Prospect Info: The 2023-2024 Prospects Thread Pt. 3

[bossram]

I mean, of course prospect development is volatile. But I don't think you can use that as a catch-all excuse for bad rankings.

Ritchie is really good and is tracking to be a quality NHL C in short order. Edmonton's best prospects (if you can even call them that at this point) are two guys in their draft+5 who have totally stagnated approaching waiver eligibility.



And I mean, that's my point - valuing quantity over quality when it comes to prospects is a really bad worldview.

One blue-chip top-25 prospect like Ritchie (or Willander) is worth more than a whole bucketful of those B/C-level prospects.

Is it bad scouting to prefer one good propsect who's still in junior, over a couple other ones who appear to have stagnated but are playing pro/NHL minutes? Idk either way dude. And again, the difference here is basically negligible for Wheeler.

 

[MS]

Is it bad scouting to prefer one good propsect who's still in junior, over a couple other ones who appear to have stagnated but are playing pro/NHL minutes? Idk either way dude. And again, the difference here is basically negligible for Wheeler.

I mean, yeah?

Broberg/Holloway are both floundering as they're about to wrap up their ELCs and head into waiver eligibility. They're basically approaching the Pouliot/Baertschi point where those teams dumped those guys. They aren't remotely as promising/valuable as a recent 1st rounder with size/positional value who is absolutely blowing up this year.

Rating Podkolzin ahead of Willander would be silly, too.

 

[bossram]

I mean, yeah?

Broberg/Holloway are both floundering as they're about to wrap up their ELCs and head into waiver eligibility. They're basically approaching the Pouliot/Baertschi point where those teams dumped those guys. They aren't remotely as promising/valuable as a recent 1st rounder with size/positional value who is absolutely blowing up this year.

Rating Podkolzin ahead of Willander would be silly, too.

I mean, I agree with you in the first place.

It just seems odd to comment on this as if it were some egregious mistake. Holloway was also tracking very well in his D+1. Then appears to have stagnated in NHL minutes (when they probably should have left him in the AHL). But...he is playing in the NHL.

Ritchie could go basically the same way.

EDIT: Also interesting tweet from Chase McCallum, who's doing some of the modern work on prospect analytics. In other threads, he says his data's found that junior/other pro league scoring is translating to NHL success less than before.

https://twitter.com/CMhockey66/status/1757824879582163039?s=20

 

[LemonSauceD]

I mean, I agree with you in the first place.

It just seems odd to comment on this as if it were some egregious mistake. Holloway was also tracking very in his D+1. Then appears to have stagnated in NHL minutes (when they probably should have left him in the AHL). But...he is playing in the NHL.

Ritchie could go basically the same way.

EDIT: Also interesting tweet from Chase McCallum, who's doing some of the modern work on prospect analytics. In other threads, he says his data's found that junior/other pro league scoring is translating to NHL success less than before.

https://twitter.com/CMhockey66/status/1757824879582163039?s=20

meh I have several issues with that data.

I challenge the notion that league is “better” because scoring is up. 19-23year olds struggling/producing less isn’t indicative of a better league. It’s more indicative of a diluting talent. 2 expansion teams + 2 AHL teams means more jobs that have to be filled which contributes to having more less talented players being able to find jobs.

19/23 year olds struggling is also indicative of a rather weaker crop of players coming in. This usually fluctuates every half a decade and it’s been happening since the 04/05 lockout. Guys like Crosby, Kane, Malkin, Ovechkin, Tavares, Stamkos were stars right out the gate. This particular era of players succeeded in a low scoring era. Between 2010-2014, talent coming into the league and becoming stars right off the gate was staggering much like what we see today. The state of the league hadn’t changed much, scoring was more or less the same, but we saw a very poor group of high end talent in coming and those with that potential taking more time to get there. Mackinnon, Kucherov, Draisaitl, Barkov, Pastrnak, Tarasenko, Kuznetsov, etc.

2015-2019, the crop of talent in the league increased significantly with the likes of McDavid, Marner, Matthews, Laine, Hughes, Pettersson, Kaprizov, the Tkachuk’s, Makar, Barzal etc seemingly producing right out the gate. Scoring was on the rise, and so was talent. Since Covid, scoring went up significantly further but the crop of talent post Covid has been severely lacking yet again.

