Prospect Info: 33rd overall Roby Jarventie LW FIN

[aragorn]

Yes but Heatley would just stand there with his stick cocked back 5 ft in the air waiting for Spezza to dish it to him.

What is wrong with that? Spezza was the playmaker & Heatley was the finisher, they needed each other, not everyone is good at finishing plays & not everyone can thread a needle with a great pass. IMO L. Brown is more like Spezza & hopefully Batherson becomes more like Heatley & can finish the plays more consistently. It takes all kinds of players to make a great team including some in less offensive roles.

 

[Sweatred]

What is wrong with that? Spezza was the playmaker & Heatley was the finisher, they needed each other, not everyone is good at finishing plays & not everyone can thread a needle with a great pass. IMO L. Brown is more like Spezza & hopefully Batherson becomes more like Heatley & can finish the plays more consistently. It takes all kinds of players to make a great team including some in less offensive roles.

I think that’s a little aggressive on Batherson’s finishing ability or shoot first mentality. I doubt he ever scores 35+. The org is still short pure triggers. I hope Batherson is somewhere shooting 200 pucks a day and maybe he develops a +shot ... IMO Dadonov and Norris are probably the two best triggers we have now.

The Sens are a little heavy on pass first distributors. I’d lump TS, Brown, Batherson as pass first players with White as more of a “fumble first” player.

Brady and Bath get their shots but they are in tight around the next vs the high slot Dadonov /Heatley type shots.

 

[aragorn]

I think that’s a little aggressive on Batherson’s finishing ability or shoot first mentality. I doubt he ever scores 35+. The org is still short pure triggers. I hope Batherson is somewhere shooting 200 pucks a day and maybe he develops a +shot ... IMO Dadonov and Norris are probably the two best triggers we have now.

The Sens are a little heavy on pass first distributors. I’d lump TS, Brown, Batherson as pass first players with White as more of a “fumble first” player.

Brady and Bath get their shots but they are in tight around the next vs the high slot Dadonov /Heatley type shots.

Agreed, I was using that as an example, I don't expect anyone on this team or in this org yet to score like Heatley could, he was one of, if not the best all time great scorers on this team IMO.

 

[armani]

Agreed, I was using that as an example, I don't expect anyone on this team or in this org yet to score like Heatley could, he was one of, if not the best all time great scorers on this team IMO.

Not an opinion, a fact. Heatley was/remains the only legit allstar player in prime we traded for. A supposedly stationary Heatley still went onto score multiple 50 goals seasons.

Jarventie actually reminds me of pre-accident Heatley in Atlanta, but faster. Definitely not saying he will have Heatley's production, but with speed, size, and shot already in his toolbox, with much nurturing we could be looking at a future 25+goal scorer in the league (like the Sens very own Dadonov). He appears to be the best shooter in the prospect pipeline.

 

[JaredCowen4Norris]

I think that’s a little aggressive on Batherson’s finishing ability or shoot first mentality. I doubt he ever scores 35+. The org is still short pure triggers. I hope Batherson is somewhere shooting 200 pucks a day and maybe he develops a +shot ... IMO Dadonov and Norris are probably the two best triggers we have now.

The Sens are a little heavy on pass first distributors. I’d lump TS, Brown, Batherson as pass first players with White as more of a “fumble first” player.

Brady and Bath get their shots but they are in tight around the next vs the high slot Dadonov /Heatley type shots.

L. Brown has a pretty nice shot from deep, he just doesn't use it much. While I probably wouldn't have taken him at 3rd or 5th, Holtz would have been nice to draft purely for the goal scoring abilities. Probably one of the only things our prospect pool is missing (though Jarvy has been looking good so far)

 

[TheDebater]

I think that’s a little aggressive on Batherson’s finishing ability or shoot first mentality. I doubt he ever scores 35+. The org is still short pure triggers. I hope Batherson is somewhere shooting 200 pucks a day and maybe he develops a +shot ... IMO Dadonov and Norris are probably the two best triggers we have now.

The Sens are a little heavy on pass first distributors. I’d lump TS, Brown, Batherson as pass first players with White as more of a “fumble first” player.

Brady and Bath get their shots but they are in tight around the next vs the high slot Dadonov /Heatley type shots.

You were almost going to get a "like" for that post until you found a way to take a shot at White in it...

 

[Frank8]

Just curious & this is a general question for everyone. What if those particular players that people wanted that we did not draft do end up being better individually & the players we drafted end up with less points? However, Ottawa's team as a whole improves with the players they drafted & become one of the best team's in the NHL because of it? Who wins & loses in that scenario when the other players we did not draft have more pts, but the players Ottawa did draft make the team better because the players they drafted fit better into this system & team? Of course, this remains to be seen, it's all hypothetical at this point. I think Drysdale will end up much more offensively productive than Sanderson, but IMO Sanderson will make Ottawa's team better with his complete 200' game.

