Prospect Info: The Prospect Thread (Part XXXIV)

[vancityluongo]

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.

Although MS' explanation above seems sound, I'll concede that there can be situations as you describe. But more often than not the best player rule applies, and certainly in the context of prospects it becomes more clear because we're comparing superstars to players that will mostly amount to be fringe NHLers.

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.

In the season after the trade, 1992-93, this is what things looked like:

Lindros - 41G, 34A, 75P
Ricci - 27G, 51A, 78P
Duchesne - 20G, 62A, 82P
Hextall - 29-16-5, .888sv% (at a time when league average was .885)

So yes, for a time Colorado did okay even without Forsberg included. But just because they got good value at first doesn't mean that they got full value over Lindros' career (including the 115 point season in '96) without taking into consideration Forsberg's career and the 116 points he had that year. Forsberg is still the instrumental piece to that trade. You also ignored that I'm referring to middle of the roster players when calling out "quantity." Yes, trading a top player for a really good center, a starting goalie, and a PPG defenseman is not a bad haul without the other top player included.

 

[drax0s]

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

Wonder what you'd have thought of early Steve Yzerman. Connoly pick was terrible with some stars picked right after. Koekkoek picked right before Forsberg. Brewer contract was terrible. Purcell contract looked very bad. Carle contract turned out bad too.

I'm pretty sure you're a big fan of Yzerman now too.

 

[Pavel96]

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?

I'm not talking about hiring/firing. That is more complicated and usually couldn't come down to one mistake (especially on a 6th to 10th pick - if you blundered say a 1st overall, by passing up on a McDavid or trading that pick- than yes). I was responding to the appearance of our prospect pool and how it "looks good". When you look at a collection of a team's draft picks- the 1st round selections, especially as they get closer to #1, hold incredibly more value than a later round pick. This can be seen with players like our beloved Guddy - his draft 'pedigree' artificially increases his trade value (this depreciates as he gets older).

When you assess what should be 2/3rds of the most valuable part ("best looking") of the collection - they are relatively worthless when compared to assets we could have selected (I am referring to their trade value as compared to Ehlers or Nylander and same for Juolevi as compared to Thakchuk or Sergachev- if you were to trade any of these players today, not in the 'magical future'). When 2/3rds of your prime assets are severely undervalued due to your decisions that does not look good in any way- Even if the less important things look above average.

 

[Pavel96]

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.

There is so much talk about the Boesers, the Gaudettes, The Virtanens, the Dahlens etc etc. It's like sure we have some decent looking prospects - how could we not? We have drafted top 6 for the last 3 /4 years ? And we have a management group that came in promising to stockpile draft picks etc (well not to take shortcuts - which obv didn't happen). But as you said you can look at the numbers this is simply an old team and the trades they have made speak for themselves as they always bleed draft picks and acquire an older player.

It's a lot of fun to read scouting reports and watch stats these guys usually put up as overage players in leagues they are veterans in and get excited penciling them in to future lineup projections that are 90% drafted players at key positions (which will never happen). I remember when Cole Cassells was penciled in to everyone's 3rd or second future lineup. Virtanen was on the first line then etc etc.

 

[Master Radishes]

It's a lot of fun to read scouting reports and watch stats these guys usually put up as overage players in leagues they are veterans in and get excited penciling them in to future lineup projections that are 90% drafted players at key positions (which will never happen). I remember when Cole Cassells was penciled in to everyone's 3rd or second future lineup. Virtanen was on the first line then etc etc.

Sergei Shirokov is going to tear this league wide open alongside Jordan Schroeder, and that Frankie Corrado kid is going to anchor our blueline for years to come beside Kevin Connauton.

 

[Pavel96]

Sergei Shirokov is going to tear this league wide open alongside Jordan Schroeder, and that Frankie Corrado kid is going to anchor our blueline for years to come beside Kevin Connauton.

Unlike Patrick White. . .

 

[Brock Boeser Laser Show]

Gaudette and lockwood with goals in the 1st or their respective games.

 

[VanJack]

There is so much talk about the Boesers, the Gaudettes, The Virtanens, the Dahlens etc etc. It's like sure we have some decent looking prospects - how could we not? We have drafted top 6 for the last 3 /4 years ? And we have a management group that came in promising to stockpile draft picks etc (well not to take shortcuts - which obv didn't happen). But as you said you can look at the numbers this is simply an old team and the trades they have made speak for themselves as they always bleed draft picks and acquire an older player.