When you look at why scoring went up, it’s easy to see that there’s actually a diluting of talent in the NHL. 2 expansion teams + 2 AHL will do that. While there are exceptionally talented players, them being talented purely based on skill alone and that affecting scoring is actually a matter of the league itself decreasing in quality.

As for crops of talent coming into the NHL and making an impact, there really isn’t a direct correlation between that and scoring impact of the league. What you’re seeing is simply just a fluctuation of good talent coming in vs weaker talent that occurs every half a decade.

 

[bossram]

meh I have several issues with that data.

I challenge the notion that league is “better” because scoring is up. 19-23year olds struggling/producing less isn’t indicative of a better league. It’s more indicative of a diluting talent. 2 expansion teams + 2 AHL teams means more jobs that have to be filled which contributes to having more less talented players being able to find jobs.

19/23 year olds struggling is also indicative of a rather weaker crop of players coming in. This usually fluctuates every half a decade and it’s been happening since the 04/05 lockout. Guys like Crosby, Kane, Malkin, Ovechkin, Tavares, Stamkos were stars right out the gate. This particular era of players succeeded in a low scoring era. Between 2010-2014, talent coming into the league and becoming stars right off the gate was staggering much like what we see today. The state of the league hadn’t changed much, scoring was more or less the same, but we saw a very poor group of high end talent in coming and those with that potential taking more time to get there. Mackinnon, Kucherov, Draisaitl, Barkov, Pastrnak, Tarasenko, Kuznetsov, etc.

2015-2019, the crop of talent in the league increased significantly with the likes of McDavid, Marner, Matthews, Laine, Hughes, Pettersson, Kaprizov, the Tkachuk’s, Makar, Barzal etc seemingly producing right out the gate. Scoring was on the rise, and so was talent. Since Covid, scoring went up significantly further but the crop of talent post Covid has been severely lacking yet again.

When you look at why scoring went up, it’s easy to see that there’s actually a diluting of talent in the NHL. 2 expansion teams + 2 AHL will do that. While there are exceptionally talented players, them being talented purely based on skill alone and that affecting scoring is actually a matter of the league itself decreasing in quality.

As for crops of talent coming into the NHL and making an impact, there really isn’t a direct correlation between that and scoring impact of the league. What you’re seeing is simply just a fluctuation of good talent coming in vs weaker talent that occurs every half a decade.

The bolded is an interesting hypothesis that could explain it. There are more and "weaker" prospects entering the NHL by necessity. I don't necessarily buy that though. I think there are many more players who are at least NHL-replacement level than there are jobs, even still. Lot of Quad-A types. I think once you get past the legitimate top-six forwards and top-four NHL defenseman tier, the talent drop off is a really slow decline. You can plug guys like Juulsen who were considered Quad-A for years, and find that if given a run they can actually be a decent bottom-of-the lineup piece.

In terms of whether it is a "bad batch" of prospects in recent years, I don't really have any reason to lean either way on that. The data is based on all players entering the NHL, not just the traditional "top picks".

Also for the core of your argument, if the reason for increased scoring was that the league is diluted and "weaker", then I would assume that, on average, prospects would look better in the NHL relative to than they did before (given their competition is weaker). McCallum finds that on average, they perform worse.

 

[LemonSauceD]

The bolded is an interesting hypothesis that could explain it. There are more and "weaker" prospects entering the NHL by necessity. I don't necessarily buy that though. I think there are many more players who are at least NHL-replacement level than there are jobs, even still. Lot of Quad-A types. I think once you get past the legitimate top-six forwards and top-four NHL defenseman tier, the talent drop off is a really slow decline. You can plug guys like Juulsen who were considered Quad-A for years, and find that if given a run they can actually be a decent bottom-of-the lineup piece.

In terms of whether it is a "bad batch" of prospects in recent years, I don't really have any reason to lean either way on that. The data is based on all players entering the NHL, not just the traditional "top picks".

Also for the core of your argument, if the reason for increased scoring was that the league is diluted and "weaker", then I would assume that, on average, prospects would look better in the NHL relative to than they did before (given their competition is weaker). McCallum finds that on average, they perform worse.

The reason why i pointed this out is because when we had those elite players come into the NHL post lockout, they came in on a high scoring league that was well on its way to decreasing already, but they were still able to produce throughout those downtrending years of scoring. To me, it suggests quality of talent coming in likely has no significant influence on actual league scoring tendencies but rather other extenuating factors such as rule changes, expansions, and game philosophies.