Let's use Washington & OV as an example. OV was & has been a dynamic player for yrs putting up tons of pts & scoring lots of goals. However, it wasn't until Trotz came along that he bought into the team concept & lo & behold (does anyone say that anymore) they win a cup because the best player on the team bought into the team concept & the team as a whole won the SC because of it. The next yr when the new GM did not re-sign Trotz, Wash again lost in the playoffs & seem to be on their way down.

Meanwhile back at the ranch, Trotz & the NYI, his new team, begin to climb their way up the standings. Is it because he is a great coach or is it because he can get the star players to buy into a winning team concept & places the right players in positions to succeed? Do you draft the players who can produce the most pts but are not team players or players who can fit better into the team concept creating team success over individual success? Individual success can get you a bigger contract while a team's success can win you a SC. It's not only interesting to debate but could it also be a part of team strategy when discussing who exactly is the BPA? Whether a player who can produce a lot of pts is more important/valuable than a player's overall game & which player might fit better into what a team is building? OV can outscore Stone, but Stone can make everyone around him better & potentially make the team better because of it.

I think this really is at the core of the debate. There's no question Ottawa has leaned into this "tough to play against, high character, hard working, guys who know each other and/or play in the same programme" approach, sometimes at the expense of pure talent. I personally think they're eschewing talent too often, but maybe they're right, maybe a core of guys who play the right way peppered with some high-end talent is enough. Maybe that's a team that gets it done in the playoffs. And maybe they feel they already have or can acquire talent as they go - the Dadonov signing sure hints at that. Will it bother me to watch guys we passed on light it up even while we're winning games as a team? Other then some pangs of jealousy, no. Winning is winning.

 

[Alf Silfversson]

Just curious & this is a general question for everyone. What if those particular players that people wanted that we did not draft do end up being better individually & the players we drafted end up with less points? However, Ottawa's team as a whole improves with the players they drafted & become one of the best team's in the NHL because of it? Who wins & loses in that scenario when the other players we did not draft have more pts, but the players Ottawa did draft make the team better because the players they drafted fit better into this system & team? Of course, this remains to be seen, it's all hypothetical at this point. I think Drysdale will end up much more offensively productive than Sanderson, but IMO Sanderson will make Ottawa's team better with his complete 200' game.

Let's use Washington & OV as an example. OV was & has been a dynamic player for yrs putting up tons of pts & scoring lots of goals. However, it wasn't until Trotz came along that he bought into the team concept & lo & behold (does anyone say that anymore) they win a cup because the best player on the team bought into the team concept & the team as a whole won the SC because of it. The next yr when the new GM did not re-sign Trotz, Wash again lost in the playoffs & seem to be on their way down.

Meanwhile back at the ranch, Trotz & the NYI, his new team, begin to climb their way up the standings. Is it because he is a great coach or is it because he can get the star players to buy into a winning team concept & places the right players in positions to succeed? Do you draft the players who can produce the most pts but are not team players or players who can fit better into the team concept creating team success over individual success? Individual success can get you a bigger contract while a team's success can win you a SC. It's not only interesting to debate but could it also be a part of team strategy when discussing who exactly is the BPA? Whether a player who can produce a lot of pts is more important/valuable than a player's overall game & which player might fit better into what a team is building? OV can outscore Stone, but Stone can make everyone around him better & potentially make the team better because of it.

I mean that depends. No team is going to win it all every year. So let's say we win one Cup in the next ten years with Jake Sanderson playing like the next Marc Methot. We're still a highly competitive team because Batherson busts out as an 80 point player, Josh Norris is a Selke-level player like Toews or Bergeron and Matt Murray has a 0.925 SV% for a half a dozen years. But meanwhile Jamie Drysdale is playing like a right handed Scott Niedermayer for a decade. In that case then yeah I'll be pissed off at our selection.

But if Sanderson is a 25 minute a night two-way player who is one of our best players during a Cup victory I'll be fine with it even if Drysdale becomes a RH Niedermayer.

As for the Trotz thing? Isn't that an argument for drafting/acquiring the most talented players and then finding a coach who will get them to play a winning style? You see it time and time again. Yzerman and Bowman. OV and Trotz. Kane and Toews and coach Q (to a degree). High end talents who don't win early in their career but then find the right coach and turn into winners. So the recipe isn't necessarily drafting or getting players who all "play the right way" (man I hate that phrase) but rather finding a coach who uses his players to make a cohesive, winning team out of a collection of talented players.

 

[KnuckChuckinTkachuk]

Not an opinion, a fact. Heatley was/remains the only legit allstar player in prime we traded for. A supposedly stationary Heatley still went onto score multiple 50 goals seasons.

