Prospect Info: 2024-25 Ducks Prospects

[FiveTacos]

He's not AHL eligible based on the NHL/CHL agreement. The new rules allowing CHL players to jump to the NCAA, would allow him to play college hockey next year though.

Except he signed an ELC, so that option closed for him.

 

[WhatTheDuck]

Except he signed an ELC, so that option closed for him.

Ah that's right

 

[All Mighty]

As a guy who doesn't know anything about restrictions for prospects, what are Sennecke's options next year?

Cause I don't think throwing him into the NHL is the way to go and I definitely think he's outgrowing the OHL.

I wouldn’t be surprised if they do what they did with McTavish and Luneau. Give him up to 9 games in the NHL spread across October and November. Maybe give him an AHL conditioning stint in that time. Then send him to the WJC and back to the OHL after the tournament is over.

 

[Hockey Duckie]

I wouldn’t be surprised if they do what they did with McTavish and Luneau. Give him up to 9 games in the NHL spread across October and November. Maybe give him an AHL conditioning stint in that time. Then send him to the WJC and back to the OHL after the tournament is over.

Sennecke will probably take the Luneau route than Mac route. Sennecke needs to bulk up heavily or he will be broken.

Luneau's purpose at the NHL level was to bulk up for half the season. He complained about all he did was body build and just wanted to play games. Tristan got 7 NHL games and 6 AHL games on a conditioning stint, all being healthy. On Dec 10, 2022, Luneau got assigned to WJC camp.

Mac got injured in his third NHL game on Oct 18th. Then got assigned to go San Diego for a conditioning stint on Oct 28th. Played 3 games there. Called back up to the NHL club on Nov 6th. Afterwards, played six consecutive games at the NHL to reach his 9-game limit on Nov 18th. Mac played LW at the NHL level and Center in the AHL. Anaheim was finally getting some forwards back from injury and there was no room for Mac on the roster, which made it easier to send Mac back to the OHL to play center. Re-assigned to the Petes on Nov 25th.

 

[BerthMania]

Out of curiosité, how would you rank these 4 young d prospects in order of best career (#1 the best career out of the 4, #4 the worst career out of the 4). And use your own definition of ''best'' or ''worst'' career.

Pavel Mintyukov, Olen Zellweger, Jackson Lacombe, Tristan Luneau

 

[HanSolo]

Out of curiosité, how would you rank these 4 young d prospects in order of best career (#1 the best career out of the 4, #4 the worst career out of the 4). And use your own definition of ''best'' or ''worst'' career.

Pavel Mintyukov, Olen Zellweger, Jackson Lacombe, Tristan Luneau

Tough to say because defensemen have a tendency to break out later than forwards and a lot of these kids are still really young.

Ranking them by how they're going right now,

1. Lacombe
Big gap
2. Zellweger
3. Mintyukov
4. Luneau

Ranking them by the flashes of overall potential all of them have shown at one point or another?

1 Mintyukov
2. Lacombe
3. Luneau
4. Zellweger

But I really wouldn't feel confident trying to project who will have the best career. Everything can change here if the Ducks revamp their development staffing or any of the guys not named Lacombe have a late breakthrough.

 

[Static]

Masse finished with a couple goals tonight.

 

[Static]

Procyszyn finished with an assist.

 

[Zegs2sendhelp]

Masse finished with a couple goals tonight.

Started out hot, had his injury and hasn’t seemed to really get going yet(tho seems like he’s starting to heat up now)

 

[WhatTheDuck]

Sennecke suspended for one game for......tripping?

 

[Rasp]

Sennecke suspended for one game for......tripping?

Wow so if some injury prone player is out there he is going to get a bunch of people suspended? That's a dumb rule

 

[WhatTheDuck]

Wow so if some injury prone player is out there he is going to get a bunch of people suspended? That's a dumb rule

I've yet to see video myself. Reading through comments, it does sound like it was a kind of cheap/unnecessary move where he dumped the guy as he was on his way to the bench.

I don't like a blanket rule where you get suspended for any penalty that results in injury, but if you do hurt someone on a "non hockey" play, you probably do deserve further discipline. I'd have to see this one for myself though

 

[The Midnight Burrito]

I've yet to see video myself. Reading through comments, it does sound like it was a kind of cheap/unnecessary move where he dumped the guy as he was on his way to the bench.

I don't like a blanket rule where you get suspended for any penalty that results in injury, but if you do hurt someone on a "non hockey" play, you probably do deserve further discipline. I'd have to see this one for myself though

It SOUNDS like he’s being suspended because he got mad and did something unnecessary which ended up injuring a player. Which I’m fine with, if so. Supplemental discipline is kind of a risk you take when you lash out.

 

[ADHB]

I've yet to see video myself. Reading through comments, it does sound like it was a kind of cheap/unnecessary move where he dumped the guy as he was on his way to the bench.

