Prospect Thread XVI

[ginner classic]

It amuses me that the first sentence here is the only one people have responded to, not the other three that are stated as if you're Mike Gillis himself.

i'm just not a homer with blinders on.

We've finished high in the standings, had a dearth of picks and before that poor scouting. There is no shame in the state of both depth and quality in the prospect pool. But I should know better than to critique the hometown team's prospects on this site and in this forum though. This is where the propect-ophile homers live.

Nobody outside Vancouver thinks very much of the overall depth and quality of prospects we have in comparison to the rest of the league. That's the opinion of this site, THN and McKeen's

Like I said there is no shame in it, but the rose coloured glasses can be taken off. It's obnoxious.

As for my comment on Roy.....it's the most probable outcome that he is not re-signed, but yes, not a certainty. Use a calculator.

 

[mrbitterguy]

Trocheck is a good defensive player who can bring energy to the bottom 6 with his willingness to get to the corners and imitate battle with opponents.

initiate? i hope he's not faking it out there.

 

[thefeebster]

initiate? i hope he's not faking it out there.

lol that made me laugh at my desk. The m and n buttons are close together!

It's my butter fingers on an iPhone.

 

[Tiranis]

Nobody outside Vancouver thinks very much of the overall depth and quality of prospects we have in comparison to the rest of the league. That's the opinion of this site, THN and McKeen's

And in 2004-05 everyone thought that Montreal had the best prospect pool because of such stars as Chris Higgins and Andrei Kostitsyn.

 

[ginner classic]

And in 2004-05 everyone thought that Montreal had the best prospect pool because of such stars as Chris Higgins and Andrei Kostitsyn.

Sure. It's a qualitative assessment. I just chuckle at how fans overrate the players in their team's system. It becomes offensive when they attack people giving a different perspective. I've been on this site for over 15 years. It still annoys me.

 

[racerjoe]

Sure. It's a qualitative assessment. I just chuckle at how fans overrate the players in their team's system. It becomes offensive when they attack people giving a different perspective. I've been on this site for over 15 years. It still annoys me.

Being honest, I am no expert, but much of my debate with people I know, is telling them we are better then they think in the propsect pool, yet I have no illusions of grandure with it. We are still a bottom half of the league propect wise team. just most outside think we are complete garbage, which I feel is wrong. We have many guys with interesting upside, and a few with great. Yes it is not deep, and lacks true blue chip guys. but as you stated look where the team has been in the standings.

 

[ginner classic]

Being honest, I am no expert, but much of my debate with people I know, is telling them we are better then they think in the propsect pool, yet I have no illusions of grandure with it. We are still a bottom half of the league propect wise team. just most outside think we are complete garbage, which I feel is wrong. We have many guys with interesting upside, and a few with great. Yes it is not deep, and lacks true blue chip guys. but as you stated look where the team has been in the standings.

I never said we are garbage. I never said that Jensen, Corrado and Gaunce are not good prospects. I think the latter two may prove to be a lot better than they have been given credit for. I also never said I agree with the rankings THN, HF and MCK have of the group we have. But I don't look at that group and think we are going to find the next generation of the Sedins or Kesler. Nor do I think you'd bet on Lack or Cannata being the next Schneider. So....not a group of blue chip prospects. I don't think anyone outside Vancouver would argue with that assessment.

 

[Lundface*]

Being honest, I am no expert, but much of my debate with people I know, is telling them we are better then they think in the propsect pool, yet I have no illusions of grandure with it. We are still a bottom half of the league propect wise team. just most outside think we are complete garbage, which I feel is wrong. We have many guys with interesting upside, and a few with great. Yes it is not deep, and lacks true blue chip guys. but as you stated look where the team has been in the standings.

The problem with prospect rankings is they take pedigree and draft position heavily into consideration. Doesn't help we have had less picks than any team in the past few years, and that we pick so low. A guy like Corrado wouldn't even register on team rankings, yet he showed yesterday he can handle the NHL quite well only 2 years after being drafted.

