Dallas Stars Top 20 prospects provide NHL options

[Ghost of Kyiv]

I thought he was solid at the WJC as well. Way too early to write him off. I guess a strong performance this year will be needed to force his way back into top 20/10 consideration.

Agree completely, no ill will towards Bystrom here. Just a bit of frustration about how he has been used the past couple of years.

 

[Rune Forumwalker]

Yeah sorry, my BS detector is going off. He has never been given enough ice time to get such a title (has yet to play in a top 4 role). Which was the intention of my original point, not that he sucks, just that he hasn't been given the ice time to demonstrate an NHL future (edit: though he is still really young).

I dunno. The best part may be wrong, but the rest of it about camp should be correct.

 

[Hull Fan]

Thank you for affirming my opinion that Kamloops was trash and just how bright a spot Ully was for them. I've tried to temper my expectations because I have no clue how well his defensive game truly is cause he didn't track back a ton and was expected to cheat. I hope finally he gets a chance to shine on an offensive line with better players and we begin to see all that offensive talent, starting in Traverse City. Ully is the one guy I really want to do well.

As for Lindell I'm surprised you've got him so low. I would have thought excelling at the World Championships would garner more love. I think he'll need more AHL time than Klingberg but I have very high expectations for Lindell going forward.

I do agree overall about depth vs high end skill. This group isn't as good as the one with Nuke headlining it but overall I think there are several future NHLers on it. There's going to be a need for cheap bottom six players and this group appears to have more than a few options to fill those roles going forward.

Definitely different but I'm okay with that. Can't wait to see how they shake out this year.

 

[FirstRowUpperDeck]

That is a more conservative and perhaps sobering assessment of the Stars system, in comparison to the fan vote, where every prospect seemed like the next great one to someone. This is probably more accurate, IMHO, and well done.

Only a handful over the 7.0 ranking, which is probably how it should be. Honka, Ritchie and Campbell, who admittedly might never make it. Would have hoped for Lindell and Guriornov to be ranked a bit higher, but this is probably realistic. It seems the Stars will still need to go out and acquire their next superstar.

In any event, a nice read.

 

[Mr Misty]

That is a more conservative and perhaps sobering assessment of the Stars system, in comparison to the fan vote, where every prospect seemed like the next great one to someone. This is probably more accurate, IMHO, and well done.

Only a handful over the 7.0 ranking, which is probably how it should be. Honka, Ritchie and Campbell, who admittedly might never make it. Would have hoped for Lindell and Guriornov to be ranked a bit higher, but this is probably realistic. It seems the Stars will still need to go out and acquire their next superstar.

In any event, a nice read.

What does this even mean? How could one be more or less conservative than the other when they both have 20 prospects? In fact, Mike is way bullish on Ully and Backman, how is that more sobering?

 

[FirstRowUpperDeck]

Basically, most prospects have a 7.0 or less rating, meaning they translate to 2-3 line forwards and 3-4 pair D men. There are no real superstars in the Stars system.

We have struggled for 6-7 years with loads of those types of players, and we need more top end, Benn, Seguin, Klinger, etc. to move forward. Our system would be better off with a few more top end players, but of course, those are usually had in the top 5 picks, and we have always picked 12-14 or so, just missing them.

 

[Mr Misty]

Basically, most prospects have a 7.0 or less rating, meaning they translate to 2-3 line forwards and 3-4 pair D men. There are no real superstars in the Stars system.

We have struggled for 6-7 years with loads of those types of players, and we need more top end, Benn, Seguin, Klinger, etc. to move forward. Our system would be better off with a few more top end players, but of course, those are usually had in the top 5 picks, and we have always picked 12-14 or so, just missing them.

What does that have to do with anything? Our list didn't do that at all and there was almost no discussion of what expectations were for players in any of the threads. No one is arguing that the Stars system is full of superstars, it's unclear to me why you keep saying that.

