CBJ Board Summer '18 Prospect Rankings: #3

Who's the best prospect of these 5?


  • Total voters
    49
  • Poll closed .

Hello Johnny

Registered User
Apr 13, 2007
13,208
1,141
Personally I'm not so sure what all the arguing is about. IMO we have 7 prospects (Abramov, Foudy, Elvis, Gavrikov, Davidsson, Texier, Marchenko) who are all very close to each other. Any order of these guys seems reasonable to me.

That said, I'm having a hard time picking the next add. One of Stenlund, Carlsson, or Peeke. I guess Stenlund, because I think his ceiling is a 2C, while Carlsson and Peeke top out as #4D for me.
 

thebus88

19/20 Columbus Blue Jackets: "It Is What It Is"
Sep 27, 2017
5,002
2,659
Michigan
Because prospect lists aren't based on how good a player is now, but on how good they can be if they reach their potential. How good they are now, how close they are to the NHL, how likely they are to reach their potential, etc.... should only be used if 2 prospects have similar potential. IMO.

Ok, quick question.

Other than "how good a player is now", what else do you use do make a "realistic" or "accurate" determination on WHAT their "potential" really IS?

I think (some) people focus too much on a players style of play. Or they incorrectly equate style of play (or type of player) and "potential". This is where your "overrating" of Milano (for a while) and the "underrating" of Gavrikov (or Ryan Murray :dainty:) comes in. Kris Versteeg might be a WAY MORE exciting player than M-E Vlasic, and Versteeg clearly has WAY MORE scoring "potential", but he's nowhere near as valuable or impactful to an NHL team.

Another IMPORTANT thing people seem to overlook A LOT, is the actual difference in play between JR's, NCAA, "Euro" pro, AHL, and NHL hockey. While the levels/difference vary from league to league, size/strength is the 1 thing that "always" increases from JR's to pro hockey. The same can be said for the NCAA, but its not as profound mainly due to the age difference between major Jr. and NCAA or the lack of difference between NCAA and pro. But, the main HUGE change is the increased speed and intelligence that exists ALL OVER the ice, offensive or defensive zone, with OR without the puck. Or maybe it would be better to say, "speed OF intelligence". Not to mention OVERALL SKILL difference. You could look at an individual players skill as "depth", the same way you look at entire teams' "depth". There's a reason many TEAMS or an individual PLAYER "fail" when they don't have much "depth" to their game, EVEN IF they have 1 or 2 skills they absolutely/legitimately excel at.
 

major major

Registered User
Feb 18, 2013
14,598
1,669
Ok, quick question.

Other than "how good a player is now", what else do you use do make a "realistic" or "accurate" determination on WHAT their "potential" really IS?

Raw physical/mental ability counts for a lot. Jarmo and his scouts obviously put a high value on that, or they wouldn't have drafted Foudy.

The player at 18 is not going to be the same player at 24. So you evaluate the physique, learning ability, hockey IQ, and you think through what the coaches and skills coaches can add to their game. They seemed to do that sort of analysis with Dubois, where they thought he would get better quickly with continuous skills coaching. The way he protects the puck and stickhandles is not the same as it was two years ago.

How accurate is that approach? Well you can look at past drafts and see that it misses a good chunk of the time. But it will still have a better record than "How good are they right now?". No one drafts that way. If you did, you'd only be drafting the top 20 year olds from the KHL and the Euro leagues.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jackets16

thebus88

19/20 Columbus Blue Jackets: "It Is What It Is"
Sep 27, 2017
5,002
2,659
Michigan
Vehvilainen, for the record: first in both SV% and GAA among Liiga goalies who played more than half their team's games. I'm not saying he's necessarily a better prospect than Elvis, but Liiga is a better league and Veini's three years younger.

And when you throw in Tarasov and Korpisalo (and the "failed" goalie prospects) it is clear that the front office has been preparing for "post Bob" for a while now. Since most are all "Euro" guys, not much is known or "expected" (to come over) of them. Pretty much zero talk of it but we have GREAT (or very good) GOALIE PROSPECTS. At the very least, 1-2 of these guys can be dealt in the near future for other legit assets.

