Prospect Info: 2019-2020 Senators Prospects Watch

[Cosmix]

In the 2020 draft we will likely get a top 5 pick plus a mid first rounder, plus some second rounders. The top 5 pick has high probability of being a top line player. If the team can get 1 or 2 more top 5 picks, then the team will be much better going forward. Yes, it would be similar to Edmonton’s situation, but hopefully have a better success rate at icing a playoff team that can be a contender for the SC.

 

[ReginKarlssonLehner]

This year can have a nice saving point if all our major(relatively speaking) prospects shine.

Thomson
JBD
Pinto
Batherson
Formenton
Brown

and a prospects making the jump to our top 5

 

[aragorn]

Well the key point is that they need TOP 1st rounders. None of the players you listed are those. We have a **** load of picks coming up, the org should be trying to turn that quantity into quality by trading multiple picks to move up.

I'm all for trading quantity for quality except it's much easier to say than do since other teams want exactly the same thing. And a number of the guys I listed were drafted in the first rd & no team is going to consistently pick in the top 10 of the draft, that rarely ever happens & the guys who you do draft where ever they are picked have to STEP UP & become players. They have to draft the right kind of players who have a very strong determination to be the best & play the right way.

IMO it's more about picking the right players than picking a certain kind of player or a top 10 player, not all of them turn out. Some players drafted high turn out to be non physical perimeter players that when they are not scoring they are completely useless & doing absolutely nothing & Ottawa has way too many of those perimeter players. And then you have to have the patience to wait for them to develop & not bring them out too soon or trade them because the fans & management have run out of patience with them. And then there is the whole money thing whether this owner has the money to pay them after they have paid their dues & developed into NHL players & keep them.

 

[Alf Silfversson]

I'm all for trading quantity for quality except it's much easier to say than do since other teams want exactly the same thing. And a number of the guys I listed were drafted in the first rd & no team is going to consistently pick in the top 10 of the draft, that rarely ever happens & the guys who you do draft where ever they are picked have to STEP UP & become players. They have to draft the right kind of players who have a very strong determination to be the best & play the right way.

IMO it's more about picking the right players than picking a certain kind of player or a top 10 player, not all of them turn out. Some players drafted high turn out to be non physical perimeter players that when they are not scoring they are completely useless & doing absolutely nothing & Ottawa has way too many of those perimeter players. And then you have to have the patience to wait for them to develop & not bring them out too soon or trade them because the fans & management have run out of patience with them. And then there is the whole money thing whether this owner has the money to pay them after they have paid their dues & developed into NHL players & keep them.

Just out of curiosity, who are all of these "perimeter" players/prospects to whom you are referring?

 

[aragorn]

Just out of curiosity, who are all of these "perimeter" players/prospects to whom you are referring?

Anisimov, Boedker, Ennis, Namestnikov, Tierny, Duclair, Abramov ... & the list goes on.

 

[Alf Silfversson]

Anisimov, Boedker, Ennis, Namestnikov, Tierny, Duclair, Abramov ... & the list goes on.

Ya see I wouldn't call Anisimov, Ennis or Abramov perimeter players. Not really Tierney either. Duclair is debatable but in his time in Ottawa he goes where he needs to go. Boedker is a very meh player but he's not exactly solely a perimeter player but rather a mediocre one.

I haven't watched Namestnikov enough to comment but yeah I'd say he plays a little more on the perimeter, although he appears to be decent defensively.

In the case of Anisimov, Boedker and Ennis they aren't very good players anymore but that doesn't make them perimeter players.

Tierney is often playing down low and making his plays down there. He doesn't cut to the slot very much but that's because he doesn't have much of a shot. He spends plenty of time behind the net and around both posts though.

Your inclusion of Abramov just really shows your bias. This kid goes hard to the net and he has at every level of hockey dating back to junior. He is the furthest thing from a perimeter player. Small does not equal soft or perimeter player. But here he is on your list.

Of the players that have any kind of future with the Sens I would say there are three that are pretty much perimeter players.

1. Logan Brown - funny he isn't on your list but he is 6'6 after all. He does NOT go to the dirty areas to score. Relies on his shot and vision to try to generate offence. If that ain't working he has yet to try much of anything else.

