News and Notes XVI: RF's Vision Quest

[FreshSeabass]

See my question is realistically what is rask's ultimate potential? Do y'all think what we saw this season is what we are gonna consistently get from rask, or does he have the potential to be a 1C? I would thin however RF thinks he is going to develop will determine the how much he gets. Aside from all that i think the term should be 6 years.

 

[DaveG]

I think he has the ability to be a low-end #1C like Mikko Koivu or Bryan Little. But as of right now it's by far the best to see him as a #2 guy until he takes that next step.

I still think if we can get him at 4M x 5 we should do that.

 

[GoldiFox]

Signing Rask to a long-term deal is a no brainer. It just means the Canes are spending more now to save Cap space in the future. Which is something they should absolutely be doing while they are close to the Cap Floor than Ceiling. Buy an extra year or two of UFA for that cherry on top.

I'd do $4-4.5 million x 6 years in a heartbeat ($24-27 million total). Get that deal done.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I think he has the ability to be a low-end #1C like Mikko Koivu or Bryan Little. But as of right now it's by far the best to see him as a #2 guy until he takes that next step.

I completely agree. Usually you know young #1Cs when you see them, especially by age 23. He's just broken into a top-6 level of play, so it seems unlikely that he's going to suddenly surge ahead into the realm of being in that top 20/30 range leaguewide. That's asking a lot of a guy who surprised everyone with 21 goals.

That said, he's progressed pretty quickly. Maybe he has more in store. I'd be happy if he was able to hold down the #2 spot for the next few years.

 

[Roboturner913]

Hard for me to imagine Rask ever being a real high-end scorer, even as early as his WHL days he was seen as a pretty polished player. Makes the jump from AHL to NHL pretty easily with nothing much to work on except finer elements of his skating. I think he's a lot like Slavin, he is what he is already or at least really close to it as compared to most players his age.

Nothing wrong with that though, 2-way 50-point centers don't exactly grow on trees these days.

1C's don't generally develop slowly over time, they're usually guys where you know it from the moment they set foot in the league, ie Crosby, Tavares, Stamkos, etc

 

[Finlandia WOAT]

We'll see if he has an extra gear this year. If he can repeat his improvement. Hopeful but not vetting the house on it.

That said, unless he becomes a top 10 center (doubtful) he would need to ride shotgun regardless if he's a good #2, or a Bryan Little 25-30 center. Hopefully Aho or Lindholm or 2016 draft pick can become that for us. I like Rask, but I do not see good things if he is our #1 center.

 

[The Faulker 27]

1C's don't generally develop slowly over time, they're usually guys where you know it from the moment they set foot in the league, ie Crosby, Tavares, Stamkos, etc

You're listing generational talent though. Yes, one usually equals the other, but not vice versa. He improved his point total by 15 and goals by 10 in 1 season. I think he could be one of those guys that develops into a 1C. Not a popular opinion I know.

 

[bleedgreen]

He could be a number one close to the way Stastny has been is a "number one". Minus the two 70+ years he hadn't been prolific but was capable. All about who slots behind him. With Jstaal and a quality number three behind him, Rask could put up 50+ pts and be getting the job done.

Even if he doesn't hit 50 he's turned into a real quality pick. I think we need depth more than a stud scoring center.

 

[tarheelhockey]

You're listing generational talent though. Yes, one usually equals the other, but not vice versa. He improved his point total by 15 and goals by 10 in 1 season. I think he could be one of those guys that develops into a 1C. Not a popular opinion I know.

Current #1Cs:
Getzlaf, Vermette, Bergeron, Eichel, Monahan, JStaal, Duchene, Toews, Dubinsky, Seguin, Zetterberg, Nugent-Hopkins, Barkov, Kopitar, Koivu, Johansen, Galchenyuk, Zajac, Tavares, Stepan, Turris, Giroux, Crosby, Thornton, Backes, Stamkos, Bozak, Sedin, Backstrom, Little

Guys who could be #1Cs but aren't due to team-specific situations:
Krejci, Spezza, Datsyuk, McDavid, Carter, Plekanec, Malkin, Couture, Stastny, Steen, Johnson, Kuznetsov, Scheifele


Bolded the guys who had not signaled 1C potential by age 22, either by high draft position or by statistical breakout. Added strikethroughs to those who can be accused of not being 'real' #1s.

