Prospect Info: The Prospect Thread (Part XXXIV)

[Pavel96]

Well ya they should. The fact that they don’t is why their rebuild is widely considered one of the most mismanaged in recent history.

Look I’m not saying we haven’t made some good looking picks - I’ve said Gaudette and Tryamkin, while Dipietro looks very promising and Pettersson looks to be a great pick even for a #5. I’m just trying to point out that this “wow can you recall when our prospect pool looked THIS good” needs to be viewed in the appropriate context. Some of it is some astute picks, but a part of it is also the result of 3 bottom six finishes (2 of which were under Benning’s stewardship).

What I can't understand is how anyone can talk about how "good our prospect pool looks" when based on draft position two of our top 3 picks have been obvious failures (if the result is to 'look good' as players chosen right after them have looked remarkably/undeniably better).

 

[krutovsdonut]

A middle-6 winger, middle-6 center, starting goalie, second pairing defenseman and third pairing defenseman just doesn't land a star player. You need elite or close to elite pieces. Thought about in terms of players who were actually traded, none of Taylor Hall, PK Subban, Seth Jones, Shea Weber or Ryan Johansen could have been acquired for that above package. Ehlers/Nylander alone gets you damn close to all but Subban.

well it should. i'd make a trade like that if the players i was getting were young and i had caproom to play them and i liked them. the "quality over quantity" thing is way over rated today. the best trade we ever made in terms of impact on a team was the butcher trade. we gave up the best player and won the trade hands down by a country mile. ditto for for linden for bertuzzi/mccabe. those are two of the most lopsided trades in history.

and according to the main board, forsling is now top 4 in chicago. allegedly.

 

[krutovsdonut]

What I can't understand is how anyone can talk about how "good our prospect pool looks" when based on draft position two of our top 3 picks have been obvious failures (if the result is to 'look good' as players chosen right after them have looked remarkably/undeniably better).

well for one thing those two are not obvious failures. they're still in the mix.

the reality is our prospect pool is as good as it has ever looked right now. even tertiary pieces like dipietro are making noise.

it may ultimately not amount to much, but it is all you could reasonably hope for and more right now.

 

[drax0s]

No, because quality > quantity, always.

I dunno, that Lindros trade worked out okay for the Avalanche.

 

[Jevo]

I dunno, that Lindros trade worked out okay for the Avalanche.

Avalanche got plenty of quality in that deal, including Forsberg, one of the best young players in the world.

 

[krutovsdonut]

Avalanche got plenty of quality in that deal, including Forsberg, one of the best young players in the world.

but lindros was the best player in the trade. and forsberg was only meeting expectations for a 6th overall pick in the shl. nothing to get excited about.

 

[drax0s]

Avalanche got plenty of quality in that deal, including Forsberg, one of the best young players in the world.

Who at the time was in his D+1 season. At the time, Lindros was the best player in the deal.

Sometimes quantity turns out to actually have quality.

 

[Dab]

What I can't understand is how anyone can talk about how "good our prospect pool looks" when based on draft position two of our top 3 picks have been obvious failures (if the result is to 'look good' as players chosen right after them have looked remarkably/undeniably better).

I can’t remember the last time a canucks team had this many contributions from young players. I can’t recall being this excited by our prospect pool either, and I’ve been a fan since as long as I can remember.

 

[sandwichbird2023]

Let me start off by saying that I'm very excited and happy with most of the prospects this season. It's great to have prospect meeting or exceeding expectations, and I hope it continues into the pros and ultimately the NHL.
However this whole "we have the best prospect pool in a long time, therefore Benning is doing a good job" narrative is non-sensical to me. The oilers had a great prospect pool during the Lowe era too. In fact those guys were dominating the AHL (a pro league), but nobody ever claim Lowe was a good GM. Everybody knows that they were rewarded with those prospect due to their incompetency. Same thing with almost every team with a "deep prospect pool" those are usually due to incompetent management (mid 90s islanders, early 2000 hawks, jets since their thrashers days, Panthers since forever). A select few had other problems (penguins and coyotes with the financial trouble, predators with their internal cap). Only a very few was due to good management (leafs the last couple yrs, lightning since yzeramn took over).
I can't see how our current prospect pool (while good, isn't near where it SHOULD BE considering we had 3 top 10 picks in the last 4 drafts) can be used as an argument for Benning.

 

[Red]

Dahlen with a OT goal today, his 4th.

 

[Ryan Miller*]

People aren't just excited about top-10 picks though, in terms of our prospect pool.

They're excited about Boeser, Dahlen, Goldobin, Gaudette, Demko, Lind, Lockwood, Palmu, DiPietro, etc.