My only real point is this. At the current time, Vancouver is lucky enough not to need all their draft picks to pan out. The few guys that we have as mentioned by ginner are possible 2nd/3rd line guys. We don't need generational talents to come through (wouldn't complain if they did) we just need our first rounders and a few more to pan out and we're golden. They can have us 30th for all I care, but I know guys like Jensen/Gaunce/Schroeder/Corrado/Lack/Andersson look like they can carve out careers and will do so as complimentary players. In the future who knows what they may develop into, I can guarantee almost no one had Kesler having this kind of impact...or Edler for that matter.

The 06/07 and 08 drafts sure did us no favours, but 2009 and 2011 look promising so far.

 

[ginner classic]

The problem with prospect rankings is they take pedigree and draft position heavily into consideration. Doesn't help we have had less picks than any team in the past few years, and that we pick so low. A guy like Corrado wouldn't even register on team rankings, yet he showed yesterday he can handle the NHL quite well only 2 years after being drafted.

My only real point is this. At the current time, Vancouver is lucky enough not to need all their draft picks to pan out. The few guys that we have as mentioned by ginner are possible 2nd/3rd line guys. We don't need generational talents to come through (wouldn't complain if they did) we just need our first rounders and a few more to pan out and we're golden. They can have us 30th for all I care, but I know guys like Jensen/Gaunce/Schroeder/Corrado/Lack/Andersson look like they can carve out careers and will do so as complimentary players. In the future who knows what they may develop into, I can guarantee almost no one had Kesler having this kind of impact...or Edler for that matter.

The 06/07 and 08 drafts sure did us no favours, but 2009 and 2011 look promising so far.

If we have a bad year next year or after that, and make the call the do a quick re-tool, the cupboard could be re-stocked pretty quickly. I think Gillis will be smart enough to not do the Calgary, Toronto or St Louis (early 2000's ) slow decline, but rather the Philly model. If you have a bad year, take the picks. If you add one high end D or C to our list, it starts to look pretty good. We just don't have a single guy (for obvious reasons) of that quality.

I hope we build a scouting system equivalent to what St Louis and Anaheim have/had. Player development is already a strength.

 

[arsmaster*]

No the best player in the OHL doesn't always translate but that wasn't what we are debating. We are comparing one of the best players in the OHL to a quasi starter in the Q. If given a choice, there is no question who I would take.

I think Trocheck has similar upside to Gaunce and if you don't believe that, you'd be under selling Trocheck. They both have 2nd line upside with the type of games to play in the bottom 6. Trocheck is a good defensive player who can bring energy to the bottom 6 with his willingness to get to the corners and imitate battle with opponents.

One only need watch a game pre trade to post trade to see his effect on the team. Yes, they added a 1C and were already a fairly good team, but they were not a championship calibre team IMO, just like Kitchener was not a championship team as I argued. Plus I believe he truly made those around him better.

If we are so willing to give Schroeder a chance in the bottom 6 with his size, why is Trocheck's size seen as such a detriment? Matt Read isn't too far off as a comparable in size or style of play and he has handled this league alright.

Don't get me wrong I like Trocheck as a prospect and everyone and their dog would have taken him over Honzik at this point.

It's just tough to compare two years later.

Plymouth is good, I hope they beat London.

 

[arsmaster*]

If we have a bad year next year or after that, and make the call the do a quick re-tool, the cupboard could be re-stocked pretty quickly. I think Gillis will be smart enough to not do the Calgary, Toronto or St Louis (early 2000's ) slow decline, but rather the Philly model. If you have a bad year, take the picks. If you add one high end D or C to our list, it starts to look pretty good. We just don't have a single guy (for obvious reasons) of that quality.

I hope we build a scouting system equivalent to what St Louis and Anaheim have/had. Player development is already a strength.

Ottawa is also a very good drafting team. I'd sure like to poach a few of their scouts.

Philly's model is also pretty hard to emulate. We don't have a Claude Giroux on the roster ready to take over for Richards and Carter.

This is where the Detroit model, even though I think it's a bit of an ideal, than a model...is to keep the good players (the core) hope your young guys start to earn bottom 6 spots and supplement with good free agent signings to stay competitive annually.

 

[ginner classic]

Ottawa is also a very good drafting team. I'd sure like to poach a few of their scouts.

Philly's model is also pretty hard to emulate. We don't have a Claude Giroux on the roster ready to take over for Richards and Carter.

