Prospect Info: 2020-21 Prospects Poll - Results on Post 2

[A Star is Burns]

Where did you rank Geekie?

I don't do these rankings. I typically just scoff at others. Eyeballing it, probably 7-8. Again, that's just because I put ceiling and skill a little higher. I really like Geekie and said at one point he'd sneak onto the team even a year before he did. 2-3 spots in the ranking isn't a lot, I just think a top 5 propect should have a higher ceiling.

 

[bleedgreen]

I should add I think Geekie’s true ceiling may be understated around here. I think he’s got some pop to him, I just don’t know how to quantify that. I think his skating will hold him back offensively, he’s got a good enough shot and is strong enough to be a slot presence. If he’s still around when Staal’s contract is up he could end up being third center, depending on how Drury is doing.

Drury is another one I ranked higher than his skill level dictates, as I feel the same way about him. He’s going to play. The team likes him a lot. He’s going to get every opportunity that other prospects may not get. I wouldn’t have him in my top ten based on skill but I think I had him at seven-ish because I think he’s going to make it one way or another. So a bit lower than I would have Geekie, who’s already there in the nhl imo.

 

[A Star is Burns]

I should add I think Geekie’s true ceiling may be understated around here. I think he’s got some pop to him, I just don’t know how to quantify that. I think his skating will hold him back offensively, he’s got a good enough shot and is strong enough to be a slot presence. If he’s still around when Staal’s contract is up he could end up being third center, depending on how Drury is doing.

I doubt there is anyone that thinks he can't be a third liner. I think he has an outside shot to be 2nd/3rd line tweener. I do think he most likely ends up as a 3rd/4th liner given the structure of the team he's on at any given time. And if that's what he does become, that's awesome. As I said, I prioritize skill and ceiling a little more in these rankings. It's not to take away from what Geekie is or can be.

 

[bleedgreen]

I doubt there is anyone that thinks he can't be a third liner. I think he has an outside shot to be 2nd/3rd line tweener. I do think he most likely ends up as a 3rd/4th liner given the structure of the team he's on at any given time. And if that's what he does become, that's awesome. As I said, I prioritize skill and ceiling a little more in these rankings. It's not to take away from what Geekie is or can be.

Well I don’t think any of our recent skill based choices are likely to make the first line even off skill. Jarvis and Suzuki are probably not likely to be beyond second liners. I think all of the other skill guys are third to maybe second line types too, if everything goes perfect. Another reason I think Geekie belongs up there, I see him as a third liner who if everything goes amazingly right could end up on the second. He would be playing a different style than Puistola but probably fighting for the same spot (probably on the third) if he ends up on wing. I think he stays at center which only increases his value to me.

 

[A Star is Burns]

Well I don’t think any of our recent skill based choices are likely to make the first line even off skill. Jarvis and Suzuki are probably not likely to be beyond second liners. I think all of the other skill guys are third to maybe second line types too, if everything goes perfect. Another reason I think Geekie belongs up there, I see him as a third liner who if everything goes amazingly right could end up on the second. He would be playing a different style than Puistola but probably fighting for the same spot (probably on the third) if he ends up on wing. I think he stays at center which only increases his value to me.

We're probably not really disagreeing much it sounds like. I think some of those guys have a small chance of ending up on a 1st line, a better chance than Geekie on ending up on a 2nd line, and they could end up as different style 3rd/4th liners (of course, none of the above is an option for any of these guys, including Geekie). He's a little safer, they have a little more boom potential to me. Nothing wrong with rating him 5 or one of them 5. I just lean more towards the boom potential (as I mentioned, not to extreme with guys like Pashin and Nybeck that may work out but are absolute long shots). It probably all comes down to similar to the old HF ranking system. Do you rank a 7C higher or a 6B? There probably isn't a wrong answer and it might just all come down to a case by case basis.

 

[WreckingCrew]

We're probably not really disagreeing much it sounds like. I think some of those guys have a small chance of ending up on a 1st line, a better chance than Geekie on ending up on a 2nd line, and they could end up as different style 3rd/4th liners (of course, none of the above is an option for any of these guys, including Geekie). He's a little safer, they have a little more boom potential to me. Nothing wrong with rating him 5 or one of them 5. I just lean more towards the boom potential (as I mentioned, not to extreme with guys like Pashin and Nybeck that may work out but are absolute long shots). It probably all comes down to similar to the old HF ranking system. Do you rank a 7C higher or a 6B? There probably isn't a wrong answer and it might just all come down to a case by case basis.

You mean a 7B or 6C? Otherwise obviously 6B is better Or I'm completely misremembering how they did the rankings because it's been so ****ing long since I saw them last...was it 1-10 with 10 being best or 1 being best?

Geekie would probably be a 7B, very good chance of being a decent NHLer but not much more. Many of our current prospects seem to be like 8D guys, who COULD boom in development and be 2nd liners, or never develop and flame out without making it past the AHL

 

[DaveG]

You mean a 7B or 6C? Otherwise obviously 6B is better Or I'm completely misremembering how they did the rankings because it's been so ****ing long since I saw them last...was it 1-10 with 10 being best or 1 being best?

Geekie would probably be a 7B, very good chance of being a decent NHLer but not much more. Many of our current prospects seem to be like 8D guys, who COULD boom in development and be 2nd liners, or never develop and flame out without making it past the AHL

No the way they had it is the lower the number the less impact the player was expected to have, and the higher the letter the bigger the risk to hit that level. IIRC Crosby was a 9.5B.

10 was generational prospect
9 was elite (consistent Norris/Hart/Vezina candidate type player)
8 first line/top pair
7 second line/second pair
Etc

 

[Surrounded By Ahos]

Chad Larose was a 10A.

 

[A Star is Burns]

You mean a 7B or 6C? Otherwise obviously 6B is better Or I'm completely misremembering how they did the rankings because it's been so ****ing long since I saw them last...was it 1-10 with 10 being best or 1 being best?

Geekie would probably be a 7B, very good chance of being a decent NHLer but not much more. Many of our current prospects seem to be like 8D guys, who COULD boom in development and be 2nd liners, or never develop and flame out without making it past the AHL

I think I had it right. The guys I'm advocating a bit higher, 2nd line territory but could fall a couple notches, or 3rd line guy that might fall a notch. Ultimately, they probably finish pretty similarly most of the time. I'm advocating for the slightly higher upside as long as it isn't a D or F like a Nybeck or Pashin type would be.

 

[WreckingCrew]

I think I had it right. The guys I'm advocating a bit higher, 2nd line territory but could fall a couple notches, or 3rd line guy that might fall a notch. Ultimately, they probably finish pretty similarly most of the time. I'm advocating for the slightly higher upside as long as it isn't a D or F like a Nybeck or Pashin type would be.

You did have it right, I was mis-remembering something. So it sounds like you're basically saying for you, 7C > 6B > 7D (maybe even 8E)? High potential, somewhat likely to hit > medium potential, very likely to hit > high potential, but likely boom/bust...that's probably about how I'd rank them too.

 

[A Star is Burns]

You did have it right, I was mis-remembering something. So it sounds like you're basically saying for you, 7C > 6B > 7D (maybe even 8E)? High potential, somewhat likely to hit > medium potential, very likely to hit > high potential, but likely boom/bust...that's probably about how I'd rank them too.

Yeah, I lean more in that direction. That's not to say that I might not differ on that on a case by case basis of course.

 

[Vagrant]

a few notes from my ratings. i will try to be as brief as possible

1. bokk, gunler, and puistola occupy the same space in my estimation. their stories all differ slightly, but we have three players there that are almost interchangeable in terms of projection. puistola and bokk had those amazing wjc performances that elevated them and gunler might as well, but it's a pick'em for me with these 3.

2. sellgren is probably getting too much love for his projection. he's going to be a very quiet 3rd pairing kind of guy with an ability to give you some unexpected offense occasionally, but that's not a top 10 prospect in this pool for me. i really like his game, but i don't see a player here that could play on an nhl powerplay and his defensive ability is to be determined.

3. not super comfortable with joey keane being ranked above guys like honka and fensore. something about his gaudy offensive numbers and still being a minus player doesn't sit totally right. i think if he's going to be an offensive specialist, it's tough sledding here. i am always incredulous when an organization gives up on a player that is performing so well on paper. fensore in general was ranked a bit too low for my tastes as well, but he's a pet project of mine so that's not surprising. the limitations are obvious. honka, however, seems to be a scout favorite.

4. jack drury is our second best forward prospect in my opinion. i think the narratives about him have largely been driven by his pedigree in both positive and negative ways. he has outperformed every level by a wide margin and it's hard for me to justify a side by side comparison that favors bokk or gunler for example when drury is so far ahead of them in the same league. rees is another guy that i love, but even there he's a kid that has only played like 100 games of major junior. when it comes to the total package of projection, production, and performance it's drury among those names by a good margin for me.

5. probably the most controversial compared to the rankings, but kochetkov was my 3rd overall prospect in the organization. russia has been a goalie factory the past decade and they're turning out some top flight starters. the fact that the khl is far and away the 2nd best hockey league in the world, fathoms better than the ahl, says a lot about how highly he is thought of there. the games played metric is concerning and i'm not sure exactly what is going on with that, but this is our goalie of the future on pure talent. i think waddell was sincere when questioned about askarov and saying we took our guy last year basically. goalies require some unusual patience, but in terms of impact down the road it can't be ignored that kochetkov has been trapped on some terrible, terrible teams in his young career and those situations are the hardest for young goalies when the apathy in front of you can easily lead to a degree of indifference or helplessness in the crease. there are only 5 drafted goalies under 22 playing in the khl this season with askarov and tarasov being two of the best goalie prospects in the world. to be among that group at all says a lot even if he's being utilized primarily for grooming purposes. it would be nice to perhaps see him get some vhl time to really own a net for a stretch of time, but he's beyond our control over there.

 

[tarheelhockey]

No the way they had it is the lower the number the less impact the player was expected to have, and the higher the letter the bigger the risk to hit that level. IIRC Crosby was a 9.5B.

10 was generational prospect
9 was elite (consistent Norris/Hart/Vezina candidate type player)
8 first line/top pair
7 second line/second pair
Etc

Wait, they didn't have Crosby as a 10, where 10 is a generational prospect?

He was pretty easily the most hyped prospect between Lindros and McDavid (24 years) and I would argue more hyped than McDavid. I'm wondering what the heck they were looking for from a 10.

 

[tarheelhockey]

if i recall correctly and i probably do not, stamkos was a 10 at some point?

Then he hit 30 and it was RIP hairline.

 

[emptyNedder]

the fact that the khl is far and away the 2nd best hockey league in the world, fathoms better than the ahl,

I have seen this point made by others--it is seldom an argument because it is rarely supported by statistics or any other somewhat objective criterium.

As a Canes fan I immediately thought of Tolchinsky, but that could mostly be a case of being more comfortable in Russia.

So I did some quick research.
Darren Dietz--his best AHL season 12 points in 39 games. His past two KHL seasons were 53p/62gp, 32p/54pg.

Chris Lee's best AHL season (39 points in 79 games). He then went to the KHL and had seasons with 45 points in 52 games, 46 points in 60 games, and 65 points in 60 games.

Teemu Hartikainen currently leads the KHL with 34 points in 27 games. His top AHL season was 37 points in 47 games.

Justin Danforth had 7 points over 2 seasons in 21 AHL games. This season he has 31 in 31 in the KHL.

I am sure there are lots of similar examples where players had more AHL success. I am not arguing for AHL superiority.

My point is simply that nearly every player would struggle to produce more in a league that was fathoms better.