2. Anthony Duclair - pretty much the same thing as Brown but has the speed to drive the net a little bit more. Would still rather use his shot from distance rather than drive the net (other than off the rush).

3. Rudolphs Balcers - Uses his smarts and skills to try to score. Will occasionally go close to the net for rebounds but won't really crash the net for the sake of it. More of an opportunist but likes to play primarily on the outside.

Three perimeter players that I can see on this team moving forward and I would argue that all of them have a style that adds something to a successful team. Doesn't seem like too much to me when the future core includes guys like White, Tkachuk, Formenton, Norris, Abramov, Batherson, etc. Seems pretty balanced to me.

You can call guys like Anisimov and Boedker perimeter guys but at the end of the day it doesn't matter. They just aren't good players. THAT'S the problem.

 

[aragorn]

Ya see I wouldn't call Anisimov, Ennis or Abramov perimeter players. Not really Tierney either. Duclair is debatable but in his time in Ottawa he goes where he needs to go. Boedker is a very meh player but he's not exactly solely a perimeter player but rather a mediocre one.

I haven't watched Namestnikov enough to comment but yeah I'd say he plays a little more on the perimeter, although he appears to be decent defensively.

In the case of Anisimov, Boedker and Ennis they aren't very good players anymore but that doesn't make them perimeter players.

Tierney is often playing down low and making his plays down there. He doesn't cut to the slot very much but that's because he doesn't have much of a shot. He spends plenty of time behind the net and around both posts though.

Your inclusion of Abramov just really shows your bias. This kid goes hard to the net and he has at every level of hockey dating back to junior. He is the furthest thing from a perimeter player. Small does not equal soft or perimeter player. But here he is on your list.

Of the players that have any kind of future with the Sens I would say there are three that are pretty much perimeter players.

1. Logan Brown - funny he isn't on your list but he is 6'6 after all. He does NOT go to the dirty areas to score. Relies on his shot and vision to try to generate offence. If that ain't working he has yet to try much of anything else.

2. Anthony Duclair - pretty much the same thing as Brown but has the speed to drive the net a little bit more. Would still rather use his shot from distance rather than drive the net (other than off the rush).

3. Rudolphs Balcers - Uses his smarts and skills to try to score. Will occasionally go close to the net for rebounds but won't really crash the net for the sake of it. More of an opportunist but likes to play primarily on the outside.

Three perimeter players that I can see on this team moving forward and I would argue that all of them have a style that adds something to a successful team. Doesn't seem like too much to me when the future core includes guys like White, Tkachuk, Formenton, Norris, Abramov, Batherson, etc. Seems pretty balanced to me.

You can call guys like Anisimov and Boedker perimeter guys but at the end of the day it doesn't matter. They just aren't good players. THAT'S the problem.

I might agree with you on Abramov, especially if he can contribute on RW. I don't think there will be room on LW for him on any future team except maybe as a depth player, but he has a chance on RW given the lack of depth on that side. We'll see how he performs over a longer period of time in the NHL.

 

[starling]

Well the key point is that they need TOP 1st rounders. None of the players you listed are those. We have a **** load of picks coming up, the org should be trying to turn that quantity into quality by trading multiple picks to move up.

Fun stat:
ZERO of the last TEN first overall picks have won a Stanley Cup.
ONE of the last TEN second overall picks have won a Stanley Cup (Seguin - that pick acquired via trade and has nothing to do with tanking)
ZERO of the last TEN third overall picks have won a Stanley Cup.
ZERO of the last TEN fourth overall picks have won a Stanley Cup.
ZERO of the last TEN fifth overall picks have won a Stanley Cup.

Ten years is a lot, it usually takes the player past his prime.
Crazy thought but hear me out, maybe, just maybe winning has nothing to do with tanking but has more to do with having a good ownership and competent GM?

 

[God Says No]

Fun stat:
ZERO of the last TEN first overall picks have won a Stanley Cup.
ONE of the last TEN second overall picks have won a Stanley Cup (Seguin - that pick acquired via trade and has nothing to do with tanking)
ZERO of the last TEN third overall picks have won a Stanley Cup.
ZERO of the last TEN fourth overall picks have won a Stanley Cup.
ZERO of the last TEN fifth overall picks have won a Stanley Cup.

