The Prospects Thread XXIII - Stats, Lists in OP

[Pip]

I need someone to put together a compelling argument as to why Jensen is a write off. The guy scores goals at every pro level he's played at, he hasn't been given a legit NHL shot yet. He's 21 and to me he seems like a classic case of a player who plays better when he is surrounded by better players. He's a sniper, for that type of player that is fairly common.

So why is he a write off? I still see him as a prospect who has a high chance of carving out an NHL career based on his size and elite shot alone.

Except Jensen can't produce at the AHL level

 

[MS]

Except Jensen can't produce at the AHL level

And has a lousy defensive/all-around game.

 

[vanuck]

Yeah, I guess one positive thing about Virtanen is that with his size and skating, it's a pretty good bet he'll play in the NHL no matter how the rest of his game pans out. Even without high-end offense, he could still be a useful Raffi Torres-like energy player. It's just that getting a slightly better Raffi Torres would be a disappointing result for a #6 pick. Hopefully he turns into something more.

It'd be disappointing indeed if that were the case. You can get Torres types for free in UFA.

 

[CanaFan]

It'd be disappointing indeed if that were the case. You can get Torres types for free in UFA.

Well technically any player who doesn't fulfill his potential will be disappointing. The point is that at least he'll have *some* value rather than be completely out of the league.

 

[vanuck]

Well technically any player who doesn't fulfill his potential will be disappointing. The point is that at least he'll have *some* value rather than be completely out of the league.

Yeah, it's the "high floor" that also appeals to GM's. A safety net if you will. Only problem is that floor isn't all that hard to replace either in free agency. I believe I touched on this in the Baertschi thread but it's not hard to sign depth players to fill out your 3rd/4th lines (for cheap too given how certain traits are over/under-valued by GM's) - it's top-level talent that's much harder to acquire.

I'm not trying to make a commentary about draft philosophy in here but I just disagree with the notion that a guy having a floor to fall back on makes a pick with possibly less-than-greatest-available upside (IMO) worthwhile nonetheless. The floor can be had for rather cheap.

Of course, I'm just talking about in general. In specifics, who knows...

 

[CanaFan]

Yeah, it's the "high floor" that also appeals to GM's. A safety net if you will. Only problem is that floor isn't all that hard to replace either in free agency. I believe I touched on this in the Baertschi thread but it's not hard to sign depth players to fill out your 3rd/4th lines (for cheap too given how certain traits are over/under-valued by GM's) - it's top-level talent that's much harder to acquire.

I'm not trying to make a commentary about draft philosophy in here but I just disagree with the notion that a guy having a floor to fall back on makes a pick with lesser upside worthwhile nonetheless. The floor can be had for rather cheap.

I don't disagree in principal, but it isn't as simple as that. Given that prospects at different rates and at different times, having that high floor gives a player like Jake a longer leash to stay in an NHL lineup until he finds his offensive game. If a player finds it at 20 or 21 then great but maybe it comes a bit later. In that case a player like Jordan Schroeder might be out of the league by 23 because he doesn't offer anything else. A guy like Jake gives the team another reason to keep him in the line up and possibly find his offense later on.

I agree that ceiling should be the team's priority when selecting a player but that floor can factor into the decision as well.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Yeah, it's the "high floor" that also appeals to GM's. A safety net if you will. Only problem is that floor isn't all that hard to replace either in free agency. I believe I touched on this in the Baertschi thread but it's not hard to sign depth players to fill out your 3rd/4th lines (for cheap too given how certain traits are over/under-valued by GM's) - it's top-level talent that's much harder to acquire.

I'm not trying to make a commentary about draft philosophy in here but I just disagree with the notion that a guy having a floor to fall back on makes a pick with possibly less-than-greatest-available upside (IMO) worthwhile nonetheless. The floor can be had for rather cheap.

Of course, I'm just talking about in general. In specifics, who knows...

It can be had for cheaper, but not in the same player. That value is within Virtanen right now as the fall back. So he provides the opportunity to reach a maximum while maintaining a minimum. Finding that floor in a matured asset is searching for that minimum alone.