It's a lot of fun to read scouting reports and watch stats these guys usually put up as overage players in leagues they are veterans in and get excited penciling them in to future lineup projections that are 90% drafted players at key positions (which will never happen). I remember when Cole Cassells was penciled in to everyone's 3rd or second future lineup. Virtanen was on the first line then etc etc.

Actually, where the Canucks drafted in the first round doesn't have much to do with their prospect pool and that's what it makes it so intriguing...Gaudette (5th round); DiPietro (5th round) Lockwood (third round); Tryamkin (3rd round) Demko, Lind and Gadjovich (second round); Dahlen and Goldobin (trades)...even kids like Chatfield and Brisebois were the equivalent of late round picks.......so drafting in the top-10 really hasn't had a lot to do with the building of the prospect pool.

 

[Pip]

Lind is a high second which you don't get unless you finish low. Plus Goldobin + Dahlen from trades that only a rebuilding team makes. Regardless, without Pettersson, our prospect pool is pretty pedestrian considering how poor we've been over the past few years. Most other teams also have a glut of B/C level prospects that are preforming well in Junior/College/overseas. Gaudette does look like a potential steal though.

 

[Ryan Miller*]

Lind is a high second which you don't get unless you finish low. Plus Goldobin + Dahlen from trades that only a rebuilding team makes. Regardless, without Pettersson, our prospect pool is pretty pedestrian considering how poor we've been over the past few years. Most other teams also have a glut of B/C level prospects that are preforming well in Junior/College/overseas. Gaudette does look like a potential steal though.

This stuff is hard to make up.

Remove our top prospect and our prospect pool looks pedestrian. Incredible analysis. Can you do all the other 30 teams now?

 

[xtra]

It's the lesson of cole cassels....players may look great in juniors and college but until they show it in the pros you need to temper expectations.

Peterson doing what he's doing in the SHL is amazing and someone to get excited about. Penciling Gaudette into a second line spot based on college is going a bit far.

 

[CanaFan]

Actually, where the Canucks drafted in the first round doesn't have much to do with their prospect pool and that's what it makes it so intriguing...Gaudette (5th round); DiPietro (5th round) Lockwood (third round); Tryamkin (3rd round) Demko, Lind and Gadjovich (second round); Dahlen and Goldobin (trades)...even kids like Chatfield and Brisebois were the equivalent of late round picks.......so drafting in the top-10 really hasn't had a lot to do with the building of the prospect pool.

Except without Pettersson and to a lesser degree, Juolevi our prospect pool isn’t anything special. Gaudette, Demko, and Dahlen are probably the only top 100 prospects on that list.

 

[Zombotron]

A five-point game from Pettersson and now a hat-trick for Gaudette. It's been a good two day-stretch.

 

[Pavel96]

Actually, where the Canucks drafted in the first round doesn't have much to do with their prospect pool and that's what it makes it so intriguing...Gaudette (5th round); DiPietro (5th round) Lockwood (third round); Tryamkin (3rd round) Demko, Lind and Gadjovich (second round); Dahlen and Goldobin (trades)...even kids like Chatfield and Brisebois were the equivalent of late round picks.......so drafting in the top-10 really hasn't had a lot to do with the building of the prospect pool.

Where the Canucks drafted in the first round for the last 3/4 years definitely affects the potential their prospect pool should have. A team like Edmonton- with all of those high first round picks has a higher expectation/potential to have successful picks (that produce in NHL) than a team that always is in the playoffs - as the loser teams draft picks are worth more and should have a higher return - looking 'better'.

In this case it doesn't appear to have reached anywhere near it's potential - which doesn't look good to me.

 

[Pavel96]

A five-point game from Pettersson and now a hat-trick for Gaudette. It's been a good two day-stretch.

Wooo- are they going to be Gretzky and Messier or Lemieux and Jagr?

 

[M2Beezy]

Wooo- are they going to be Gretzky and Messier or Lemieux and Jagr?

Maybe better

Gaudette to Pettersson

OR

Pettersson to Gaudette

 

[David Bruce Banner]

Sergei Shirokov is going to tear this league wide open alongside Jordan Schroeder, and that Frankie Corrado kid is going to anchor our blueline for years to come beside Kevin Connauton.

Sorry, I know, we're wrong to be hopeful...