Right now, it seems that the opposite is happening, in which at least in my opinion anyway, the overall quality of talent in the league has been diluted coupled with weaker talent coming in, but that scoring in general is the highest it’s been in 35 years, as a result of other factors.

I don’t think there’s really concrete data that can show us this, it’s all very much subjective, and I do see your perspective as well. There are so many variables that come into play. We know scoring is up but weaker talent is coming in but is it due to quality of competition or completey isolated? I’ll look into McCollum’s data further. He could very well be onto something.

 

[MarkusNaslund19]

At the point where Benning was fired, our system/prospect pool was the worst that it had been in any point in franchise history. And by a fair margin, at that.

Are you forgetting the Holden, Ference years? Not that your point doesn't stand, but that was bleak.

 

[ChilliBilly]

an awful lot of words into a small concept. sorry, I just couldn't read this.

we have some good prospects. would be nice if this board was about them.

 

[Tables of Stats]

an awful lot of words into a small concept. sorry, I just couldn't read this.

we have some good prospects. would be nice if this board was about them.

You can always be the change you want to see.

What are your thoughts on our prospects? Who's stock has risen in your estimation? Who might be trade bait if we make another move?

 

[bossram]

The reason why i pointed this out is because when we had those elite players come into the NHL post lockout, they came in on a high scoring league that was well on its way to decreasing already, but they were still able to produce throughout those downtrending years of scoring. To me, it suggests quality of talent coming in likely has no significant influence on actual league scoring tendencies but rather other extenuating factors such as rule changes, expansions, and game philosophies.

Right now, it seems that the opposite is happening, in which at least in my opinion anyway, the overall quality of talent in the league has been diluted coupled with weaker talent coming in, but that scoring in general is the highest it’s been in 35 years, as a result of other factors.

I don’t think there’s really concrete data that can show us this, it’s all very much subjective, and I do see your perspective as well. There are so many variables that come into play. We know scoring is up but weaker talent is coming in but is it due to quality of competition or completey isolated? I’ll look into McCollum’s data further. He could very well be onto something.

I agree that the fluctuations in scoring are far more to do with league-wide trends (play style, stick technology/usage, rule changes, etc.) than individual player talent entering the league. A single player, even one like McDavid or Matthews, isn't going to affect league-wide scoring that much. And vice-versa for a weaker player.

Which is why I find it very compelling and interesting that despite a generally high scoring era, new prospects are on average scoring less than before. McCallum's data suggests that the NHL is a tougher league now, relative to the typical feeder leagues (i.e. Junior, college, European pro).

He's written a master's thesis on prospect analysis, though not this topic in particular. He is just looking into this now.

 

[andora]

I agree that the fluctuations in scoring are far more to do with league-wide trends (play style, stick technology/usage, rule changes, etc.) than individual player talent entering the league. A single player, even one like McDavid or Matthews, isn't going to affect league-wide scoring that much. And vice-versa for a weaker player.

Which is why I find it very compelling and interesting that despite a generally high scoring era, new prospects are on average scoring less than before. McCallum's data suggests that the NHL is a tougher league now, relative to the typical feeder leagues (i.e. Junior, college, European pro).

He's written a master's thesis on prospect analysis, though not this topic in particular. He is just looking into this now.

I mean simply speculation on my part but i wonder how much conditioning is a part of it and things like physical routine and travel

And then the mental effect of all that

 

[bossram]

I mean simply speculation on my part but i wonder how much conditioning is a part of it and things like physical routine and travel

And then the mental effect of all that

Like whether prospects are worse conditioned before? Or travel is worse? I'm not sure those things would be substantially different.

 

[ChilliBilly]

You can always be the change you want to see.

What are your thoughts on our prospects? Who's stock has risen in your estimation? Who might be trade bait if we make another move?

Well this may be repetitive, but, do not trade Willander or Lekkerimaki unless its for an absolute steal. We can't sign all of our RFA;s or UFA's as it is. I had no trouble with trading our 1st this year, as it is going to be a late one. We shall see how Lindholm works out. If he ends up being a rental, I thought the price we paid was a tad high. Will he be the difference between a contender and a cup? Who will ever know for sure.

Still high on EP2 and think Podz should get a shot with the daddy Canucks. Curious about Bains, and whether or not his skill set will translate to the NHL level.

