrew Luck either. Glad we agree.

 

[DrinkFightFlyers]

Every good prospect = OVERRATED! FAN FAVORITE! HOMERS!

Every bad prospect = UNDERRATED! FAN SCAPEGOAT! HATERS!

Because obviously nobody watches these players and likes them because they're good or dislikes them because they're bad. We decide by picking names out of a hat.

That's not true at all and you know it. I have full confidence in most of our top prospects. It is the bizarre infatuation with guys like Ginning who is a guaranteed waste of a pick the second he was drafted because our coaches and swedish national coaches and other NHL scouts and coaches in the SHL that had him on their team are just too stupid to realize he sucks and a guy like Gus (or Morin or NAK when he doesn't make it this year and probably JOB if he doesn't make it) who isn't succeeding solely because our coaches and ultimately the other 30 coaching staffs in the NHL are just dumb.

 

[deadhead]

If the argument is: Ginning has more perceived value than XYZ players on the board......I'd agree. But this isn't a value chart; it's a talent depth chart.

Playing in the NHL -- because the NHL community often incorrectly evaluates certain attributes leading to a "floor" (which Ginning has in spades) -- isn't all it's cracked up to be. If you're a sub-replacement player but playing regularly for your NHL team, that's a negative. If you're the spare part you're treated as, you aren't negatively impacting your team. Unless you know when to sell high of course. Hagg actually hurts the Flyers; Reece Willcox doesn't. Give me a Vecchione over a VandeVelde.

Now, that's where the evaluation of skill-set comes into predicting that. I don't see much talk about skill-set by the white knights. I see an absence of it, with the void filled by letters sewn on jerseys. But if so many of us negative value Nancies got all this wrong with Hagg, there's hope for Ginning yet! No one who ever played for a World Junior team because of politics has ever not panned out.

Well, we'll have to disagree.

If you're sub replacement, you won't be playing for anyone for very long, because duh, you're easily replaced.

MV hasn't shown the ability to contribute in any way, VdV was a plus PK killer and replacement level for a year or two at ES before he fell below replacement level. Flyers played Knight and Varone ahead of MV, which shows how useless he turned out to be.

Willcox doesn't hurt the Flyers b/c he never played, Hagg hurt because he was paired with mismatched partners, he played above replacement level with some partners - give him a puck mover and he's fine as a 3rd pair D-man (one reason I think Gudas was traded is he has the same issue, he'd be a bad pairing with Morin for that reason).

I'll take inexpensive depth with a floor just above replacement over AHL fodder.

Hagg will play somewhere in the NHL this season, and many seasons to come, and he'll probably have a few solid seasons with the right HC and the right defensive partner - how long has Girardi played (last two years with Cooper in TB!)?

 

[Captain Dave Poulin]

Let me try to make it REALLY official:

Where would we rank Colby Cohen today, if he was our prospect? Lot of great qualities.

 

[Ghosts Beer]

Ginning not only played for Sweden's travel teams, he's been named the captain of his cohort. He's got a much better chance of playing in the NHL than several of the guys on this list ahead of him. I hope he makes it.

Guy who gets it.

 

[Ghosts Beer]

Ginning is an NHLer. He may be a 6, but I see a modicum of Derian Hatcher, also. Team’s worst D prospect is embarrassing. When I was a kid I liked the concept of six point guards based on stats. It doesn’t work in reality.

 

[deadhead]

He has already had big seasons on a team seriously lacking forward talent in a good conference (not unlike his USHL numbers being suppressed), and that's why he should already be a top 10 prospect. Those who regularly watch him are calling their shot: he has real NHL potential -- and not just as a fringe guy. Like top 4/PP2 potential.

Kalynuk was 20 and 21 his first two years in college, which made him slightly overage, which is a huge edge in juniors and probably a substantial edge in college (or why 22 year old forwards who are top ten NCAA scorers rarely make the NHL, their success like overage juniors comes from being older, not better, than their peers).

Nor was Wisconsin totally absent of scoring forwards:
2017-18
Wagner 37g 15-18 33
Federic 36g 17-15 32 (#29 pick in 2016)
Weissbach 34g 10-16 26 (#172 pick in 2017)
Hughes (#165-2016)
And because there was no other offensive defenseman on the team, Kalynuk got the lion's share of scoring opportunities.

