Prospect Info: Who is the Canucks #1 prospect?

[Eddy Punch Clock]

Tough pick between Horvat and Hunter Shinkaruk

Good thing we got 'em both.

I know what you mean though... I picked Horvat only after having to think long and hard about it..... I admit I was a bit shocked when I saw him running away with it in the poll.

 

[LickTheEnvelope]

Good thing we got 'em both.

I know what you mean though... I picked Horvat only after having to think long and hard about it..... I admit I was a bit shocked when I saw him running away with it in the poll.

After watching the prospect scrimmage it's Horvat, and it's not all that close.

 

[BenningHurtsMySoul]

Pretty clearly Horvat at this point. Still only 18 and has the frame of a 25 year old with room to grow, as well as posessing solid offensive and defensive capabilities.

Future captain material.

 

[Tables of Stats]

We've also seen what Jensen can't do in the AHL... Good prospect but he's certainly overrated around here. Bo has a higher ceiling and much higher floor. Was tempted to pick Shinkaruk but the low bust factor swayed it in favour of Horvat.

Our farm team was a mess at the end of the year so I give that a pass.

 

[Tiranis]

Ceiling refers to more than just points.

They're both primarily offensive players. Jensen isn't going to be a Selke winner or a guy taking on tough assignments, so I don't see why it's about more than points.

 

[Coconuts]

Went with Horvat on this one. Pretty easy choice taking everything into account.

Definitely add Eriksson and Schroeder who I think should be indisputable top tens.

 

[denkiteki]

Went with Horvat on this one. Pretty easy choice taking everything into account.

Definitely add Eriksson and Schroeder who I think should be indisputable top tens.

I guess Schroeder has reached a point where he might not be a prospect anymore? Considering he has a decent amount of NHL experience (at least compared to the others). Eriksson should be on the list since Lack is.

 

[denkiteki]

After watching the prospect scrimmage it's Horvat, and it's not all that close.

Got to remember its just 1 game. Any player could have 1 amazing game (probably could make a huge list of ex 'nucks that looked great for a few games and are now playing in Europe).

That said, the game is probably is as good of a tiebreaker as any since they are pretty close and were ranked pretty closely by most draft rankings (basically early/mid 10s). They do bring completely different skill sets so i guess if you prefer a more complete/2 way player, its Bo, if you prefer more offensive (at least skill set), you might prefer Hunter. The vote however is a lot more skewed than i expected and by the looks of things, the #2 prospect vote should be very interesting.

 

[ItsAllPartOfThePlan]

After watching the prospect scrimmage it's Horvat, and it's not all that close.

It is a scrimmage. Should be Eddie lack who has done a lot more and has a high ceiling as well

 

[thefeebster]

One person voting because of the scrimmage shouldn't take away from the 50% lead Horvat had prior to the scrimmage even starting.

Don't know about how many others, but my choice was made well before today.

 

[alternate]

It is a scrimmage. Should be Eddie lack who has done a lot more and has a high ceiling as well

For me, I find it hard to vote for a goalie prospect. Any legitimate top 6 forward/top 4 dman is a "better" prospect in my eyes. Part of my criteria includes how hard said player is to replace if you didn't draft and develop him. It's harder to replace a top pairing dman than a third line forward, so a potential TPD would be a better prospect than a TLF (obviously). In the same vein, solid starting goalies are relatively easy to come by these days, which devalues Lack as a prospect, imo.

 

[Bleach Clean]

They're both primarily offensive players. Jensen isn't going to be a Selke winner or a guy taking on tough assignments, so I don't see why it's about more than points.

It is because we know the game isn't played strictly on the scoreboard. Jensen's size and ability on the boards, with how the league is trending, adds to his value IMO. Just like it does for Kassian. Reducing this to points alone is a mistake. Again, IMO.

 

[alternate]

They're both primarily offensive players. Jensen isn't going to be a Selke winner or a guy taking on tough assignments, so I don't see why it's about more than points.

I think both have 35g / 70p upside if they develop and find the right fit system and line-mates wise. Shinkaruk will probably be better at creating offense on his own, but imo Jensen's game translates better to the pros. Plenty of kids been able to dangle their way through junior but not have a pro game. I don't think that's Shink, but he still has to overcome his lack of strength, while Jensen doesn't have to "overcome" anything, he just needs to put it all together.

 

[thefeebster]

I think both have 35g / 70p upside if they develop and find the right fit system and line-mates wise. Shinkaruk will probably be better at creating offense on his own, but imo Jensen's game translates better to the pros. Plenty of kids been able to dangle their way through junior but not have a pro game. I don't think that's Shink, but he still has to overcome his lack of strength, while Jensen doesn't have to "overcome" anything, he just needs to put it all together.

I don't see that kind of upside from Jensen. He has never scored 30 goals in the OHL. Both Gaunce and Horvat have outscored him at that level, for comparison sake. Shinkaruk has scored 49 and 37. How does Jensen get upgraded to 35 goal upside and Shinkaruk get downgraded?

Jensen has to overcome his inconsistency/on-ice work ethic issues which was his biggest weakness in his draft year and continues to be at each pro level he has been through. IMO, this is a bigger question mark than lack of strength.

I see Shinkaruk as having 1st line upside, whereas Jensen 2nd line upside with 30-30-60 max.

 

[CanaFan]

I don't see that kind of upside from Jensen. He has never scored 30 goals in the OHL. Both Gaunce and Horvat have outscored him at that level, for comparison sake. Shinkaruk has scored 49 and 37. How does Jensen get upgraded to 35 goal upside and Shinkaruk get downgraded?

