Toggle sidebar

2021-2022 S Blues Multi-Purpose Thread Part 3

Status
Not open for further replies.
Pronman has the Blues ranked 29th in his pipeline rankings. I admittedly don't know enough about team's prospects to have any strong feelings one way or another, but I think the Blues being in the bottom 3rd is probably what I would have guessed. Seems like the depth isn't really there, even if Bolduc/Neighbours/Snuggerud is solid at the top.
 
The Note said:
Pronman has the Blues ranked 29th in his pipeline rankings. I admittedly don't know enough about team's prospects to have any strong feelings one way or another, but I think the Blues being in the bottom 3rd is probably what I would have guessed. Seems like the depth isn't really there, even if Bolduc/Neighbours/Snuggerud is solid at the top.
Click to expand...
Nothing too surprising in that article. I think we all agree that each of the last three 1st rounders are at the top of our prospect pool and then there are few/any true gems beyond that. I'd project Hofer as more than a full time backup, but he's absolutely not a top-end goalie prospect so it's tough to criticize that description.

He notes that our pool was hurt by the graduation of the 2017 class (Robert Thomas), which is absolutely true. However, I do think that the definition he uses for prospects gives me a little less cause for panic than the sticker shock of being 29th. Perunovich may not be a prospect, but he is still a young player with room to grow and good upside. Torpo fills a nice bottom 6 role with some upside and a few years of cost control given his expected role. I'm not sold that Kostin is around after this season, but he is some young cheap depth.

Obviously it would be better to have more high-end prospects, but given the organizational needs and the number of vets we have committed to with term, I think that we have enough prospects to compete for the jobs that will be available.

But the lack of gems beyond the three recent 1st rounders definitely underscores why we seem fully unwilling to shed 2 (or more) 1st round caliber futures assets in a deal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bye Bye Blueston
Brian39 said:
Nothing too surprising in that article. I think we all agree that each of the last three 1st rounders are at the top of our prospect pool and then there are few/any true gems beyond that. I'd project Hofer as more than a full time backup, but he's absolutely not a top-end goalie prospect so it's tough to criticize that description.

He notes that our pool was hurt by the graduation of the 2017 class (Robert Thomas), which is absolutely true. However, I do think that the definition he uses for prospects gives me a little less cause for panic than the sticker shock of being 29th. Perunovich may not be a prospect, but he is still a young player with room to grow and good upside. Torpo fills a nice bottom 6 role with some upside and a few years of cost control given his expected role. I'm not sold that Kostin is around after this season, but he is some young cheap depth.

Obviously it would be better to have more high-end prospects, but given the organizational needs and the number of vets we have committed to with term, I think that we have enough prospects to compete for the jobs that will be available.

But the lack of gems beyond the three recent 1st rounders definitely underscores why we seem fully unwilling to shed 2 (or more) 1st round caliber futures assets in a deal.
Click to expand...
I think your second paragraph is why I generally like articles or analysis that frames things as "U-25 cores" or something like that. That way you don't lose the value provided by guys like Thomas and Kyrou, and depth pieces with room to grow like Perunovich and Toro (and Kostin, though I agree that ship is sailing soon). Obviously, that is not the point of this article, but I think that is more valuable in helping gauge long-term outlooks of teams. Teams that have been in contention for a long time and picking in the back half of the first round like the Blues are almost always going to be dinged in prospect articles given how hard it is to find high-end talent outside of the first 10 or so picks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zezel’s Pretzels, Brian39 and Bye Bye Blueston
Didn't Pronman have us like 23rd or 24th a year ago? I may be misremembering but I don't quite understand or agree how we fell that much.

Either way, I'm not concerned. The Blues have proven time and time again that we are one of the better drafting teams in the league. We are constantly churning out NHL players even from mid to late rounds. No our late rounders aren't superstars, but we do a great job filling out the bottom part of our roster with legitimate NHL players that can step in and handle minutes.
 
BlueDream said:
Didn't Pronman have us like 23rd or 24th a year ago? I may be misremembering but I don't quite understand or agree how we fell that much.

Either way, I'm not concerned. The Blues have proven time and time again that we are one of the better drafting teams in the league. We are constantly churning out NHL players even from mid to late rounds. No our late rounders aren't superstars, but we do a great job filling out the bottom part of our roster with legitimate NHL players that can step in and handle minutes.
Click to expand...
We were 24th and the explanation for the fall is because Robert Thomas went from being our top prospect to being off the list completely because he 'graduated.' The title and 1st paragraph of last year's article explains how the potential of Thomas is the driver of that ranking and that the quality of the pool immediately drops off after him.

Losing a guy projected to be an NHL top 6 center from your prospect pool hurts the quality of that pool. It doesn't mean the team is in any worse shape, just that the organizational assets considered prospects isn't as strong.
 
Brian39 said:
We were 24th and the explanation for the fall is because Robert Thomas went from being our top prospect to being off the list completely because he 'graduated.' The title and 1st paragraph of last year's article explains how the potential of Thomas is the driver of that ranking and that the quality of the pool immediately drops off after him.