2018-19
you could make a much better case last year, but:
Dhoogee 37g 15-11 26
Malone 37g 8-18 26
Weissbach 27g 8-17 25
But:
Kalynuk 37g 9-16 25 0 [21 years old]
K'Andre Miller 26g 5-17 22 +7 [18 years old, #22 pick of the Rangers]

This year,
Weissbach, Dhoogee, Gorniak #123-2018, return
Cole Caufield, #15-2019
Alex Turcotte, #5-2019
Ryder Donovan #110-2019
Dylan Holloway, projected 1st rd pick in 2020
Owen Lindmark, #137-2019

 

[JojoTheWhale]

All data is evidence, some better than others.

Of course. And all models are wrong, some are just useful. George Box and the person(s) he was paraphrasing had it nailed.

Repeatedly replaying a GIF of a mistake of a 19 year old doesn't increase its evidentiary value.

However, it is hard to imagine that Ginning made Swedish international teams or played in the SHL at 18 by default, Sweden isn't say Germany or Switzerland, where the depth of talent is limited, I'm sure there's a fairly large supply of talented young defensemen who could have been used instead. So the Swedish coaches must see something they like in him.

I won't argue Ginning was handed anything by default. I will argue that a Swedish coach does not (and should not) choose his players based on anything other than how he expects them to play for his team. The same goes for Dave Lowry coaching Candian teams when he chose to play Joe Hicketts like he was Ryan Suter.

As you're correctly fond of pointing out, prospecting is a projection of what will happen within one limited environment, the NHL. Some things that work down levels don't translate, baseline requirements rise exponentially, and specific skills like mental processing time erase advantages a player may have elsewhere.

I don't think it's unfair to treat those two issues as the separate entities they are without having to dip into whether a coaching decision is sound or not, especially when Ginning is the opposite of leaguewide trends. You're betting on him being an outlier.

I know this is an odd statement because of playstyles and reps, but I look at him the way I looked at the Laberge pick. If you're taking either one of them because of "value," I hate the pick. If you love either one and are convinced he's a potential outlier, I love the pick. I don't see that in either player, so in a pool this deep, neither would get a vote from me in the top 20.

 

[TB87]

He has already had big seasons on a team seriously lacking forward talent in a good conference (not unlike his USHL numbers being suppressed), and that's why he should already be a top 10 prospect. Those who regularly watch him are calling their shot: he has real NHL potential -- and not just as a fringe guy. Like top 4/PP2 potential.

Comments like the second line just show me you haven't watched (enough of) him. Friedman played in the WCHA, and while it wasn't easy to watch Bowling Green games at the time, his Phantoms tenure has shown his offense didn't translate. He's a fine depth guy, but there's just not enough puck skill and creativity and deception. Kalynuk oozes these things in a bigger package, and while he'll need to tone down the risks, he has an uncommon aggressiveness. You're better off comparing him to a B-version of Sanheim/Myers. He'll need to clean his defensive technique, but again, he's aggressive and smart and no shrinking violet, and I'll be damned if he's not a superb transition player.

He’s a one-man breakout. It’s a lot of fun to see him evade forecheckers with ease. I’ve tracked 7 of his games from this past season and he exited the DZ with possession 80% of the time (60 of 75 attempts). That’s kinda unreal

 

[JojoTheWhale]

He’s a one-man breakout. It’s a lot of fun to see him evade forecheckers with ease. I’ve tracked 7 of his games from this past season and he exited the DZ with possession 80% of the time (60 of 75 attempts). That’s kinda unreal

This is why I probably overrate him a bit. Dude was created in a lab for me to like.

 

[Striiker]

I don't see much talk about skill-set by the white knights. I see an absence of it, with the void filled by letters sewn on jerseys.

This is a really good point.

There's plenty of posts pointing out his flaws but all the posts defending him are just basically pointing out where he's played games, without ever saying what he's actually good at.

Not a coincidence.

 

[FLYguy3911]

I don't see much talk about skill-set by the white knights. I see an absence of it, with the void filled by letters sewn on jerseys.

It's pretty obvious that they haven't seen him play and their heels are dug in so far, there's no turning back now. Back to draft day. Blind faith in consensus draft rankings. It's Hagg 5 years later to a T. All of the same arguments.

 

[TB87]

This is why I probably overrate him a bit. Dude was created in a lab for me to like.

Lol. His ability to push the pace is so much fun.

Felt bad for him (& K'Andre) a bit this past season. Wisconsin's FWDS provided minimal defensive support, their starting goalie was one of the worst in the NCAA, & the FWDS flubbed a ton of grade A chances too.

