Prospect Info: Penguins #4 prospect

[CrosbyMalkin]

Tough one. I gave Hallander the edge because he seems more of a strong balance of potential and probability. Addison seems like more of a higher ceiling, boom bust prospect. I really like these picks.

Add Miletic.

Even though I see he has no chance of winning at this point I am still going to vote Hallander because I believe he has just as high of upside with less risk. I hope they both turn out to be good NHL players but I feel much safer with Hallander over Addision. Hallander has good NHL size at 6'2" and has all the attributes to make it to the NHL without much needed development in any area. Hallander played in a Men's league and averaged more points per game than several successful NHL players did at the same age in that league. Also I believe he would of been drafted much higher if not for the injury. From all accounts he was much better in the first half when he was healthy and he still had one of the top all time years for someone his age in the league. If healthy for the full season how much better would those final stats be. Also Hallander's style perfectly fits our system.

Addison with his 5'10" height has to develop his game to a high level in many areas to overcome that size. If he does he could be a top 4 defenseman with the best case with everything going optimal development a Tyson Barrie type which would be awesome. I think he has just as high a chance to be a fringe NHL player if he doesn't develop his defensive game enough to handle the NHL men he will have to face in the defensive zone.

I feel really good about Hallander making the NHL and being a top 9 forward with a decent shot at top 6 forward. Loved both picks though and both felt like low 1st round picks as far as potential.

 

[Empoleon8771]

Addison has bigger "bust" potential IMO. Just the fact he's an offensive Dman lends itself to being more prone to flaming out.

Hallander was mighty impressive against men from all accounts and plays a style that is conducive to being at least a bottom 6 staple with the ceiling more or less becoming a scoring line glue guy.

Ranking prospects isn't just about ceiling. It's about balancing expectations with reality IMO. Which is one thing this entire forum has a hard time with.

I'll take Hallander because he's already shown he can hang with adults, is versatile and seemingly has an incredible work rate/ethic. Yeah, Addison might have a bit higher peak, but I also think his chances of not panning out are significantly higher.

To me, that makes Hallander the superior prospect.

His upside isn't just "a bit" higher, his upside is extremely higher than Hallander's. At the draft, the highest I heard anyone say was Hallander's upside was a middle-6 forward. Addison has top pair OFD upside, there's a massive discrepancy between their upsides. I don't think a guy who's more likely to become a mediocre player is a better prospect than a boom/bust guy with high upside.

 

[ImporterExporter]

And yet Hallander and Addison were pretty similarly ranked though, right?

But Addison is supposedly the guy with a much higher ceiling?

I just don't get it. This smacks of Canadian/Euro bias, which luckily for me ain't a factor since I'm American lol.

Addison and Hallander were ranked pretty similarly, both were drafted closely together but one guy can play anywhere across the F line, plays a style that is conducive to being an NHL regular while the other guy put up gaudy numbers, playing an offensive first game from the back end, in a pretty wide open league by most standards.

Honestly, I don't care THAT much, because they're Penguins now. I want them both to peak, obviously. I just have a hard time seeing how a smallish, OFD, with obviously holes as of now is somehow that much superior to a guy who produced against men (not teens) and plays the game in a well rounded manner already, is extremely physical and has hockey IQ off the charts, at least according to everything I've read.

 

[Empoleon8771]

And yet Hallander and Addison were pretty similarly ranked though, right?

But Addison is supposedly the guy with a much higher ceiling?

I just don't get it. This smacks of Canadian/Euro bias, which luckily for me ain't a factor since I'm American lol.

Addison and Hallander were ranked pretty similarly, both were drafted closely together but one guy can play anywhere across the F line, plays a style that is conducive to being an NHL regular while the other guy put up gaudy numbers, playing an offensive first game from the back end, in a pretty wide open league by most standards.

Honestly, I don't care THAT much, because they're Penguins now. I want them both to peak, obviously. I just have a hard time seeing how a smallish, OFD, with obviously holes as of now is somehow that much superior to a guy who produced against men (not teens) and plays the game in a well rounded manner already, is extremely physical and has hockey IQ off the charts, at least according to everything I've read.

They were ranked very similarly because Hallander was a safer prospect. How is this Canadian/Euro bias at all? Addison's upside is a Tyson Barrie type of defenseman. Hallander's upside is a poor man's Hornqvist. This is simply valuing upside over safeness of prospects. The fact that they were picked around the same spot, while you keep saying that Hallander is a much safer prospect, should show you the massive difference in potential that the two have.

The fact that you're trying to paint this as bias, as if that makes any sense at all, is just really confusing to me. No, I just consider a 8.0D prospect to be better than a 6.5B prospect, using HF's old rankings. And seeing how Addison has double the votes of Hallander here, I think most people here agree. I was saying the same exact thing about Bellerive vs Jarry, I've been very consistent with this. This was my post in the Penguins #3 prospect thread:

I'm surprised Jarry beat Bellerive to be honest. Jarry is the most NHL ready prospect after Sprong, but I think Bellerive's upside is way higher than Jarry's. I don't know what to think of Jarry in terms of his upside right now, I think his potential is at least a 1B starter, but I'm not sure it's much higher than that.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Well under the old system a D means the prospect is a lot more likely to bust out than a kid with a B next to his point value.

As I said, projection is a dangerous game. Especially when you start throwing around players like Tyson Barrie. I mean why wouldn't people. Small guy, out of the WHL, OFD, drafted in roughly the same part of the draft....sure sounds about right but those guys are 1 in a 1000.

