Prospect Info: Rangers Prospect poll: #9

[Beacon]

Day's a 3rd rounder who needs to upgrade his game but has a very high grade tool set but the question is he needs a toolbox and whether he can find it?

The toolbox is more important than the tools. Look at Gretzky who was small, not overly fast, not a huge shot, no tools at all. Just a great brain. To a lesser degree, the same is true for Stepan and Girardi (think of him before his body began to give out from all those blocked shots).

Meanwhile Grachev had great tools. Many top 5 picks had spectacular tools and had no career or a poor one.

The toolbox is critical, but most difficult for scouts to understand. You know the size by looking at the stat sheet. You know the speed by looking at the guy skate down the ice. You can time his shot. Those are easy. Figuring if someone has hockey sense is hard, which is why scouts will normally make the easy call to go with a guy who has size or speed or a shot, while Stepan will be ignored and fans will be mad he was drafted by their team in the second round.

 

[eco's bones]

The toolbox is more important than the tools. Look at Gretzky who was small, not overly fast, not a huge shot, no tools at all. Just a great brain. To a lesser degree, the same is true for Stepan and Girardi (think of him before his body began to give out from all those blocked shots).

Meanwhile Grachev had great tools. Many top 5 picks had spectacular tools and had no career or a poor one.

The toolbox is critical, but most difficult for scouts to understand. You know the size by looking at the stat sheet. You know the speed by looking at the guy skate down the ice. You can time his shot. Those are easy. Figuring if someone has hockey sense is hard, which is why scouts will normally make the easy call to go with a guy who has size or speed or a shot, while Stepan will be ignored and fans will be mad he was drafted by their team in the second round.

When you're looking at 18 year olds (like Day) that's another thing. Some may have a toolbox by then, but not a lot. Some might be working on it and some might not even have a clue there's such a thing.

Day has great tools but he's got to put his **** together. His last two games in Traverse were much better than his first two--so there's reason to hope. Personally I made my list and he's No. 20. Between 16 and 26 are the likes of Halverson, Gropp, Zborovskiy, Tambellini, Day, Huska, Hrivik, Hellberg, Fogarty, Gettinger and Ronning. They're all reasonable prospects with some chance of becoming decent NHL players so it's not like I kicked him to Mongolia but for right now he's not that high for me.

 

[Mac n Gs]

When you're looking at 18 year olds (like Day) that's another thing. Some may have a toolbox by then, but not a lot. Some might be working on it and some might not even have a clue there's such a thing.

Day has great tools but he's got to put his **** together. His last two games in Traverse were much better than his first two--so there's reason to hope. Personally I made my list and he's No. 20. Between 16 and 26 are the likes of Halverson, Gropp, Zborovskiy, Tambellini, Day, Huska, Hrivik, Hellberg, Fogarty, Gettinger and Ronning. They're all reasonable prospects with some chance of becoming decent NHL players so it's not like I kicked him to Mongolia but for right now he's not that high for me.

Just curious, what would your list be?

 

[Beacon]

Given the low quality of play at Traverse, I was not impressed with Day. He looked like an average,run of the mill 3rd rounder. All 3rd rounders have some skills. There's a reason why he got drafted and I didn't, he must have some assets. There's further reason why a kid goes in the 3rd and not the 7th. However, on the flip side, there's a reason a third rounder has on average only a 10% chance to make the NHL. Day may go on a huge curve like Graves did, but that's too early to predict right now.

I'd rather vote for Nieves who looks like a certain NHLer or Gilmour who looks like a very likely NHLer.

 

[chosen]

The toolbox is more important than the tools. Look at Gretzky who was small, not overly fast, not a huge shot, no tools at all.

That's one of the funniest things I have ever read online.

Thanks.

Who knew that quickness wasn't a tool?

Who knew that one of the most accurate shooters of all time didn't have a tool in his toolbox?

 

[FLYLine27*]

The toolbox is more important than the tools. Look at Gretzky who was small, not overly fast, not a huge shot, no tools at all. Just a great brain. To a lesser degree, the same is true for Stepan and Girardi (think of him before his body began to give out from all those blocked shots).

Meanwhile Grachev had great tools. Many top 5 picks had spectacular tools and had no career or a poor one.

The toolbox is critical, but most difficult for scouts to understand. You know the size by looking at the stat sheet. You know the speed by looking at the guy skate down the ice. You can time his shot. Those are easy. Figuring if someone has hockey sense is hard, which is why scouts will normally make the easy call to go with a guy who has size or speed or a shot, while Stepan will be ignored and fans will be mad he was drafted by their team in the second round.

I'm sorry, but I think you would find it extremely hard for anyone to agree with you that the best player to ever play hockey had no tools.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

I'm sorry, but I think you would find it extremely hard for anyone to agree with you that the best player to ever play hockey had no tools.

Gretzky was a rare talent who was good at everything. However, he was not overly big, not extremely strong, not physical, not a really deadly shot. However, all those assets together made him a unique specimen.

Was he a 10/10 in every category? No. I think that's what Beacon means

 

[eco's bones]

Just curious, what would your list be?

in order--buchnevich, vesey, skjei, mcilrath, shesterkin, nieves, graves, kovacs, clendening, skapski, reunanen, jensen, gilmour, stromwall, paliotta, halverson, gropp, zborovskiy, tambellini, day, huska, hrivik, hellberg, fogarty, gettinger, ronning, fontaine, andersson, morrison, wall, chapie, hughes, nanne, bernhardt, donnay.

 

[Mac n Gs]

in order--buchnevich, vesey, skjei, mcilrath, shesterkin, nieves, graves, kovacs, clendening, skapski, reunanen, jensen, gilmour, stromwall, paliotta, halverson, gropp, zborovskiy, tambellini, day, huska, hrivik, hellberg, fogarty, gettinger, ronning, fontaine, andersson, morrison, wall, chapie, hughes, nanne, bernhardt, donnay.

Thank you!

 

[Beacon]

I'm sorry, but I think you would find it extremely hard for anyone to agree with you that the best player to ever play hockey had no tools.

My point is that your brain is your most important tool, but the hardest one to understand. Gretzky was 5-foot-11 140 pounds when he was drafted. He played at 5-11 180 in his prime. He could skate, but nobody would confuse him for Bure or even Kovalev on the ice. He could pass, but again, he wasn't on par with someone like Adam Oates. He could shoot, but not like Brett Hull. He could defend, but not like Joel Otto. Yet, he was far better than all of these players of his generation because he had a better brain for the game.