This is where the Detroit model, even though I think it's a bit of an ideal, than a model...is to keep the good players (the core) hope your young guys start to earn bottom 6 spots and supplement with good free agent signings to stay competitive annually.

The Detroit model is tough to emulate as well. They had Lidstrom that spanned all those years. The guy played close to half the game every night. I think we are starting to match Detroit in our approach to player development. Detroit also won cups. We are closer to the San Joses and further back, St Louis type teams at this point. Good for a long time without much to show for it. A couple years left to win something, then I think there is a re-tooling in the offing....hopefully only one year.

 

[arsmaster*]

The Detroit model is tough to emulate as well. They had Lidstrom that spanned all those years. The guy played close to half the game every night. I think we are starting to match Detroit in our approach to player development. Detroit also won cups. We are closer to the San Joses and further back, St Louis type teams at this point. Good for a long time without much to show for it. A couple years left to win something, then I think there is a re-tooling in the offing....hopefully only one year.

Henrik and Daniel are our Lidstrom.

St Louis traded their Lidstrom...Chris Pronger, that was there problem.

I don't see a re-tooling in the offing at all.

The roster is going to turn over next year when Raymond and Ballard are gone....hopefully replaced with drafted/developed youth.

I think a Luongo trade could help re-tool, but it is really hard to predict that market (if there even is one).

I think the plan is obviously to continue with this core....the Sedin's will be resigned for probably an additional 3 years, and by that time hopefully we start to see a big push from below.

 

[WetcoastOrca]

Henrik and Daniel are our Lidstrom.

St Louis traded their Lidstrom...Chris Pronger, that was there problem.

I don't see a re-tooling in the offing at all.

The roster is going to turn over next year when Raymond and Ballard are gone....hopefully replaced with drafted/developed youth.

I think a Luongo trade could help re-tool, but it is really hard to predict that market (if there even is one).

I think the plan is obviously to continue with this core....the Sedin's will be resigned for probably an additional 3 years, and by that time hopefully we start to see a big push from below.

I think that we also need to remember that the team has done a much better job at acquiring free agents to build on. Our top defensive pairing is Hamhuis Garrison this year and neither guy was drafted by us.
There is both an upside and a downside to having a first class organization that finishes high in the standings consistently. On the one hand you get lower picks but on the other you have a better shot at landing free agents.

 

[thepuckmonster]

Henrik and Daniel are our Lidstrom.

St Louis traded their Lidstrom...Chris Pronger, that was there problem.

I don't see a re-tooling in the offing at all.

The roster is going to turn over next year when Raymond and Ballard are gone....hopefully replaced with drafted/developed youth.

I think a Luongo trade could help re-tool, but it is really hard to predict that market (if there even is one).

I think the plan is obviously to continue with this core....the Sedin's will be resigned for probably an additional 3 years, and by that time hopefully we start to see a big push from below.

Agree with everything. The twins have stated that their probably going to sign 1 year deals a la Selanne until they retire. Likely so as not to handicap the team with any 35+ penalties.

 

[arsmaster*]

I think that we also need to remember that the team has done a much better job at acquiring free agents to build on. Our top defensive pairing is Hamhuis Garrison this year and neither guy was drafted by us.
There is both an upside and a downside to having a first class organization that finishes high in the standings consistently. On the one hand you get lower picks but on the other you have a better shot at landing free agents.

Exactly.

That is the Detroit ideal (I'm not calling it a model anymore...I refuse).

Have a core of star talents, both drafted and signed....draft decently well to augment your bottom 6, stay competitive and sign top end FA's.

 

[racerjoe]

If we have a bad year next year or after that, and make the call the do a quick re-tool, the cupboard could be re-stocked pretty quickly. I think Gillis will be smart enough to not do the Calgary, Toronto or St Louis (early 2000's ) slow decline, but rather the Philly model. If you have a bad year, take the picks. If you add one high end D or C to our list, it starts to look pretty good. We just don't have a single guy (for obvious reasons) of that quality.

I hope we build a scouting system equivalent to what St Louis and Anaheim have/had. Player development is already a strength.

I can really agree with all of this. I think we have gotten better and better at drafting as we see where our strengths in drafting happen to be. Hopefully we will start to trade out the broken parts for something that works.