Jarventie actually reminds me of pre-accident Heatley in Atlanta, but faster. Definitely not saying he will have Heatley's production, but with speed, size, and shot already in his toolbox, with much nurturing we could be looking at a future 25+goal scorer in the league (like the Sens very own Dadonov). He appears to be the best shooter in the prospect pipeline.

Agreed even though we don't really have any pure shooter prospects outside of Roby with the only other "trigger man" probably being Norris at this point.

 

[Sweatred]

You were almost going to get a "like" for that post until you found a way to take a shot at White in it...

I got stuck trying to figure out if he was a pass first or shoot first player ... all I could come up with was fumble.

 

[Sweatred]

L. Brown has a pretty nice shot from deep, he just doesn't use it much. While I probably wouldn't have taken him at 3rd or 5th, Holtz would have been nice to draft purely for the goal scoring abilities. Probably one of the only things our prospect pool is missing (though Jarvy has been looking good so far)

Ive only ever seen Logan setup on the left side. Sorta wonder why no one uses him on his off side on the PP or something ... He gets some pucks to the net but he will always be a pass first player.

I loved the idea of Holtz but the Sens signed Dadonov which sorta fills that need and adds a dman we probably couldn’t sign.

 

[Burrowsaurus]

Just curious & this is a general question for everyone. What if those particular players that people wanted that we did not draft do end up being better individually & the players we drafted end up with less points? However, Ottawa's team as a whole improves with the players they drafted & become one of the best team's in the NHL because of it? Who wins & loses in that scenario when the other players we did not draft have more pts, but the players Ottawa did draft make the team better because the players they drafted fit better into this system & team? Of course, this remains to be seen, it's all hypothetical at this point. I think Drysdale will end up much more offensively productive than Sanderson, but IMO Sanderson will make Ottawa's team better with his complete 200' game.

Let's use Washington & OV as an example. OV was & has been a dynamic player for yrs putting up tons of pts & scoring lots of goals. However, it wasn't until Trotz came along that he bought into the team concept & lo & behold (does anyone say that anymore) they win a cup because the best player on the team bought into the team concept & the team as a whole won the SC because of it. The next yr when the new GM did not re-sign Trotz, Wash again lost in the playoffs & seem to be on their way down.

Meanwhile back at the ranch, Trotz & the NYI, his new team, begin to climb their way up the standings. Is it because he is a great coach or is it because he can get the star players to buy into a winning team concept & places the right players in positions to succeed? Do you draft the players who can produce the most pts but are not team players or players who can fit better into the team concept creating team success over individual success? Individual success can get you a bigger contract while a team's success can win you a SC. It's not only interesting to debate but could it also be a part of team strategy when discussing who exactly is the BPA? Whether a player who can produce a lot of pts is more important/valuable than a player's overall game & which player might fit better into what a team is building? OV can outscore Stone, but Stone can make everyone around him better & potentially make the team better because of it.

I mean in that case it wouldn’t be clear. And I would be happy.

my comment was if it was clear. Very very clear.

 

[JaredCowen4Norris]

Ive only ever seen Logan setup on the left side. Sorta wonder why no one uses him on his off side on the PP or something ... He gets some pucks to the net but he will always be a pass first player.

I loved the idea of Holtz but the Sens signed Dadonov which sorta fills that need and adds a dman we probably couldn’t sign.

He's a nice triple threat on the LW boards. He'll either work it down low, go cross crease, or shoot. Hopefully as more teams adjust to try and cover his passing he'll get more opportunities to shoot.

Yeah, I wouldn't have taken Holtz over Sanderson. I'm happy with Dadonov but he's going to be a stop gap more then a solution. My guess is we try and get a young, shoot-first RW like Laine in the next year or two.

 

[bert]

Not absolutely everyone:
Cam Robinson: Rossi
Jokke Nevalainen: Raymond
Frank8: Raymond/Rossi

Sanderson isn't risky, he just isn't the game breaker the other guys are.

But we've beaten this to death, the Sens did some good things and if Järventie emerges as a first round talent, this draft may end up looking very, very good.

You're not a professional. No real scouts had Rossi ahead, most real scouts didn't even have Rossi first on his own jr team. My point stands.

 

[Sweatred]

He's a nice triple threat on the LW boards. He'll either work it down low, go cross crease, or shoot. Hopefully as more teams adjust to try and cover his passing he'll get more opportunities to shoot.

Yeah, I wouldn't have taken Holtz over Sanderson. I'm happy with Dadonov but he's going to be a stop gap more then a solution. My guess is we try and get a young, shoot-first RW like Laine in the next year or two.

I agree with you ... although a RW trigger appears pretty available on the FA market. Dadonov or Hoffman types are prob the easiest piece to acquire.

