Prospect Info: 2025 Draft: We are #1….1

[CheckingLineCenter]

You can take a chance on a player like this in the early 20's, but not at #11 or sooner. What doctor is going to signoff on a player with a natural back condition and say it's good to go. They will say a percentage of likelihood of an issue, and pick at your own risk.

I don’t necessarily disagree with the content of your post. I’m definitely simplifying- it won’t be 1 or 0, healthy or not.

but the bolded is what I’m talking about. No one fully knows what it is. The Athletic (NYT) ran an article and can’t clear it up. It could be so bad that this kid falls to the 2nd round. Or it could be so unanimously okay that he goes top 10.

I just don’t want to definitively say DND based on incomplete facts. Eichel came back from a serious neck injury, barely playing and won a cup. Vilardi has turned out ok. Others have not.

 

[CheckingLineCenter]

Because doctors can't tell the future and a guy already having back issues at 18 doesn't bode well for future health.

You realize this post says “doctors can’t tell the future” and then you yourself literally go and tell the future

 

[Empoleon8771]

You realize this post says “doctors can’t tell the future” and then you yourself literally go and tell the future

No I didn't? I'm not saying his back is definitely ruined, I just think that a guy having back issues at 18 is a major risk of having back issues as he gets older.

I'm not saying "McQueen's back is definitely ruined, so I'm not drafting him". I'm saying "the risk of him having back issues when he's already having back issues at 18 is too big for me to justify taking him". I'm saying the risk with him doesn't feel worth taking him, not that his back is definitely ruined and he's going to suck because of it.

 

[Randy Butternubs]

I'm not saying "McQueen's back is definitely ruined, so I'm not drafting him". I'm saying "the risk of him having back issues when he's already having back issues at 18 is too big for me to justify taking him". I'm saying the risk with him doesn't feel worth taking him, not that his back is definitely ruined and he's going to suck because of it.

Let's see what the medical professionals say.

 

[CheckingLineCenter]

No I didn't? I'm not saying his back is definitely ruined, I just think that a guy having back issues at 18 is a major risk of having back issues as he gets older.

I'm not saying "McQueen's back is definitely ruined, so I'm not drafting him". I'm saying "the risk of him having back issues when he's already having back issues at 18 is too big for me to justify taking him". I'm saying the risk with him doesn't feel worth taking him, not that his back is definitely ruined and he's going to suck because of it.

I just thought it was funny. You said “doesn’t bode well” which is a prediction of the future tbf

Overall my entire point is there is uncertainty. Everyone wants to default to negative and worst case scenarios with uncertainty. I don’t agree. Risks and opportunity. Has made men winners, billions, etc. You just have to get the risks right.

So I would hope that instead of auto-negative, the Penguins properly diligence this situation and I will trust the conclusion they arrive to (not that us peons have a choice ) since I will not be privy to the same information.

I don’t really care to discuss further though bc I’m not even saying draft him or don’t draft him.

 

[HandshakeLine]

Let's see what the medical professionals say.

I am a doctor (of philosophy) and I concur.

 

[eXile3]

I mean Cayden Lindstrom also played in the WHL, had similar numbers, preexisting back issues, and still went 4th overall.

 

[Ulf5]

I mean Cayden Lindstrom also played in the WHL, had similar numbers, preexisting back issues, and still went 4th overall.

Guess who's back, Shady's back. Missed the whole regular season and first 2 rounds of the playoffs. Scored 2 goals, 2 assists to put Medicine Hat up 2 games to 1 with McKenna missing the game.

Columbus Blue Jackets' Cayden Lindstrom has charley horse after hit in WHL championship

Lindstrom, picked fourth overall by the Blue Jackets, helped Medicine Hat take a 2-1 lead in WHL championship before sustaining a minor leg injury.

www.dispatch.com

 

[Jared Grayden]

I mean Cayden Lindstrom also played in the WHL, had similar numbers, preexisting back issues, and still went 4th overall.

Lindstrom's draft year production was significantly better than McQueen's.

 

[eXile3]

Lindstrom's draft year production was significantly better than McQueen's.

McQueen was injured most of his draft year. He only played 17 games.

2023-2024 McQueen had 51 points, Lindstrom had 46. McQueen had more points in his -1 draft year than Lindstrom had in his draft year.

 

[CheckingLineCenter]

McQueen was injured most of his draft year. He only played 17 games.

2023-2024 McQueen had 51 points, Lindstrom had 46. McQueen had more points in his -1 draft year than Lindstrom had in his draft year.

Not the same really, they’re both 2006 birth years

 

[Ugene Magic]

Desperate teams do desperate things.

