Prospect Info: Alexander Romanov (2018, 38th OA) - KHL, CSKA Moscow: Part IV

[Whitesnake]

Because this guy is simply in love with Brook. He even put him in his top 10 prospect league-wide.

I have no problem with loving a prospect. Not at all. He can state that he prefers him. That he loves him more. But to state that he proved more? Makes no sense.

 

[SOLR]

I mean sure, hes a great prospect, I have him in my top 40.

But Brook and Dobson have proven more so far

Not at all, not even close.

 

[Mrb1p]

How do you prove more by playing in lesser and worst leagues?

By being actually good at it.

Mete played in the NHL at 19, does it mean he was a better prospect than Makar or Heiskanen?

 

[montreal]

Who knows how Brook would have looked at the WJC's if his coach actually played him at RD. He didn't look bad but he didn't look anywhere near as good playing his off position which at the time sounded like a bad idea and looks like it was. Leave Brook at RD and he shows you why he's one of the best blueliners in the CHL this year.

Romanov is one of our top prospects, there's no doubt of that, if someone likes him more then Brook there's nothing wrong with that, if someone likes Brook more there's nothing wrong with that. We have both in our system and we need both. Now the question is how much can Brook improve at the pro level and how much can Romanov improve in the KHL. He had 4 pts last year, so now we need to see him produce more in non preseason games. I fully expect he will.

 

[Whitesnake]

By being actually good at it.

Mete played in the NHL at 19, does it mean he was a better prospect than Makar or Heiskanen?

Nobody disputes that players that aren't in the NHL might be better than guys in the NHL....what's your point? You said that they have PROVEN more. What Romanov did was playing in the highest league in Russia as young as he did. What Brook did was pretty good. Yet, he had 9 points more than a teamate like Jett Woo who is 1 year younger than him.

Is Jett Woo more proven than Alex Romanov? Are players having great years in juniors as 19-20 year old more proven than 18-19-20 year old already playing in what people consider the 2nd best men league on the planet?

And again, I love Brook. I think he is a top 4. I have no doubt in my mind. He will and should be a great d-man for years to come. But more proven? Of course not.

 

[Whitesnake]

Who knows how Brook would have looked at the WJC's if his coach actually played him at RD. He didn't look bad but he didn't look anywhere near as good playing his off position which at the time sounded like a bad idea and looks like it was. Leave Brook at RD and he shows you why he's one of the best blueliners in the CHL this year.

Romanov is one of our top prospects, there's no doubt of that, if someone likes him more then Brook there's nothing wrong with that, if someone likes Brook more there's nothing wrong with that. We have both in our system and we need both. Now the question is how much can Brook improve at the pro level and how much can Romanov improve in the KHL. He had 4 pts last year, so now we need to see him produce more in non preseason games. I fully expect he will.

Point was not about who we like more. Point was about @Mrb1p saying how Brook is more PROVEN than Romanov which is totally ludicrous. And has evidently nothing to do with how great they are and how great they will become.

And to prove my unbiased point of view....at the time....I RIDICULIZED the Romanov pick. And was fine with the Brook pick. So it has nothing to do with preference of a player over another.

 

[Mrb1p]

Nobody disputes that players that aren't in the NHL might be better than guys in the NHL....what's your point? You said that they have PROVEN more. What Romanov did was playing in the highest league in Russia as young as he did. What Brook did was pretty good. Yet, he had 9 points than a guy like Jett Woo who is 1 year younger than him.

Is Jett Woo more proven than Alex Romanov? Are playing having great years in juniors as 19-20 year old more proven than 18-19-20 year old already playing in what people consider the 2nd best men league on the planet?

And again, I love Brook. I think he is a top 4. I have no doubt in my mind. He will and should be a great d-man for years to come. But more proven? Of course not.

Romanov played 12 minutes a night in the KHL, he did not dominate, he did not show any skills but good decision making, and he did really good in a 7 game tourney in the WJC.

Brook and especially Dobson have been playing at first rounder level for about two years now. Theres no comparisons.

The thing that is hard to evaluate with Romanov is just how good he can be exactly because he didnt prove anything. Hes wowed us a few times and the rest of the time he wasnt used enough to prove anything.

