Pittsburgh Penguins Prospects Thread

[deakka]

Drozg has 5 points in 2 games in the lower division of the WJC. Playing against Japan, italy etc might not be the best measuring stick . But nice that hes producing none the less.

 

[Darren McCord]

I'd argue the bolded is exactly what makes it bad. You need an influx of guys who can play in those key roles. Having a prospect pool full of 4th liners and 3rd pairing defensemen isn't winning you championships.

That’s true but if we had capable 3rd line scorers right now this team would be a whole lot better. I think every prospect pool needs a good mix of both. The pool isn’t terrible but it’s not great. But if one jordy, hallander, or another player can surprise like Guentzel that would go a long way.

 

[Jacob]

We have no blue-chip prospects and basically 1 decent defenseman prospect in Addison.

 

[Peat]

Is it time to argue about the strength of our prospect pool again?

 

[OnMyOwn]

I see Pavs play live a few times a year. Some games he stands out, others he is just kind of there.

I like that he’s mean sometimes, stands in front on the power play, can score from that position, can pk and can skate decent. I still see him as a 4th liner at best and used on a power play unit. I’m just glad he’s progressing, and yes he needs to fill out. When he’s in street clothes, the guy is very thin.

As a PSU hockey fan, I hope he pans out. I also really like Barratt...but he’s Blackhawks property.

 

[CheckingLineCenter]

We have no blue-chip prospects and basically 1 decent defenseman prospect in Addison.

It’s fine for where they’ve drafted. All clear cut top D prospects go high.

I’d call Addison a blue chipper, with Phillips as a decent prospect. Almari debatably in the mix for the “decent” tag too.

 

[Peat]

It’s fine for where they’ve drafted. All clear cut top D prospects go high.

I’d call Addison a blue chipper, with Phillips as a decent prospect. Almari debatably in the mix for the “decent” tag too.

Addison needs more defensive security to be a blue chipper imo. He has the high end potential but not the floor that I associate with blue chipper.

But he's certainly interesting and I agree that Phillips and Almari have shots at being someone too.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Addison screams Pouliot. All offense, no defensive awareness. Massive improvement is needed on the latter and I just don't trust our franchise to get players like that right.

It's why I just can't wrap my head around people putting somebody like Hallander below him in our prospect pool voting.

Oh, wait......

 

[Speaking Moistly]

Addison screams Pouliot. All offense, no defensive awareness. Massive improvement is needed on the latter and I just don't trust our franchise to get players like that right.

It's why I just can't wrap my head around people putting somebody like Hallander below him in our prospect pool voting.

Oh, wait......

Yeah, but Pouliot had multiple issues like his speed, effort (on ice and off) and general IQ on top of his defensive game. His offensive game itself also didn’t translate well to the NHL. Addison is at least a better skater. Idk how he’ll turn out but I wouldn’t call him Pouliot because of poor defensive awareness. That being said, their recent history of drafting defensemen hasn’t been awe inspiring.

Horrific f***ing pick for 8OA.

 

[Freeptop]

The discussion of how bad our prospect pool made me decide to take a look at the rankings we've done over the last few years. Oh, boy have we been off on a lot of them...
If anyone else wants to enjoy the same amusement, here are links for the last few years:
2017: Prospect Info: - Penguins #20 prospect
2016: Prospect Info: - Penguins #19/20/21 prospect - RUNOFF
2015: Prospect Info: - Penguins #20 prospect
2014: Prospect Info: - Penguins #20 prospect
2013: Penguins #20 prospect

That last one gets me for a few reasons:
1. Scott Harrington above Brian Dumoulin.
2. Blueger was already on the list at #6.
3. Eric Hartzell, Josh Archibald, Scott Wilson and Anton Zlobin all in the top 10.
4. Guentzel, possibly the best player out of all of them (possible exception of Dumoulin), down at #13.
5. Matt Murray, drafted in 2012, wasn't even on the list at all (though credit to #66 who has the first post on that thread saying he really liked him!)

For the record, I'm not trying to insult anyone for these lists. I'm just as guilty, after all. It's more to point out just how difficult it really is to evaluate prospects!

 

[ImporterExporter]

Yeah, but Pouliot had multiple issues like his speed, effort (on ice and off) and general IQ on top of his defensive game. His offensive game itself also didn’t translate well to the NHL. Addison is at least a better skater. Idk how he’ll turn out but I wouldn’t call him Pouliot because of poor defensive awareness. That being said, their recent history of drafting defensemen hasn’t been awe inspiring.

Horrific ****ing pick for 8OA.

Agreed. It was an awful pick. That should have been Trouba all the way if we were dead set on a Dman. This board was screaming for him (or Forsberg). Christ, we'd be so much better with JT right now.

