Yeah I don't get how they feel justified lowering their talent levels when all they have done is improve. I guess they feel justified in it because they raised their likelihood of reaching that talent level to a B?
For example, 7.5C would be adjusted to a 6 because assigning a C means you take the number and multiply it by 0.8.. whereas with a B you multiply by 0.9. Taking that into consideration they improved from 6.0 to 6.3, but still.. it's just a weird rating system..
It makes a lot of sense because it describes the narrowing of the upside-floor range, which happens to most prospects as they age.
Rychel improved but at the same time his upside decreased slightly. Why? Because before last year he had a chance of having an epic post-draft year, and going on the track of becoming a top line stud. That didn't happen, but he didn't have a bad year either, so his floor went up. So he went from being a 7.5C, which means he could fit in anywhere from being a complementary top line winger to a plus fourth liner, to being a 7.0B, which means he's a lock for a middle-six position. That seems accurate to me.
I think their ratings of Rychel and Dano make sense, but there's no way Erixon is a 6.0B. It makes sense in a way, because he's an older prospect, so you'd expect his upside to have dropped, but he's not a typical older prospect. He's not in the NHL because we're overstocked (as Jarmo admits), and his smarts are way too high to limit him to the third pair.
