Prospect Info: 2020 NHL Draft Thread Vol. 1

Status
Not open for further replies.

Rebels57

Former Flyers fan
Sponsor
Sep 28, 2014
76,373
122,664
In Corey Pronman’s recent analysis of team needs regarding the 2020 NHL Draft, he said the Flyers needed “Impact talent.” I have to agree with this analysis. As Pronman correctly points out (try saying that sober, it just doesn’t sound right as a Flyer fan – LOL) the Flyers have a lot of good organizational talent to fill in the roster of a really good competitive team. Players like Allison, Laczynsky, Bunnaman, York, Zamula, Brink and even Frost and Patrick are good prospects to play 2nd, 3rd lines and pairings, and 4th line in Bunnaman’s case, and maybe even supporting roles in the top line. They really need a high end player to take the role that Giroux held all of these years as it appears he is no longer that guy, and if he was, will not be for much longer.
The problem says Pronman is that a player like that will not likely be there at 23. He recommends taking a shot at one of those Braden Point type draft profiles, a smaller highly skilled, high IQ, player who is rated lower because of average skating, or a Russian player or a player coming off of injury. Players who readily fit those descriptions are Mavrik Bourque (who profiles a lot like Giroux), Marat Khusnutdinov (highly skilled smallish Russian center) or Rodion Amirov (who is probably gone by 23), and Hendrix Lapierre (who has top 10 talent, but injury issues that will push him into the 20’s).
This is not a bad plan in my mind, however there is a player who has superstar potential based on skill, skating, and IQ who may slide to 23. That player is Jacob Perreault. Perreault has such high end potential, that the Flyers may want to consider trading up, coupling their pick at 23 with something else, maybe a prospect, other picks, or a player like Shayne Gostisbehere who a team like Toronto or Florida would likely covet. The issue with Ghost, who is on a nice contract, is other teams will probably have to offload someone with a $2-5 million contract to fit Ghost in under the stagnant cap, and the Flyers will need space to sign their own upcoming RFAs so they cant take on a 3-4 year $2 -5 million deal.
If I am the Flyers, Perreault is who I am targeting, but realizing there will be some real talent there at 23, I would be very careful with a trade.

Pronman doesn't know his ass from his elbow.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Captain Dave Poulin

FLYguy3911

Sanheim Lover
Oct 19, 2006
52,627
85,321
I like Jarvis too. He reminds me of Barzal a little. I don't think goes later than 15. I do rate Perreault a little higher (from a Flyers perspective) though based on his particular skills and the team needs.
Ha, one of my initial impressions of Jarvis a few months ago was "Barzal?" He's a pure winger and he doesn't skate like that though. Few do. Though he did outscore him (and pretty much every other skater to come out of the WHL) so who knows. :laugh:

I have Perrault exactly 15th and could be convinced to slide him up a touch higher so no argument here. I don't see him going quite that high on Draft night though. Decent chance he's there at 23 with no trade ups.
 

Stizzle

Registered User
Feb 3, 2012
13,209
23,192
In Corey Pronman’s recent analysis of team needs regarding the 2020 NHL Draft, he said the Flyers needed “Impact talent.” I have to agree with this analysis. As Pronman correctly points out (try saying that sober, it just doesn’t sound right as a Flyer fan – LOL) the Flyers have a lot of good organizational talent to fill in the roster of a really good competitive team. Players like Allison, Laczynsky, Bunnaman, York, Zamula, Brink and even Frost and Patrick are good prospects to play 2nd, 3rd lines and pairings, and 4th line in Bunnaman’s case, and maybe even supporting roles in the top line. They really need a high end player to take the role that Giroux held all of these years as it appears he is no longer that guy, and if he was, will not be for much longer.
The problem says Pronman is that a player like that will not likely be there at 23. He recommends taking a shot at one of those Braden Point type draft profiles, a smaller highly skilled, high IQ, player who is rated lower because of average skating, or a Russian player or a player coming off of injury. Players who readily fit those descriptions are Mavrik Bourque (who profiles a lot like Giroux), Marat Khusnutdinov (highly skilled smallish Russian center) or Rodion Amirov (who is probably gone by 23), and Hendrix Lapierre (who has top 10 talent, but injury issues that will push him into the 20’s).
This is not a bad plan in my mind, however there is a player who has superstar potential based on skill, skating, and IQ who may slide to 23. That player is Jacob Perreault. Perreault has such high end potential, that the Flyers may want to consider trading up, coupling their pick at 23 with something else, maybe a prospect, other picks, or a player like Shayne Gostisbehere who a team like Toronto or Florida would likely covet. The issue with Ghost, who is on a nice contract, is other teams will probably have to offload someone with a $2-5 million contract to fit Ghost in under the stagnant cap, and the Flyers will need space to sign their own upcoming RFAs so they cant take on a 3-4 year $2 -5 million deal.
If I am the Flyers, Perreault is who I am targeting, but realizing there will be some real talent there at 23, I would be very careful with a trade.

Trade back seems likely a much, much better value play than trade up this year. If I'm reading the board correctly (I could easily not be), this is a year to get as many darts to throw as possible. As opposed to going star hunting.

If we're labeling Perrault, Bourque, Reichel, etc our real targets at 23, than fine. If we're labeling Jarvis our one realistically possible trade up candidate, than fine. Other than that, give me more darts to throw.

We've already discussed here all the draft picks Chuck has used for immediate... ahem, help. Looking to spew more in a trade up really doesn't seem advisable unless it's a special circumstance. Our scouts kill it in all rounds.