Losing a guy projected to be an NHL top 6 center from your prospect pool hurts the quality of that pool. It doesn't mean the team is in any worse shape, just that the organizational assets considered prospects isn't as strong.
Click to expand...
How was Thomas considered a prospect last year? He graduated from that 3 years ago.

Not arguing with you, but this tells me the guidelines for these rankings don't make any sense.
 
BlueDream said:
How was Thomas considered a prospect last year? He graduated from that 3 years ago.

Not arguing with you, but this tells me the guidelines for these rankings don't make any sense.
Click to expand...
Everyone has a different definition of what constitutes a prospect. Pronman's definition of a prospect is based solely on age. From the first article of the series:

"Player eligibility is determined by age. A player is eligible if they are 22 years old or younger as of Sept. 15, 2022. This encompasses almost every prospect selected between the 2018 and 2022 NHL drafts. This is used to include a team’s top prospects, without aggressively graduating players who have a lot of prime development years ahead of them, even if they are already in the NHL."

It is extremely uncommon for a player's best hockey to come before he turns 23 and I don't think I've ever seen an argument presented that a player who enters the league early will exit his prime sooner. His definition focuses on likely improvement rather than focusing on likely additions to the roster.

The Robert Thomas we got last season was a hell of a lot better than the one we got in his previous 3 seasons. including him as a prospect last year acknowledged that he still had major growth potential to help the team instead of ignoring that since he had been in the NHL for a few years already.

Edit: it is worth noting that we have been calling it a prospect ranking, but Pronman calls it a pipeline ranking and describes it as a ranking of the best young players in the organization.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Robb_K, Stupendous Yappi and Bye Bye Blueston
Brian39 said:
Nothing too surprising in that article. I think we all agree that each of the last three 1st rounders are at the top of our prospect pool and then there are few/any true gems beyond that. I'd project Hofer as more than a full time backup, but he's absolutely not a top-end goalie prospect so it's tough to criticize that description.

He notes that our pool was hurt by the graduation of the 2017 class (Robert Thomas), which is absolutely true. However, I do think that the definition he uses for prospects gives me a little less cause for panic than the sticker shock of being 29th. Perunovich may not be a prospect, but he is still a young player with room to grow and good upside. Torpo fills a nice bottom 6 role with some upside and a few years of cost control given his expected role. I'm not sold that Kostin is around after this season, but he is some young cheap depth.

Obviously it would be better to have more high-end prospects, but given the organizational needs and the number of vets we have committed to with term, I think that we have enough prospects to compete for the jobs that will be available.

But the lack of gems beyond the three recent 1st rounders definitely underscores why we seem fully unwilling to shed 2 (or more) 1st round caliber futures assets in a deal.
Click to expand...
I agree with everything said here, particularly regarding Hofer. I think he has starter potential but agree he’s not a blue chip elite guy. It’s so hard to tell with goalies and what really separates the top ones is the mental side and that’s hard to evaluate a lot of the time.

The only name that sticks out for me is Peterson. Pronman lists his hockey sense as below average and he’s also not produced much yet in 2 seasons of college hockey. Not sure what makes him our 4th best prospect. I’m not sure I’d have him in the top-15. Hopefully I’m wrong though and Peterson develops into another Toropchenko.

I think Kessel is a potential sleeper. Not an exciting prospect but a solid all-around d-man that stepped right into the T-birds lineup in the playoffs and looked good.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mk80, Bye Bye Blueston and Brian39
In terms of ROR re-signing, JT Miller is two years younger and just got 7x8 beginning next summer, which means 5x8 becomes a reasonable comp data point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BlueMed
PocketNines said:
In terms of ROR re-signing, JT Miller is two years younger and just got 7x8 beginning next summer, which means 5x8 becomes a reasonable comp data point.
Click to expand...
It doesn't really work like that though. Vancouver presumably values first 2-3 years on Miller's deal at number much above 8 and last few years well below. If he were 2 years older wouldn't give him $8mm for 5 years.
 
Blueston said:
It doesn't really work like that though. Vancouver presumably values first 2-3 years on Miller's deal at number much above 8 and last few years well below. If he were 2 years older wouldn't give him $8mm for 5 years.
Click to expand...
I would agree with this.

Additionally, even with as good as ROR is defensively, Miller just scored 41 more points than him this past season. I don’t see them as all too comparable.

I think I’d be willing to go $6.5-7M for ROR. Maybe his current $7.5M for a 2 year deal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bye Bye Blueston
PocketNines said:
In terms of ROR re-signing, JT Miller is two years younger and just got 7x8 beginning next summer, which means 5x8 becomes a reasonable comp data point.
Click to expand...
I’d be shocked if ROR gets the same AAV as Miller. Millers coming off a 99 pt season and was over a PPG two of the last 3 seasons. I know ROR brings a lot more to the table in terms of the details of the game and his Faceoff/general defensive value is high. But the big point production is where the big bucks are, I think he ends up signing for 7 or even potentially the army 6.5 lol
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom