Prospect Info: Sean Farrell, C/LW, 124th Overall

[Adam Michaels]

 

[Estimated_Prophet]

I hope we see Farrell with Caufield at some point during the training camp.

Why? They are both tiny and are both wingers with close to no chance of ever being linemates.

 

[Estimated_Prophet]

I don't mind a smurf lineup if it is skilled and plays gritty. I like Farrell a bit more than the average poster. I think he will be a smart top 9 player. RHP, if he can continue to play as he did, will earn his spot. Of course Caufield is here to stay. Newhook we don't really know what we have there yet. I don't have a problem with all these guys in the lineup at once. It really depends how they play.. if they fit on a given line. Do they play defense well enough? Do they provide an offensive spark? Can they hit and forecheck?

If they fill a role better than the other plays, they can all play. I prefer a more highly skilled lineup to a bigger one. Especially if we also have some big guys to mitigate the issues. Slaf and Dach are high impact guys (potentially) that can achieve that. We will need a few more.

Agreed, If Caufield, Farrell, RHP and Mesar are all regulars in the lineup in 4 years something has likely went wrong as that is not how you build a contender. I see Farrell as trade bait if/when he starts making an impact in the NHL much like I view Harris who I like more than most.

 

[NewDef]

Agreed, If Caufield, Farrell, RHP and Mesar are all regulars in the lineup in 4 years something has likely went wrong as that is not how you build a contender. I see Farrell as trade bait if/when he starts making an impact in the NHL much like I view Harris who I like more than most.

I fully agree with that. Caufield and RHP is pretty much all I would keep in small players department. Caufield because he's a top scorer and RHP because he's fiesty and plays such a high IQ game that you can use him to complement and patch in the top 9 pretty easy.

The other players are by no mean 'not good' but if trading a bloomed Mesar/Farell/Harris + 2nd gives you a top 10 -15 first or a Dach level gamble winger, that's the end game of picking and grooming talented assets.

 

[Scintillating10]

Farrell small smurf though. In with Mesar, RHP. In that decent offensively but not good.

 

[WeThreeKings]

I'd expect Mesar to be trade bait before Farrell.

Farrell is already a go-to guy on the PK and defending leads at the Olympic and World's level for the USA. There's more to his game than just offense and he will be able to invent himself to be effective on any line; provided he overcomes his size/skating improvement areas.

 

[26Mats]

I fully agree with that. Caufield and RHP is pretty much all I would keep in small players department. Caufield because he's a top scorer and RHP because he's fiesty and plays such a high IQ game that you can use him to complement and patch in the top 9 pretty easy.

The other players are by no mean 'not good' but if trading a bloomed Mesar/Farell/Harris + 2nd gives you a top 10 -15 first or a Dach level gamble winger, that's the end game of picking and grooming talented assets.

Unfortunately, I think the chances are slom we get that kind of return for Mesar, Farrell, or Harris and a 2nd. I like that Hughes is patient though. So we'll see.

I more hope one of Mesar and Farrell makes it, and then see the other being lost for very little or as a throw in, like Poehling and Pitlick.

I think we can have 3 small guys in the top 9. So Caufield, RHP (hopefully), and one of Mesar or Farrell. But if Hitson struggles 5 on 5 on D, he may be the third small top 9 winger over Mesar and Farrell...

 

[Matthew McConaughay]

You can have one smaller player on each line, as long as the other 2 are of good size and the smaller players are talented.

 

[Miller Time]

I hope we see Farrell with Caufield at some point during the training camp.

For shots & giggles how fun would it be to see MSL roll a line of

CC - Simoneau - Farrell

Smurf brigade lol

 

[DAChampion]

Relative to the other guys, Mesar is the only one who could acquire trade bait status if he dominates the AHL for a year, as he is younger and has draft pedigree.

If Farrell dominates the AHL for a year I don't expect him to be worth much.

 

[Yep]

For shots & giggles how fun would it be to see MSL roll a line of

CC - Simoneau - Farrell

Smurf brigade lol

We had that a long time ago :

 

[Hins77]

Relative to the other guys, Mesar is the only one who could acquire trade bait status if he dominates the AHL for a year, as he is younger and has draft pedigree.