It can happen, but it's really quite unusual. Generally you're talking about guys who were either completely overlooked by the scouts (Datsyuk, Johnson), or who were drafted as bottom-6ers but turned out to have more skill than expected (Backes, Dubinsky). Rask will be attempting to join a third category, with guys like Steen and Plekanec, who flat-out beat the odds.

 

[Wolfpuck]

He could be a number one close to the way Stastny has been is a "number one". Minus the two 70+ years he hadn't been prolific but was capable. All about who slots behind him. With Jstaal and a quality number three behind him, Rask could put up 50+ pts and be getting the job done.

Even if he doesn't hit 50 he's turned into a real quality pick. I think we need depth more than a stud scoring center.

Hopefully Lindholm can become that quality number three (or maybe even a two). He looks more comfortable at center than he does on the wing. That kind of fits with the idea of rolling three "2nd lines" as opposed to a clear 1-2-3, which is closer to where we're at in terms of current forward talent.

 

[tarheelhockey]

That kind of fits with the idea of rolling three "2nd lines" as opposed to a clear 1-2-3, which is closer to where we're at in terms of current forward talent.

I agree with that. A trio of Staal, Rask and Lindholm really isn't that bad IF all three of them hold up their ends of the bargain.

My worry is that while it's not bad, it's not very good either. Our defense and goaltending will have to be stellar (looks promising) and we'll need our wingers to carry the mail offensively (does not look promising).

 

[Boom Boom Apathy]

Bolded the guys who had not signaled 1C potential by age 22, either by high draft position or by statistical breakout. Added strikethroughs to those who can be accused of not being 'real' #1s.

It can happen, but it's really quite unusual. Generally you're talking about guys who were either completely overlooked by the scouts (Datsyuk, Johnson), or who were drafted as bottom-6ers but turned out to have more skill than expected (Backes, Dubinsky). Rask will be attempting to join a third category, with guys like Steen and Plekanec, who flat-out beat the odds.

While I agree with your post, I think you need to add Zetterberg to that list, no? He didn't even start in the NHL until he was 22 (turned 22 after the season just started) and didn't really show 1C potential until a couple years later. Granted, having Datsyuk, Federov and Yyzerman on his team those years didn't give him the chances.

 

[Boom Boom Apathy]

I agree with that. A trio of Staal, Rask and Lindholm really isn't that bad IF all three of them hold up their ends of the bargain.

My worry is that while it's not bad, it's not very good either. Our defense and goaltending will have to be stellar (looks promising) and we'll need our wingers to carry the mail offensively (does not look promising).

It could be good. I think it really depends on Lindholm though. If Jordan is a 20G, 45pt shutdown C, and Rask is a 50 point 2-way C, and Lindholm can be a 25G, 50Pt C, that's a pretty decent combination in this day and age.

 

[NotOpie]

I agree with that. A trio of Staal, Rask and Lindholm really isn't that bad IF all three of them hold up their ends of the bargain.

My worry is that while it's not bad, it's not very good either. Our defense and goaltending will have to be stellar (looks promising) and we'll need our wingers to carry the mail offensively (does not look promising).

If they can be good at the dot, do their fair share of distributing the puck, and play responsible defense, then paired with some scoring forwards, that group more than gets it done (assuming Lindy takes a step forward and Rask doesn't regress). Rask is a highly under-appreciated passer in my opinion. Lindy was supposed be good at it as well. That's not reallly Jordan's role on his line; he's more of the net crasher, big body guy (Nesty is actually the best passer on that line).

Put a sniper or two with those guys and we'll be just fine.

