Prospect Info: 2019-20 Prospects Thread (CHL, NCAA, Junior A, Europe)

[Cousin Eddie]

Yeah my apologies if some people define the word rushed differently. I’ve just never heard that term be used in any other context outside of doing something “faster than you should”.

Perhaps the word means something different in other parts of the world. I forget that we literally communicate globally on here. I’m just used to it meaning “going too fast” such as rushing through an exam in school.

 

[henchman21]

To be honest, too much is made about rushing or delaying a player. It's virtually impossible to truly "ruin" a prospect. You can certainly mishandle his development and hamper his development, or handle him expertly and maybe even speed it up, but if he doesn't make the big show, it's simply because he was never really good enough to begin with.

Disagreed bigly. So much of successful development has to do with managing the balance between challenging kids & building up their confidence; especially in new skills/areas that you are trying to add to their game. There's a lot of variability from prospect to prospect, so it doesn't matter for everyone...aka what I was getting at with the ready/not-ready to be rushed bit...but I think it's a very important dynamic of developing young talent consistently.

I fall between this somewhere. I think it is difficult to ruin a high end guy, it can be done, but difficult. I do think regardless of what an organization does, you get 70-80-90+% of what a player can be and that is based completely on them. Their habits, their ability, their mental strength. There are also players that you just can't screw up no matter how hard you try... the stars of the game are going to the stars. Now the last little bit can come from the org nurturing in the right way. It can be a positional difference or a line difference or at the low end of the spectrum difference between a bottom 6 guy and AHL lifer. I'll point to Pierre Luc Dubois as a guy here. He preferred wing and that was the role he was comfortable in. It took Columbus pushing him and his junior team to force him at center, learn the position for a year, take the mental hit of not putting up video game numbers as a top 3 +1 player in juniors, and be ready in +2 to take on a more significant role. Without that vision, guidance, and nurturing... PLD likely doesn't end up a young #1C. He's probably a 2nd line wing who gets spurts at center, but likely ends fully at wing 2-3 years down the line.

 

[henchman21]

That isn't rushed though. Every team wants their good prospects brought along asap.

You're arguing definitions. It is a circular argument that there isn't a middle ground. I've clarified a couple times now and you're still attacking it. What are you trying to get out of this?

Yeah my apologies if some people define the word rushed differently. I’ve just never heard that term be used in any other context outside of doing something “faster than you should”.

Perhaps the word means something different in other parts of the world. I forget that we literally communicate globally on here. I’m just used to it meaning “going too fast” such as rushing through an exam in school.

Gonna pull out Webster's now!

 

[Foppberg]

You're arguing definitions. It is a circular argument that there isn't a middle ground. I've clarified a couple times now and you're still attacking it. What are you trying to get out of this?



Gonna pull out Webster's now!

I haven't attacked you at all, cgf a little maybe. I just disagree with it being difference in definitions. But whateves

 

[henchman21]

I haven't attacked you at all, cgf a little maybe. I just disagree with it being difference in definitions. But whateves

I did say 'it.' As in attacking the definition not me... unless that is the new pronoun for gender non-conforming and I missed the memo.

So if you disagree with is being a difference in definitions, what is it a difference in?

 

[cgf]

You guys seem to be focusing a lot more on the results; whereas my focus is on the decision-making process behind those results...and even more than that on the ideology/instincts that are at the foundation of that decision-making progress. All of which needs to be put into the context of what was known at the time the decision was made & what the organization was thinking / hoping / planning at the time the decision was made, to be judged / assessed in a way that we can learn anything useful, from.

 

[Foppa2118]

You guys are arguing on the semantic of a definition. But its very hard to agree with a definition of rushed that includes bringing a player in the NHL at a time where he is ready for it, even if that time is right after the draft...

I don't think it's semantics, I think there's some backtracking going on. Nobody would routinely bring up the idea that the Avs "rushed" players like MacKinnon, Landy, Duchene, and Mikko, if the point was they did the exact same thing every other franchise would do. There's no reason to bring that up so often. It's clearly meant as a way to say the Avs are doing something different or wrong.

Even if it's meant to say the Avs have brought in prospects "quickly" that's not correct either, since only a handful were, and it's not really more than most organizations in the Avs position who picked in the top 10 so often, where nearly all the NHL ready players are drafted.