Which leads me to my actual point. Look at Kukan and EVERYBODY'S NEW (no thanks to Tulip or me:neener:) favorite Nutivaara. And look at what people said about them and where people had THEM voted on these polls just 1-2 years ago. My point is that playing and "exceling" at the PRO LEVEL (AHL or "Europe") or at least producing offensively (Davidsson/Texier) and/or filling a IMPORTANT role (Elvis/Gavrikov) should not be downplayed in any way when talking about "potential" or future NHL success. If these guys were playing against younger guys still, you would be talking about "potential", since statistically they would be showing "more promise".


 
  • Like
Reactions: CBJFan827

CBJx614

Registered User
May 25, 2012
14,846
6,450
C-137
This is from when Jarmo was first hired...
Screenshot_20180731-110408_Chrome.jpg


It's hard for us to see the whole picture because all we see is the on ice product. We dont truly get to see the players character and work ethic off the ice and away from hockey.
 

thebus88

19/20 Columbus Blue Jackets: "It Is What It Is"
Sep 27, 2017
5,002
2,659
Michigan
Raw physical/mental ability counts for a lot. Jarmo and his scouts obviously put a high value on that, or they wouldn't have drafted Foudy.

The player at 18 is not going to be the same player at 24. So you evaluate the physique, learning ability, hockey IQ, and you think through what the coaches and skills coaches can add to their game. They seemed to do that sort of analysis with Dubois, where they thought he would get better quickly with continuous skills coaching. The way he protects the puck and stickhandles is not the same as it was two years ago.

How accurate is that approach? Well you can look at past drafts and see that it misses a good chunk of the time. But it will still have a better record than "How good are they right now?". No one drafts that way. If you did, you'd only be drafting the top 20 year olds from the KHL and the Euro leagues.

Ok...…..and how much of all this has to do with, "how good a player currently is"? Seems to be all of it, since how good a player IS RIGHT NOW, is the initial baseline. You could say in the past, the past "management" of the CBJ focused TOO MUCH on the "potential" or "ceiling" when drafting, and not enough on WHAT THEY WERE/ARE, or their "floor".

Your last "point" is way off. Not only do I NOT have that simplistic of an idea when it comes to drafting, you are (I'd guess purposefully) removing the VAST MAJORITY (NA players) of the players that are (rightfully) selected each year, in an ATTEMPT to prove some point. AND the ironic thing is that Jarmo actually has been using this type of strategy the last few years (drafting "old" players), more than any other GM I can think of.
 

thebus88

19/20 Columbus Blue Jackets: "It Is What It Is"
Sep 27, 2017
5,002
2,659
Michigan
It's hard for us to see the whole picture because all we see is the on ice product. We dont truly get to see the players character and work ethic off the ice and away from hockey.

"Only trying as much as he knows how"

"Congrats to our 2nd line center"

"Cant trade me now"

Sorry, not sorry.

:devdance: :dm::dumbo:
 

CBJFan827

I hate you Brad Marchand
Jul 19, 2006
1,646
325
Which leads me to my actual point. Look at Kukan and EVERYBODY'S NEW (no thanks to Tulip or me:neener:) favorite Nutivaara. And look at what people said about them and where people had THEM voted on these polls just 1-2 years ago. My point is that playing and "exceling" at the PRO LEVEL (AHL or "Europe") or at least producing offensively (Davidsson/Texier) and/or filling a IMPORTANT role (Elvis/Gavrikov) should not be downplayed in any way when talking about "potential" or future NHL success. If these guys were playing against younger guys still, you would be talking about "potential", since statistically they would be showing "more promise".


Let the record reflect I had Nutivaara at #9 in 2016 (board put him at 14, and even that was a fight). :)
 

thebus88

19/20 Columbus Blue Jackets: "It Is What It Is"
Sep 27, 2017
5,002
2,659
Michigan
How good a player might become. What the chances are the player becomes that good.

Is this a trick question?

Its not a "trick" question. It's simply a response to people downplaying the impact that a players current/actual ability either is or should affect what their "potential" supposedly is.

In your opinion, how much of, "how good a player might become" is based on how good the player is, currently?