I just hate taking Dmen that are slanted so heavily in one direction. It's hard enough transitioning from Jr to the NHL as a blueliner and even harder when you have miles to go in actual defending, which is the point of playing Dman.

 

[Jacob]

Yeah, but Pouliot had multiple issues like his speed, effort (on ice and off) and general IQ on top of his defensive game. His offensive game itself also didn’t translate well to the NHL. Addison is at least a better skater. Idk how he’ll turn out but I wouldn’t call him Pouliot because of poor defensive awareness. That being said, their recent history of drafting defensemen hasn’t been awe inspiring.

Horrific ****ing pick for 8OA.

Yeah for his size Pouliot needed much better skating ability. That head fake / shoulder drop thing only buys you so much time & space.

Not much of a shot either, either in accuracy or velocity or ability to get it through.

 

[Speaking Moistly]

The discussion of how bad our prospect pool made me decide to take a look at the rankings we've done over the last few years. Oh, boy have we been off on a lot of them...
If anyone else wants to enjoy the same amusement, here are links for the last few years:
2017: Prospect Info: - Penguins #20 prospect
2016: Prospect Info: - Penguins #19/20/21 prospect - RUNOFF
2015: Prospect Info: - Penguins #20 prospect
2014: Prospect Info: - Penguins #20 prospect
2013: Penguins #20 prospect

That last one gets me for a few reasons:
1. Scott Harrington above Brian Dumoulin.
2. Blueger was already on the list at #6.
3. Eric Hartzell, Josh Archibald, Scott Wilson and Anton Zlobin all in the top 10.
4. Guentzel, possibly the best player out of all of them (possible exception of Dumoulin), down at #13.
5. Matt Murray, drafted in 2012, wasn't even on the list at all (though credit to #66 who has the first post on that thread saying he really liked him!)

For the record, I'm not trying to insult anyone for these lists. I'm just as guilty, after all. It's more to point out just how difficult it really is to evaluate prospects!

We always look spectacularly dumb on those. I think there’s an old Murray thread where people were incredulous that he got a contract at all.

Agreed. It was an awful pick. That should have been Trouba all the way if we were dead set on a Dman. This board was screaming for him (or Forsberg). Christ, we'd be so much better with JT right now.

I just hate taking Dmen that are slanted so heavily in one direction. It's hard enough transitioning from Jr to the NHL as a blueliner and even harder when you have miles to go in actual defending, which is the point of playing Dman.

I can see that but I think with young OFD I’m more comfortable gambling on them learning to defend adequately than a DFD learning to move the puck well enough for the current game. Some skill sets are valuable enough to take the risk that their inability to play defense will either sort itself out or still be worth it at higher levels. The reward is potentially higher than a safer pick who is the middle ground.

Aka the Hall and Lauzon picks were bigger gambles (Hall wasn’t even a gamble, it was plain old stupid) than Addison.

Yeah for his size Pouliot needed much better skating ability. That head fake / shoulder drop thing only buys you so much time & space.

Not much of a shot either, either in accuracy or velocity or ability to get it through.

For his size and his IQ. He was a trifecta of problems. Not smart enough compensate for his speed or effort. Not fast enough to be stupid or lazy. Not hardworking enough to compensate for his IQ or speed. And, lbr, not hardworking enough to seriously work on his skating to eke more out.

Him struggling to get his shot through was an early uhoh moment for me. The highly touted PPQB not being able to reliably get a shot through in the NHL... I thought he’d get better with that.

 

[Nargothrand]

Hasn't it been shown that d prospects that put up points have a way higher chance of being good pros. Like even the more defensive ones put up numbers in juniors?

 

[CheckingLineCenter]

Addison needs more defensive security to be a blue chipper imo. He has the high end potential but not the floor that I associate with blue chipper.

Fair enough. I agree with that assessment of his ceiling and floor.

I guess it depends on your definition of “blue-chip”. I’d consider Addison around the fringes of a top 100 NHL prospect.

If people mean blue chipper as a top 5% elite drafted prospect, then yea he’s not even close. But I don’t expect the Penguins to have one of those anytime soon with where they draft and it’s kinda wishful thinking that we might get one.

 

[Peat]

[ b]We always look spectacularly dumb on those.[/b] I think there’s an old Murray thread where people were incredulous that he got a contract at all.

I can see that but I think with young OFD I’m more comfortable gambling on them learning to defend adequately than a DFD learning to move the puck well enough for the current game. Some skill sets are valuable enough to take the risk that their inability to play defense will either sort itself out or still be worth it at higher levels. The reward is potentially higher than a safer pick who is the middle ground.