 

[Foppberg]

I did say 'it.' As in attacking the definition not me... unless that is the new pronoun for gender non-conforming and I missed the memo.

So if you disagree with is being a difference in definitions, what is it a difference in?

Um.. Mischaracterization of what is rushed? Or I'm being a bit pigheaded I dunno. I didn't expect a discussion like this to get so heated by people thankfully it's almost September.

After reading cgfs latest posts I do see where he's coming from, and you too, but I just wouldn't characterize it as rushed mentality by the Avs.

 

[cgf]

I fall between this somewhere. I think it is difficult to ruin a high end guy, it can be done, but difficult. I do think regardless of what an organization does, you get 70-80-90+% of what a player can be and that is based completely on them. Their habits, their ability, their mental strength. There are also players that you just can't screw up no matter how hard you try... the stars of the game are going to the stars. Now the last little bit can come from the org nurturing in the right way. It can be a positional difference or a line difference or at the low end of the spectrum difference between a bottom 6 guy and AHL lifer. I'll point to Pierre Luc Dubois as a guy here. He preferred wing and that was the role he was comfortable in. It took Columbus pushing him and his junior team to force him at center, learn the position for a year, take the mental hit of not putting up video game numbers as a top 3 +1 player in juniors, and be ready in +2 to take on a more significant role. Without that vision, guidance, and nurturing... PLD likely doesn't end up a young #1C. He's probably a 2nd line wing who gets spurts at center, but likely ends fully at wing 2-3 years down the line.

That's fair and I don't disagree all that much. Plus I suspect that because the talent pool is so much smaller & youth development is so much less refined/systematized in hockey, that there's a lot more room for error with that "last little bit" (however large one thinks it is) than there is in soccer youth development...which I get my instincts / guiding-principals from.

So I'm certainly willing to buy that my feeling that the "last little bit" that clubs are responsible for is larger than you make it seem, might be warped a bit when it comes to developing young hockey players.

 

[Pokecheque]

Disagreed bigly. So much of successful development has to do with managing the balance between challenging kids & building up their confidence; especially in new skills/areas that you are trying to add to their game. There's a lot of variability from prospect to prospect, so it doesn't matter for everyone...aka what I was getting at with the ready/not-ready to be rushed bit...but I think it's a very important dynamic of developing young talent consistently.

Oh I agree proper development is important, I'm just saying I don't think a high-end prospect can go from future star to bust simply because of how he was handled. The example I always go back to is Stephen Weiss. Mike Keenan went out of his way to psychologically destroy him, and he still turned out, though it took a good long while...and then injuries set in and ended his career right when it was beginning. I think a similar argument could be made with Vinny Lecavalier, who was christened a captain the moment he stepped onto NHL ice at 18 (which was insanely stupid), but IMO he didn't truly become the superstar everyone thought he'd be until much, much later. And in this case again, injuries blotted out much of the remainder of his career.

Again, I think you can delay his development, you can even severely hamper his progress, but I don't think you can truly "ruin" a player. I'm sure it's possible but I can't think of any real examples (obviously we'll just never know since some of these guys who went bust weren't particularly memorable).

 

[henchman21]

The weird part of the Avs diocotomy, at least to me, is that they seem to ideologically fall in both groups of moving with great haste to get their top prospects in the NHL, and making the B or lower prospects earn it. If you're an A prospect, and you don't burn a bridge or get injured. You're pretty much going to be in the NHL in under 2 seasons, earlier if possible. If you're a B or lower guy, you're looking at +3 as your first real shot and if you don't earn it by the end of +5 (in some cases 4), your life with the org is going nowhere. Now I don't exactly know why that is. Is it them being poor talent identifiers, or is it that they are poor at developing how to succeed in different roles, or they just don't give a crap? I have my lean there, but that is a real debate with no real singular answer.

 

[Foppa2118]

To be honest, too much is made about rushing or delaying a player. It's virtually impossible to truly "ruin" a prospect. You can certainly mishandle his development and hamper his development, or handle him expertly and maybe even speed it up, but if he doesn't make the big show, it's simply because he was never really good enough to begin with.