The floor will buy him time. We can see this in practice right now with Shinkaruk and Horvat. Some were higher on Shinkaruk due to ultimate upside, but there's no question that Horvat has transitioned better, and that's key. It could mean the difference between career/no career. Never getting that foothold on a roster.

That said, as CanaFan points out, it's a factor in the decision, but not the determinant.

 

[Wilch]

It's a lot more complicated than a floor and ceiling argument. I think it would be more reasonable to assume GMs employ a more layered valuation.

E.g.
[Player Name]
[Overall Rating] [% Chance to hit Rating]

Shinkaruk
3% 95 (90+ point/season talent)
5% 90 (NHL all star)
7% 85 (top 6 player)
15% 75 (top 9 utility tweener)
70% 50 (AHL lifer/ECHL bound)

Horvat
5% 90 (NHL all star)
25% 85 (top 6 player)
30% 75 (top 9 tweener)
20% 70 (bottom 6 grinder/defensive specialist)
20% 50 (AHL lifer/ECHL bound)

If you multiply the odds & ratings, Shinkaruk gets 59.55, and Horvat scores a 72.25. Arbitrary numbers, I know, but just using it as an example for the sake of discussion.

Every GM/scout will have different assessment in the likelihood of players reaching a certain level in capabilities & value.

You take the player you think gives you the best chance considering the risk and reward to become a high value asset.

Obviously this is a simplified way of looking at it, but limiting the argument to floor & ceiling is oversimplifying the thought process.

It's not about picking the player with the highest ceiling, it's about picking the player with the highest odds of achieving a decent ceiling.

 

[WTG]

If it's so rare to find top end talent and "star players" why does Detroit find guys like Nyqvist and Pulkkinen in the later rounds? Is it just because Detroit scouts real well?

Not complaining I think we made out like bandits last couple drafts

Horvat, Shinkaruk, Virtanen, Cassels, McCann, Demko, Cassels, Subban, Tryamkin

But, A lot has to do we got 4 first rounders in the past 2 drafts.

My question is why can Detroit find these extremely talented guys but we get stuck with the Schroeders and the Mallets

 

[Pip]

Good scouting and good development. Getting our own AHL team I believe is a huge step forward. Now we just got to get rid of the mandate to get role players in the later rounds (Pettit, Stewart etc) and go for pure skill guys with high hockey IQs (size or skating issues).

At least, that's the way I would go about it. I mean, why draft a guy whose upside is someone you can sign in FA for cheap anyways? Go high reward later on.

Also, fire like the majority of our scouts, especially the ones in the Q.

I thought 2013 was a huge step forward philosophy wise. Getting guys like Subban with an elite skillset, Cassels who's an incredibly smart player and Liberati who was stuck behind a deep defense. Yeah Liberati isn't very good, but I think he was at least worth the gamble. Let's forget that Williamson happened.

2014 was a step back in my mind. The high picks were fine but the mid to lower picks troubled me. Not a huge fan of Tryamkin from what I've heard. I prefer to focus on hockey IQ instead of tools when it comes to defensemen. Pettit and Stewart were obviously terrible picks. Forsling was a fantastic pick though, and is something we need to build off of for the 2015 draft. I remember Gradin's commenting that defense can be taught and that the offensive skillset was what was targeted (paraphrasing).

I mean, it's still a crapshoot, but I think going skill over size/role guys gives us at least a chance at some home runs.

 

[WTG]

Yeah I guess.

I hope they let Gradin just draft anyone he wants in the later rounds (4-7). He got us Forsling and Edler. Hope Benning throws him a big bone.

 

[Pip]

Yeah I guess.

I hope they let Gradin just draft anyone he wants in the later rounds (4-7). He got us Forsling and Edler. Hope Benning throws him a big bone.

It should work that way, but of course what the scouts are looking for is determined by the general manager. What to focus on and emphasize.

I'm not sure how much influence he had over each picks obviously, but when he said that they filled some role spots or whatever after the draft it really pissed me off.

Hopefully the results speak for themselves

 

[StrictlyCommercial]

If it's so rare to find top end talent and "star players" why does Detroit find guys like Nyqvist and Pulkkinen in the later rounds? Is it just because Detroit scouts real well?