Ten years is a lot, it usually takes the player past his prime.
Crazy thought but hear me out, maybe, just maybe winning has nothing to do with tanking but has more to do with having a good ownership and competent GM?

You might be on to something. Although I still maintain top 10 picks give you a higher chance of winning.

 

[MatchesMalone]

Fun stat:
ZERO of the last TEN first overall picks have won a Stanley Cup.
ONE of the last TEN second overall picks have won a Stanley Cup (Seguin - that pick acquired via trade and has nothing to do with tanking)
ZERO of the last TEN third overall picks have won a Stanley Cup.
ZERO of the last TEN fourth overall picks have won a Stanley Cup.
ZERO of the last TEN fifth overall picks have won a Stanley Cup.

Ten years is a lot, it usually takes the player past his prime.
Crazy thought but hear me out, maybe, just maybe winning has nothing to do with tanking but has more to do with having a good ownership and competent GM?

Does it have to be one or the other?

 

[Micklebot]

Fun stat:
ZERO of the last TEN first overall picks have won a Stanley Cup.
ONE of the last TEN second overall picks have won a Stanley Cup (Seguin - that pick acquired via trade and has nothing to do with tanking)
ZERO of the last TEN third overall picks have won a Stanley Cup.
ZERO of the last TEN fourth overall picks have won a Stanley Cup.
ZERO of the last TEN fifth overall picks have won a Stanley Cup.

Ten years is a lot, it usually takes the player past his prime.
Crazy thought but hear me out, maybe, just maybe winning has nothing to do with tanking but has more to do with having a good ownership and competent GM?

Ten years is a lot, the last 5 first OA picks haven't exactly had a lot of runway to go from being drafted by one of the worst teams in hockey to being a legit contender and winning the cup.

I think we can make your point even stronger by looking at teams that have won the cup within 10 years of picking in the top end of the draft

1st OA: NYI no, TBL no, CHI yes, STL no (won 13 years later), Pens yes, WAS no (14 yrs), Pens again yes, CBJ No, NYI no, ATL no.

2nd OA: TBAY no, LA yes, PHI no, Pens yes, Ana yes (had nothing to do with drafting Ryan), Pens yes, CAR yes, Atl no, Ott no, Atl no.

3rd OA: COL no, Atl no, ARZ no, Chi yes, CAR yes (though they traded JJ), CHI yes (though Cam Barker had nothing to do with it, FLA no, FLA no, TBL yes (though Svitov had nothing to do with it), MIN no.

4th OA: ATL no, STL no (took them 11 years), LA yes (though Hickey wasn't the reason), WAS no (12 yrs), MIN no, CAR yes, CBJ no, PHI no, FLA no, CBJ no, NYR no.

5th OA: LAK yes, TOR no, WAS no (12 yrs), BOS yes, MTL no, ARZ no, BUF no, PIT yes, ANA yes (not because of Chistov), NYI no, NYI no

So more cases where a team that drafted high wins a cup, but the Pens and hawks represent a large portion of those, and there are a few cases where the win had nothing to do with the pick.

 

[DrEasy]

Only one in 31 teams gets to win the cup. Drafting high may not guarantee a cup, but it darn sure helps field a competitive team. Of course it is not sufficient alone. A proper budget and a good GM are also necessary.

 

[Nosswor]

Alsing had four points (1G+3A) tonight for Djurgarden in their Champions League game against German champs Adler Mannheim (Tim Stutzle's team)

 

[AchtzehnBaby]

Fun stat:
ZERO of the last TEN first overall picks have won a Stanley Cup.
ONE of the last TEN second overall picks have won a Stanley Cup (Seguin - that pick acquired via trade and has nothing to do with tanking)
ZERO of the last TEN third overall picks have won a Stanley Cup.
ZERO of the last TEN fourth overall picks have won a Stanley Cup.
ZERO of the last TEN fifth overall picks have won a Stanley Cup.

Ten years is a lot, it usually takes the player past his prime.
Crazy thought but hear me out, maybe, just maybe winning has nothing to do with tanking but has more to do with having a good ownership and competent GM?

Woot... leafs wont win a cup!

Crazy stats. Call off the tank!