I think you can definitely hurt a players development and potentially lower their ultimate peak by putting them in the NHL too early. But I also agree that too much is made of development in general.

Most of the reason for whether a prospect becomes good or near makes the NHL is because of their own talent, athleticism, smarts, and work ethic.

A good development staff can get a little bit more out of some prospects but not most of them. The amateur scouting staff deserves more credit and blame for the ultimate outcome of most prospects.

 

[cgf]

Um.. Mischaracterization of what is rushed? Or I'm being a bit pigheaded I dunno. I didn't expect a discussion like this to get so heated by people thankfully it's almost September.

After reading cgfs latest posts I do see where he's coming from, and you too, but I just wouldn't characterize it as rushed mentality by the Avs.

Which is fair. I know that I prefer to over-cook talent, so my sensibilities on what qualifies as "rushed" are going to be to be different from those of posters with other instincts/beliefs on that question.

Just felt like we weren't even talking the same language there for a bit & couldn't figure out where the dissonance was coming from; so I genuinely wasn't sure if folks were just trying to rile me up

 

[Foppa2118]

Which is fair. I know that I prefer to over-cook talent, so my sensibilities on what qualifies as "rushed" are going to be to be different from those with other instincts/beliefs. Just felt like we weren't even talking the same language there for a bit & couldn't figure out where the dissonance was coming from, so I genuinely wasn't sure if folks were just trying to get me going

Is it really fair to say they the Avs bring their prospects into the NHL quickly though, when nearly all of them spent 2 post draft years out of the NHL? That's pretty standard.

 

[MonsterMack]

If the Avs weren't a crap team for so long and their top prospects were routinely picked in the back half of the first round, do we think they would still have 'rushed' them?

They've been in position to draft talent that is ready or close to ready for NHL duty, and also lacked the team depth to let them cook. I really don't think other staff's would have handled our situation with our prospects all that differently.

 

[Pokecheque]

There's downside to "overcooking" prospects as well, just sayin'.

 

[Foppberg]

Is it October yet?

 

[Foppa2118]

Is it October yet?

I'll settle for September. Then we can all argue about whether Byram should be rushed into the NHL or not.

 

[Foppberg]

I'll settle for September. Then we can all argue about whether Byram should be rushed into the NHL or not.

And then debate Byram vs Tkachuk, that'll be fun too.

 

[UncleRisto]

Yeah my apologies if some people define the word rushed differently. I’ve just never heard that term be used in any other context outside of doing something “faster than you should”.

Perhaps the word means something different in other parts of the world. I forget that we literally communicate globally on here. I’m just used to it meaning “going too fast” such as rushing through an exam in school.

You could be rushed to the hospital.

(Threat. )

 

[Cousin Eddie]

You could be rushed to the hospital.

(Threat. )

I’d rather be brought at an appropriate, conservative speed.

 

[Chiarelli]

Who’s someone that has been overcooked? Any organization and evidence that it hurt them or the team

 

[henchman21]

If the Avs weren't a crap team for so long and their top prospects were routinely picked in the back half of the first round, do we think they would still have 'rushed' them?

They've been in position to draft talent that is ready or close to ready for NHL duty, and also lacked the team depth to let them cook. I really don't think other staff's would have handled our situation with our prospects all that differently.

Arizona has been crap for 5+ years now. They don't move prospects with as much haste. Ottawa is a slower cook team despite being on the poorer end. Every team handles it a bit differently to an extent.

 

[henchman21]

Who’s someone that has been overcooked? Any organization and evidence that it hurt them or the team

When you overcook, you just end up missing out on prime years of a player. Years where they could be productive earlier and help the org earlier. Tatar could have had an extra 2-3 seasons of higher impact with the Wings. Quincey there marinated so much he was lost on waivers to where he was picked up by LA and was a top 4 guy then a top 4 guy here. You don't really hurt players by over cooking, you hurt organizations.

 

[UncleRisto]

Who’s someone that has been overcooked? Any organization and evidence that it hurt them or the team

Probably someone on Grand Rapids. We can't tell, because if they didn't get a chance at a good time and it hurt them, we don't know if they ever had it. Or they just came in later than necessary and missed NHL years.