And for a somewhat "trick" question or 2, when does the "past" become the "current", and the "current" becomes the "future", when it comes to a players "potential" ability? And what (how many?) things (variables:m-ooh:), in regards to NHL hockey, could affect this so-called "timeline" of events in a hypothetical players career?
 

thebus88

19/20 Columbus Blue Jackets: "It Is What It Is"
Sep 27, 2017
5,002
2,659
Michigan
Raw physical/mental ability counts for a lot.

Just want to highlight this also.

1st, While I'm not sure it was your intention to equate the 2, I just want to point out just how DIFFERENT "raw physical ability" and "mental ability" are from each other. I'd also like to point out that while you can put guys through physical strength and/or on ice tests (and get subsequent results/"statistics") there is NO number value you should put on "physical ability" and NO number value you CAN put on "mental ability".

You say mental/physical ability "count for a lot" when evaluating prospects or "potential", well how much do they (and their lack of "statistical" evaluation) affect your opinions on NHL players (or their NHL "future"/"potential") based (imo) mainly on "advanced statistics"?
 

thebus88

19/20 Columbus Blue Jackets: "It Is What It Is"
Sep 27, 2017
5,002
2,659
Michigan
Let the record reflect I had Nutivaara at #9 in 2016 (board put him at 14, and even that was a fight). :)

And I wonder where Vainio and Siebenaler were rated?

And I wonder the reasoning behind them (i'm guessing) being rated ahead of him.

Its funny, not only how QUICKLY people's opinions change (either a bit or COMPLETELY) on here, but how they DO NOT acknowledge their opinion has changed at all.
 

CBJFan827

I hate you Brad Marchand
Jul 19, 2006
1,646
325
And I wonder where Vainio and Siebenaler were rated?

And I wonder the reasoning behind them (i'm guessing) being rated ahead of him.

Its funny, not only how QUICKLY people's opinions change (either a bit or COMPLETELY) on here, but how they DO NOT acknowledge their opinion has changed at all.
Um... what are you talking about? I don't recall anyone ever trying to argue either of them were ahead of Nutivaara. Siebenaler was unranked both of the last two years, and Vainio was at #19 in 2016 c/o Viqsi IIRC.

Looking back at the doc I saved, I (humorously to me) had Vainio at #24 on my list for 2017 and 2016 after being pretty sure he was in my top 20 the year prior. It was the lack of seeing much of anything out of him since he was drafted.

For comparison's sake, we ranked Gavrikov 15th in 2016 and 5th in 2017
 

thebus88

19/20 Columbus Blue Jackets: "It Is What It Is"
Sep 27, 2017
5,002
2,659
Michigan
Um... what are you talking about? I don't recall anyone ever trying to argue either of them were ahead of Nutivaara. Siebenaler was unranked both of the last two years, and Vainio was at #19 in 2016 c/o Viqsi IIRC.

Looking back at the doc I saved, I (humorously to me) had Vainio at #24 on my list for 2017 and 2016 after being pretty sure he was in my top 20 the year prior. It was the lack of seeing much of anything out of him since he was drafted.

For comparison's sake, we ranked Gavrikov 15th in 2016 and 5th in 2017

I went to far. I just looked a bit, and saw that they were still in the "add" stages when Nutivaara was supposedly picked. I came back to edit, but you beat me responding. The point still stands, that people were not high on Nutivaara (or Kukan just last summer) when what he/they "proved" in a legit PRO Euro league should have been enough for people to have been high on them.

As has been mentioned, I think familiarity is and has played a huge part in these rankings.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Viqsi and CBJFan827

Jackets16

Registered User
Jan 7, 2005
12,018
619
Ok, quick question.

Other than "how good a player is now", what else do you use do make a "realistic" or "accurate" determination on WHAT their "potential" really IS?

I think (some) people focus too much on a players style of play. Or they incorrectly equate style of play (or type of player) and "potential". This is where your "overrating" of Milano (for a while) and the "underrating" of Gavrikov (or Ryan Murray :dainty:) comes in. Kris Versteeg might be a WAY MORE exciting player than M-E Vlasic, and Versteeg clearly has WAY MORE scoring "potential", but he's nowhere near as valuable or impactful to an NHL team.

Based on what their skills are and what scouts say about them.

Where have I overrated or underrated any of those players?
 

Jackets16

Registered User
Jan 7, 2005
12,018
619
And I wonder where Vainio and Siebenaler were rated?