 

[Big Naissak]

I consistently read Blomstrand had at least 1 quality scoring chance each game for the wolves and I was wondering if someone can put together a little highlight package of his best play for the wolves for us people who don't get a chance to watch him?

Cheers.

 

[CanaFan]

And in 2004-05 everyone thought that Montreal had the best prospect pool because of such stars as Chris Higgins and Andrei Kostitsyn.

Your example doesn't illustrate anything though since it points to a tendency to OVERrate prospects, which happens all the time. Does the fact that people have overrated Chris Higgins at one point in time mean that they are now underrating Nick Jensen? I don't follow the logic really...

Perhaps if you showed where these publications have UNDERrated a group of prospects who then went on to be top-end NHLers - which is much less common - then it would say something about Vancouver's group being underrated.

 

[Tiranis]

Your example doesn't illustrate anything though since it points to a tendency to OVERrate prospects, which happens all the time. Does the fact that people have overrated Chris Higgins at one point in time mean that they are now underrating Nick Jensen? I don't follow the logic really...

Perhaps if you showed where these publications have UNDERrated a group of prospects who then went on to be top-end NHLers - which is much less common - then it would say something about Vancouver's group being underrated.

In 2004, the Flyers were ranked 20th in the league with Richards, Carter, Sharp, Seidenberg and Umberger as their Top 5 prospects. They were considered not to have the high-end talent to be rated higher. Meanwhile, Kings were 11th with this excellent Top 5: Denis Grebeshkov (D), Dustin Brown (F), Lauri Tukonen (F), Tim Gleason (D), and Jeff Tambellini (F).

 

[opendoor]

Your example doesn't illustrate anything though since it points to a tendency to OVERrate prospects, which happens all the time. Does the fact that people have overrated Chris Higgins at one point in time mean that they are now underrating Nick Jensen? I don't follow the logic really...

Perhaps if you showed where these publications have UNDERrated a group of prospects who then went on to be top-end NHLers - which is much less common - then it would say something about Vancouver's group being underrated.

I distinctly recall the Hockey's Future fall '05 organizational ranking that basically had Vancouver at the bottom of the league. Since then Kesler, Edler, and Schneider have graduated to become elite players at their position and guys like Bieksa, Raymond, and Hansen have become excellent NHLers, not to mention what Bourdon could've become.

On the other hand, teams like Chicago (with Barker, Seabrook, Skille, Crawford, and Vorobiev as their top prospects), Montreal (with Perezhogin, Kostsitsyn, Price, Higgins, and Danis being their top prospects), and Columbus (with Zherdev, Brule, Picard, Fritsche, and Leclaire) were considered the cream of the crop.

 

[tradervik]

For a laugh, check out the HF team rankings from 2005:

http://wayback.archive.org/web/20051013065539/http://www.hockeysfuture.com/orgrankings.php

Trivia question of the day: what do Rob Schremp, Marc-Antoine Pouliot, and Jeff Drouin-Deslaurier have in common?

 

[ginner classic]

I distinctly recall the Hockey's Future fall '05 organizational ranking that basically had Vancouver at the bottom of the league. Since then Kesler, Edler, and Schneider have graduated to become elite players at their position and guys like Bieksa, Raymond, and Hansen have become excellent NHLers, not to mention what Bourdon could've become.

On the other hand, teams like Chicago (with Barker, Seabrook, Skille, Crawford, and Vorobiev as their top prospects), Montreal (with Perezhogin, Kostsitsyn, Price, Higgins, and Danis being their top prospects), and Columbus (with Zherdev, Brule, Picard, Fritsche, and Leclaire) were considered the cream of the crop.

So should it follow that all prospect rankings like THN are in fact upside down?

Maybe it should be total anarchy in rankings....no player can possibly be ranked by anyone as anything unless they are assigned their ranking based on pure randomness.

All prospects are equal. Yay.

 

[ginner classic]

For a laugh, check out the HF team rankings from 2005:

http://wayback.archive.org/web/20051013065539/http://www.hockeysfuture.com/orgrankings.php

Trivia question of the day: what do Rob Schremp, Marc-Antoine Pouliot, and Jeff Drouin-Deslaurier have in common?

We could say the same thing about any NHL draft order. Hilarious to analyze 15 years on.

 

[Royal Canuck]

New thread time.