And you might want to think about the crazy logic you've uncorked there. Was Jamie Benn rated above a 7.0 when he was drafted? Was Klingberg? I want to make clear that I have respect for the people who make these grades and all the effort that goes in to them but I have no doubt that every single one would tell you it's just their best guess and two of the examples you give prove how true that is. And for the record, the previous edition of the top 20 from March had 8 players ranked 7.5 or higher; if that number has dropped significantly without much hockey being played between then and now maybe you should draw your own conclusions about how seriously to take those numbers.

 

[Ajacied]

We have struggled for 6-7 years with loads of those types of players, and we need more top end, Benn, Seguin, Klinger, etc. to move forward. Our system would be better off with a few more top end players, but of course, those are usually had in the top 5 picks, and we have always picked 12-14 or so, just missing them.

Neither Benn, Klingberg or even Neal, Jokinen, or Eriksson received higher grades than 7.5. A few only received a 7.0.

I wouldn't put much stock into those ratings. I think Guryanov, Ritchie and perhaps even Dickenson could walk simular paths as the ones mentioned above..

 

[FirstRowUpperDeck]

Calm Down, Holy Batman.

I agree that a few players exceed their HF rankings of 7 or whatever, but statistically, more and maybe even most underachieve their realistic potential ratings listed. How many threads have there been here and elsewhere about how crappy our drafts have been? How few prospects have made it? In reality, the number of misses for the Stars, while high, are about mid pack and they may be slightly ahead of all but a few on low rounds finds over the last ten years or more.

I hope we do find a few gems under there, like another fifth rounder in Ully. And of course, many higher rounders also fall off the map, indicating the draft is a crap shoot.

My opinion is that while we all think Jim Nill is among the greatest drafters of all time, in the end, his picks will probably fall to about just above average, maybe a bit better. So, I just happen to think a chunk of Stars fandom is currently over valuing our prospect pool because of our faith in Nill.

It sure is nice to have such optimism, though! For most of the Stars years, we sort of automatically downgraded anyone but the first round pick (when it wasn't traded away) Nill does tend to draft for talent, so we may improve over the Gainey days when he drafted for character........We can hope, but in the end, it probably won't be as great as the most optimistic among us, but I understand your argument that it won't be as bad as the tone of my posts may suggest, either.

 

[Mr Misty]

Calm Down, Holy Batman.

I agree that a few players exceed their HF rankings of 7 or whatever, but statistically, more and maybe even most underachieve their realistic potential ratings listed. How many threads have there been here and elsewhere about how crappy our drafts have been? How few prospects have made it? In reality, the number of misses for the Stars, while high, are about mid pack and they may be slightly ahead of all but a few on low rounds finds over the last ten years or more.

I hope we do find a few gems under there, like another fifth rounder in Ully. And of course, many higher rounders also fall off the map, indicating the draft is a crap shoot.

My opinion is that while we all think Jim Nill is among the greatest drafters of all time, in the end, his picks will probably fall to about just above average, maybe a bit better. So, I just happen to think a chunk of Stars fandom is currently over valuing our prospect pool because of our faith in Nill.

It sure is nice to have such optimism, though! For most of the Stars years, we sort of automatically downgraded anyone but the first round pick (when it wasn't traded away) Nill does tend to draft for talent, so we may improve over the Gainey days when he drafted for character........We can hope, but in the end, it probably won't be as great as the most optimistic among us, but I understand your argument that it won't be as bad as the tone of my posts may suggest, either.

Where do you get this stuff? Who is arguing our drafts have been crappy? Here are some recent drafts
2009: Chiasson, Smith, McKenzie (Glennie and Vincour made the NHL but didn't stick)
2010: Nemeth, Klingberg (Campbell might still make it, Guptill and Theriau are busts)
2011: Oleksiak, Ritchie, Jokipakka (Molin and Vance bust, Stransky might make it)
2012: Nobody yet (Faksa, Shore, Bystrom, Lindell, Smith on track, Winther, Trook, Kiviaho bust, Snitsyn too soon to tell)
2013: Nichuskin (Dickinson, Elie, Desrosiers, Paul, Ully all on track, Hansson too soon to tell, Paulovic and Makela probably bust)
That's 5 drafts of players we've seen enough of to make a judgement. 9 hits plus 11 more making progress in the AHL, even if half of those bust it's 14.5 hits in 5 drafts. Where does your skepticism come from? We're in good shape if we can hit between 2.5 and 3 times per draft and there's no reason to think we haven't done so in the last 7 seasons.