Maybe I'm in the minority, but the narrative of not having a Giroux replacement should not be an excuse to make questionable moves. This future team will be built differently (better) than any situation Giroux was ever in. We actually have a real semblance of long-term stability and depth in all areas.

Also, lumping a lot of the prospects listed together seems lazy. Brink & Frost have actual real PP1 skill sets. They are your built-in replacements for what is Giroux's biggest strength.
 

IronMarshal

Registered User
Mar 7, 2002
3,769
1,702
Langhorne, PA
Visit site
Ha, one of my initial impressions of Jarvis a few months ago was "Barzal?" He's a pure winger and he doesn't skate like that though. Few do. Though he did outscore him (and pretty much every other skater to come out of the WHL) so who knows. :laugh:

I have Perrault exactly 15th and could be convinced to slide him up a touch higher so no argument here. I don't see him going quite that high on Draft night though. Decent chance he's there at 23 with no trade ups.
Funny, I have Perreault at 11 and Jarvis at 12 (Askarov is 13).
 

IronMarshal

Registered User
Mar 7, 2002
3,769
1,702
Langhorne, PA
Visit site
Trade back seems likely a much, much better value play than trade up this year. If I'm reading the board correctly (I could easily not be), this is a year to get as many darts to throw as possible. As opposed to going star hunting.

If we're labeling Perrault, Bourque, Reichel, etc our real targets at 23, than fine. If we're labeling Jarvis our one realistically possible trade up candidate, than fine. Other than that, give me more darts to throw.

We've already discussed here all the draft picks Chuck has used for immediate... ahem, help. Looking to spew more in a trade up really doesn't seem advisable unless it's a special circumstance. Our scouts kill it in all rounds.

Maybe I'm in the minority, but the narrative of not having a Giroux replacement should not be an excuse to make questionable moves. This future team will be built differently (better) than any situation Giroux was ever in. We actually have a real semblance of long-term stability and depth in all areas.

Also, lumping a lot of the prospects listed together seems lazy. Brink & Frost have actual real PP1 skill sets. They are your built-in replacements for what is Giroux's biggest strength.

I am a big Frost fan and see him on PP1 too. I am not sold that either player (Frost/Brink) will achieve true Girouxness, but remain hopeful. I too wish we had more picks in the first two rounds as I like this draft's top two rounds depth quite a bit. That said, I really like a few players a lot and if one is there I want to take him, if multiple guys from my "really want" list are still there, a trade back, provided the math is right like York - Brink (I was Caulfield or Boldy then), would be good.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stizzle

Stizzle

Registered User
Feb 3, 2012
13,209
23,192
I am a big Frost fan and see him on PP1 too. I am not sold that either player (Frost/Brink) will achieve true Girouxness, but remain hopeful. I too wish we had more picks in the first two rounds as I like this draft's top two rounds depth quite a bit. That said, I really like a few players a lot and if one is there I want to take him, if multiple guys from my "really want" list are still there, a trade back, provided the math is right like York - Brink (I was Caulfield or Boldy then), would be good.

I don't think either prospect has to achieve true Girouxness. The future teams will be a totally different animal than what Giroux endured much of his tenure here.
 

Magua

Doer of Hoffific Things
Apr 25, 2016
37,157
154,047
Huron of the Lakes
I always chuckle when a strategy is: "Find the next Point!" It's totally missing the.....well, the point. He was a bubble 1st round prospect pre-draft. The question for HockeyGuys™ isn't just, "How do we find the next Point?" The question is, "Why did we miss on Point?" Because you won't find the next Point, but you just might find a mid-tier version (Binksy?!) if your evaluation is strong. Point torched his peers and carried his team at age 17. He filled out, got a little quicker -- most players do. I just re-watched 2014 highlights, and he didn't look wildly different.

So, when a shallow evaluator like Pronman writes the following: "To pick the elite skill small player who might not be a great skater, to take the highly talented Russian who you’re not sure is coming, to take the top prospect with medical questions." I don't think he understands, and he even rated Point decently high, but he always rates these profile types high -- even the busts. I wouldn't trust him with a draft pick as far as an 80 physical tool player could throw him. Point (or whoever you're evaluating in a draft) wasn't a risk/reward algorithm -- he was an individual case study. You don't work backwards like this.
 

FLYguy3911

Sanheim Lover
Oct 19, 2006
52,627
85,321
I vaguely remember Point disappointing at the u18s on a team that featured a trade bait defenseman as it's leading scorer and best player.

I always chuckle when a strategy is: "Find the next Point!" It's totally missing the.....well, the point. He was a bubble 1st round prospect pre-draft. The question for HockeyGuys™ isn't just, "How do we find the next Point?" The question is, "Why did we miss on Point?" Because you won't find the next Point, but you just might find a mid-tier version (Binksy?!) if your evaluation is strong. Point torched his peers and carried his team at age 17. He filled out, got a little quicker -- most players do. I just re-watched 2014 highlights, and he didn't look wildly different.

So, when a shallow evaluator like Pronman writes the following: "To pick the elite skill small player who might not be a great skater, to take the highly talented Russian who you’re not sure is coming, to take the top prospect with medical questions." I don't think he understands, and he even rated Point decently high, but he always rates these profile types high -- even the busts. I wouldn't trust him with a draft pick as far as an 80 physical tool player could throw him. Point (or whoever you're evaluating in a draft) wasn't a risk/reward algorithm -- he was an individual case study. You don't work backwards like this.
What are you doing in this thread?
 

Captain Dave Poulin

Imaginary Cat
Apr 30, 2015
68,009
199,713
Tokyo, JP


R3C6.gif
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->