Was high on Alriksson (for his draft position), think he needs some snarl, but he hasn't done much recently. I could blither on for another page or two, but I hate extended posts by others so I try not to do it myself.

Edit - Raty might be worthwhile ... like Bains curious as to whether he can play at the NHL level. I am afraid he just might not have the determination to play at the next level.

 

[andora]

Like whether prospects are worse conditioned before? Or travel is worse? I'm not sure those things would be substantially different.

Yep me not being clear enough.. my MO

Maybe adapting to it is what is harder. Conditioning travel and the expectations

As an aside i would wonder if there is a correlation between coaching and production (i mean i am confident there is) but basically the mean in which all kids score at and look at anyone under and their coach versus anyone over and their coach

Add that to my list of unpaid projects to do but womt

 

[RobsonStreet]

I agree that the fluctuations in scoring are far more to do with league-wide trends (play style, stick technology/usage, rule changes, etc.) than individual player talent entering the league. A single player, even one like McDavid or Matthews, isn't going to affect league-wide scoring that much. And vice-versa for a weaker player.

Which is why I find it very compelling and interesting that despite a generally high scoring era, new prospects are on average scoring less than before. McCallum's data suggests that the NHL is a tougher league now, relative to the typical feeder leagues (i.e. Junior, college, European pro).

He's written a master's thesis on prospect analysis, though not this topic in particular. He is just looking into this now.

Do you happen to know if he’s using points per game or per 60 as his measure? I wonder if rookies are simply getting less icetime on average.

A considerable number of young players struggle to defend (especially kids out of the CHL) and seem to take awhile to internalize systems. Maybe this a byproduct of better coaching holding young players to a higher standard and/or sheltering.

Edit: also, it’s been awhile since I’ve looked at this but the more fluctuations in NHL scoring rate are driven by changes in powerplay scoring (more power plays or more effective power plays), the less you would expect this to impact rookies that rarely get first unit minutes. I can’t recall how much the scoring boom we are in is even strength or special teams driven.

 

[MS]

Are you forgetting the Holden, Ference years? Not that your point doesn't stand, but that was bleak.

It’s not even close.

In 1997 the team had Ohlund/Scatchard/Cooke/Schaefer/Sopel/Druken/Muckalt etc. in the system plus guys like Ference and Holden were still good prospects even if they didn’t make it.

By 1998 Ohlund and Scatchard had graduated but you add Allen and Ruutu.

The prospect pool in December 2021 might not include a single player who goes on to play 50 NHL games. It was staggeringly bad.

As a sidenote, right now Benning’s last two (post-Brackett) drafts don’t have a single NHL game played from the lot. And there aren’t a lot of guys left with a good chance of playing games.

There have been 0 GP drafts before but I believe this would be the first case in NHL history where this happened for a team in consecutive drafts.

 

[Vector]

The prospect pool in December 2021 might not include a single player who goes on to play 50 NHL games. It was staggeringly bad.

As a sidenote, right now Benning’s last two (post-Brackett) drafts don’t have a single NHL game played from the lot. And there aren’t a lot of guys left with a good chance of playing games.

There have been 0 GP drafts before but I believe this would be the first case in NHL history where this happened for a team in consecutive drafts.

Only one guy from both those drafts is even signed to an ELC (Klimovich) and another is on an AHL contract (Zlodeev). Only three other guys from both those drafts have a credible chance of getting a contract (Myrenberg, Truscott, and Jurmo) and only Truscott is guaranteed to get a contract. Canucks have had some bad drafts in the past (2010, 2007, 2002, and 2000 jump out) but nothing back-to-back like this. If Truscott gets into some games it'll be more of a footnote rather than historically terrible, though.

 

[Ernie]

There have been 0 GP drafts before but I believe this would be the first case in NHL history where this happened for a team in consecutive drafts.

In fairness these were the draft picks available over those two drafts:

1 x 2nd round (Danila Klimovich)
1 x 3rd round (Joni Jurmo)
1 x 4th round
3 x 5th round
3 x 6th round
2 x 7th round

The bigger story is Benning trading away 2 1sts, a 2nd, and a 3rd over those two drafts.

 

[krutovsdonut]

At the point where Benning was fired, our system/prospect pool was the worst that it had been in any point in franchise history. And by a fair margin, at that.

this is the most gillis bro take in history.

 

[bossram]

Do you happen to know if he’s using points per game or per 60 as his measure? I wonder if rookies are simply getting less icetime on average.