If Farrell dominates the AHL for a year I don't expect him to be worth much.

He could start by dominating the OHL first. He didnt last year

 

[NekkiChiconey]

Unfortunately, I think the chances are slom we get that kind of return for Mesar, Farrell, or Harris and a 2nd. I like that Hughes is patient though. So we'll see.

I more hope one of Mesar and Farrell makes it, and then see the other being lost for very little or as a throw in, like Poehling and Pitlick.

I think we can have 3 small guys in the top 9. So Caufield, RHP (hopefully), and one of Mesar or Farrell. But if Hitson struggles 5 on 5 on D, he may be the third small top 9 winger over Mesar and Farrell...

I would consider Newhook small as well, and I think he's ahead of every small player in the organization not named Caufield. Looking at prospects, we have way too many from the same mold: RHP, Farrell, Mesar, Roy, Kidney. I honestly believe only one (1) of them will play a sustained top-9 role in the next 10 years for the Habs. As it stands I'd bet on Roy. All the others can/should be traded eventually, packaged or for support players who can fill different roles.

 

[26Mats]

I would consider Newhook small as well, and I think he's ahead of every small player in the organization not named Caufield. Looking at prospects, we have way too many from the same mold: RHP, Farrell, Mesar, Roy, Kidney. I honestly believe only one (1) of them will play a sustained top-9 role in the next 10 years for the Habs. As it stands I'd bet on Roy. All the others can/should be traded eventually, packaged or for support players who can fill different roles.

Roy is 6 feet and could develop into a Suzuki type size wise. But yes, Suzuki himself isn't exactly big. I agree that Newhook isn't bug, and reports are he doesn't play big...

I want to see what consistent level RHP can obtain before writing him off, or trading him - unless the return is out of this world. I like the combo of IQ, determination, and scoring touch he displayed. But he has to show he can bring those over a full season.

 

[NekkiChiconey]

Roy is 6 feet and could develop into a Suzuki type size wise. But yes, Suzuki himself isn't exactly big. I agree that Newhook isn't bug, and reports are he doesn't play big...

I want to see what consistent level RHP can obtain before writing him off, or trading him - unless the return is out of this world. I like the combo of IQ, determination, and scoring touch he displayed. But he has to show he can bring those over a full season.

Roy will be fine size-wise, and so will Heineman. Size is one factor, but playstyle is another: most of these 5 players play a somewhat similar game. They're all somewhat skilled but not elite, while lacking in the board-battle/protection/physical departments. We saw Roy being a really good two-way forward, and RHP is obviously very tenacious, so maybe this will differentiate them.

It all comes down to this for me: unless some unforeseen development happens, these prospects are not good enough to play on a contender's top-6, while they're not as valuable on a contender's bottom-6. Something has to give.

 

[Ghetto Sangria]

Roy is 6 feet and could develop into a Suzuki type size wise. But yes, Suzuki himself isn't exactly big. I agree that Newhook isn't bug, and reports are he doesn't play big...

I want to see what consistent level RHP can obtain before writing him off, or trading him - unless the return is out of this world. I like the combo of IQ, determination, and scoring touch he displayed. But he has to show he can bring those over a full season.

If Suzuki was 1/2 an inch taller he'd be considered to have a PWF build on paper lol. The kid was 206 pounds to start the year. Size is not an issue and you see it on the ice. He never gets pushed around and is really good at protecting the puck. Can also get chippy at times and is extremely durable.

Looking at all the contenders right now, you can't have more than 3 smallish forwards in the top 9... and if you do, they need to be surrounded by size which luckily we have a lot more of now. Slaf, Dach, Monahan, Anderson are all big guys who will be able to cover. The way I see it, Cole, Newhook (borderline small guy. Hes over 190lbs) and RHP are the ones. Farrell or Mesar will have to eventually usurp one of them. It'll take a lot.

 

[Scriptor]

Monahan is gone sometime soon. Anderson will not be there long once/if we get back to contender status and he is better suited for 3rd line role, not as a top-6 complement. Slafkovsky needs to grow into a role projected for him, but this is not guaranteed.Dach needs totakeanother step forward in his development to confirm he is a top-6 C.

Beef on D, however, looks like it is happening over the next few years.

 

[26Mats]

Roy will be fine size-wise, and so will Heineman. Size is one factor, but playstyle is another: most of these 5 players play a somewhat similar game. They're all somewhat skilled but not elite, while lacking in the board-battle/protection/physical departments. We saw Roy being a really good two-way forward, and RHP is obviously very tenacious, so maybe this will differentiate them.

It all comes down to this for me: unless some unforeseen development happens, these prospects are not good enough to play on a contender's top-6, while they're not as valuable on a contender's bottom-6. Something has to give.

Yes, I think you're right that we won't keep them all.

It seems to be Hughes's style to over flood each position on the roster. Then it will be a mix of letting the cream rise to the top and trading from a position of strength for a position of need (ex: Romanov for Dach).

 

[NekkiChiconey]

Yes, I think you're right that we won't keep them all.

It seems to be Hughes's style to over flood each position on the roster. Then it will be a mix of letting the cream rise to the top and trading from a position of strength for a position of need (ex: Romanov for Dach).

Yeah, these players weren't bad picks/targets in a vacuum. I just think at some point you lose out on value if you have to trade them, unless they explode. I think they hope to find a star in there somewhere and, if they do, discarding the rest doesn't really matter.

 

[Miller Time]

Roy will be fine size-wise, and so will Heineman. Size is one factor, but playstyle is another: most of these 5 players play a somewhat similar game. They're all somewhat skilled but not elite, while lacking in the board-battle/protection/physical departments. We saw Roy being a really good two-way forward, and RHP is obviously very tenacious, so maybe this will differentiate them.

It all comes down to this for me: unless some unforeseen development happens, these prospects are not good enough to play on a contender's top-6, while they're not as valuable on a contender's bottom-6. Something has to give.

I don't know about that last part...

Look at the Knights cup roster.

After Eichel, their top fwds in cup run...

Mark Stone, 178th OA - 2nd TOI, 3rd pts
(Didn't become NHL regular till D+4 yr)

Stephenson, 77th OA - 3rd TOI, 4th pts
(Didn't surpass 35pts till D+10 yr)

Marchesseault, undrafted - 4 TOI, 2nd pts
(Didn't become NHL regular till 26yrs old)

Karlsson, 53rd OA, 5th TOI, 6th pts
(Didn't surpass 25pts till D+7 yr)

R.Smith, 69th OA - 6th TOI, 7th pts
(Didn't become NHL regular till D+6 yr)

Barbashev, 33rd OA - 7th TOI, 5th pts
(didn't surpass 26pts till D+8 yr)


Roy, like Stone, was drafted late then broke out as a junior, going on to star at WJCs as a 2-way beast...

RHP is further ahead of Marchesseault at the same age, and plays a similar game...

Heineman compares well to where his fellow swede Karlsson was at same age...

Barbashev & Beck... Similar framed C's drafted at same place, & Beck seems poised to double up WJC showing like Ivan did...

Slaf is not Eichel, but certainly a better young prospect than any of the other Knights were considered to be at the same age...

Mesar was picked higher than any of these guys...

Farrell's NCAA career tops Smith's...
Kidney's done much more than Stephenson at the same age...

Tuch... Kapanen... Rohrer... 3 more prospects that would've been similar trade value at the same age to most of them...


So yeah, it's highly unlikely that all of our prospects eventually match the Knights players I'm contrasting them with, and far more likely that many of them won't even become NHL regulars...

But to say that, as prospects, their potential isn't good enough to be on a contenders top 6??? Well, the Knights cup rings beg to differ!

 

[NekkiChiconey]

I don't know about that last part...

Look at the Knights cup roster.

After Eichel, their top fwds in cup run...

Mark Stone, 178th OA - 2nd TOI, 3rd pts
(Didn't become NHL regular till D+4 yr)

Stephenson, 77th OA - 3rd TOI, 4th pts
(Didn't surpass 35pts till D+10 yr)

Marchesseault, undrafted - 4 TOI, 2nd pts
(Didn't become NHL regular till 26yrs old)

Karlsson, 53rd OA, 5th TOI, 6th pts
(Didn't surpass 25pts till D+7 yr)

R.Smith, 69th OA - 6th TOI, 7th pts
(Didn't become NHL regular till D+6 yr)

Barbashev, 33rd OA - 7th TOI, 5th pts
(didn't surpass 26pts till D+8 yr)


Roy, like Stone, was drafted late then broke out as a junior, going on to star at WJCs as a 2-way beast...

RHP is further ahead of Marchesseault at the same age, and plays a similar game...

Heineman compares well to where his fellow swede Karlsson was at same age...

Barbashev & Beck... Similar framed C's drafted at same place, & Beck seems poised to double up WJC showing like Ivan did...

Slaf is not Eichel, but certainly a better young prospect than any of the other Knights were considered to be at the same age...

Mesar was picked higher than any of these guys...

Farrell's NCAA career tops Smith's...
Kidney's done much more than Stephenson at the same age...

Tuch... Kapanen... Rohrer... 3 more prospects that would've been similar trade value at the same age to most of them...


So yeah, it's highly unlikely that all of our prospects eventually match the Knights players I'm contrasting them with, and far more likely that many of them won't even become NHL regulars...

But to say that, as prospects, their potential isn't good enough to be on a contenders top 6??? Well, the Knights cup rings beg to differ!

The Vegas example is absolutely worthless and completely missing the point. How many guys did Vegas draft and develop? They acquired Stone, Smith, Marchessault and Barbashev when they were already in their prime. They acquired Stephenson and Karlsson as reclamation projects, and got lucky.

We're talking about prospects in our system right now. Some of them will turn out good, some won't. Should you really wait 5-10 years, or use some as trade bait while they're valued as prospects?

Again, it's about playstyle. Even if all of them become top-9 players in a vacuum, are you comfortable going forward and trying to compete with Caufield, Newhook, RHP, Farrell, Roy, Beck, Mesar, Kidney all in your top-9? If not, are Kidney, Mesar and Farrell really the type of player you want on your 4th line in the playoffs?

 

[Miller Time]

The Vegas example is absolutely worthless and completely missing the point. How many guys did Vegas draft and develop? They acquired Stone, Smith, Marchessault and Barbashev when they were already in their prime. They acquired Stephenson and Karlsson as reclamation projects, and got lucky.

We're talking about prospects in our system right now. Some of them will turn out good, some won't. Should you really wait 5-10 years, or use some as trade bait while they're valued as prospects?

Again, it's about playstyle. Even if all of them become top-9 players in a vacuum, are you comfortable going forward and trying to compete with Caufield, Newhook, RHP, Farrell, Roy, Beck, Mesar, Kidney all in your top-9? If not, are Kidney, Mesar and Farrell really the type of player you want on your 4th line in the playoffs?

You completely misunderstood my post.

 

[Kaladin]

The challenge is that in order to maximize value with these prospects and potentially flip them you need to give them time and opportunity to shine. Theres only so much time on ice available and so because of this log jam of similar players we'll probably end up selling low on quite a few of them.

 

[NekkiChiconey]

You completely misunderstood my post.

Care to elaborate then? I don't think I did actually. You're right, we don't know what these prospects will become yet. However, we won't know for a while and chances are high (like, very high) that some or most of them don't pan out as top-6 players.

Your strategy is to wait-and-hope, mine is to try and maximize value.

 

[Miller Time]

Care to elaborate then? I don't think I did actually. You're right, we don't know what these prospects will become yet. However, we won't know for a while and chances are high (like, very high) that some or most of them don't pan out as top-6 players.

Your strategy is to wait-and-hope, mine is to try and maximize value.

I didn't say anything about "my strategy", so you clearly either didn't read or didn't understand my post.

It was a detailed reply to your post, specifically calling into the questionable (& faulty) gross generalization you made:

It all comes down to this for me: unless some unforeseen development happens, these prospects are not good enough to play on a contender's top-6, while they're not as valuable on a contender's bottom-6. Something has to give.

"these prospects" most certainly could be "good enough to play on a contenders top-6"... But it will be 5-10 yrs before anyone knows what level they will attain, and it goes without saying that most of them will not be with the Habs organization by their mid/late 20's. That much is so obvious it would seem silly to have to clarify that. How you read my post and came away with the idea I was suggesting that our strategy should be to sit on them for ten years is beyond me