 

[vancityluongo]

well it should. i'd make a trade like that if the players i was getting were young and i had caproom to play them and i liked them. the "quality over quantity" thing is way over rated today. the best trade we ever made in terms of impact on a team was the butcher trade. we gave up the best player and won the trade hands down by a country mile. ditto for for linden for bertuzzi/mccabe. those are two of the most lopsided trades in history.

and according to the main board, forsling is now top 4 in chicago. allegedly.

I'm too young to know first hand about the Butcher trade in detail, but the Linden trade worked out because of what Bertuzzi ended up becoming.

If we went through all of the lopsided trades in history, the winner got what ended up being the best player in the deal. I honestly can't think of a single trade where the best player in the deal was traded (and continued to be the best player in the trade for a reasonable window of time) for multiple slightly lesser pieces and the latter party didn't outright lose. Maybe a deadline deal?

I dunno, that Lindros trade worked out okay for the Avalanche.

Yeah, only because of Forsberg. No different than if Demko was part of the imaginary Ehlers package we are talking about and then became Cory Schneider 2.0.

I think a big part of why we look positively on the "5 players" is because the NHL has a culture of being a team sport and not being a superstar driven sport (and compared to the NBA or soccer it really isn't). But really, if we were to measure the actual impact of superstars vs average players, an 80 point center is just worth more than 2 40 point centers. Would anyone trade Claude Giroux for Kyle Wellwood and Sam Gagner? Of course not. Even if those two become 50 point centers, I don't think that constitutes a win...

This is getting away from prospects and more towards general valuation of players, which is more of a management topic, so we can just leave it for now. Main point here is that Pettersson is on track to reach that superstar level, which is terrific, but I'm not so sure there are (m)any others in the current prospect pool that can, which is what separates a good group from a terrific group. Boeser is on the verge of it. If one of Gaudette, Demko, Goldobin, Dahlen etc. can break out into that Boeser/Pettersson range, that really would be terrific. So based on that view, I would rather take one of those guys becoming a star and having the rest bust than all of them making the NHL but never becoming more than middle-6 forwards / middle-4 defenseman / 1b-2a goalies.

 

[krutovsdonut]

I'm too young to know first hand about the Butcher trade in detail, but the Linden trade worked out because of what Bertuzzi ended up becoming.

mccabe got us a sedin, so don't sell him short either. we traded 27 year old linden for two young guys who were projects with question-marks but upside. neither of them were expected to be as good as the guy we traded for them.

butcher was trading a top pair defensive dman in his prime (a better gudbranson) plus our best centre for four guys who with the possible exception of courtnall were not considered as good at their position at the time as either of the guys we traded, and of which the youngest was 26. the trade transformed us into a playoff team and cemented the 94 core.

this is just one team but we are talking about the best trades we ever made being the ones that contradict your rule. you should keep an open mind.

 

[604]

I dunno, that Lindros trade worked out okay for the Avalanche.

That's because Forsberg was the real quality in the deal.

 

[krutovsdonut]

Yeah, only because of Forsberg. No different than if Demko was part of the imaginary Ehlers package we are talking about and then became Cory Schneider 2.0.

again no. ricci, chris simon, duchene were great players and hextall was still good. they drafted thibeault with the draft pick. they turned hextall into a first round pick who was adam deadmarsh. if you dig deeper, they got more as well, but that's enough.

sometimes quantity outweighs quality.

 

[drax0s]

That's because Forsberg was the real quality in the deal.

In hindsight, yes. At the time, Lindros was the best player.

 

[MS]

mccabe got us a sedin, so don't sell him short either. we traded 27 year old linden for two young guys who were projects with question-marks but upside. neither of them were expected to be as good as the guy we traded for them.

butcher was trading a top pair defensive dman in his prime (a better gudbranson) plus our best centre for four guys who with the possible exception of courtnall were not considered as good at their position at the time as either of the guys we traded, and of which the youngest was 26. the trade transformed us into a playoff team and cemented the 94 core.

this is just one team but we are talking about the best trades we ever made being the ones that contradict your rule. you should keep an open mind.

People *perceived* that we traded the best player in the Linden deal because of his reputation but in actual fact he was a player whose skating ability had deserted him and was in steep decline. The career-low production he'd shown in the season leading into the trade would continue elsewhere, and McCabe was probably actually the best player in the deal on the day that trade was made. Bertuzzi would pass Linden almost immediately as well.

Same with Butcher - he was a player perceived as being good back when people somehow equated hurting your team by taking lots of penalties with being a better defenseman. Geoff Courtnall was the best player in that trade and we'd have won the deal even if it was 1-1 Butcher for Courtnall.

 

[krutovsdonut]

People *perceived* that we traded the best player in the Linden deal because of his reputation but in actual fact he was a player whose skating ability had deserted him and was in steep decline. The career-low production he'd shown in the season leading into the trade would continue elsewhere, and McCabe was probably actually the best player in the deal on the day that trade was made. Bertuzzi would pass Linden almost immediately as well.

