Prospect Info: Top Prospects Poll 2019

[tarheelhockey]

@Boom Boom Apathy I can certainly understand your impressions. I watched him at development camp and that's an admittedly small sample size against lesser competition. However, I felt he moved the puck quite well, but really blew me away with his ability to maintain gaps, keep guys to the outside, and generally prevent any high danger chances. I felt he skated well for a big man and had a pretty darn good 1st pass.

I've also heard the University of Michigan's hockey program is in shambles. There were some significant questions around the coaching staff's decisions over the last couple of years. I'm not absolving Martin from his apparent stagnation, but I'm not sure how much support he's getting with his overall development.

I second this.

It was reasonable to think he'd grow offensively in his third year of college... instead the numbers flatlined. I haven't seen any real explanation for that other than "Michigan is a dumpster fire". On that note, seeing that program win only 13 games out of 36 is just astonishing -- I remember when Michigan fans were super mad about a 25-win season.

Anyway, I don't get the impression that he's god-awful with the puck, he just doesn't score very much. He put up assists at a reasonable pace in the context of the WJC American team. Without knowing much about his environment at Michigan it's hard to say exactly what the offensive upside is, but his skating suggests to me that he has a lot of room to grow into at least a Pesce-level offensive presence (ie, not a presence but at least he's not a turnover machine).

 

[Elsker]

My sample size on Martin is also limited to watching him in prospect camp activity.

But he stood out to me mostly because in the one-on-one drills nobody got by him. He either completely shut down the net attacker or stripped the puck away...every single time.

 

[My Special Purpose]

3) I don't know that there is a lot of room in the NHL for a guy that doesn't move the puck well and doesn't contribute any offense, even if he's good defensively.

I'll go so far as to say that "a guy that doesn't move the puck well and doesn't contribute any offense" *can't* be good defensively, because so much of what NHL teams are doing in terms of "defense" is actually puck-moving and controlled exits.

 

[Unsustainable]

Don’t even know for this coming year.

Necas, Ned, and Bean are looking like the most important to get there.

 

[geehaad]

To be fair, Necas over Svech was a hell of a hot taek even back then.

Not so much "hot take" as being in unapologetic love with Necas.

You especially don't make him your avatar and then put him at #2.

 

[tarheelhockey]

It's worth considering that Martin was on the same team as Quinn Hughes, #7OA last season who ended up a Hobey Baker finalist after leading his team and all Big 10 defensemen in scoring.

Other than Hughes and his partner, all the rest of the Michigan defensemen combined for all of 5 goals and 25 assists. It's reasonable to infer that Martin was deployed in a conservative role, probably without much PP time, based on the scoring distribution (only ONE of those defensemen scored a PPG and it wasn't Martin). I'm guessing that means he was on for a lot of PK minutes and defensive zone situations, which would fit his skillset. In that context, you have to figure -- if Michigan was the lowest scoring team in the Big 10, and a huge portion of their scoring power belonged to a defenseman on a different pairing... who exactly what Martin passing to when he managed to get the puck in his own zone?

I dunno, there are just a lot of unusual team factors in play with that one. Maybe he really did just take a nosedive in his development, that is a possibility, but it's not easy to separate his individual performance from the mess we see on that team's stat sheet.

 

[Anton Dubinchuk]

I'll go so far as to say that "a guy that doesn't move the puck well and doesn't contribute any offense" *can't* be good defensively, because so much of what NHL teams are doing in terms of "defense" is actually puck-moving and controlled exits.

Hal Gill and Bryan Allen cry a single tear.

 

[geehaad]

Not to get us too far off track in this thread, but a) I wholly disagree that you can't be good defensively without contributing offense (see CdH), and b) this article:

Luce, Martin bring stability to inconsistent Michigan defense

 

[geehaad]

I still want this mystery solved:

Which of you had these guys in your top 20? Who are you? And what are you seeing in these players?

Brendan De Jong
Eetu Makiniemi
Ville Rasanen
Jesper Sellgren​

...and it was *top 15*, no less!

 

[My Special Purpose]

Not to get us too far off track in this thread, but a) I wholly disagree that you can't be good defensively without contributing offense (see CdH), and b) this article:

Luce, Martin bring stability to inconsistent Michigan defense

I'm getting so sick and tired of people picking one part of an argument and "wholly disagreeing" with the entire post as a result. The comment was about "a guy who doesn't move the puck well *and* doesn't contribute any offense," not just ... doesn't contribute offense. Puck moving *is* defense. If you handle the puck like a grenade, you can't play defense at the NHL level. Period. End of debate.

The "does a pretty good job of getting in the way" defense went out in the 90s.

And that article is the backhanded compliment to end all backhanded compliments. "Sure, it's the worst defensive team we've had in forever, but these guys put defense first because they have no skill whatsoever."

 

[geehaad]

If you handle the puck like a grenade, you can't play defense at the NHL level.

Ok, I wholly disagree that Fleury handles the puck like a grenade. In fact, I'd guess what gives RBA ulcers are the occasions where Fleury attacks with the puck around the back of the net. Just because he hasn't scored much doesn't mean that he handles the puck like a grenade.