 

[The Faulker 27]

Current #1Cs:
Getzlaf, Vermette, Bergeron, Eichel, Monahan, JStaal, Duchene, Toews, Dubinsky, Seguin, Zetterberg, Nugent-Hopkins, Barkov, Kopitar, Koivu, Johansen, Galchenyuk, Zajac, Tavares, Stepan, Turris, Giroux, Crosby, Thornton, Backes, Stamkos, Bozak, Sedin, Backstrom, Little

Guys who could be #1Cs but aren't due to team-specific situations:
Krejci, Spezza, Datsyuk, McDavid, Carter, Plekanec, Malkin, Couture, Stastny, Steen, Johnson, Kuznetsov, Scheifele


Bolded the guys who had not signaled 1C potential by age 22, either by high draft position or by statistical breakout. Added strikethroughs to those who can be accused of not being 'real' #1s.

It can happen, but it's really quite unusual. Generally you're talking about guys who were either completely overlooked by the scouts (Datsyuk, Johnson), or who were drafted as bottom-6ers but turned out to have more skill than expected (Backes, Dubinsky). Rask will be attempting to join a third category, with guys like Steen and Plekanec, who flat-out beat the odds.

Never tell me the odds
-Han Solo

 

[Boom Boom Apathy]

Never tell me the odds
-Han Solo

Too bad there's no BD58* when we need a "So what do you think the odds are?" post.

 

[Roboturner913]

Add me in the boat that doesn't particularly care if we have a "1C" type player, as long as there is wing depth to supplant that on offense. And especially with a team that is defensively oriented anyway. It's not the prettiest approach, but when a 1C can run you upwards of $10 million anymore I don't know that's a luxury that a budget team can afford.

 

[Boom Boom Apathy]

Add me in the boat that doesn't particularly care if we have a "1C" type player, as long as there is wing depth to supplant that on offense. And especially with a team that is defensively oriented anyway. It's not the prettiest approach, but when a 1C can run you upwards of $10 million anymore I don't know that's a luxury that a budget team can afford.

Plus, very rarely are 1C's acquired in any other way other than the draft. Look at Tarheels list. The vast majority of those guys were drafted by the team they play for. If the Canes are going to get a true 1C, unfortunately, it's going to be through the draft.

 

[Big Daddy Cane]

While he had a pretty disappointing season, I’m still hopeful that Lindholm can realize his potential. I think there’s reason for optimism moving forward.

- Zero growth in total offensive production from post-draft year 2 to post-draft year 3 is a bit concerning. However, digging deeper into the numbers, Lindholm got off to a really horrific start this past season. He had just 1 point through his first 16 games. He bounced back to put up 38 points in the final 66 games. That’s a ~47 point pace.

http://hurricanes.nhl.com/club/player.htm?id=8477496&season=20152016&view=gamelog

- Lindholm’s 2015-2016 shooting percentage may just be an aberration. At the professional level thus far, Lindholm has been a double digit shooter.

http://www.quanthockey.com/hockey-stats/en/profile.php?player=11742

- It may be confirmation bias on my part, but I thought Lindholm showed more in the way of skill and creativity in post-draft year 3.

- The development curve differs from forward prospect to forward prospect. It wasn’t until post-draft year 4 that Ryan Johansen broke out offensively. Same goes for Alex Galchenyuk. Mark Scheifele just broke out in post-draft year 5.

- Lindholm has spent the vast majority of his icetime on the wing though 3 seasons. A move to center may unlock that offensive potential.

 

[The Faulker 27]

While he had a pretty disappointing season, I’m still hopeful that Lindholm can realize his potential. I think there’s reason for optimism moving forward.

- Zero growth in total offensive production from post-draft year 2 to post-draft year 3 is a bit concerning. However, digging deeper into the numbers, Lindholm got off to a really horrific start this past season. He had just 1 point through his first 16 games. He bounced back to put up 38 points in the final 66 games. That’s a ~47 point pace.

http://hurricanes.nhl.com/club/player.htm?id=8477496&season=20152016&view=gamelog

- Lindholm’s 2015-2016 shooting percentage may just be an aberration. At the professional level thus far, Lindholm has been a double digit shooter.

http://www.quanthockey.com/hockey-stats/en/profile.php?player=11742

- It may be confirmation bias on my part, but I thought Lindholm showed more in the way of skill and creativity in post-draft year 3.