I can guarantee you both Dobson and Brook will be top 4 Ds. Can you do the same for Romanov? I wouldnt. I like him a lot, but theres risk.

 

[Sterling Archer]

Romanov played 12 minutes a night in the KHL, he did not dominate, he did not show any skills but good decision making, and he did really good in a 7 game tourney in the WJC.

Brook and especially Dobson have been playing at first rounder level for about two years now. Theres no comparisons.

The thing that is hard to evaluate with Romanov is just how good he can be exactly because he didnt prove anything. Hes wowed us a few times and the rest of the time he wasnt used enough to prove anything.

I can guarantee you both Dobson and Brook will be top 4 Ds. Can you do the same for Romanov? I wouldnt. I like him a lot, but theres risk.

And Josh Brook has 1 assist in 7 AHL games. Is that more “proven” a player then Romanov?

 

[Fazkovsky]

Romanov played 12 minutes a night in the KHL, he did not dominate, he did not show any skills but good decision making, and he did really good in a 7 game tourney in the WJC.

Brook and especially Dobson have been playing at first rounder level for about two years now. Theres no comparisons.

The thing that is hard to evaluate with Romanov is just how good he can be exactly because he didnt prove anything. Hes wowed us a few times and the rest of the time he wasnt used enough to prove anything.

I can guarantee you both Dobson and Brook will be top 4 Ds. Can you do the same for Romanov? I wouldnt. I like him a lot, but theres risk.

You expected Romanov to dominate KHL hockey at 18? Unless he was Fetisov maybe

 

[Whitesnake]

Romanov played 12 minutes a night in the KHL, he did not dominate, he did not show any skills but good decision making, and he did really good in a 7 game tourney in the WJC.

Brook and especially Dobson have been playing at first rounder level for about two years now. Theres no comparisons.

The thing that is hard to evaluate with Romanov is just how good he can be exactly because he didnt prove anything. Hes wowed us a few times and the rest of the time he wasnt used enough to prove anything.

I can guarantee you both Dobson and Brook will be top 4 Ds. Can you do the same for Romanov? I wouldnt. I like him a lot, but theres risk.

Dominating as a youngster in the KHL is not even a possibility maybe unless you are god or something. It's impossible to dominate. You don't play. As good as you play...you are still learning the game. No idea how dominating is your point of evaluation there. Making the team is huge enough. Playing and being liked for what you do, is big. Seeing your icetime increase as the year progresses, is huge. Dominating? How many 18-19 year old dominated in the KHL? Do you think Romanov would not have dominated the WHL? Do you think Jett Woo is a better prospect than Romanov?

Do you know why there are no comparisons? 'CAuse we don't watch them as close as we are with CHL players. Yet, facts are facts and what Romanov was able to accomplished is special.

And your point about if I can guarantee so and so....well no. But it has nothing to do with who is proven what. It has to do with how many games we saw those guys play and that we are more confident in guys we saw often than guys we didn't.

One thing is sure....Romanov got himself a spot with men at such a young age. And when it was time to being compared to his peers, he dominated and was named best D. As short a stint it was, the best AMONGST the best.

He proved enough. Now, he needs to continue in his progression. 'Cause you can prove something now. And stop progressing then.

 

[Sterling Archer]

Dominating as a youngster in the KHL is not even a possibility maybe unless you are god or something. It's impossible to dominate. You don't play. As good as you play...you are still learning the game. No idea how dominating is your point of evaluation there. Making the team is huge enough. Playing and being liked for what you do, is big. Seeing your icetime increase as the year progresses, is huge. Dominating? How many 18-19 year old dominated in the KHL? Do you think Romanov would not have dominated the WHL? Do you think Jett Woo is a better prospect than Romanov?

Do you know why there are no comparisons? 'CAuse we don't watch them as close as we are with CHL players. Yet, facts are facts and what Romanov was able to accomplished is special.

And your point about if I can guarantee so and so....well no. But it has nothing to do with who is proven what. It has to do with how many games we saw those guys play and that we are more confident in guys we saw often than guys we didn't.

One thing is sure....Romanov got himself a spot with men at such a young age. And when it was time to being compared to his peers, he dominated and was named best D. As short a stint it was, the best AMONGST the best.