You can simply avoid it altogether, that took a split second.... YW.

 

[Jared Grayden]

McQueen was injured most of his draft year. He only played 17 games.

2023-2024 McQueen had 51 points, Lindstrom had 46. McQueen had more points in his -1 draft year than Lindstrom had in his draft year.

Sure but D-1 is going to be much less consequential. Otherwise prospects like Ryabkin and Hagens would be viewed much more positively right now. I would expect almost everyone will prefer a prospect showing progression from D-1 to D years over a prospect largely stagnating between the two seasons.

 

[Empoleon8771]

Idk in McQueen's first WHL season, he put up 14 points in 56 games. Granted playing in your first year as a late birthyear is way harder than playing your first year in the WHL as an early birthyear, but McQueen's draft-1 season was his 2nd WHL season compared to Lindstrom's 1st WHL season.

I just don't like McQueen enough to justify taking him. He'd still be on the Desnoyers/Martone/Frondell level even if he was healthy IMO, and that level of player with major red flags regarding his health is just too much risk for me to be willing to take. It's the same way that I view Bear, Eklund and Martin as comparable prospects, but Bear's injury (when I thought it was a full laceration) made me not willing to take Bear over either Eklund or Martin.

 

[The Old Master]

You can take a chance on a player like this in the early 20's, but not at #11 or sooner. What doctor is going to signoff on a player with a natural back condition and say it's good to go. They will say a percentage of likelihood of an issue, and pick at your own risk.

it all depends on who's there when we pick. I'm thinking we will be blown away with who falls to us...................................only for the pens to pick someone else.

 

[Jesse]

My question is this: (not trolling): What can Roger McQueen do that Lynden Lakovic can't? Maybe a handful of more high-end skill moves? I think Lakovic is arguably at or beyond that McQueen's level with regard to use of body/reach in offensive chance generation.

 

[SEALBound]

I mean Cayden Lindstrom also played in the WHL, had similar numbers, preexisting back issues, and still went 4th overall.

On the main boards, I posted this basic question. I wondered if, knowing what they know now, CBJ would draft Lindstrom still at 4ov. I wondered if that would be a cautionary tale for future GMs at future drafts.

My question is this: (not trolling): What can Roger McQueen do that Lynden Lakovic can't? Maybe a handful of more high-end skill moves? I think Lakovic is arguably at or beyond that McQueen's level with regard to use of body/reach in offensive chance generation.

Indeed. Or: "If McQueen was 5'11, what is he providing?"

He's got the size, I like his shot, and he's a decent (not great skater) but everything just seems...slow? Like his moments are slow and lumbering. I know, in reality, they're not and he doesn't need as much overall movement to move around the ice but there's just a lack of "dynamics" that just make me question his NHL potential. My worry is that he looks good because he's physically gifted against kids who are not as gifted. You put him against Thompson and I think he gets run over. You put him against Bedard, Michkov, etc and he's gonna get dusted.

Still think he could turn into a decent 3C and even a good net front presence but overall, I have a feeling he's more Zohorna than Tage Thompson.

 

[CheckingLineCenter]

My question is this: (not trolling): What can Roger McQueen do that Lynden Lakovic can't? Maybe a handful of more high-end skill moves? I think Lakovic is arguably at or beyond that McQueen's level with regard to use of body/reach in offensive chance generation.

In a vacuum I don’t disagree. but I find Lakovic completely infuriating. He should be way better than he is and is way too content with playing on the perimeter and being passive. I also think he stops his feet a lot. He’s one of the more physically talented players in the class and a similar gamble to McQueen for me, just for different reasons.

To answer your question I just think it’s their B game/projecability. I think if McQueen stays healthy- outside of busting and sucking—- on the low end he could be a guy who provides some PP/net front/greasy value and is physical. Whereas Lakovic feels like he’s gotta be a big time hit, high end player to be valuable in a lineup or else he’s a Mantha, Tatar type.

 

[Ugene Magic]

it all depends on who's there when we pick. I'm thinking we will be blown away with who falls to us...................................only for the pens to pick someone else.

Quite possible.

 

[HandshakeLine]

I think this draft needs more goonery.

 

[CheckingLineCenter]

I think this draft needs more goonery.

 

[HandshakeLine]

I want us drafting kids who have been on streetbeefs.

 

[Ulf5]

 

[Tacitus Kilgore]

I want us drafting kids who have been on streetbeefs.

Or Worldstar

 

[eXile3]

As long as we don’t have some crazy reach I’m with who ever we pick. They shouldn’t be 5-7 spots outside consensus but given the players left at 11 that shouldn’t be an issue.