- The development curve differs from forward prospect to forward prospect. It wasn’t until post-draft year 4 that Ryan Johansen broke out offensively. Same goes for Alex Galchenyuk. Mark Scheifele just broke out in post-draft year 5.

- Lindholm has spent the vast majority of his icetime on the wing though 3 seaxsons. A move to center may unlock that offensive potential.

Brindy was straight up "keepin' it real" about Lindholm needing to work harder off the ice. Honestly, I think that's more of testament to his talent level and I'm hoping he takes that advice very seriously in the off season. If he hits the season prepared maybe we're looking at another 50 point player. Let's rack up the 50 point players and kick some ass in 2016-17.

 

[tarheelhockey]

While I agree with your post, I think you need to add Zetterberg to that list, no? He didn't even start in the NHL until he was 22 (turned 22 after the season just started) and didn't really show 1C potential until a couple years later. Granted, having Datsyuk, Federov and Yyzerman on his team those years didn't give him the chances.

The only reason I didn't highlight him was that he broke 20 goals as a 22-year-old, putting his "breakout" (which wasn't really a breakout in light of what he later accomplished, but at least he was on the radar by then) a year ahead of Rask's.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Plus, very rarely are 1C's acquired in any other way other than the draft. Look at Tarheels list. The vast majority of those guys were drafted by the team they play for. If the Canes are going to get a true 1C, unfortunately, it's going to be through the draft.

To add to that, when this caliber of player comes available it's usually as a "distressed asset" of some sort. Looking at that list, Thornton, Seguin, Johansen, Carter and Turris had all become headaches for their former teams. Jordan of course had a specific trade request on less contentious terms.

Those aren't your everyday trade situations where a couple of GMs happily strike a deal... there's a lot of risk involved in acquiring a problem player. Yeah, you might get Joe Thornton, but you also might get Alexei Yashin.

 

[GoldiFox]

Current #1Cs:
Getzlaf, Vermette, Bergeron, Eichel, Monahan, JStaal, Duchene, Toews, Dubinsky, Seguin, Zetterberg, Nugent-Hopkins, Barkov, Kopitar, Koivu, Johansen, Galchenyuk, Zajac, Tavares, Stepan, Turris, Giroux, Crosby, Thornton, Backes, Stamkos, Bozak, Sedin, Backstrom, Little

Guys who could be #1Cs but aren't due to team-specific situations:
Krejci, Spezza, Datsyuk, McDavid, Carter, Plekanec, Malkin, Couture, Stastny, Steen, Johnson, Kuznetsov, Scheifele


Bolded the guys who had not signaled 1C potential by age 22, either by high draft position or by statistical breakout. Added strikethroughs to those who can be accused of not being 'real' #1s.

It can happen, but it's really quite unusual. Generally you're talking about guys who were either completely overlooked by the scouts (Datsyuk, Johnson), or who were drafted as bottom-6ers but turned out to have more skill than expected (Backes, Dubinsky). Rask will be attempting to join a third category, with guys like Steen and Plekanec, who flat-out beat the odds.

I don't hold it against Rask that he was developed properly, I think his NHL production proves that.

Maybe another important way to look at it would be # of NHL seasons before said player shows #1 ability. A couple guys on that list fall into a category of "Probably rushed into the NHL and still took ~3 years to really show they had #1C chops".

Like the old NFL Wide Receiver adage, a player's 3rd Pro year is generally his breakout for 1C. Guys like Johansen and Scheifele didn't show they could really turn on that extra gear until year 3. I'm sure there are other similar stories on that list.

Interested to see what Rask can show us. I do not expect him to turn in a 3rd year similar to Johansen or Scheifele, but almost everything he has done in the NHL so far has surprised me and he has done it in a very consistent, non-fluky way.

 

[Lucky Lindy]

No Faulk in the US team. And no one in U23.

That USA team look weak. I mean, Callahan? Instead of Kessel?

 

[w e l o s t b o y s]

Just like for Sochi there will always be an argument for the American defence.

Kessel being left off is the real shocker to me, he's probably the 3rd name I would list when building team USA.