I don't like a blanket rule where you get suspended for any penalty that results in injury, but if you do hurt someone on a "non hockey" play, you probably do deserve further discipline. I'd have to see this one for myself though

Agreed, but this whole thing about whether a play results in an injury or not in general is a stupid way to decide how harsh the penalty or discipline is. Have always thought this.

The high sticking is a perfect example. The most innocuous high stick could catch a guy in the lip and cause a cut, therefore 4 minutes. But you could take a full on lacrosse swing at a guy but hit him in the visor and therefore only 2 minutes because "no blood."

 

[The Midnight Burrito]

Agreed, but this whole thing about whether a play results in an injury or not in general is a stupid way to decide how harsh the penalty or discipline is. Have always thought this.

The high sticking is a perfect example. The most innocuous high stick could catch a guy in the lip and cause a cut, therefore 4 minutes. But you could take a full on lacrosse swing at a guy but hit him in the visor and therefore only 2 minutes because "no blood."

A full on deliberate lacrosse swing to a guy’s face is probably going to get you suspended regardless of whether the player is saved by a visor. The technicality doesn’t swallow the rule, and there are other rules that cover things like that.

 

[JAHV]

Agreed, but this whole thing about whether a play results in an injury or not in general is a stupid way to decide how harsh the penalty or discipline is. Have always thought this.

The high sticking is a perfect example. The most innocuous high stick could catch a guy in the lip and cause a cut, therefore 4 minutes. But you could take a full on lacrosse swing at a guy but hit him in the visor and therefore only 2 minutes because "no blood."

I don't disagree, but your latter example doesn't work - if that happened, the guy would get a 5-minute major, whether or not there was an injury.

I do agree that the action needs to be punished, not necessarily the result.

 

[Anaheim4ever]

So he's trying to be like Corey Perry ? both had huge 2nd half's in their draft year and were super razor thin and needed to bulk up.

 

[Static]

Moore has a goal, callow an assist.

 

[ADHB]

A full on deliberate lacrosse swing to a guy’s face is probably going to get you suspended regardless of whether the player is saved by a visor. The technicality doesn’t swallow the rule, and there are other rules that cover things like that.

Probably too extreme an example. But I’m just saying that the recklessness of the action should determine the penalty, not how much of an injury it causes or doesn’t cause. I’m sure you get the idea.

Two identical plays could cause vastly different consequences as far as cut, no cut, etc. There’s no reason one should be a more severe penalty than the other.

Another example, or way to look at it, would be on something like an elbow. One guy could connect with an elbow to the jaw and give a guy a concussion. Another guy doing the exact same thing could result in nothing because the other player sees it at the last second and avoids the hit. Both should be punished the same. But we know that’s not the case. DOPS even includes “caused an injury” or “no injury occurred” in its videos when it explains the severity of a suspension.

 

[Hockey Duckie]

Probably too extreme an example. But I’m just saying that the recklessness of the action should determine the penalty, not how much of an injury it causes or doesn’t cause. I’m sure you get the idea.

Two identical plays could cause vastly different consequences as far as cut, no cut, etc. There’s no reason one should be a more severe penalty than the other.

Another example, or way to look at it, would be on something like an elbow. One guy could connect with an elbow to the jaw and give a guy a concussion. Another guy doing the exact same thing could result in nothing because the other player sees it at the last second and avoids the hit. Both should be punished the same. But we know that’s not the case. DOPS even includes “caused an injury” or “no injury occurred” in its videos when it explains the severity of a suspension.

Sennecke was penalized for the incident in the game. Then the incident was reviewed and their DoPS dropped a one-game suspension. On reddit, someone said that it's OHL policy that if a player gets injured on a penalty then it's an automatic suspension.

 

[The Midnight Burrito]

Probably too extreme an example. But I’m just saying that the recklessness of the action should determine the penalty, not how much of an injury it causes or doesn’t cause. I’m sure you get the idea.

Two identical plays could cause vastly different consequences as far as cut, no cut, etc. There’s no reason one should be a more severe penalty than the other.

Another example, or way to look at it, would be on something like an elbow. One guy could connect with an elbow to the jaw and give a guy a concussion. Another guy doing the exact same thing could result in nothing because the other player sees it at the last second and avoids the hit. Both should be punished the same. But we know that’s not the case. DOPS even includes “caused an injury” or “no injury occurred” in its videos when it explains the severity of a suspension.

I agree that intent should be the determinant but intent is hard to prove, plus the result would be widespread suspensions and major penalties on seemingly “nothing” plays. That’s a true deterrent but there’s no appetite for that from either the league or the players union.

Ultimately, when people are given a choice between result insensitivity versus dessert insensitivity, they almost always choose the latter because it feels less unfair even though it doesn’t make logical sense. When someone speeds 50 mph through a school zone, we give them a ticket. When someone speeds 50 mph through a school zone and strikes a child, we send them to prison. It’s the same reckless act but the result changes the vibe.

 

[TopShelfWaterBottle]

Wow so if some injury prone player is out there he is going to get a bunch of people suspended? That's a dumb rule

Oh Canada not my home and native land true patriarchs in all the sons commands