Aka the Hall and Lauzon picks were bigger gambles (Hall wasn’t even a gamble, it was plain old stupid) than Addison.

God's ain truth.

And I agree on being more comfortable gambling on an Addison than a Lauzon.

Fair enough. I agree with that assessment of his ceiling and floor.

I guess it depends on your definition of “blue-chip”. I’d consider Addison around the fringes of a top 100 NHL prospect.

If people mean blue chipper as a top 5% elite drafted prospect, then yea he’s not even close. But I don’t expect the Penguins to have one of those anytime soon with where they draft and it’s kinda wishful thinking that we might get one.

... you know, I don't think I've ever really heard a definition for blue chip.

 

[Speaking Moistly]

Hasn't it been shown that d prospects that put up points have a way higher chance of being good pros. Like even the more defensive ones put up numbers in juniors?

I think the rule of thumb is 0.5ppg and over in lower levels. Only for NA players? Even players like Scuderi and Orpik managed that. It’s not necessarily DFD putting up crazy numbers.

 

[CheckingLineCenter]

... you know, I don't think I've ever really heard a definition for blue chip.

I honestly don’t hear it too much with hockey, mostly for American sports college recruiting. Like I know most consider the 4 and 5 star rated high school players in college football “blue chips”. But even then there’s no set definition for it. Just a high level recruit.

 

[deakka]

3p game from Drozg yesterday. Also 12 pims. Now up to 8p in 3 games.

 

[CheckingLineCenter]

3p game from Drozg yesterday. Also 12 pims. Now up to 8p in 3 games.

Just saying you could also frame this as “Penguins forward prospect leads the WJC in scoring” and it wouldn’t be dishonest

 

[SHOOTANDSCORE]

The 2015 one isn't bad at all. Everyone in the top 10, except Jarry, is a full time NHL player. Jake was just coming off his sophomore season. Sheary looked like a career AHLer, falling all over himself and too small, until his last callup in 2016.

Rust is currently worse than 1-9, so maybe we were on to something there.

Spoiler: 2015 poll results

2015 poll results:
#1 Matt Murray (54.48%)
#2 Daniel Sprong (40.14%)
#3 Oskar Sundqvist (50.00%)
#4 Brian Dumoulin (83.33%)
#5 Tristan Jarry (36.73%)
#6 Dominik Simon (37.08%)
#7 Scott Wilson (45.59%)
#8 Conor Sheary (34.12%)
#9 Jake Guentzel (47.06%)
#10 Bryan Rust (50.00%)
#11 Teddy Blueger (40.00%)
#12 Adam Clendening (27.50%)
#13 Josh Archibald (39.68%)
#14 Frederik Tiffels (28.17% in full voting round, 75.00% in runoff)
#15 Anton Zlobin (29.58% in full voting round, 25.00% in runoff)
#16 Jeff Taylor (27.27%)
#17 Nikita Pavlychev (18.37%)
#18 Jean-Sebastien Déa (21.95%)
#19 Blaine Byron (25.45%)

 

[Jacob]

Honestly I think if I ran a team I'd weigh actual production as being significantly more important than anything my scouts said about individual skillset, character, etc. Maybe actual scouting could be a tie breaker if you have two guys with similar production but one has NHL size and one doesn't.

Especially considering how often prospects are included in packages for assets that help you right away, or you could even do 1-for-1 trades to fill needs like Sprong for Pettersson, it doesn't even make sense to draft based on your team identity (IE speed for us). Just get kids that produce at lower levels. I don't even care if the goals they score are "NHL-type goals" or whatever. They'll likely adapt or they'll be dealt before you have to worry about it.

 

[FreeBobbyFarnham]

 

[Speaking Moistly]

Some context for Drozg’s tournament so far.

 

[CheckingLineCenter]

Honestly I think if I ran a team I'd weigh actual production as being significantly more important than anything my scouts said about individual skillset, character, etc. Maybe actual scouting could be a tie breaker if you have two guys with similar production but one has NHL size and one doesn't.

Especially considering how often prospects are included in packages for assets that help you right away, or you could even do 1-for-1 trades to fill needs like Sprong for Pettersson, it doesn't even make sense to draft based on your team identity (IE speed for us). Just get kids that produce at lower levels. I don't even care if the goals they score are "NHL-type goals" or whatever. They'll likely adapt or they'll be dealt before you have to worry about it.

Nearly every kid in amateur that’s on the NHL radar produces well though.

Statwatching is a nice way for us fans to keep up with the prospects but it’s a terrible way to scout and actually judge how good these kids are or will be.

Nor do numbers determine how much trade value a prospect has. So I don’t think that would work at all.