Prospect Info: Who is the Canucks #10 prospect?

[alternate]

Went Hutton here and last, after voting Mallet the time before. thefeebs hype got my vote.

Not hard for me to understand why Mallet made the top 10. He's pretty much the prototype 4C: good size, skating, physical, can fight, and flashed some offensive upside. If he makes it, pretty safe bet he'll be a fan favourite in a hurry.

A guy like Archibald has mobility concerns. The AHL is littered with guys with size and decent hands, but lacking NHL feet. AHL production is obviously important, but NHL tools are even more so imo.

Tommernes and Andersson are my next two. Offensive upside vs defensive stability. Seems like Andersson has very little offensive upside, but good enough puck skills to be a stay-at-home partner in the top 4. If Tommernes makes it, he'll probably put up points. I hear feebs concerns about his defensive play, but bottom line he was getting big minutes in the SEL, so he must do something right. With the amounts of times I've heard people saying Ehrhoff is "soft" and can't play defense, I always take those complaints with a bit of a grain of salt.

Next forward for me is Blomstrand. Feel he could become a good third liner.

I've taken McNally right off my prospect board at this point. Don't think I'll vote for him unless we get some clarification on his situation for this season. If he has to miss another season of hockey, I don't think his development will be able to overcome that. I put him in the same boat as Price...both would rank higher on their potential, but off-ice concerns take them off my board.

Looking at the next group of names, seems like we'll have a pretty respectable bottom 5 prospects.

 

[StrictlyCommercial]

I wouldn't even put Cassels in the top 15. He has similar upside to other players, but he's only played in Junior whereas others have shown they can play at a high level against men.

Assuming Hutton takes this, my 11-15 shakes out as:
Tommernes (really my #9)
Blomstrand
Cannata
Andersson
Labate

I could see Archibald in this group, but my personal weighting puts a bit more emphasis on ceiling than floor. Subban doesn't crack my Top 15 until he's at least 5'11".

Also, add Polasek and Friesen.

 

[dave babych returns]

He did nothing to rise, but did.

Because of the scrimmage and that YT above.

Why does Mallet's rise have to be related to specific achievements from the past year? Could easily be due to a change in either the votes or in the priorities of those voters.

Like it or not these polls aren't decided by a handful of highly informed experts and I freely admit to being one of the many many non-experts taking part..

 

[arsmaster*]

Why does Mallet's rise have to be related to specific achievements from the past year? Could easily be due to a change in either the votes or in the priorities of those voters.

Like it or not these polls aren't decided by a handful of highly informed experts and I freely admit to being one of the many many non-experts taking part..

Of course I'm going to call something out when I think it's wrong. That is he purpose of a message board.

A player has a crappier season than the one that proceeded it and now vaults 5 spots ahead based on YouTube and a scrimmage.

I'm more stating my opinion why I think that is silly.

And I'm not backing off that stance. It's silly.

He had a poor season and rose...where is the logic?

 

[dave babych returns]

You not reading posts again?

He might have rose because different people are voting.

He might have rose because the same people think different traits are more valuable.

He might have rose because a set of Canucks prospects graduated or dropped off the map (or both) and he's moved up by default.

You keep going on about one youtube clip and a scrimmage but it doesn't have to be that. You're free to continue to do so don't get me wrong, it's just not necessarily particularly accurate.

It's probably a combination of all of those things and his draft position and junior stats..

 

[arsmaster*]

You not reading posts again?

He might have rose because different people are voting.

He might have rose because the same people think different traits are more valuable.

He might have rose because a set of Canucks prospects graduated or dropped off the map (or both) and he's moved up by default.

You keep going on about one youtube clip and a scrimmage but it doesn't have to be that. You're free to continue to do so don't get me wrong, it's just not necessarily particularly accurate.

It's probably a combination of all of those things and his draft position and junior stats..

Well I'm going to move on.

I will finish with draft position and junior stats (especially when there was only one good year) aren't particularly good indications either.

Cheers.

 

[Cogburn]

Grenier got my vote, but Hutton is running away with this.

 

[dave babych returns]

Arsmaster, note that I'm not saying any of those factors are terribly compelling.

To be honest I voted for Mallet and a healthy component of my 'reasoning' was a gut feeling.

Anyway I'm probably being pedantic in taking issue with your choice of words when taking issue with the Mallet votes but I just don't see why his position related to last year is a big deal. But you're right, it's time to move on.

Cheers

 

[StrictlyCommercial]

Arsmaster, note that I'm not saying any of those factors are terribly compelling.

To be honest I voted for Mallet and a healthy component of my 'reasoning' was a gut feeling.

Anyway I'm probably being pedantic in taking issue with your choice of words when taking issue with the Mallet votes but I just don't see why his position related to last year is a big deal. But you're right, it's time to move on.

Cheers

Well, generally, you expect prospects who excel to rise, and prospects who struggle to fall. It's kind of common sense. It's very very clear that people who voted for Mallet did it for reasons other than his performance in his first pro season and his development as a prospect.

Alex Friesen, who was for some reason highly regarded by some here last year, also had his first pro-season last year. Not unlike Mallet, he also projects as, at best, a bottom 6 forward. However, whereas Mallet was quickly demoted to the ECHL because of his struggles, Friesen kept his head above water and even played on the first line for the Wolves while they were struggling with injuries. Although he struggled offensively, he still managed a respectable +4 while facing a high quality of competition on many nights.

Despite this, Friesen has fallen off the face of the earth for most posters, while in some bizarre twist Mallet has become a Top-10 prospect.

*I don't think Friesen is a better prospect than Mallet, and felt he was ranked too high last year for mostly the same reasons Mallet is being rated too highly this year. I'm using him as an example of the absurdity of Mallet's rise.

 

[Tiranis]

Alex Friesen, who was for some reason highly regarded by some here last year, also had his first pro-season last year. Not unlike Mallet, he also projects as, at best, a bottom 6 forward. However, whereas Mallet was quickly demoted to the ECHL because of his struggles, Friesen kept his head above water and even played on the first line for the Wolves while they were struggling with injuries. Although he struggled offensively, he still managed a respectable +4 while facing a high quality of competition on many nights.

Mallet was always better than Friesen when they played last season. I don't know why one got sent down while the other didn't but I suspect it had more to do with trying to get Mallet more Top 6 ice-time than the merits of their play. Look back through game reports from the Wolves thread if you don't believe me. Hell, just look at Friesen's disappearing act in the ECHL.

Mallet might've struggled to make a difference in the 4th line role but he wasn't bad or anything. Covered on the defensive end pretty well.

 

[Reverend Mayhem]

Hype train coming through!!

I like your prospect reviews and all, but I have a hard time taken them seriously when all I hear about a guy like Ben Hutton is good things. Why wasn't he taken in the top 10 in his draft? What are his shortcomings? Surely he must have some, even Gretzky did. Why isn't he in the NHL making an impact right now? It's nice to hear what he does well at, but I can watch a highlight package and pick that up. I want his overall game. It's hard to say this and not seem like a *****, but I'd rather know the knocks on his game as well. Nearly every prospect report the first time we hear about a player is "oh he does this well, he can do this well, but didn't do it that much this year for some reason, he's great at this...etc."

 

[David Bruce Banner]

Mallet was always better than Friesen when they played last season. I don't know why one got sent down while the other didn't but I suspect it had more to do with trying to get Mallet more Top 6 ice-time than the merits of their play. Look back through game reports from the Wolves thread if you don't believe me. Hell, just look at Friesen's disappearing act in the ECHL.

Mallet might've struggled to make a difference in the 4th line role but he wasn't bad or anything. Covered on the defensive end pretty well.

Exactly. A number of factors conspired to undermine Mallet's first pro year. Specifically, the strike clogging up our minor pro roster, and Chicago's win rather than develop attitude. He was sent to the E to get some proper playing time, and to learn to play his game against men. Most reports of his play in Chicago and Kalamazoo were generally positive about the skill set he was bringing to the game. His skating, defensive play and physicality were all lauded. The general picture was of a player who was a work in progress, but had potential. Unfortunately, through no real fault of his own, there were a number of roadblocks in his way. Next year will be an important one, but I feel that if he's given a decent chance, and can stay heathy, some naysayers will be singing a different tune this time next year.

 

[StrictlyCommercial]

I like your prospect reviews and all, but I have a hard time taken them seriously when all I hear about a guy like Ben Hutton is good things. Why wasn't he taken in the top 10 in his draft? What are his shortcomings? Surely he must have some, even Gretzky did. Why isn't he in the NHL making an impact right now? It's nice to hear what he does well at, but I can watch a highlight package and pick that up. I want his overall game. It's hard to say this and not seem like a *****, but I'd rather know the knocks on his game as well. Nearly every prospect report the first time we hear about a player is "oh he does this well, he can do this well, but didn't do it that much this year for some reason, he's great at this...etc."

Well, he played Junior A (I think) and had been a forward one or two years prior to being drafted. Note the lack of PK time mentioned and you'll start to get a picture of why he wasn't a first round pick.

On the other hand, the Canucks fifth round picks are basically 1st round picks these days (Andersson, Polasek, Corrado, Hutton, Cederholm). Only partial

 

[StrictlyCommercial]

Exactly. A number of factors conspired to undermine Mallet's first pro year. Specifically, the strike clogging up our minor pro roster, and Chicago's win rather than develop attitude. He was sent to the E to get some proper playing time, and to learn to play his game against men. Most reports of his play in Chicago and Kalamazoo were generally positive about the skill set he was bringing to the game. His skating, defensive play and physicality were all lauded. The general picture was of a player who was a work in progress, but had potential. Unfortunately, through no real fault of his own, there were a number of roadblocks in his way. Next year will be an important one, but I feel that if he's given a decent chance, and can stay heathy, some naysayers will be singing a different tune this time next year.

Yet Mallet wasn't called up when Friesen was the Wolves first line centre? I don't think it was strictly a 'give him ice-time' thing, I think it was also a 'he's not ready for the AHL' thing.

I don't doubt that Mallet will have a much better season this year and establish himself in the AHL, I just don't think he deserves to be ranked above players who have shown more at a higher level, based on what he has done so far. Especially when his ceiling appears to be a bottom-6 forward.

 

[Jay Cee]

Like Sawyer Hannay?

The question is why did he rise?

After a dominating QMJHL season he was 13th. After a mediocre at best first season pro he rose through the rankings. Why?

The scrimmage and obviously that one hit and fight linked above against the heat.

Sawyer Hannay cannot fight; he was a horrible pick in every way.

Average defensively, average toughness, below average skater, no offensive upside, poor hockey sense, poor fighting skills.

Pretty easy to walk way from that pick.

 

[thefeebster]

I like your prospect reviews and all, but I have a hard time taken them seriously when all I hear about a guy like Ben Hutton is good things. Why wasn't he taken in the top 10 in his draft? What are his shortcomings? Surely he must have some, even Gretzky did. Why isn't he in the NHL making an impact right now? It's nice to hear what he does well at, but I can watch a highlight package and pick that up. I want his overall game. It's hard to say this and not seem like a ***** , but I'd rather know the knocks on his game as well. Nearly every prospect report the first time we hear about a player is "oh he does this well, he can do this well, but didn't do it that much this year for some reason, he's great at this...etc."

Too late, but I've come to expect it.

If you can't take me seriously, I wonder what you think of the others. Perhaps I should simply give one sentence statements and be done with it. But I won't because I know there are people who are interested in reading arguments with some sort of reasoning behind it.

Have you even read the other reviews? I'm guessing you didn't even bother. I do make a point to assess their overall game and have gone in depth with their weaknesses. You picked a guy to make an example of that truly did not show any glaring weakness in the couple games I saw of him. Do you want me to start making up criticisms that I didn't see? If i had to choose one issue for Hutton, its to be a bit more careful with the puck. As for why he wasn't a top 10 pick or in the NHL, I'll leave that up to you.

 

[Verviticus]

weaknesses can be hard to spot when you have a very limited viewing of a player

the strike clogging up our minor pro roster,

lockout, not strike

 

[Shareefruck]

I feel like the best contributors on these boards for some reason seem to get criticized and complained about for no reason whatsoever.

I remember when posters used to get annoyed by that wonderful StraightJab guy. As a guy who loves this stuff, it's incredibly frustrating.

I like your prospect reviews and all, but I have a hard time taken them seriously when all I hear about a guy like Ben Hutton is good things. Why wasn't he taken in the top 10 in his draft? What are his shortcomings? Surely he must have some, even Gretzky did. Why isn't he in the NHL making an impact right now? It's nice to hear what he does well at, but I can watch a highlight package and pick that up. I want his overall game. It's hard to say this and not seem like a *****, but I'd rather know the knocks on his game as well. Nearly every prospect report the first time we hear about a player is "oh he does this well, he can do this well, but didn't do it that much this year for some reason, he's great at this...etc."

Totally uncalled for, unreasonable, and random, IMO

 

[Tiranis]

It's also a lot harder to spot weaknesses for players who are legitimately good at the level they're playing at. Ben Hutton clearly is a player that's at home at the college level right now. He was also drafted as an all-around defenseman so it's going to be harder to pick out flaws for a player like that. The flaw with all-around guys will usually be their lack of dominant traits.

All-in-all, what a ******** thing to say. "Hard time taking [him] seriously?" Really?

 

[Blue Suede Shoes]

He might have rose because a set of Canucks prospects graduated or dropped off the map (or both) and he's moved up by default.

This is a good point, because for me personally, I was very high on 3 prospects, a forward, a defenceman, and a goalie. Those 3 were Labate, McNally, and Cannata. They had such good seasons the year before this past one. (Every year in Cannata's case). And to me, all of those guys looked like they had legitimate potential to have meaningful NHL careers. Trending way upwards.

But then last season occurred... Labate looked like he stagnated for a big chunk of the season, McNally didn't even play, and Cannata could barely get any time in either the AHL or ECHL.

And these were 3 of my favourite prospects. Now in the case of Labate, he turned it on partway through the season (maybe around the halfway mark), but I wanted to see even more from him. A lot more.

So these guys really fell down my personal rankings, and now that I think about it, that did allow Mallet to climb up 3 spots.

 

[Blue Suede Shoes]

I'll also add that even though I enjoy hearing the flaws in prospects I really appreciate all your reviews Feebster - they are great.

 

[Reverend Mayhem]

Whoa! People took that one not taking him seriously comment A LOT differently than I intended it to be. I for one appreciate his prospect reviews, he puts a lot of time into them and I respect that. I know I was being really nitpicky but it's just something I didn't understand and was genuinely wondering why it seems a lot scouting reports are like that, not just his. I didn't intend to single him out, I thought he might have some insight as to why I see a lot of reviews chocked full of positive traits rather than negative ones. I don't pretend to know everything around here and I don't know the first thing about how scouting is done, and I certainly didn't mean to diminish his hard work he's done for the board. As Tiranis said, it's probably a lot harder to spot their shortcomings at a lower level among other things and I'd probably have to agree with that.

 

[denkiteki]

Well, generally, you expect prospects who excel to rise, and prospects who struggle to fall. It's kind of common sense. It's very very clear that people who voted for Mallet did it for reasons other than his performance in his first pro season and his development as a prospect.

Alex Friesen, who was for some reason highly regarded by some here last year, also had his first pro-season last year. Not unlike Mallet, he also projects as, at best, a bottom 6 forward. However, whereas Mallet was quickly demoted to the ECHL because of his struggles, Friesen kept his head above water and even played on the first line for the Wolves while they were struggling with injuries. Although he struggled offensively, he still managed a respectable +4 while facing a high quality of competition on many nights.

Despite this, Friesen has fallen off the face of the earth for most posters, while in some bizarre twist Mallet has become a Top-10 prospect.

*I don't think Friesen is a better prospect than Mallet, and felt he was ranked too high last year for mostly the same reasons Mallet is being rated too highly this year. I'm using him as an example of the absurdity of Mallet's rise.

To be fair with Friesen last year in Jr. he looked like a complete 2 way player. Was probably one of the best defensive forward in all of Jr. hockey and also put up some points so of course he got hyped up quite a bit. On top of the simple fact 'nucks were quite weak with many longer term projects and virtually no depth at center propel Friesen quite a bit.

Then as a pro, he didn't play all that well. The only reason he stayed on the Wolves and Mallet didn't was the simple fact he played center. Wolves had 1-2 centers for quite a few nights once the season started. Mostly due to the simple fact they were hit with injuries at the sametime 'nucks were hit with injuries and all injuries happen to be centers.

Friesen at the AHL level clearly didn't seem to have the speed required (tho his hockey IQ still showed and he was fine defensively, making him a decent AHL defensive center) and if he's not fast enough for the AHL, he has no chance at the NHL level. Of course during the off season, if he can fix this, maybe he'll have a good year but until he fixes this major issue, he will pretty much stay off the radar. In Jr. hockey he got better each year so its quite possible he improves.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Too late, but I've come to expect it.

If you can't take me seriously, I wonder what you think of the others. Perhaps I should simply give one sentence statements and be done with it. But I won't because I know there are people who are interested in reading arguments with some sort of reasoning behind it.

Have you even read the other reviews? I'm guessing you didn't even bother. I do make a point to assess their overall game and have gone in depth with their weaknesses. You picked a guy to make an example of that truly did not show any glaring weakness in the couple games I saw of him. Do you want me to start making up criticisms that I didn't see? If i had to choose one issue for Hutton, its to be a bit more careful with the puck. As for why he wasn't a top 10 pick or in the NHL, I'll leave that up to you.

I wouldn't take it too harshly feebster. In a way, Rev is asking for something most prospect evaluators don't even do: be even handed. One could take that to mean you're not doing a good enough job, or to mean that he thinks highly of your posts, to the point of expecting that last little bit to make them a definitive source. The likening it to other scouting material is a give away to this IMO.

If that last little bit of negative information is included, then the picture will be more complete than anything found elsewhere. Just in how you take it. This type of criticism is in itself an affirmation that you are on the right track, and further ahead than most. Expect the best from the best.

 

[David Bruce Banner]

weaknesses can be hard to spot when you have a very limited viewing of a player



lockout, not strike

Who own da Chiefs?