Not complaining I think we made out like bandits last couple drafts

Horvat, Shinkaruk, Virtanen, Cassels, McCann, Demko, Cassels, Subban, Tryamkin

But, A lot has to do we got 4 first rounders in the past 2 drafts.

My question is why can Detroit find these extremely talented guys but we get stuck with the Schroeders and the Mallets

Everyone and their dog knew about Pulkikinen. He just dropped because of his skating.

 

[604]

My question is why can Detroit find these extremely talented guys but we get stuck with the Schroeders and the Mallets

This is speculation but I believe that Detroit actually drafts more busts than we do...they just don't care because their hits are often enough home runs.

 

[vanuck]

@CanaFan, Bleach, Wilch: Yeah, they're all fair points. I think it just depends on your end goal at the draft: if you're looking to find the next group of core players to succeed the Twins you want guys with that top line potential. Of course, that's because I don't really see that many guys in our cupboard with that sort of potential already (YMMV). If you want to find players in general then you go BPA even if they're most likely to settle in as a 2nd liner - and I imagine it is somewhat like how Wilch did the expected probability for Horvat and Shinkaruk (interesting concept btw).

@LPH: I think Virtanen ultimately settles in as a 2nd line winger which is still good - don't get me wrong - it's just not what I would have been looking for under these circumstances with the Sedins aging and all. You can still find 2nd-liners in the 2nd round, but then that comes back to the problem of lacking picks and I won't get into that for now.

@Win tha game: I wouldn't expect to find stars like Pavelski and Zetterberg in the 7th or 8th round more often than in the first two rounds though, over the long run. Would you? Unless you're a drafting wizard, and I don't think we've ever seen a Canucks GM be that.

------

IMO it ultimately comes down to a matter of how you assess the current pool plus the team's short- and long-term outlook in terms of prospects.

Edit: if you think about it, it probably makes sense to shoot for the moon in 2015 and the next 2 or 3 years anyway. We all know that - short of signing equivalent top line forwards for similar cap hits in UFA, which I wouldn't bank on - this team is headed for a massive fall-off once the Sedins are gone. It would be in Benning's best interest to find high-upside forwards that can establish themselves quickly and keep this team competitive as the Twins decline. After all, Aquilini does want that playoff revenue year after year does he not? He's not in favour of a tank but it's probably going to happen nonetheless if they keep going in the same direction they have.

 

[vanuck]

Forgot to mention this on the weekend. Yes, Hutton and the entire Hockey East conference is done regular season play. Maine faces Vermont in Hockey East first round action starting tomorrow @ Vermont.

The ECAC also begins their playoffs tomorrow. That includes McNally (Harvard) if he's playing. Thatcher Demko's (Boston College) and Matt Beattie's (Yale) teams will automatically advance to the Quarterfinals in their respective conferences next weekend, March 13-15.

Labate (Wisconsin) and Williamson (Penn State) are still in the regular season

Thanks for this. Excited about the thought of Hutton potentially joining the Comets for their stretch drive.

I need someone to put together a compelling argument as to why Jensen is a write off. The guy scores goals at every pro level he's played at, he hasn't been given a legit NHL shot yet. He's 21 and to me he seems like a classic case of a player who plays better when he is surrounded by better players. He's a sniper, for that type of player that is fairly common.

So why is he a write off? I still see him as a prospect who has a high chance of carving out an NHL career based on his size and elite shot alone.

He's showed well possession-wise in his limited NHL stints so far which is always a reason for hope. I can see him carving out some sort of NHL career... just not the definite top 6 forward we thought he could be when we drafted him.

 

[WTG]

It would be great if we actually managed to get one of these steal picks in this years draft. Hopefully we do shoot for the moon with some of these later round picks.


One more question. If Hutton's team is out of the NCAA will he play in the AHL playoffs?

 

[vanuck]

It would be great if we actually managed to get one of these steal picks in this years draft. Hopefully we do shoot for the moon with some of these later round picks.


One more question. If Hutton's team is out of the NCAA will he play in the AHL playoffs?

I believe he can if he's signed to an AHL contract.