Jarry to me really isn't a prospect anymore, but we at least saw him perform well behind a very porous defense, at the NHL level last year. Sure he had a few rough games, but overall was pretty damn impressive given it was his first real exposure to the NHL level and the Pens were playing like trash much of the time in front of him.

Not to mention Jarry was a highly ranked goalie coming out of Jr's.

I'm as high on Bellerive as anyone but he's not done anything against premium comp yet. He had a big year as an older 18 year old in the more wide open WHL. Obviously he impressed many people here in Pittsburgh as well with the prospects camp last year, but again, we're still a ways off from seeing if he's the next Guentzel or AHL/NHL tweener type. The one drawback to guys like Guentzel and Rust are that now anyone who fits that mold automatically gets projected to that level. It's not fair to the kids who haven't done anything yet.

Jarry has starting potential in the NHL. That alone is quite valuable. Unless you think Bellerive has higher scoring line upside, that isn't as valuable as a solid net minder at the NHL level (which I certainly believe is Jarry's ceiling). And I'm not sure I buy Bellerive as a 50+ point player....yet.

 

[CrosbyMalkin]

His upside isn't just "a bit" higher, his upside is extremely higher than Hallander's. At the draft, the highest I heard anyone say was Hallander's upside was a middle-6 forward. Addison has top pair OFD upside, there's a massive discrepancy between their upsides. I don't think a guy who's more likely to become a mediocre player is a better prospect than a boom/bust guy with high upside.

I think Hallander has just as good a shot at being a top end player as Addison. Is Hornqvist a top line winger? I would say so being a consistent 20+ goal scorer and in that 50 point range each year. Why does Hallander not have that type of goal or point potential? I could very easily see him being that type of player if he develops well. What area does he drastically have to improve to be that type of player? Yes he has to keep developing but has no area that needs drastic improvements. Hallander has played at a better level with men and has performed better than some very good NHL players when they had been 17 in that league and he did it on one leg for half the season. With Addison's size I think his upside is not any higher even with the boom.

I hope they both turn out but I don't see the case for Addison having so much more upside than Hallander. More question marks with size, needing to show he can drastically improve his defensive game, needing he can handle playing with men at his size. Even with all that he still would even be an almost best case Alex Goligoski type which I still would take the almost best case Hallander which would be Hornqvist type player with better vision. Very slight chance Addison is better than Goligoski but still don't see him as some elite level defenseman at that size. How many of the top 20 defenseman in the league are 5'10"? I actually don't know if I would take any 5'10" defenseman in the league at this time over a Hornqvist type player if they both are the same age. I hope I am proven wrong and he can be more but not many if any 5'10" defenseman in the NHL that are better than someone with Hornqvist type potential.

 

[CrosbyMalkin]

Also like Hallander better than Bellerive who had a great season in Jr. but not any more impressive a season than Hallander did in his league. Count the 17 year old players that averaged more points per game than Hallander ever in that league. I can name 100+ 18 year old players that had 92 points or higher over the last 20 years in juniors. Someone explain what makes Bellerive the better NHL prospect? I like him as a prospect and it was great to get him for free but I don't see him as having any better upside or any less risk of failure than Hallander.

 

[Kasperi kapanen]

Don’t sleep on Almari and Phillips, but I voted Hallander.

 

[Randy Butternubs]

Riiiiiiiiiikola!

 

[Peat]

His upside isn't just "a bit" higher, his upside is extremely higher than Hallander's. At the draft, the highest I heard anyone say was Hallander's upside was a middle-6 forward. Addison has top pair OFD upside, there's a massive discrepancy between their upsides. I don't think a guy who's more likely to become a mediocre player is a better prospect than a boom/bust guy with high upside.

Literally the first post in the Hallander prospect thread says "Top 6 forward". There's other scouting reports that don't give a grade but describe a guy who's probably top 6. You describe his upside as poor man's Hornqvist and I don't buy that. Not when he's a better skater (with improvements likely to come as he refines his technique) with better puck skills who's better developed at the same age.

I'm also skeptical about Addison having top pair upside and haven't seen too many people saying that.

Very slight chance Addison is better than Goligoski but still don't see him as some elite level defenseman at that size. How many of the top 20 defenseman in the league are 5'10"? I actually don't know if I would take any 5'10" defenseman in the league at this time over a Hornqvist type player if they both are the same age. I hope I am proven wrong and he can be more but not many if any 5'10" defenseman in the NHL that are better than someone with Hornqvist type potential.

He's still at an age where further growth would be no surprise (possibly expected depending on his family).

Also like Hallander better than Bellerive who had a great season in Jr. but not any more impressive a season than Hallander did in his league. Count the 17 year old players that averaged more points per game than Hallander ever in that league. I can name 100+ 18 year old players that had 92 points or higher over the last 20 years in juniors. Someone explain what makes Bellerive the better NHL prospect? I like him as a prospect and it was great to get him for free but I don't see him as having any better upside or any less risk of failure than Hallander.

I generally pick the older, closer to NHL prospect if its a tie, and I was feeling quite tied between the two. It's pretty difficult to compare between the two league. I did see one little stat that half of the guys who go .33 ppg in the Allsvenskan prior to being drafted make it - great news for Hallander. But then I also saw a stat image for how much help high performing 18 years in the WHL had from their team mates and Bellerive had a lot less help than most of the other high performing draft picks in that league at the same age had. Wish I could find it again.

One small other thing is that I've seen Bellerive's shot talked up a lot. Hallander has a good all round package of skills but no calling card ability like that. That's what tipped the balance for me - that and the age.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

Might be recency bias, but I went with Addison. Largely because a]his potential upside and b]the scarcity of that type of player in the system.