 

[landsbergfan]

I chose Bernhardt because who knows this deep in the prospect pool

You had like a 4/5 chance of accidentally choosing someone better

 

[Stizzle]

He’s a one-man breakout. It’s a lot of fun to see him evade forecheckers with ease. I’ve tracked 7 of his games from this past season and he exited the DZ with possession 80% of the time (60 of 75 attempts). That’s kinda unreal

Prospect Ranking...

Charlie O'Connor: 20th
Appleyard: 19th
Dan Silver: Honorable Mention

 

[Magua]

It's pretty obvious that they haven't seen him play and their heels are dug in so far, there's no turning back now. Back to draft day. Blind faith in consensus draft rankings. It's Hagg 5 years later to a T. All of the same arguments.

You'd think someone who is a damn lock to be an NHLer (can't say that often!) would be voted higher than late teens-early twenties by his supporters, those who can fully appreciate defensive defensemen and not stat drool. It's not like post-draft we said we'd much rather have Alec Regula, he of the 25 points in 67 games in juniors.

I have an idea. Here's a video below of Ginning, wearing that mythical 'C' and Tre Kronor, in a game from this month. If someone wants to satiate their Ginning savior complex, do a shift-by-shift breakdown of #4. Point to strengths, weaknesses. Will they? Probably not. I've seen this game already; it's not all bad, and I should hope not for any player. But just like the people who bellyache about that silly Ginning gif, one good or bad play doesn't erase net impact and overall skill-set. Then again, if you can actually watch Hagg and defend him, which seems to be a common theme, maybe watching doesn't matter.

 

[TB87]

Prospect Ranking...

Charlie O'Connor: 20th
Appleyard: 19th
Dan Silver: Honorable Mention

*Ted Brown: 11th*

 

[GapToothedWonder]

You'd think someone who is a damn lock to be an NHLer (can't say that often!) would be voted higher than late teens-early twenties by his supporters, those who can fully appreciate defensive defensemen and not stat drool. It's not like post-draft we said we'd much rather have Alec Regula, he of the 25 points in 67 games in juniors.

I have an idea. Here's a video below of Ginning, wearing that mythical 'C' and Tre Kronor, in a game from this month. If someone wants to satiate their Ginning savior complex, do a shift-by-shift breakdown of #4. Point to strengths, weaknesses. Will they? Probably not. I've seen this game already; it's not all bad, and I should hope not for any player. But just like the people who bellyache about that silly Ginning gif, one good or bad play doesn't erase net impact and overall skill-set. Then again, if you can actually watch Hagg and defend him, which seems to be a common theme, maybe watching doesn't matter.

The 2nd Canads goal. Woof. Puck flub, puts his D partner in a terrible spot, lost positioning, poor motor getting to the front of the net. Gross.

 

[Magua]

The 2nd Canads goal. Woof. Puck flub, puts his D partner in a terrible spot, lost positioning, poor motor getting to the front of the net. Gross.

I think he tries hard, but it’s easy to mistake superficial defensive effort for defensive effectiveness. He moves average for a big guy in stride, but he’s got clunky footwork. He’s poor with the puck. But the deal breaker for me, which affects everything, is I just think he reads the game poorly. Decisions seem late and reactionary or panicky in every zone, with or without the puck. I look at a similar “type” like Mattias Samuelsson, who has a little more natural talent but not significantly, and that’s the chasm between them.

 

[GapToothedWonder]

I think he tries hard, but it’s easy to mistake superficial defensive effort for defensive effectiveness. He moves average for a big guy in stride, but he’s got clunky footwork. He’s poor with the puck. But the deal breaker for me, which affects everything, is I just think he reads the game poorly. Decisions seem late and reactionary or panicky in every zone, with or without the puck. I look at a similar “type” like Mattias Samuelsson, who has a little more natural talent but not significantly, and that’s the chasm between them.

Visually it looks bad, but you are right I think he is still processing what is going on as the shooter is winding up, its not a lack of effort. I guess to me the term motor is more then just effort alone though, its the willingness to constantly move your feet and know how to use that to maintain body position on defense and on the forecheck. People with high motors are always in other players space, constantly making the game harder for their opponent, it takes more then effort to do that.

It must be crazy watching the game as somebody who has been anointed due to being giving a paycheque to scout at some point in your life. The game must be so different to those people.