Where are you getting this stuff about Nill? Nobody is saying that here and nobody should be saying that anywhere. He's part of a good setup here and was part of a good setup in Detroit but it's way too soon to assign credit or blame for even one draft he's run as GM.

 

[LT]

Am I crazy for still thinking Sinitsyn is gonna be something special?

 

[Magic Mittens]

Am I crazy for still thinking Sinitsyn is gonna be something special?

Well you've always liked him . But he does have some upside to him, dont know if he'll make it though

For some reason im a huge Haydon fan, and im hoping he makes it as a bottom guy one day lol

 

[FirstRowUpperDeck]

Where do you get this stuff? Who is arguing our drafts have been crappy? Here are some recent drafts
2009: Chiasson, Smith, McKenzie (Glennie and Vincour made the NHL but didn't stick)
2010: Nemeth, Klingberg (Campbell might still make it, Guptill and Theriau are busts)
2011: Oleksiak, Ritchie, Jokipakka (Molin and Vance bust, Stransky might make it)
2012: Nobody yet (Faksa, Shore, Bystrom, Lindell, Smith on track, Winther, Trook, Kiviaho bust, Snitsyn too soon to tell)
2013: Nichuskin (Dickinson, Elie, Desrosiers, Paul, Ully all on track, Hansson too soon to tell, Paulovic and Makela probably bust)
That's 5 drafts of players we've seen enough of to make a judgement. 9 hits plus 11 more making progress in the AHL, even if half of those bust it's 14.5 hits in 5 drafts. Where does your skepticism come from? We're in good shape if we can hit between 2.5 and 3 times per draft and there's no reason to think we haven't done so in the last 7 seasons.

Where are you getting this stuff about Nill? Nobody is saying that here and nobody should be saying that anywhere. He's part of a good setup here and was part of a good setup in Detroit but it's way too soon to assign credit or blame for even one draft he's run as GM.

Mr. Misty,

In the end, your analysis overstates the possibilities, or at least is the most optimistic. The bolded players above are all probably below whatever the HF rankings of upside were. And I doubt all of those you say are on track will make it. (Stransky, Faksa, Shore, Bystrom, Lindell, Dickinson, Elie, Desrosiers, Paul, Ully ) Some of your "hits" like Chaisson and MacKenzie are trending downward or have low upside, no?

And we still aren't sure if Nuke, DG, Honka and Lindell live up to hype. These things happen, such as (not wishing for it, mind you) Nuke never the same after hip surgery, other injuries to others, drug addiction, reading press clippings, ego, etc. Not attaching anything specific to any player, of course, but look at history.

I would have to go back and look it up, but there have been numerous threads on how bad we draft.

So, it may be too early to tell. I might be quite wrong. I am simply pointing out that analysis like yours tend to be more optimistic than historically true. Of course, those teams that contend and win the SC actually do hit on far more draftees than normal, and we are all hoping for that from the Stars. I will say we agree on a post of yours in the DG thread, where you say that for all our forward prospects, more seem like passers than finishers/goal scorers. I am linking goal scoring with elite talent rankings, without downgrading the need for passers. So, in a way, we aren't all that far off in our assessments.

It would be frustrating to all of us to have accumulated some top end talent (how many teams have 3 former second overall picks in their core, plus a Ross Trophy winner?) and fall just short of the Cup due to lack of talented secondary depth. It takes a lot of talent o win the Cup and I am not 100% convinced that we have all needed.

 

[Mr Misty]

Mr. Misty,

In the end, your analysis overstates the possibilities, or at least is the most optimistic. The bolded players above are all probably below whatever the HF rankings of upside were. And I doubt all of those you say are on track will make it. (Stransky, Faksa, Shore, Bystrom, Lindell, Dickinson, Elie, Desrosiers, Paul, Ully ) Some of your "hits" like Chaisson and MacKenzie are trending downward or have low upside, no?