 

[Shareefruck]

It's very disingenuous to frame the Lindros trade as a quality for quantity trade where quantity ends up winning. If you had traded Lindros straight up for Forsberg at the time, it would have ended up being a win anyways, due to the circumstances that ended up hindering Lindros.

 

[drax0s]

It's very disingenuous to frame the Lindros trade as a quality for quantity trade where quantity ends up winning. If you had traded Lindros straight up for Forsberg at the time, it would have ended up being a win anyways, due to the circumstances that ended up hindering Lindros.

I'm sorry, what? How is that disingenuous. Lindros was the #1 overall pick and was absolutely the best player in the trade when it was made. He was traded for an absolute HAUL of players, prospects and picks.

That is the definition of a quality for quantity trade.

 

[VanJack]

Except without Pettersson and to a lesser degree, Juolevi our prospect pool isn’t anything special. Gaudette, Demko, and Dahlen are probably the only top 100 prospects on that list.

The really impressive thing is that while the debate rages about whether Pettersson, Juolevi and Virtanen will be impact players in the NHL, the rest of the Canucks prospect pool is beasting it.

Gaudette; Lockwood; DiPietro; Gadjobvich; Lind; Tryamkin, Demko and Tryamkin look they'll be NHL players....and let's not forget that they were able to trade two other first rounders Shinkaruk and McCann for immediate roster help....and Boeser/Horvat still look like impact NHL players in the making..and still not even 23.

I know Jimbo gets regularly flamed on these boards......but most scouting services have the Canucks solidly in the top-10 of NHL prospect pools.

 

[CanaFan]

The really impressive thing is that while the debate rages about whether Pettersson, Juolevi and Virtanen will be impact players in the NHL, the rest of the Canucks prospect pool is beasting it.

Gaudette; Lockwood; DiPietro; Gadjobvich; Lind; Tryamkin, Demko and Tryamkin look they'll be NHL players....and let's not forget that they were able to trade two other first rounders Shinkaruk and McCann for immediate roster help....and Boeser/Horvat still look like impact NHL players in the making..and still not even 23.

I know Jimbo gets regularly flamed on these boards......but most scouting services have the Canucks solidly in the top-10 of NHL prospect pools.

Gaudette yes
Lockwood, who knows
Lind 50/50
Dipietro who knows
Gadjovich who knows

You have to keep in mind LOTS of players do well in jr or college ranks and still don’t become NHLers. Esp right after a draft (before pro) is when it looks like everyone has an NHL future.

It’s a good pool no doubt but don’t overrate the odds that every player will pan out. Many very good prospects never do.

 

[Catamarca Livin]

A five-point game from Pettersson and now a hat-trick for Gaudette. It's been a good two day-stretch.

3 point game for OJ as well in his last game. Too much hapiness hard to compute.

 

[ChilliBilly]

The really impressive thing is that while the debate rages about whether Pettersson, Juolevi and Virtanen will be impact players in the NHL, the rest of the Canucks prospect pool is beasting it.

Gaudette; Lockwood; DiPietro; Gadjobvich; Lind; Tryamkin, Demko and Tryamkin look they'll be NHL players....and let's not forget that they were able to trade two other first rounders Shinkaruk and McCann for immediate roster help....and Boeser/Horvat still look like impact NHL players in the making..and still not even 23.

I know Jimbo gets regularly flamed on these boards......but most scouting services have the Canucks solidly in the top-10 of NHL prospect pools.

I think you should have only mentioned Tryamkin once, since he bolted.

However We are probably looking at the best bunch in history.

We could see Pettersson, Juolevi, Gaudette, Virtanen, Gadjovich, Demko, Lind, Boeser, Horvat, "Tryamkin" .... and my fave Palmu all being starters in 2 - 3 years.

 

[Paulinvancouver]

I think you should have only mentioned Tryamkin once, since he bolted.

However We are probably looking at the best bunch in history.

We could see Pettersson, Juolevi, Gaudette, Virtanen, Gadjovich, Demko, Lind, Boeser, Horvat, "Tryamkin" .... and my fave Palmu all being starters in 2 - 3 years.

Yes, we may have the best prospect cupboard in Canucks history atm but when he started this job we had Nick Jensen.

 

[FOurteenS inCisOr]

Yes, we may have the best prospect cupboard in Canucks history atm but when he started this job we had Nick Jensen.

And Bo Horvat, and Ben Hutton, not to mention quality young free agent signings like Tanev and Lack.

And a better team...