 

[BondraTime]

Fun stat:
ZERO of the last TEN first overall picks have won a Stanley Cup.
ONE of the last TEN second overall picks have won a Stanley Cup (Seguin - that pick acquired via trade and has nothing to do with tanking)
ZERO of the last TEN third overall picks have won a Stanley Cup.
ZERO of the last TEN fourth overall picks have won a Stanley Cup.
ZERO of the last TEN fifth overall picks have won a Stanley Cup.

Ten years is a lot, it usually takes the player past his prime.
Crazy thought but hear me out, maybe, just maybe winning has nothing to do with tanking but has more to do with having a good ownership and competent GM?

Schenn just won a cup, that number will increase pretty much every year from here on out.

Fleury, Malkin, Toews, Backstrom, Staal, Ovechkin, Horton, Kane, Ladd, Staal, Kessel, Pietrangelo, Doughty all won cups. That's 13/30 top 5 picks from 03-08. Every year over the past 10 years.

 

[Samsquanch]

Those were great picks though for where they were picked. They could have easily players that went after them who are not as good. TOR has been drafting very well recently.

Those were both no brainer picks, I'm confused?

Yes they got both of them right, but in 2015 Marner or Strome was the only decision to be made at #4 overall, and it was not Toronto's decison to make.

And they basically got incredibly lucky that the top end of the 2014 draft has basically all busted out aside from Draisaitl and Ekblad - and they ended up with next best forward (not counting Pastranak or Larkin eho were taken later).

More luck than skill with those two picks by my estimation.

 

[Sens of Anarchy]

Showing practice habits like former UND stars, Shane Pinto is set to play a prime role for Fighting Hawks | Grand Forks Herald

 

[Sensators]

Fun stat:
ZERO of the last TEN first overall picks have won a Stanley Cup.
ONE of the last TEN second overall picks have won a Stanley Cup (Seguin - that pick acquired via trade and has nothing to do with tanking)
ZERO of the last TEN third overall picks have won a Stanley Cup.
ZERO of the last TEN fourth overall picks have won a Stanley Cup.
ZERO of the last TEN fifth overall picks have won a Stanley Cup.

Ten years is a lot, it usually takes the player past his prime.
Crazy thought but hear me out, maybe, just maybe winning has nothing to do with tanking but has more to do with having a good ownership and competent GM?

Wow, thats very imteresting!

 

[aragorn]

Fun stat:
ZERO of the last TEN first overall picks have won a Stanley Cup.
ONE of the last TEN second overall picks have won a Stanley Cup (Seguin - that pick acquired via trade and has nothing to do with tanking)
ZERO of the last TEN third overall picks have won a Stanley Cup.
ZERO of the last TEN fourth overall picks have won a Stanley Cup.
ZERO of the last TEN fifth overall picks have won a Stanley Cup.

Ten years is a lot, it usually takes the player past his prime.
Crazy thought but hear me out, maybe, just maybe winning has nothing to do with tanking but has more to do with having a good ownership and competent GM?

I'm not surprised, lots of people fall in love with the wrong guys at draft time. This is also why character should play a big role in drafting players because guys with a good character are usually your hardest workers & have the drive & determination to do anything to succeed. Very talented guys have depended on their skill level to get them here, but it doesn't keep them in the NHL if they don't also have a very strong work ethic. Hard work, attention to detail, playing the right way, a 200' game & producing in the role your assigned keeps you here. The great players are those like Crosby who not only have the talent, but they also have the work ethic to elevate them above the rest.

 

[Bileur]

Schenn just won a cup, that number will increase pretty much every year from here on out.

Fleury, Malkin, Toews, Backstrom, Staal, Ovechkin, Horton, Staal, Kessel, Pietrangelo, Doughty all won cups. That's 11/30 top 5 picks from 03-08

Missing Kane and Ladd

 

[Burrowsaurus]

Showing practice habits like former UND stars, Shane Pinto is set to play a prime role for Fighting Hawks | Grand Forks Herald

i refuse to do that survey to read the rest of the article

 

[The Devilish Buffoon]

i refuse to do that survey to read the rest of the article

"Skip survey"

 

[MatchesMalone]

Ten years is a lot, the last 5 first OA picks haven't exactly had a lot of runway to go from being drafted by one of the worst teams in hockey to being a legit contender and winning the cup.