And we still aren't sure if Nuke, DG, Honka and Lindell live up to hype. These things happen, such as (not wishing for it, mind you) Nuke never the same after hip surgery, other injuries to others, drug addiction, reading press clippings, ego, etc. Not attaching anything specific to any player, of course, but look at history.

I would have to go back and look it up, but there have been numerous threads on how bad we draft.

So, it may be too early to tell. I might be quite wrong. I am simply pointing out that analysis like yours tend to be more optimistic than historically true. Of course, those teams that contend and win the SC actually do hit on far more draftees than normal, and we are all hoping for that from the Stars. I will say we agree on a post of yours in the DG thread, where you say that for all our forward prospects, more seem like passers than finishers/goal scorers. I am linking goal scoring with elite talent rankings, without downgrading the need for passers. So, in a way, we aren't all that far off in our assessments.

It would be frustrating to all of us to have accumulated some top end talent (how many teams have 3 former second overall picks in their core, plus a Ross Trophy winner?) and fall just short of the Cup due to lack of talented secondary depth. It takes a lot of talent o win the Cup and I am not 100% convinced that we have all needed.

I don't know what the basis for your criticism is because you have yet to explain any of it. If you have numbers that show something, please share them. I used a 50% AHL failure rate, players like Glennie, Campbell, Stransky, Faksa, and Gaunce have yet to make the transition from prospect to NHL player. However, the Stars have turned McKenzie, Nemeth, Oleksiak, Ritchie, Jokipakka, and Scevior into contributors via the AHL.

As I said before, I am absolutely uninterested in HF grades and will remain so until they help the Stars win hockey games. Chiasson is an NHL player with 2 seasons of service, under contract for a 3rd. Of his round, he's played more games than all but 4 players. McKenzie was a 6th round pick, for me making the NHL as a bottom 6 staple makes that pick a success. From your post it sounds like you are disappointed that he hasn't become an All Star. I'm not sure what your expectations are from 2nd or 6th round picks. I'm very happy to get contributors in these spots because there isn't any way to be sure about anything outside of the top pick or two.

And you should dig up some threads about how badly we draft, but I don't think you'll find many recent ones because we haven't had any bad recent drafts. Being unsuccessful in the mid 2000s isn't some kind of permanent condition.

 

[Rune Forumwalker]

Am I crazy for still thinking Sinitsyn is gonna be something special?

He'll be the next Zubov. He's the saviour. Klingberg will crash and burn like Niskanen.

 

[FirstRowUpperDeck]

It’s an opinion more than anything, but if you want some numbers to make my case, here are the HF 2013 rankings of Stars prospects. For reference,

8 is first line forward/D pair/Goalie:
7 is second line forward/D pair/Journeyman Goalie:
6 is third line forward/D pair/Backup Goalie:

Nuke – 8.5 – Probably about the same ranking now.
Campbell – 8.0 (now probably 6, on one year deal to prove something)
Brendon Dillon – 7.5 – Now 6, Sharks got some offseason D help, Dillon now 3rd pair. Could bounce back, so maybe 6.5
Kevin Connaulton – 7 – Now third pair on bad D, or 6
Scott Glennie – 7 – Now a 0, or bust
Jirki Jokipakka – 6.5- Now a 6.5 (second or third pair D, probably third at 6)
Alex Chaisson – 7.5, Now struggling second liner, at 6.5 to 7
Brett Richie – 7.5 – Probably same, based on potential
Jamie O – 7.5 – no more than 6, probably 5.5 on one year deal to prove something
Alex Guptil – 7.5- Still in development, probably lower.
Jason Dickenson – 7.5, seems to have dropped, hard to tell. Say 7
Devin Shore – 7.5 – probably lower, hard to tell.
Radek Faksa- 7.0 – Now lower
Nemeth – 7.0 – about the same.
Klingberg – 7 – higher, about 8 to 8.5
If we take those drafted early enough to really project, we have:

Klinger has risen a grade
Nuke, Nemth, JJ, at same level
Ritchie probably at same level
Dillon, Connauton, Chaisson, JO, Campbell, Faksa, Glennie, at lower level
JD, Shore, Guptil hard to tell, maybe we split them up as one rises, one same, one drops.
The scorecard reads
2 rise – (13%)
5 at same level – 33%
8 dropped – 54%

And thus my statistically and historically valid point – more than half of prospects drop in rankings over time and less than half stay the same or rise.
The recent poll sure made it seem as if our fandom thinks all 20 will rise and make the NHL (since JJ was ranked so low)

Maybe you can spin the numbers differently using more complete stats. And I realize that different HF writers rank differently, etc.