And I wonder the reasoning behind them (i'm guessing) being rated ahead of him.

Its funny, not only how QUICKLY people's opinions change (either a bit or COMPLETELY) on here, but how they DO NOT acknowledge their opinion has changed at all.

People's opinions change, because as players get older, you see if they are developing the way they should or shouldn't. Just because player A has more potential than player B, that doesn't mean player A will be better. I still would vote for player A as a better prospect, until they prove they won't reach their potential. There are many reasons why a player doesn't reach their potential. Situation (team, players, coaches, etc....), work ethic, hockey IQ, etc....
 
  • Like
Reactions: cslebn

thebus88

19/20 Columbus Blue Jackets: "It Is What It Is"
Sep 27, 2017
5,002
2,659
Michigan
Based on what their skills are and what scouts say about them.

Where have I overrated or underrated any of those players?

Yes, based on what their skills are NOW.

The idea that their current skills/abilities isn't the most important thing when it comes to prospects is what I am arguing.

When I said 'your', I didn't actually mean, yours. I was just talking about THE common "overrating" of a skilled/flashy player like Milano and the common "underrating" of a "2 way" or "defensive defenseman" like Gavrikov.
 

major major

Registered User
Feb 18, 2013
14,598
1,669
You say mental/physical ability "count for a lot" when evaluating prospects or "potential", well how much do they (and their lack of "statistical" evaluation) affect your opinions on NHL players (or their NHL "future"/"potential") based (imo) mainly on "advanced statistics"?

I'm not sure what you are asking. I don't think advanced stats are very useful for amateur scouting, at least not right now.
 

thebus88

19/20 Columbus Blue Jackets: "It Is What It Is"
Sep 27, 2017
5,002
2,659
Michigan
People's opinions change, because as players get older, you see if they are developing the way they should or shouldn't. Just because player A has more potential than player B, that doesn't mean player A will be better. I still would vote for player A as a better prospect, until they prove they won't reach their potential. There are many reasons why a player doesn't reach their potential. Situation (team, players, coaches, etc....), work ethic, hockey IQ, etc....


Ok. And I think the only real "disagreement" people are having now is, which should be valued more?

A more realistic/developed idea of what a player "is" or "can be" at the pro level, or the mystique behind a combination of "what ifs", because not enough time has passed for a player to show what he has or hasn't "developed"?

It seems as if we have not learned from past history and continue to "reward" familiarity and/or "upside" more than actual results or logic. These players shouldn't be looked at as having more potential or upside because they "look better" in VASTLY inferior leagues playing with and against WAY YOUNGER players. Its all about the transition and HOW their games "translate" to a higher level. Some young guys (like PLD) have the (physical and on-ice) abilities that don't need much development to "translate" their games to the pro or NHL level. Others (like Milano) have traces of "NHL" ability but lack in many other areas. He is currently still in this "transition"/"translation" phase. But younger or unproven guys shouldn't be given more credit just because they are younger or unproven. Not to mention the complex psychological aspect of determining (at 17-18-19-20) if a prospect/player has the mental fortitude to be able to "develop" and "translate" certain aspects of their game that are not on the pro/NHL level. Some prospects/players, like normal everyday folk like you and me, are a LOT harder to "read" than others.

And just because Dubois is better NOW and plays a more complete game, doesn't mean Puljujarvi or Milano have more "potential".
 

major major

Registered User
Feb 18, 2013
14,598
1,669
To give an example of the difference between 1) raw physical and mental attributes, and 2) current skillset, look at Mark Scheifele. He wasn't expected to be drafted at #7. He didn't have the skills put together, and he wasn't exceptionally productive in the OHL. But the Jets saw his potential. Part of that was that they saw a player who could learn quickly, and who was going to have the most perfect physique a hockey player could have. I don't remember what they called it, but I remember scouts saying something about his thoracic curves. No joke. Jarmo is making a similar gambit with Liam Foudy.

And just because Dubois is better NOW and plays a more complete game, doesn't mean Puljujarvi or Milano have more "potential".

I don't think this comparison is going to help your argument. Puljujarvi had the better skillset two years ago, and Dubois has leapfrogged him. For me it's purely hindsight bias, but someone could have expected (and Jarmo did expect) that outcome based on their mental and physical potential.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Viqsi

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->