 

[My Special Purpose]

Ok, I wholly disagree that Fleury handles the puck like a grenade. In fact, I'd guess what gives RBA ulcers are the occasions where Fleury attacks with the puck around the back of the net. Just because he hasn't scored much doesn't mean that he handles the puck like a grenade.

We were talking about Luke Martin, not Haydn Fleury. Dude, do you even need us for your strawman-of-a-strawman-of-a-strawman argument?

 

[Boom Boom Apathy]

In fairness, I don’t know that Martin doesn’t move the puck well. I read that somewhere back but haven’t watched him. Offensive output you can measure, so someone who watched him more would have to comment on his puck moving abilities.

 

[geehaad]

We were talking about Luke Martin, not Haydn Fleury. Dude, do you even need us for your strawman-of-a-strawman-of-a-strawman argument?

Holy shit, where did I get off-track??? I guess this is what happens when you have two browser tabs open on HFCanes.

 

[MinJaBen]

Holy ****, where did I get off-track??? I guess this is what happens when you have two browser tabs open on HFCanes.

Rookie.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I'm getting so sick and tired of people picking one part of an argument and "wholly disagreeing" with the entire post as a result. The comment was about "a guy who doesn't move the puck well *and* doesn't contribute any offense," not just ... doesn't contribute offense. Puck moving *is* defense. If you handle the puck like a grenade, you can't play defense at the NHL level. Period. End of debate.

The "does a pretty good job of getting in the way" defense went out in the 90s.

And that article is the backhanded compliment to end all backhanded compliments. "Sure, it's the worst defensive team we've had in forever, but these guys put defense first because they have no skill whatsoever."

Do we actually know that Martin is bad with the puck, or is that an inference being drawn from his offensive stats?

Again -- Michigan last year was a team with a very shallow set of forwards and a defenseman (Quinn Hughes) as the showcase player. Is it reasonable to expect a defensive defenseman, who is paired with another defensive-defenseman, to pass to depth forwards in defensive-zone and PK situations and still somehow generate points?

Maybe Martin really is a disaster with the puck, but he didn't raise those flags on Team USA or in our development camps? Unless there's some first-person acount of this being a problem for him, I wouldn't want to rely on the scoring stats alone to tell the story.

 

[My Special Purpose]

Do we actually know that Martin is bad with the puck, or is that an inference being drawn from his offensive stats?

Look, he's bad, but there's no reason to go there.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Look, he's bad, but there's no reason to go there.

At the very least, he owes us an apology and should have to attend classes.

 

[Mike1167]

Just replying that my nephew, Jake Kucharski, told his parents that he had a really good development camp, and that the coaches told him that they are pleased with his progress. Looking forward to him having a great season with Providence.

 

[Boom Boom Apathy]

Just replying that my nephew, Jake Kucharski, told his parents that he had a really good development camp, and that the coaches told him that they are pleased with his progress. Looking forward to him having a great season with Providence.

I’m the first to admit, I struggle to rank goalies. Do you think he’s anywhere in the top 20? Or a work in progress?

 

[Mike1167]

I’m the first to admit, I struggle to rank goalies. Do you think he’s anywhere in the top 20? Or a work in progress?

Admittedly, I don't know a whole lot about the Canes prospects. I'm a lifelong Flyers fan, so I know alot more about their system than Carolina's.

Based on projection, I would say yes, he's probably one of Carolina's top 20 prospects. He was ranked as a top 10 goalie by Craig Button at mid-season of his draft year. He's 6'4" and moves well. He obviously covers alot of the net at that size. Hopefully he'll be coached-up at Providence.

Time will tell. These kids are just that...kids. Anything can happen.

 

[A Star is Burns]

Seems like Kuch would be lucky to crack our top 5 goalie prospects, much less our top 20 prospects overall.

 

[Mike1167]

Seems like Kuch would be lucky to crack our top 5 goalie prospects, much less our top 20 prospects overall.

Again, I'm basing this on projection. Stats don't tell the whole story with Jake. He's 6'4" and about 225. He moves well for a kid his size, tracks the puck well and is good at playing the angles. I've seen him do some incredible things on the ice, he just needs to put it all together and be more consistent. He is nowhere near being a finished product yet, but he has alot of upside.

 

[A Star is Burns]

That's fine. Maybe he's the best of the bunch ultimately, and I hope so. Sometimes you have to combine on ice with projections for these lists. He barely played last year and even when he did, his numbers were rough. If he can play well at the college level, that can all change in a hurry. Right now though, we have several goalies that the Canes saw enough in to draft higher and have played well and at higher levels of competition. Throw in a great prospect list of position players, and you have to put him way down the list for now.

 

[Boom Boom Apathy]

That's fine. Maybe he's the best of the bunch ultimately, and I hope so. Sometimes you have to combine on ice with projections for these lists. He barely played last year and even when he did, his numbers were rough. If he can play well at the college level, that can all change in a hurry. Right now though, we have several goalies that the Canes saw enough in to draft higher and have played well and at higher levels of competition. Throw in a great prospect list of position players, and you have to put him way down the list for now.

Yeah, sounds like he's got some size and athleticism, but I agree with you. It's hard to put any 7th round pick into the top 20, much less one who has not shown anything since being drafted.

The good news, is it sounds like he has good size and athleticism and the Canes don't need to rush anything on him.