Just MHO, but it isn’t just about making it to the NHL, a la Glennie or Campbell 1 game careers, its about impact. So do we count the Sceviors, etc. who are lower line forwards as successes? My view is that this team needs more top line players to improve. Statistically, our prospects are mid level talents, and have more than a 50% chance of not living up to even that potential.

We may get a few first line players, maybe a third of those 20 prospects will be second line/pair somewhere, and more than half will be low level performers or out of the league. I think Nil agrees to some point, as he has successfully traded quantities of prospects for proven players from other systems, even while stating that he wants to draft his core.

Sure, we hope its higher, but I am just trying to be realistic, even if slightly pessimistic.

I didn't take the time to refute your other point, but I am pretty sure I could find threads/posts lamenting taking JC over Fowler, and the lack of first round successes under the Niewy era - SG, JC, JO, RF, NONE of which have made the NHL (other than JO, who is now on a one year last ditch prove it deal, like JC and SG before him) That doesn't sound too promising to me.

 

[LT]

You have to look at the letter grade as well. Can't ignore the fact that there are two parts to the ranking.

 

[Mr Misty]

I'm certainly not arguing player grades aren't revised down. 73% of the 2007 class has yet to play 82 NHL games, but you can be certain the proportion that were graded to bust is the inverse. I am at a loss as to why you think a sample of 15 with an 8-7 split is a strong piece of evidence, but even more inexplicable is why you are so fixated on these things in the first place if even you admit they get changed around all the time. Why you insist on leaving out the probability grade is almost as baffling.

Just as troubling is the idea that because people ranked other prospects higher than Jokipakka, they must all be confident that all those players will become superstars. Even if you insist on clinging to player grades, let go of this nonsense. I rank prospects differently than you and every other voter; there is neither a right answer to which is the 7th best prospect nor is there a right criteria to use to make your choice. This does not mean everyone expects Janmark to be a top player. Take a look at the winning percentages and think about why so many are in the 30s. You shouldn't come up with "irrational exuberance."

Moving on, what could possibly make you dump on Scevior? He's just a lower line forward that scores .4 ppg? If you don't think this is a spectacular return for a 4th round pick then I don't know what to tell you. Better players drafted between the 3rd and 5th rounds: Alex Killorn, Alec Martinez, Jamie Benn, and Jake Muzzin. Out of 90 picks including 50 ahead of him, the 5th best player. Best ppg in the 4th round. 32 points for 650k. The entire mindset of comparing Glennie to Scevior is totally out of touch with reality.

Finally, I don't know why you can't see the difference between bad 1st rounds and bad drafts. With the benefit of hindsight we should have drafted other guys with our 1st round picks, but that didn't stop the team from drafting good players each year. This should be the easy one to figure out, it's all there a few posts back.

 

[FirstRowUpperDeck]

Misty,

We have different opinions and this is a discussion board. I fail to see your condescending attitude and words like irrational exuberance and nonsense regarding my opinions, which are mostly thrown out for discussion.

I am not dumping on Scevior, and as I pointed out, we need more out of our drafts to get from miss the PO/8th seed to champs than 3rd pair D and lower 6 forwards. He is what he is, but he is replaceable.

I certainly see the difference between a bad first round and bad drafts, but used those first rounders as examples of posts here complaining about the drafts of JN. Not too many folks obsess over picks in the 3-7th rounds, do they? (yes, a few do who know prospects better than I, but all in all, lower rounds are a crapshoot.

I understand our differences of opinion, but I think we have discussed it enough.

cheers.

 

[LT]

No need to make things personal, guys. There can be a discussion without insults.