I think we can make your point even stronger by looking at teams that have won the cup within 10 years of picking in the top end of the draft

1st OA: NYI no, TBL no, CHI yes, STL no (won 13 years later), Pens yes, WAS no (14 yrs), Pens again yes, CBJ No, NYI no, ATL no.

2nd OA: TBAY no, LA yes, PHI no, Pens yes, Ana yes (had nothing to do with drafting Ryan), Pens yes, CAR yes, Atl no, Ott no, Atl no.

3rd OA: COL no, Atl no, ARZ no, Chi yes, CAR yes (though they traded JJ), CHI yes (though Cam Barker had nothing to do with it, FLA no, FLA no, TBL yes (though Svitov had nothing to do with it), MIN no.

4th OA: ATL no, STL no (took them 11 years), LA yes (though Hickey wasn't the reason), WAS no (12 yrs), MIN no, CAR yes, CBJ no, PHI no, FLA no, CBJ no, NYR no.

5th OA: LAK yes, TOR no, WAS no (12 yrs), BOS yes, MTL no, ARZ no, BUF no, PIT yes, ANA yes (not because of Chistov), NYI no, NYI no

So more cases where a team that drafted high wins a cup, but the Pens and hawks represent a large portion of those, and there are a few cases where the win had nothing to do with the pick.

I just don't understand the logic behind this way of looking at things. It seems completely arbitrary to me. Far more useful is to look at Stanley Cup winners and examine how they built their teams.

I mean, Washington didn't win a Cup within ten years of their massive rebuild, but were Ovechkin and Backstrom not crucial parts of their Cup win?

 

[Micklebot]

I just don't understand the logic behind this way of looking at things. It seems completely arbitrary to me. Far more useful is to look at Stanley Cup winners and examine how they built their teams.

I mean, Washington didn't win a Cup within ten years of their massive rebuild, but were Ovechkin and Backstrom not crucial parts of their Cup win?

Tbh, I was just modifying the OPs original logic to make it somewhat more reasonable. He was just looking at the last 10 years, which puts the most recent teams to draft high at a massive disadvantage.

Imo, it doesn't matter how or when you acquired a good player, just that you have them. Anahiem picked up Pronger, Neidermayer and Selanne through means other than the draft. Getslaf and Perry were late first round picks. That's 5 players any team would be thrilled to draft in the top 3 picks of a given draft year.

 

[Xspyrit]

Yeah I've noticed the caution with the rebuild can get a little hyperbolic here. Have seen multiple people say it'll be another five years before we're any good. I did a long post a while ago looking at the rebuilds of recent Cup winners, but I'll recap again here.

Chicago, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, LA all spent approximately four years in full rebuild mode, give or take a year or two. Despite the fact that the Sens brass thought we were a contender at the start of 2017/18, we were in full rebuild mode by the trade deadline and ended up with a top five pick. So two more full rebuild years should suffice - ideally, we'll be last or near last this year, and then improved but still bottom ten next year.

The counter-argument would be that because we lost the 2019 top five pick, we need to extend the tank at least one year, but consider almost every one of those Cup teams pretty badly biffed at least one of their high picks during the rebuild and turned out ok (Teubert, Hickey for LA, Skille, Barker for Chicago). So theoretically, it is not the end of the world that we wasted that 2019 pick, we just can't afford any bad misses with the upcoming high picks.

Yeah it's impossible to tell how long it'll take to rebuild. Just the Sens in 2011, sure that rebuild was really not of the same amplitude but they made the playoffs the year after in 2011-12 and also in 2012-13 where they defeated the 2nd East seed in 5 little games. Sure the progression was up and down after that (until the peak in 2016-17, and then quickly dismantled by Melnyk/Dorion) but there was plenty of people saying how much we'd suck for a decade after that 2010-11 season.