He proved enough. Now, he needs to continue in his progression. 'Cause you can prove something now. And stop progressing then.

100% on every part of this post.

 

[Favster]

He looks so much bigger and faster out there, unreal. Can't wait till he comes to NA, I'm really pumped.

 

[HabsMD97]

By being actually good at it.

Mete played in the NHL at 19, does it mean he was a better prospect than Makar or Heiskanen?

Makar and heiskanen were better prospects because they had more skill, better tools and toolbox, I think skill wise romanov is up their with most d prospects

 

[Mrb1p]

And Josh Brook has 1 assist in 7 AHL games. Is that more “proven” a player then Romanov?

Well if you see it that way, yes, since he produced more in a better league, but Im not sure thats what you were going for.

 

[Mrb1p]

Dominating as a youngster in the KHL is not even a possibility maybe unless you are god or something. It's impossible to dominate. You don't play. As good as you play...you are still learning the game. No idea how dominating is your point of evaluation there. Making the team is huge enough. Playing and being liked for what you do, is big. Seeing your icetime increase as the year progresses, is huge. Dominating? How many 18-19 year old dominated in the KHL? Do you think Romanov would not have dominated the WHL? Do you think Jett Woo is a better prospect than Romanov?

Do you know why there are no comparisons? 'CAuse we don't watch them as close as we are with CHL players. Yet, facts are facts and what Romanov was able to accomplished is special.

And your point about if I can guarantee so and so....well no. But it has nothing to do with who is proven what. It has to do with how many games we saw those guys play and that we are more confident in guys we saw often than guys we didn't.

One thing is sure....Romanov got himself a spot with men at such a young age. And when it was time to being compared to his peers, he dominated and was named best D. As short a stint it was, the best AMONGST the best.

He proved enough. Now, he needs to continue in his progression. 'Cause you can prove something now. And stop progressing then.

Makar and heiskanen were better prospects because they had more skill, better tools and toolbox, not because they were more proven.

True, but they also proved more in league play. Heiskanen dominated the Liiga and Makar was really f***ing good in the NCAA. Romanov shown us nothing in the KHL. Yes, making the team is nice, but he showed nothing on the ice, and thats why no one can evaluate him.

 

[Sterling Archer]

Well if you see it that way, yes, since he produced more in a better league, but Im not sure thats what you were going for.

Nah. Don’t think AHL is a better league than the KHL but thanks anyways.

 

[Whitesnake]

True, but they also proved more in league play. Heiskanen dominated the Liiga and Makar was really ****ing good in the NCAA. Romanov shown us nothing in the KHL. Yes, making the team is nice, but he showed nothing on the ice, and thats why no one can evaluate him.

Heiskanen is a top 5 pick. Heiskanen will be a Norris nominee for years to come. Heiskanen is an exceptional. But that's the Liiga. Not the KHL. Very good league. But can you go please to EliteProspects, and see the world of difference between the icetime and games given to U19 kids in Liiga and kids in the KHL?

Just saying....you can't expect kids to DOMINATE in the KHL. If that's your point of reference to know if a kid is proven or not, you are wrong. I'm saying that based on history, him doing what he does, being given what he was given and you add to it his success against his peers, he has to be more proven than anybody in this lineup of prospects. IT DOES NOT MEAN that he will end up better.

BUt I just don't get that what Romanov needed to do to be more proven was to play in the CHL as a 19 year old and rack some stats like most very good players are doing.

I hate that 'cause it seems I don't like Brook. I do. I love him. And again, he will be a top 4. But he's just not as proven as a kid who does a rare feature, which is to be a perment fixture in the KHL.

 

[Mrb1p]

Heiskanen is a top 5 pick. Heiskanen will be a Norris nominee for years to come. Heiskanen is an exceptional. But that's the Liiga. Not the KHL. Very good league. But can you go please to EliteProspects, and see the world of difference between the icetime and games given to U19 kids in Liiga and kids in the KHL?

Just saying....you can't expect kids to DOMINATE in the KHL. If that's your point of reference to know if a kid is proven or not, you are wrong. I'm saying that based on history, him doing what he does, being given what he was given and you add to it his success against his peers, he has to be more proven than anybody in this lineup of prospects. IT DOES NOT MEAN that he will end up better.

Where did I say I expected him to dominate? Thats exactly my point. He didnt show enough, not because he doesnt have the ability to, but because he didnt have the ice time.

Again, a 7 game tournament where Dobson played behind Bouchard and Brook played his off-side while being used defensively doesnt prove anything. Yes, he was good, but it doesnt mean hes further along in his development than these two. Hes pretty much behind, and its normal hes a 2018 2nd rounder vs a top 15 prospect in 2018 and a 2017 2nd rounder.

 

[dackelljuneaubulis02]

Nice

(I meant league wide you dork)

Hey I'm not the fancy man who has a LEAGUE WIDE prospect list. Sounds kinda dorky to me

 

[Mrb1p]

Hey I'm not the fancy man who has a LEAGUE WIDE prospect list. Sounds kinda dorky to me

Touché

 

[HABitual Fan]

Dominating as a youngster in the KHL is not even a possibility maybe unless you are god or something. It's impossible to dominate. You don't play. As good as you play...you are still learning the game. No idea how dominating is your point of evaluation there. Making the team is huge enough. Playing and being liked for what you do, is big. Seeing your icetime increase as the year progresses, is huge. Dominating? How many 18-19 year old dominated in the KHL? Do you think Romanov would not have dominated the WHL? Do you think Jett Woo is a better prospect than Romanov?

Do you know why there are no comparisons? 'CAuse we don't watch them as close as we are with CHL players. Yet, facts are facts and what Romanov was able to accomplished is special.

And your point about if I can guarantee so and so....well no. But it has nothing to do with who is proven what. It has to do with how many games we saw those guys play and that we are more confident in guys we saw often than guys we didn't.

One thing is sure....Romanov got himself a spot with men at such a young age. And when it was time to being compared to his peers, he dominated and was named best D. As short a stint it was, the best AMONGST the best.

He proved enough. Now, he needs to continue in his progression. 'Cause you can prove something now. And stop progressing then.

I agree with everything you wrote pretty much, the only thing I didn't understand with Romanov, is why, if they brought him along slowly all year, steadily increased his playing time and obviously having the trust of the coach to get the extra time, was he completely ignored by his team in the playoffs? Is this normal to go from an everyday player to a scratch or limited ice time in the KHL playoffs because of age?

 

[Sterling Archer]

Where did I say I expected him to dominate? Thats exactly my point. He didnt show enough, not because he doesnt have the ability to, but because he didnt have the ice time.

Again, a 7 game tournament where Dobson played behind Bouchard and Brook played his off-side while being used defensively doesnt prove anything. Yes, he was good, but it doesnt mean hes further along in his development than these two. Hes pretty much behind, and its normal hes a 2018 2nd rounder vs a top 15 prospect in 2018 and a 2017 2nd rounder.

Romanov played 12 minutes a night in the KHL, he did not dominate, he did not show any skills but good decision making, and he did really good in a 7 game tourney in the WJC.

Brook and especially Dobson have been playing at first rounder level for about two years now. Theres no comparisons.

The thing that is hard to evaluate with Romanov is just how good he can be exactly because he didnt prove anything. Hes wowed us a few times and the rest of the time he wasnt used enough to prove anything.

I can guarantee you both Dobson and Brook will be top 4 Ds. Can you do the same for Romanov? I wouldnt. I like him a lot, but theres risk.

There we go again. You said something you didn’t actually say again. Guess I shouldn’t take what you rewrote literally??

 

[Mrb1p]

There we go again. You said something you didn’t actually say again. Guess I shouldn’t take what you rewrote literally??

So, I said he didnt dominate the KHL and somehow it means I expected him to dominate...?

 

[Sterling Archer]

So, I said he didnt dominate the KHL and somehow it means I expected him to dominate...?

The implication is that because he didn’t dominate, he didn’t prove he was better than Brook, which is just silly.

 

[Mrb1p]

The implication is that because he didn’t dominate, he didn’t prove he was better than Brook, which is just silly.

How are we going to know what his actual abilities are until he does it with consistency?