Its a good question that needs a pragmatic analysis.
Elias Petterson was PPG in this league in his draft year. Lekkerimaki had more points in the SHL last year then he had this year in the Allvenskan. Context matter.
Dvorsky has played with the worst team in this league. He also had low TOI and he did not have prime offensive minutes. Those are defensive league where most team plays the trap. Its unwatchable seriously. That does not explain everything of course but its something to consider. He is totally obliterating his peers tho. Dvorsky does not have the offensive tools of Petterson.
One thing, Fantilli will be 19 when the next NHL season starts. Dvorsky will still be 18 when the Stanley Cup is lifted in 2024. I hope Dvorsky will make the Slovakian team for the World Cup, that should give us a brighter idea of his ultimate potential.
I watched a bit of Dvorskys league play, and it wasn’t a case where he was overwhelmed in the league. He was playing with plugs on his line, frequently Dvorsky would see thing they wouldn’t see. And as others said his role and TOI wasn’t optimal for production either.
And that’s why often production can be misleading as your linemates and usage have major impacts on your production. But Dvorskys skills were evident and he played a big body game against men that was very impressive, no fear at all in this kid.
The one thing he needs to work on is consistency in his stride, but otherwise he’s the complete package.
Thanks fellas.
A (perhaps excessively) critical view on the situation is to say something like:
(1) Dvorsky was not able to earn more TOI despite being on a very bad team,
(2) his inability to produce against defenders who are not NHL-calibre does not indicate reason to be optimistic for when he has to produce against NHL-calibre defenders, and
(3) his inability to raise the game of his linemates indicates he is not yet a top-tier playmaker
Why should the Habs risk this important pick on a player with dubious production upside?
See what I'm getting at here?
With top picks should only draft players who have either (1) actually obliterated their peers (ie were too good for their league) or (2) have set performance benchmarks that have historically indicated greatness to come (eg their production rates in various leagues).
The argument for (1) is obvious: the NHL is the pinnacle of the sport and no one is entitled to thrive in the NHL unless they'd surely
obliterate their lesser-than-NHL leagues -- this is why the criticisms of Mesar's underwhelming year are valid (though not conclusive, development is a process that cannot be rushed), in D+1 Mesar has not been able to stand out in the CHL, he is therefore very far from the NHL and his stock has lowered.
The argument for (2) is also obvious: if the player cannot obliterate the field, then at least his numbers must be at certain benchmarks that have correlated with success in the NHL. This is what everybody is saying about Michkov for instance -- that his numbers, at his age, are strongly indicating future success.
Personally, I don't care about "200ft" game, I don't care about "intangibles", I don't care about "he plays the game the right way", and unless it affects his ability to produce in the NHL I don't care about his size or speed even, etc. All that stuff is secondary to the fact
we need a big time point producer. He needs to be a forward, C or W (preferably C), and he needs to demonstrate he can be relied on to produce like a workhorse. It's not too much to ask for the Habs to draft for production upside instead of drafting for "hates to lose more than likes to win" or whatever pop-psych drafting nonsense we suffered under the previous regime.
