Player Discussion Canucks Top Prospects 11-20

[Javaman]

I'm actually incredulous about all these takes on Palmu right now.

He's heading into his draft+5 season. He would be the smallest player in the NHL. At an age where he'd need to be destroying the AHL to the tune of a 100-point pace to have any hope of projecting ... he wasn't able to compete at that level and basically showed himself to be ECHL-calibre.

Like, every single poster here has basically the identical chance of playing in the NHL to Palmu. He's beyond finished. There is zero hope. Anyone suggesting anything otherwise simply doesn't have a clue about prospect development.

That's the thing about late bloomers like Palmu... it they haven't actually blossomed late... well, you know.

 

[ChilliBilly]

I'd say Madden is the only third round or later draft pick that's looking like he might play for us one day.

Bieksa in the 5th. Edler in the 3rd, Hansen in the 9th, Connauton in the 3rd, Corrado (borderline ) in the 5th, Hutton in the 5th. Note that these are mostly D men.

Still in the system, 2014 Tryamkin in the 3rd, 15, Gaudette in the 5th, 17 Rathbone 4th, 18 - Utunen /in the 5th. Still mostly D men.

Yes, its not likely, but you do find some gems. Goalies and D men are much harder to project, and therefore are better prospect in later rounds.

 

[Megaterio Llamas]

Bieksa in the 5th. Edler in the 3rd, Hansen in the 9th, Connauton in the 3rd, Corrado (borderline ) in the 5th, Hutton in the 5th. Note that these are mostly D men.

Still in the system, 2014 Tryamkin in the 3rd, 15, Gaudette in the 5th, 17 Rathbone 4th, 18 - Utunen /in the 5th. Still mostly D men.

Yes, its not likely, but you do find some gems. Goalies and D men are much harder to project, and therefore are better prospect in later rounds.

I guess I skimmed over the post and failed to consider we were going back to '05 here. So, of course, yes. And even if we're just looking at the curreent group, I would probably add Guillaume Brisebois. If the planets align perfectly I can actually see him sticking around as a 6-8 guy for a couple of years.

 

[SwaggyCanuckMZ]

Genuinely curious, do your rankings represent ceilings? Or what you feel is a realistic projection for each prospect?

They are optimistic projections (or ceilings). I am not naive. I have been following this team and its prospects for a long time. I know that all of them won't make the NHL.

Because that is beyond realistic. I'd be willing to bet, only 1 or 2 become of any significant help.

I was being optimistic about the projections. I am not going to say that they are all going to be fourth liners or that they are never going to make it. What a downer article that would be! At this point they all have a chance at the NHL. We will see if they pan out. Just being positive, and I don't think it's that unrealistic. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, though. I respect yours, but I disagree.

 

[RobertKron]

They are optimistic projections (or ceilings). I am not naive. I have been following this team and its prospects for a long time. I know that all of them won't make the NHL.



I was being optimistic about the projections. I am not going to say that they are all going to be fourth liners or that they are never going to make it. What a downer article that would be! At this point they all have a chance at the NHL. We will see if they pan out. Just being positive, and I don't think it's that unrealistic. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, though. I respect yours, but I disagree.

You don’t think it’s that unrealistic to say that the Canucks currently have 20 prospects who will be NHL regulars?

 

[SwaggyCanuckMZ]

You don’t think it’s that unrealistic to say that the Canucks currently have 20 prospects who will be NHL regulars?

I didn't say that they would all be NHL regulars, I said that they had the POTENTIAL to be. Time will tell.

 

[RobertKron]

I didn't say that they would all be NHL regulars, I said that they had the POTENTIAL to be. Time will tell.

You list that as a projection of what they will become. Words have meanings. What's the point in giving a projection if you don't think that it's a realistic one?

 

[Peter10]

I was being optimistic about the projections. I am not going to say that they are all going to be fourth liners or that they are never going to make it. What a downer article that would be! At this point they all have a chance at the NHL. We will see if they pan out. Just being positive, and I don't think it's that unrealistic. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, though. I respect yours, but I disagree.

If you think that being realistic is a downer than you probably should choose to write different style of articles.

 

[tyhee]

I didn't say that they would all be NHL regulars, I said that they had the POTENTIAL to be. Time will tell.

I don't see where you said they "had the POTENTIAL" to be NHL regulars.

You wrote:

20. Ethan Keppen (LW)

...

Projection: Bottom-six, two-way forward.

You lost me completely with that projection and I didn't bother to read the rest of your article until seeing the post I'm presently replying to in order to see if, as you wrote, you "didn't say that they would all be NHL regulars, ... said that they had the POTENTIAL to be."

You did in fact project all those players to be NHL regulars. You didn't use the word potential, you used the word projection.

It is fine to indicate what a player projects to be if he develops as hoped, but that isn't going to be understood if you don't write it.

 

[SwaggyCanuckMZ]

I don't see where you said they "had the POTENTIAL" to be NHL regulars.

You wrote:

20. Ethan Keppen (LW)

...

Projection: Bottom-six, two-way forward.

You lost me completely with that projection and I didn't bother to read the rest of your article until seeing the post I'm presently replying to in order to see if, as you wrote, you "didn't say that they would all be NHL regulars, ... said that they had the POTENTIAL to be."

You did in fact project all those players to be NHL regulars. You didn't use the word potential, you used the word projection.

It is fine to indicate what a player projects to be if he develops as hoped, but that isn't going to be understood if you don't write it.

Apologies for not being clear. I just assumed that projection meant a prediction. I was more clear in the 11-20 article.

This is what I said:

"Note, the projections are more on the optimistic side of where they could end up in the National Hockey League."

 

[SwaggyCanuckMZ]

If you think that being realistic is a downer than you probably should choose to write different style of articles.

What if I thought it was realistic? That's an opinion, and the projection is my opinion. But again, everyone has their own take on things. I just ask that you respect mine.

 

[RobertKron]

What if I thought it was realistic? That's an opinion, and the projection is my opinion. But again, everyone has their own take on things. I just ask that you respect mine.

You don’t think it’s that unrealistic to say that the Canucks currently have 20 prospects who will be NHL regulars?

 

[tyhee]

Apologies for not being clear. I just assumed that projection meant a prediction. I was more clear in the 11-20 article.

This is what I said:

"Note, the projections are more on the optimistic side of where they could end up in the National Hockey League."

You did allude to it and, while I'd have preferred different wording, my criticism was unwarranted. Sorry.

 

[Peter10]

What if I thought it was realistic? That's an opinion, and the projection is my opinion. But again, everyone has their own take on things. I just ask that you respect mine.

If you indeed think this was realistic it's one heck of an uninformed take. Following your logic it would be a pessimistic take to only expect 4 nhl regulars out of the teams draft year

 

[tantalum]

I have the potential to stand in front of the net and let Pettersson and Boeser shots hit my ass and go into the net 10-15 times a year. Solid middle 6/PP specialist potential. Sure I'm over 40, fat and could never describe my skating as graceful, but I'm optimistic that's my ceiling. Using that as a measure for an article like this undercuts the points you are trying to make because your premise, if you will, is more fantasy than reality. The reader isn't going to dig in and chew on whatever meat might be present if the premise is off putting.

There is nothing wrong with saying Player X has a ceiling of top 6 winger. I think it needs to be accompanied with a likelihood score. I had issue with how HF evalauted as they were far too high on prospects but they rightly tried to use a two component system...a talent score (scale up to 10) and probability of reaching that ceiling (A-F). Food for thought as you prepare other future articles.

 

[SwaggyCanuckMZ]

I have the potential to stand in front of the net and let Pettersson and Boeser shots hit my ass and go into the net 10-15 times a year. Solid middle 6/PP specialist potential. Sure I'm over 40, fat and could never describe my skating as graceful, but I'm optimistic that's my ceiling. Using that as a measure for an article like this undercuts the points you are trying to make because your premise, if you will, is more fantasy than reality. The reader isn't going to dig in and chew on whatever meat might be present if the premise is off putting.

There is nothing wrong with saying Player X has a ceiling of top 6 winger. I think it needs to be accompanied with a likelihood score. I had issue with how HF evalauted as they were far too high on prospects but they rightly tried to use a two component system...a talent score (scale up to 10) and probability of reaching that ceiling (A-F). Food for thought as you prepare other future articles.

Thank you for the feedback and advice! I appreciate it!

 

[M2Beezy]

You don’t think it’s that unrealistic to say that the Canucks currently have 20 prospects who will be NHL regulars?

Hopefully at least half of em Robert