Confirmed with Link: Tage Thompson agrees to 3-year entry-level deal

[Stealth JD]

Really good 2C's for me are guys like Turris, Kadri, Kesler, and Trocheck.



Can't say I agree with Larkin being in there. He's on pace for 30 points and mainly plays wing. He's only taken 230 faceoffs all season. Definitely not a "really good" 2C IMO.

Yeah...I keep picturing Larkin of last year...not necessarily this year. I think he can be a 50-point guy someday, consistently.

 

[phxblue]

Yeah but how many of those minuses are because he was on the ice for an empty net goal against?

No clue bro. You tell me.

 

[phxblue]

Malkin

I'm specifically think 45-60 point, two-way centers. The upper end of that would represent a low-end #1 center. Otherwise I'd consider that a "really good" 2C.

Couture, Anisimov, Larkin, Kadri, etc.

Hell any one of those 4 would be a major improvement over Lehtera to pair with Tarasenko and Fabbri or Schwartz.

*Im using Kadri and Stastny as fill ins for Kyrou/Barbashev as "#2 centers" for visualization purposes
Schwartz Kadri Tarasenko
Fabbri Stastny Thompson
Steen Berglund Sanford/Blais/Perron/Paajarvii/Agostino/etc
X Musil Y

Not bad. Not bad at all.

 

[stl76]

No clue bro. You tell me.

It's a joke man...

 

[ChicagoBlues]

That's fair enough, you could be right. I will say in my defense tho, that I've been (purely from my POV) one of the few posters to stand by Blais, who is turning out better than most expected, and was one of the few posters to ID Rattie for what he ultimately is. Not to mention Tansey, who I singled out when he came to prospect camp on an invite last summer, and he's turned out significantly better than Vannelli, who a lot of posters were all about. I'm not perfect, and nobody is compelled to agree with my opinions. But I always try to make my arguments clear and support them with data, which is better than just whining incessantly about "why don't we just draft better players" like nobody's ever thought about that before. Re: Kyrou, I just find it hard to look at a player who is closing in on 100 pts and is top 5 in OHL scoring and say "meh, not worth getting excited about."

But you're right, I do tend to give a lot of credit to guys that will probably top out at top 6, and that isn't a super common position to take around here.

Watching Rattie back in 2013 with the Wolves it was readily apparent that he was destined to be a career AHLer. I had no faith whatsoever that he would become a real NHL player. He lacked speed, tenacity, toughness and any sort of physical presence. I don't mean to say that he is not a good hockey player; he is.

 

[phxblue]

It's a joke man...

 

[Celtic Note]

Watching Rattie back in 2013 with the Wolves it was readily apparent that he was destined to be a career AHLer. I had no faith whatsoever that he would become a real NHL player. He lacked speed, tenacity, toughness and any sort of physical presence. I don't mean to say that he is not a good hockey player; he is.

Agreed. I was hoping we would trade him back then, so we didn't loose him for nothing.

 

[Zamadoo]

Agreed. I was hoping we would trade him back then, so we didn't loose him for nothing.

The funny thing is that some were ready to write off Barbashev in the same manner halfway through his first season in the AHL. After a little Berube magic now he's being talked about as a 2C for next season.

I'm in no way directing this at anyone in particular, just a loose observation.

 

[Stealth JD]

I will say in my defense tho, that I've been (purely from my POV) one of the few posters to stand by Blais, who is turning out better than most expected, and was one of the few posters to ID Rattie for what he ultimately is.

Watching Rattie back in 2013 with the Wolves it was readily apparent that he was destined to be a career AHLer. I had no faith whatsoever that he would become a real NHL player. He lacked speed, tenacity, toughness and any sort of physical presence. I don't mean to say that he is not a good hockey player; he is.

I don't know how "few" posters actually saw Rattie as a fringe NHL'er, even after he was drafted. Hell, I personally never liked his game and was questioning it in 2013. as well.

The thread I linked is kind of amusing looking back on it. Rattie isn't quite going to live up to the 70-point expectations.

With that said, I see Thompson as a boarderline 2nd/3rd liner. I'd expect similar production to Troy Brouwer if all goes well ~ 20-20-40. Barbashev is in the same ballpark. I dont think we currently have a top-6 forward in the system, as depressing as it is to say.

 

[BangarangxRufio]

I don't know how "few" posters actually saw Rattie as a fringe NHL'er, even after he was drafted. Hell, I personally never liked his game and was questioning it in 2013. as well.