A considerable number of young players struggle to defend (especially kids out of the CHL) and seem to take awhile to internalize systems. Maybe this a byproduct of better coaching holding young players to a higher standard and/or sheltering.

Edit: also, it’s been awhile since I’ve looked at this but the more fluctuations in NHL scoring rate are driven by changes in powerplay scoring (more power plays or more effective power plays), the less you would expect this to impact rookies that rarely get first unit minutes. I can’t recall how much the scoring boom we are in is even strength or special teams driven.

Points are his dependent variables. Basically what he's finding is that scoring from a feeder league is not "worth" the same as it was before. Like based on NHLe, a guy scoring 1.5 PPG in junior on average scores X points/game in his first year, whereas now that average is lower.

Points/60 would be a better measure, but given that he's looking at all players entering the NHL, unless there is a league-wide push to play rookies less than before, I think the TOI argument would get washed out. If it were a few players in particular, this would make sense to me.

Regarding PPs, I am pretty sure I have seen the year-over-year data showing that G/GP on the PP haven't changed much in recent years, and the increase is mostly 5v5.

 

[ihaveyuidonttouchme]

Only one guy from both those drafts is even signed to an ELC (Klimovich) and another is on an AHL contract (Zlodeev). Only three other guys from both those drafts have a credible chance of getting a contract (Myrenberg, Truscott, and Jurmo) and only Truscott is guaranteed to get a contract. Canucks have had some bad drafts in the past (2010, 2007, 2002, and 2000 jump out) but nothing back-to-back like this. If Truscott gets into some games it'll be more of a footnote rather than historically terrible, though.

I remember some of them most late rounds from '19, '20, and '21 going straight to busting at D+2 hell even at D+1, and either never making it to the pro level or barely reaching pro level.

My interest got back up for 2022, and 2023 looked significantly more interesting

 

[Vector]

 

[M2Beezy]

It’s not even close.

In 1997 the team had Ohlund/Scatchard/Cooke/Schaefer/Sopel/Druken/Muckalt etc. in the system plus guys like Ference and Holden were still good prospects even if they didn’t make it.

By 1998 Ohlund and Scatchard had graduated but you add Allen and Ruutu.

The prospect pool in December 2021 might not include a single player who goes on to play 50 NHL games. It was staggeringly bad.

As a sidenote, right now Benning’s last two (post-Brackett) drafts don’t have a single NHL game played from the lot. And there aren’t a lot of guys left with a good chance of playing games.

There have been 0 GP drafts before but I believe this would be the first case in NHL history where this happened for a team in consecutive drafts.

Such a punch in the stomach of the fans as those years the team was just so bad and to top it off, like ya said, the prospect pool was at the lowest point. Bennings destruction of the team was so deep and longlasting (ie OEL)

 

[iceburg]

this is the most gillis bro take in history.

Just cause the sky is blue doesn't mean it's made of blueberries...

The prospect pool after EP (D+4 year) and Hughes (D+3 year) had graduated was colossally bad. It's arguable that it's the worst. The pre-Horvat pool was also horrible and it's arguable that it was the worst. Our great hope was a 5th round small defenseman who really hadn't been tested in the pro ranks. We were reaching.

But as I say so many times, context is important. From the West Coast express through the Kesler/Burrows/Sedin prime years, they were a top team and had only 1 top 10 pick between 1999 and 2013 (2008 Hodgson). I'm ignoring the 2005 draft for obvious reasons.
From 2014 to 2019 they had 5 top 10 picks. It should have been easy to build the prospect depth even with two graduating. The only reason they had any good young players is because they were such a terrible team.

From 2004 to 2012 the focus should have been on bringing in established pro players to complement already great teams. From 2013 to 2021 the focus should have been on building the prospect pool. When that context is taken into account there really is no contest in terms of what the prospect pools should have been.

It really feels like we're going over old ground here. But the facts don't change.

 

[sting101]

Yes because using picks to get Miller and Toffoli was the same as Gillis blowing his draft capital plus Grabner for Ballard Bernier Alberts Jordan Schroeder and Nick Jensen from 2009 to 2011

Oh and Hoglander plus Podkolzin isn't the worst considering they still are growing into decent players.

Tough call Miller Hoglander Podkolzin Toffoli 2019 to 2021 vs Ballard Bernier Alberts Schroeder Jensen 2009 to 2011 lol.

Lets be real here