Jensen has to overcome his inconsistency/on-ice work ethic issues which was his biggest weakness in his draft year and continues to be at each pro level he has been through. IMO, this is a bigger question mark than lack of strength.

I see Shinkaruk as having 1st line upside, whereas Jensen 2nd line upside with 30-30-60 max.

I agree with this mostly. I like Jensen and think he is an excellent prospect for where he was drafted (29th), but his junior pedigree is well below what some fans make it out to be. He has certainly never dominated junior offensively, nor progressed significantly from his draft year to his draft +1 year. A lot is made of his short stint with Chicago in 2012 (6 goals in 8 games) and his season in the SEL, yet people are quick to write off his disappointing 20 games with Chicago as "re-adjusting to the NA rink". IMO he still has a lot of question marks to his game, despite his impressive package of size, skating, and shot. He's still a good prospect, but people who put him above a player as complete as Horvat or a player with the scoring pedigree of Shinkaruk are over-rating exactly what Jensen has "done" so far. He's had 2 average junior seasons, 1 excellent SEL season, and 1 disappointing AHL half-season. Mostly a mixed-bag so far and a far cry from a surefire 35 goal scorer.

 

[Brain Sergeant]

I agree with this mostly. I like Jensen and think he is an excellent prospect for where he was drafted (29th), but his junior pedigree is well below what some fans make it out to be. He has certainly never dominated junior offensively, nor progressed significantly from his draft year to his draft +1 year. A lot is made of his short stint with Chicago in 2012 (6 goals in 8 games) and his season in the SEL, yet people are quick to write off his disappointing 20 games with Chicago as "re-adjusting to the NA rink". IMO he still has a lot of question marks to his game, despite his impressive package of size, skating, and shot. He's still a good prospect, but people who put him above a player as complete as Horvat or a player with the scoring pedigree of Shinkaruk are over-rating exactly what Jensen has "done" so far. He's had 2 average junior seasons, 1 excellent SEL season, and 1 disappointing AHL half-season. Mostly a mixed-bag so far and a far cry from a surefire 35 goal scorer.

Bam. Couldn't agree with this more. Although its tough to gauge a great season as a 19 year old in the SEL vs a great season at 17 in the OHL. Like comparing Apples and Oranges.

 

[ShouldveDraftedFiala]

How is it not Corrado?

This guy is the only one of them all that has proven he can play in the NHL. Not only that, but well, and in the playoffs.

I can under stand the hype train for Bo, but as of right now he's unproven in the NHL so it has to be Frankie, and yet lots of people are putting him 5th on their depth charts? What a joke

 

[Wisp]

How is it not Corrado?

This guy is the only one of them all that has proven he can play in the NHL. Not only that, but well, and in the playoffs.

I can under stand the hype train for Bo, but as of right now he's unproven in the NHL so it has to be Frankie, and yet lots of people are putting him 5th on their depth charts? What a joke

For what it's worth, he's my number 3. He maybe the better players at this point in his development, I simply think Shinkaruk and Horvat have higher ceilings.

 

[Pseudonymous*]

So I waited until after the scrimmage to give my list. Being a HUGE Jensen fan, not too happy with him at the scrimmage, not sure why he doesn't stand out more in these scrimmages I guess he doesn't have alot to prove, im sure he knows their organization is very aware of his skill but still.

But until he starts to change my mind again by having an outstanding year this upcoming year, hes lower on my list now

1. Horvat
2. Jensen
3. Shinkaruk
4. Corrado
5. Gaunce
6. Lack

Shinkaruk would be 2 but you just dont know how he'll age, with age, usually comes strength, i hope he can step it up in that area and hes not that quick for a small guy either, which was Shirokov's issue.. then again, hard to tell if his stamina and speed aren't great because they simply arent' great or because he was being played for 3/4 of the game. either way i dont think it is a strength of his and with his size, it should be. Sure is going to be a fun prospect to follow, love this guy

 

[ShouldveDraftedFiala]

For what it's worth, he's my number 3. He maybe the better players at this point in his development, I simply think Shinkaruk and Horvat have higher ceilings.

That may be true, but as of right now Corrado is the clear cut #1.

Anything other than that is mere speculation and wishful thinking.

 

[Pseudonymous*]

That may be true, but as of right now Corrado is the clear cut #1.

Anything other than that is mere speculation and wishful thinking.

Think of it this way man, its basically a rating system based on value. So what youre saying is Corrado holds me value cuz he made the nhl? So if i were another GM, you wouldn't take a top 3 pick because they aren't in the nhl and its just wishful thinking that they will turn out to be better? People are more than capable of knowing ones value before that player enters the nhl, its not wishful thinking, this kind of analysis comes from years of following hockey.

 

[Saturated Fats]

Horvat runs away with it. Moving on.

 

[Wisp]

That may be true, but as of right now Corrado is the clear cut #1.

Anything other than that is mere speculation and wishful thinking.

Again, I disagree. To look at it as another perspective, playing in the NHL is an expression of physical development and conditioning. Horvat and Shinkaruk simply have better tool sets.

 

[ShouldveDraftedFiala]

Think of it this way man, its basically a rating system based on value. So what youre saying is Corrado holds me value cuz he made the nhl? So if i were another GM, you wouldn't take a top 3 pick because they aren't in the nhl and its just wishful thinking that they will turn out to be better? People are more than capable of knowing ones value before that player enters the nhl, its not wishful thinking, this kind of analysis comes from years of following hockey.

Do I really need to list off the top 10 pick busts to prove that you're wrong?

 

[Pseudonymous*]

Do I really need to list off the top 10 pick busts to prove that you're wrong?

So because there has been the odd bust high in the draft, all of a sudden all players who have yet to be given a shot at the team are worse and not as valuable