 

[Southern_Canuck]

Thu Mar 5

OHL

Belleville 1 North Bay 3
Subban did not play
Liberati 1 assist, +2

Sault Ste. Marie 6 Windsor 4
McCann 1 goal (33rd), +2

S_C

 

[SaintSinner]

Hockey News Future Watch 2015 is out online at Zinio. Canucks are 19th ranked team. 1.Jake Virtanen(15); 2.Thatcher Demko(46); 3.Jacob Markstrom(56); 4.Jared McCann(69); 5.Hunter Shinkaruk; 6.Nicklas Jensen; 7.Frank Corrado; 8.Adam Clendening; 9.Cole Cassels; 10.Nikita Tryamkin.

 

[PhilMick]

Did I seriously just read in the Hutton thread that McNally has applied to get another year at Harvard?

 

[drax0s]

If it's so rare to find top end talent and "star players" why does Detroit find guys like Nyqvist and Pulkkinen in the later rounds? Is it just because Detroit scouts real well?

My question is why can Detroit find these extremely talented guys but we get stuck with the Schroeders and the Mallets

No idea about Mallet, but maybe we give up on smaller, skilled prospects earlier than Detroit does? Nyqvist was always the undersized yet skilled forward and it looks like he'll stick at the NHL level at 25 years old after years bouncing between the AHL/NHL. The Canucks, however, cut bait with Schroeder at 23 who is only now showing signs he might? stick at the NHL level as a serviceable player a year later (6 pts in his last 10).

 

[Dissonance]

If it's so rare to find top end talent and "star players" why does Detroit find guys like Nyqvist and Pulkkinen in the later rounds? Is it just because Detroit scouts real well?

Detroit's head of European scouting, Hakan Andersson, really seems to have magic powers. Here's a good profile of him from 2008. There are some fascinating tidbits on his approach to scouting, though no doubt some of this is post hoc rationalization:

What makes Andersson so good?

The first thing he mentions -- and this cannot be overstated -- is that the Wings listen to him. If Andersson fights for a player on draft day, they usually draft the guy. Wings general manager Ken Holland and his assistant Jim Nill trust Andersson, and as Holland often says, "We don't judge players by their passports." Many other teams still do.

"I know one scout who tried to bring up Niklas Kronwall's name with his team," Andersson said. "They just laughed at him. They never even had a serious dialogue. They just stopped him. They said 'a 5-11 Swedish defenseman?' Our organization is more open-minded than that."

...

But it also helps that Holland, Nill, Andersson and the other scouts all share a philosophy. Generally speaking, they value skill over size.

"I hear people come in and watch these 18- and 19-year-olds and say 'Oh, he's not strong enough,' " Andersson said. "No 18-year-old is. I don't look at it that way."

Big 18-year-old players probably won't get a lot faster, but fast players have a chance to get a lot bigger. Plus, there are actually some advantages to being too small at 18. It seems counterintuitive.

But small players learn to fight for the puck. They have to be tough, or they can't play. And if they grow into NHL-sized players, they are suddenly scrappy and strong.

...

And that's another key to the Wings' success: They usually won't compromise on work ethic. It's too hard to make it in the NHL if you don't want it enough.

After the Wings drafted Kronwall, Andersson arranged to meet with him. Kronwall thought they would talk hockey; instead, Andersson took him to a grocery store, and they walked down every aisle together, with Andersson telling Kronwall what to eat if he wanted to be in top shape.

Lots of posters on these boards have mentioned this before, but I do wish we gambled on more undersized skill players in the later rounds, hoping for a jackpot. Of course, that works best if you have scouts who can actually find hidden gems. Not sure we do.

 

[cc]

well they are very different leagues

I think there's more to it than that. His scouting reports say he's physical, fast and a hard worker but those aspects were absent when playing in the AHL

 

[Ryp37]

Detroit's head of European scouting, Hakan Andersson, really seems to have magic powers. Here's a good profile of him from 2008. There are some fascinating tidbits on his approach to scouting, though no doubt some of this is post hoc rationalization:



Lots of posters on these boards have mentioned this before, but I do wish we gambled on more undersized skill players in the later rounds, hoping for a jackpot. Of course, that works best if you have scouts who can actually find hidden gems. Not sure we do.

Instead vancouver hits the jackpot with a genius like Delorme and his Mackenze Stewart picks