Same with Butcher - he was a player perceived as being good back when people somehow equated hurting your team by taking lots of penalties with being a better defenseman. Geoff Courtnall was the best player in that trade and we'd have won the deal even if it was 1-1 Butcher for Courtnall.

not sure what to do with this. i don't agree but more importantly, nobody would have argued either of those propositions at the time of the trade. isn't the quality vs. quantity rule a real world rule based on current perceptions of the players who form part of the trade at the time of the trade?

 

[Bad Goalie]

Rodin turned 21 a month into his first year in the AHL.
http://www.eliteprospects.com/player.php?player=7084

My bad. Can't seem to count backwards. Seem to have Pettersson, Dahlen, A. Nylander, W. Nylander, Lilegren, and Rodin all rolled into one Swedish meatball.

 

[MS]

not sure what to do with this. i don't agree but more importantly, nobody would have argued either of those propositions at the time of the trade. isn't the quality vs. quantity rule a real world rule based on current perceptions of the players who form part of the trade at the time of the trade?

I'd argue it's based a lot more on ability that perception. I could give zero shits about what the 'perception' of a player is who we acquire. This is how bad deals like the Gudbranson trade get made.

If Montreal traded Shea Weber for Jaccob Slavin tomorrow, most casual fans would probably think Carolina won that trade because Weber has been a star for 10 years and they've never heard of Slavin ... but Slavin is the better player.

NYI thought they were getting a 70-80 point two-way power forward beast in Linden ... they actually got a 45-point slow, declining player, and if they'd pro scouted him well in the season leading up might have realized that. Even if it only became obvious in hindsight, he wasn't the best player in that deal at the time it was made and definitely not going forward.

 

[Pavel96]

well for one thing those two are not obvious failures. they're still in the mix.

the reality is our prospect pool is as good as it has ever looked right now. even tertiary pieces like dipietro are making noise.

it may ultimately not amount to much, but it is all you could reasonably hope for and more right now.

Jake Virtanen is obviously not "in the mix" to be in the same ballpark as Nylander and Ehlers. In about a year the same can be confirmed about Joelevi. What are they in the mix for? To simply stick it as NHL players? How can it be 'all we could hope for' when it would have been tremendously easy for Benning to have gone to 95% of the draft boards and selected a player that is already performing as a first line/borderline all star player, instead of one of the guys that apparently are still in the mix. Again would you take Tkachuck and Nylander over the entire mixed bag of prospects (Dipietro, Lind, Gaudette, Trymikan, etc)? I'm thinking two young 'almost all stars' over a bunch of 'maybes' any day.

When you select a player 6th overall, and players chosen right after him are already first line players, and you grasp at things like - he could look really good on 3rd or 2nd line in a few years if everything goes perfect now - it is a failure of a pick - especially from a "looking good"/public perception point of view. I am not saying he is a failure as a human being etc etc.

 

[Pavel96]

I can’t remember the last time a canucks team had this many contributions from young players. I can’t recall being this excited by our prospect pool either, and I’ve been a fan since as long as I can remember.

Is it possible that marketing and media are playing a huge role in that?

 

[MS]

Is it possible that marketing and media are playing a huge role in that?

It is interesting, isn't it?

In conversations with a couple friends who are casual fans, the notion that they're 'just happy the kids are doing so well' has come up, and it's like people don't realize this team has only 3 under-23 players on their roster which is one of the lowest totals in the league. And two of those players have been healthy scratches this year already. And only one rookie.

Leaving aside the prospect pool, this is not a young team (I believe 16th-youngest in the NHL) on the ice right now and other than the Baertschi-Horvat-Boeser line there are very few young players contributing. And Baertschi is 25.

The marketing department here has done a great job of convincing people that this is a great young team ... and it really isn't. It's an old team trying to scrape into the playoffs.

 

[drax0s]

When you select a player 6th overall, and players chosen right after him are already first line players, and you grasp at things like - he could look really good on 3rd or 2nd line in a few years if everything goes perfect now - it is a failure of a pick - especially from a "looking good"/public perception point of view. I am not saying he is a failure as a human being etc etc.

So would you say a GM whiffing on a 6th, or even say a 10th overall pick and having players drafted after those picks become superstars should result in said GM being fired and prevented from ever becoming a GM of a NHL team?

 

[MS]

So would you say a GM whiffing on a 6th, or even say a 10th overall pick and having players drafted after those picks become superstars should result in said GM being fired and prevented from ever becoming a GM of a NHL team?

When it happens multiple times in combination with the GM doing virtually every other aspect of his job terribly, yes.