Fully expecting to see the Sens bottom-3 this year and it's the right time to do it with the upcoming draft but I'm curious to see 2020-21, where we need Tkachuk, Chabot, Brannstrom, Batherson, Brown, White, Balcers, Wolanin and other youngsters to turn this team around. Will any of the Sens 2020 pick be in the line-up? We'll see but seriously, with so many quality pieces in the system already, if we have a killer draft in 2020, I really don't see how we'd need "another 5 years of sucking" before turning the corner. One thing I have been consistent in saying is that we'll need that ownership change sooner than later though. Looking at the last 5 drafts, I think we are in the right direction if you avoid looking at all the ownership/management problems. And look at the 1st round picks in that period of time, the only one we might have missed on (Bowers) was traded. Brown/JBD/Thomson are not guaranteed anything yet but it's looking good.

2015 draft : Chabot, White, Wolanin, Jaros, Chlapik, Daccord
2016 draft : Brown, Lajoie
2017 draft : Bowers (used for Duchene with Turris/1st/3rd, who then returned Davidsson/Abramov/Thomson), Formenton, Batherson
2018 draft : Tkachuk, JBD, Tychonick, Crookshank, Gruden, Mandolese
2019 draft : Thomson, Pinto, Sogaard, Kastelic, Guenette

So yes ending giving up the 4th OA pick instead of a mid/late 1st round pick like it was envisionned at the time of the trade hurts, but if Thomson becomes a good player, it won't hurt as much. Because it was basically a swap in the end. The rest of the deal was Turris + Bowers + 3rd for Abramov + Davidsson.

Obviously, prospect trajectories change over time, but I'm not seeing any particular elite players in the pipeline, so I would say we would need both a high pick in 2020 and 2021, to add into the team when players are already bedded.

I'm just seeing a lot of middle-six forwards and middle-pair defencemen in the prospect cabinet at the moment, and I think if we want to be truly contending, it is going to require two years of solid tank to get there.

Of course we'll see, but you don't think Chabot could be Elite? Or Tkachuk? None of Batherson, Brown and Brannstrom have a chance? And you know, some players like Hoffman or Stone can always emerge from the lower ranks, it's really not entirely about draft position. Sens fans should really know about this... looked at the top-20 of greatest Sens at ranker.com :

1- Daniel Alfredsson : 133th OA
2- Erik Karlsson : 15th OA
4- Marián Hossa : 12th OA
5- Zdeno Chára : 56th OA
6- Thomas Chabot : 18th OA
7- Mark Stone : 178th OA
8- Mike Fisher : 44th OA
10- Chris Neil : 161st OA
11- Martin Havlát : 26th OA
13- Craig Anderson : 73rd OA
15- Marc Methot : 168th OA
17- Dominik Hašek : 199th OA
18- Patrick Lalime : 156th OA
19- Jean-Gabriel Pageau : 96th OA

I'm really not worried about them finding talent, my worries are almost entirely regarding ownership and the day Melnyk sells will be of huge relief.

The comments like "I'm just seeing a lot of middle-six forwards and middle-pair defencemen in the prospect cabinet at the moment", I have read it countless times on this over the last 12 years, but yet many good/great players (Karlsson, Stone, Chabot, etc) have emerged. I thought Hoffman would just be a cup-of-cofee player but look at him now. What I am saying is among all the legit NHL prospects we have at the moment, at least 1 should emerge as a star. That would be unseen that all of them bust or just reach the bottom-end of their potential.

So, with young players like Chabot, Tkachuk, White, Batherson, Brannstrom, Norris, JBD, Thomson, Formenton, Balcers, Wolanin, Duclair, Pinto, Abramov, Sogaard, Gustavsson, etc already in the ranks and with TWO 1st round picks in the upcoming draft in June (one will be top-5 for sure, and the other looks good at the moment with the Sharks being 0-4) and THREE more in the 2nd round; I don't really think we'll need to "tank" very long. It will all depend on the youth progression and what they are ready to do by 2020-21 but I don't think they'll stay in the basement much longer. What might take time and will be very hard will be to climb in the NHL top-10 and as a true contender. The 2020 draft will be pivotal.

I think it will take more than 1 top draft pick to make this team into a playoff and SC contender. Not all of the current prospects will turn into NHL players nor play in the top 6. That is why I think we need several years of top 5 picks.

Playoffs contender will see, SC contender is another level, this might take more time so let's try to not to see too far out. All I know is we have plenty of young talent in the system already and if we can add 1 elite talent in the next draft (maybe 2!), things will look real good (still need Melnyk to sell though)