The thread I linked is kind of amusing looking back on it. Rattie isn't quite going to live up to the 70-point expectations.

With that said, I see Thompson as a boarderline 2nd/3rd liner. I'd expect similar production to Troy Brouwer if all goes well ~ 20-20-40. Barbashev is in the same ballpark. I dont think we currently have a top-6 forward in the system, as depressing as it is to say.

Career NHL points or yearly production Honestly I'm going to say both

 

[MortiestOfMortys]

I don't know how "few" posters actually saw Rattie as a fringe NHL'er, even after he was drafted. Hell, I personally never liked his game and was questioning it in 2013. as well.

The thread I linked is kind of amusing looking back on it. Rattie isn't quite going to live up to the 70-point expectations.

With that said, I see Thompson as a boarderline 2nd/3rd liner. I'd expect similar production to Troy Brouwer if all goes well ~ 20-20-40. Barbashev is in the same ballpark. I dont think we currently have a top-6 forward in the system, as depressing as it is to say.

Yeah, I'm not saying I was the only one by any means. I'm more thinking about the numerous threads where people were complaining about his ice time over and over and over again. I can't tell you how many times I had to tell people that maybe the reason he wasn't playing was because he wasn't that good, and not because Hitchcock was intentionally sabotaging the team or something. Or that having a shot carom in off your tuckus doesn't make you Alex ****ing Ovechkin all of a sudden

I think if Thompson turns out to produce 20/20/40 on a regular basis we should all be pretty happy. FWIW, I think Thompson's shot is far, far better than Brouwer's, although Brouwer did a lot of other things that Thompson is going to need some time to learn. I also think Thompson will be better on the power play than Brouwer was, albeit in a different role; I see Sanford as being the natural Brouwer net-front presence replacement. Regardless, the point there is that I think Thompson's ability to produce on the PP is going to inflate his production numbers higher than 20/20/40, which I think he's probably capable of at 5v5. A lot of things have to go right for that to happen tho, so I'll slap that little disclaimer on there. I believe in Thompson's abilities, and the abilities of our coaching staff to get him to that point for sure though. I will preach some patience here though, we really don't want to be rushing him up the way we did with Jaskin... we simply can't afford to have him peter out at that same level.

 

[2 Minute Minor]

The funny thing is that some were ready to write off Barbashev in the same manner halfway through his first season in the AHL. After a little Berube magic now he's being talked about as a 2C for next season.

I'm in no way directing this at anyone in particular, just a loose observation.

I Barbashev is mentioned as a possible 2C, its only a reference to the poor situation in the Blues center depth and Lehtera's play.

Barbashev has a good chance to make the team out of camp, and I can see him playing from 4th line to 3C depending on his learning curve. I like his game, and I think his future is bright. But I would be shocked if he can play well enough that soon to be the 2C the Blues need. (But he could still be an improvement on Lehtera.)

 

[STL fan in MN]

I would say that Barbs has the potential to be a 2C in time but not next season. He's going to have to beat out some guys in camp just to win the 3C spot.

 

[Zamadoo]

I definitely agree with the Barbs comments. I was just noting that he actually progressed from a question mark to NHL caliber, unlike Rattie. Tage is a whole different prospect altogether. Rattie was supposed to be a sniper being that he clearly wasn't a playmaker or power forward, but he doesn't really have a great shot. Tage's best asset is his shot, and hopefully he can learn to use his big body to develop into the 1st liner we need.

 

[Celtic Note]

I definitely agree with the Barbs comments. I was just noting that he actually progressed from a question mark to NHL caliber, unlike Rattie. Tage is a whole different prospect altogether. Rattie was supposed to be a sniper being that he clearly wasn't a playmaker or power forward, but he doesn't really have a great shot. Tage's best asset is his shot, and hopefully he can learn to use his big body to develop into the 1st liner we need.

In all fairness almost every prospect is a question mark. In the case of Barbashev he hadn't shown consistency. Apparently Berube lit a fire there or Barbashev just got his **** together. But, the year prior he hadn't shown the consistency.

Tage has entirely different question marks.

Rattie just hadn't played a style resembling a NHL game.

 

[ChicagoBlues]

The funny thing is that some were ready to write off Barbashev in the same manner halfway through his first season in the AHL. After a little Berube magic now he's being talked about as a 2C for next season.

I'm in no way directing this at anyone in particular, just a loose observation.

You are absotutely right, Zamadoo. I know I was one of the peeps here saying that Barbashev does not have what it takes to be a regular NHLer. It looks like I might be wrong about that and I am THRILLED to be wrong up to this point on Barbie.

Hopefully he can keep it up.

Celtic Note sums it up well in the post above. We've both had the opportunity to watch him play many times.

 

[PerryTurnbullfan]

In all fairness almost every prospect is a question mark. In the case of Barbashev he hadn't shown consistency. Apparently Berube lit a fire there or Barbashev just got his **** together. But, the year prior he hadn't shown the consistency.

Tage has entirely different question marks.

Rattie just hadn't played a style resembling a NHL game.

this

 

[Zamadoo]

I completely agree with most of the posts about our prospects in the last page of this thread. I personally was thrilled when we drafted Barbashev, if not only for the way the commentator annunciates his name in the highlight videos, than for his tenacity of play. I watched an interview where he talked about how he worked hard on faceoffs, and his faceoff numbers were outstanding. His coaches said he's a hard worker off the ice as well. When he actually fell to our second pick and we took him, I was ecstatic.

I hope to see Barbashev centering Fabbri and Thompson in the near future.

Did anyone catch his first wolves game? If so, how did he look?

 

[EastonBlues22]

In all fairness almost every prospect is a question mark. In the case of Barbashev he hadn't shown consistency. Apparently Berube lit a fire there or Barbashev just got his **** together. But, the year prior he hadn't shown the consistency.

Tage has entirely different question marks.

Rattie just hadn't played a style resembling a NHL game.

I still think Rattie's offensive game could have played in the NHL if things had broken differently. He was never going to be a good option as the primary puck handler/distributor, but I think he could have provided adequate secondary scoring if paired with one.

The big problem as I see it is that he never rounded out his game to the point where he could make an impact away from the puck. An uphill battle given his stature and rather unremarkable skating, but far from an impossible one. Players have done far more in that area with less.

He's simply not a well-rounded/potent enough offensive threat to justify playing time in the absence of that.

His career isn't over yet, even if things aren't looking great for him now. I'd be pouring all my energy into that if I were him.

 

[MissouriMook]

I still think Rattie's offensive game could have played in the NHL if things had broken differently. He was never going to be a good option as the primary puck handler/distributor, but I think he could have provided adequate secondary scoring if paired with one.

The big problem as I see it is that he never rounded out his game to the point where he could make an impact away from the puck. An uphill battle given his stature and rather unremarkable skating, but far from an impossible one. Players have done far more in that area with less.

He's simply not a well-rounded/potent enough offensive threat to justify playing time in the absence of that.

His career isn't over yet, even if things aren't looking great for him now. I'd be pouring all my energy into that if I were him.

He just doesn't seem to have enough tenacity in his game. He strikes me as the type of player for whom the game always came pretty easy, until he reached the level where his natural ability wasn't enough to push him to being a top performer. If he ever finds a level of tenacity and decides he is willing to fight to carve out an NHL career, I could see him developing into a decent complimentary scorer. If he doesn't, I doubt he finds his way out of the AHL again.

 

[Captain Creampuff]

I completely agree with most of the posts about our prospects in the last page of this thread. I personally was thrilled when we drafted Barbashev, if not only for the way the commentator annunciates his name in the highlight videos, than for his tenacity of play. [/b]I watched an interview where he talked about how he worked hard on faceoffs, and his faceoff numbers were outstanding.[/] His coaches said he's a hard worker off the ice as well. When he actually fell to our second pick and we took him, I was ecstatic.

I hope to see Barbashev centering Fabbri and Thompson in the near future.

Did anyone catch his first wolves game? If so, how did he look?

I've noticed in some games he's been trusted with important defensive zone draws.

 

[Celtic Note]

I still think Rattie's offensive game could have played in the NHL if things had broken differently. He was never going to be a good option as the primary puck handler/distributor, but I think he could have provided adequate secondary scoring if paired with one.

The big problem as I see it is that he never rounded out his game to the point where he could make an impact away from the puck. An uphill battle given his stature and rather unremarkable skating, but far from an impossible one. Players have done far more in that area with less.

He's simply not a well-rounded/potent enough offensive threat to justify playing time in the absence of that.

His career isn't over yet, even if things aren't looking great for him now. I'd be pouring all my energy into that if I were him.

I agree about his game not being well rounded, but I don't think he was strong enough offensively. He had no way to produce separation from defenders. He didn't have speed, IQ, physicality nor the hands to break free. He always read as the kind of player destined for AHL all-star games, but not full time NHL duty.