 

[ijif]

You're not a professional. No real scouts had Rossi ahead, most real scouts didn't even have Rossi first on his own jr team. My point stands.

What do you mean by a real scout? Jokke was just hired by an NHL team.

Additionally, can you point to a source that suggests that most scouts had Quinn over Rossi? The most reputable source is Bob McKenzie's list, and his last has Rossi ahead of Quinn. I am not saying that is definitive proof. I'm not saying you are wrong. I am asking if you have any proof of your assertion.

 

[bert]

What do you mean by a real scout? Jokke was just hired by an NHL team.

Additionally, can you point to a source that suggests that most scouts had Quinn over Rossi? The most reputable source is Bob McKenzie's list, and his last has Rossi ahead of Quinn. I am not saying that is definitive proof. I'm not saying you are wrong. I am asking if you have any proof of your assertion.

Buffalo clearly did and I know Ottawa did. The other scouts I know and spoke to that were at the games too. Literally not one source that I know had Rossi ahead. Now I guess that shouldn't constitue all that was the incorrect term. Should have been 'all that I know'.

Jokke has Rossi ahead or just Raymond? Let's get back to the original point that was being argued. It was suggested that Stuetzle was not a concensus top 3 pick. Who else argues that he wasn't and please bring your proof. One internet scout isn't going to tip tip the balance.

I will also add, no one except @JD1 acknowledged when Quinn was picked ahead of Rossi after I was doubted, ridiculed and insulted for months leading up to the draft. Thats the thing about hf boards I have been correct on similar situations like this for years. Instead of any sort of mutual respect of my opinion its constant contrarian arguments and put downs. @DJB has had to endure similar situations when he provides information. I am not sure if its jealousy of people that are simply petty behind an alias.

 

[Qward]

No real scouts had Rossi ahead

What?

 

[ijif]

Buffalo clearly did and I know Ottawa did. The other scouts I know and spoke to that were at the games too. Literally not one source that I know had Rossi ahead. Now I guess that shouldn't constitue all that was the incorrect term. Should have been 'all that I know'.

Jokke has Rossi ahead or just Raymond? Let's get back to the original point that was being argued. It was suggested that Stuetzle was not a concensus top 3 pick. Who else argues that he wasn't and please bring your proof. One internet scout isn't going to tip tip the balance.

I will also add, no one except @JD1 acknowledged when Quinn was picked ahead of Rossi after I was doubted, ridiculed and insulted for months leading up to the draft. Thats the thing about hf boards I have been correct on similar situations like this for years. Instead of any sort of mutual respect of my opinion its constant contrarian arguments and put downs. @DJB has had to endure similar situations when he provides information. I am not sure if its jealousy of people that are simply petty behind an alias.

I am not arguing any point. I asked you two questions. What is your definition of a real scout, and I asked for evidence for the comparative Quinn and Rossi claim.

Thanks for your clarifications!

 

[bert]

I am not arguing any point. I asked you two questions. What is your definition of a real scout, and I asked for evidence for the comparative Quinn and Rossi claim.

Thanks for your clarifications!

My definition of a real scout is someone that is compensated for their time in evaluating talent for a professional entity. I'd consider this a person who is employed by some level of professional hockey club. Or a scouting agency like the ISS. Internet scouts who blog, post on Twitter or YouTube don't count as professionals because they have no actual influence on tangible results.

 

[Burrowsaurus]

You're not a professional. No real scouts had Rossi ahead, most real scouts didn't even have Rossi first on his own jr team. My point stands.

uggghhhh i hate commenting.. but like okay lots of these popular "internet" scouts didnt have stutzle top 3. would you give them any kudos if he turn out to be cleaaarrrlllyyy not the 3rd best player in this draft. what if Rossi ends up far better than quinn or stutzle. and heres the thing... your kudos mean nothing. nothing is lost or gained.

Like I am not a "real" scout but if i watched a ton of hockey al these plyers and i came here and i was like " guys ztuztle aint that f***ing good i think raymond or rossi is better and will be better" and it turns out to be completely true. damn i would expect some credit lmfao. i mean THAT is how you start building credbility.. watching these guys... and being right. you have to start somewhere.

 

[Burrowsaurus]

My definition of a real scout is someone that is compensated for their time in evaluating talent for a professional entity. I'd consider this a person who is employed by some level of professional hockey club. Or a scouting agency like the ISS. Internet scouts who blog, post on Twitter or YouTube don't count as professionals because they have no actual influence on tangible results.

can be dangerous in a business that is pretty much COMPLETELY "who you know". what is a "tangible"result. their lists are out there. the tangible aspect of it is "right" or "wrong"

 

[Sweatred]

How about a Nik Antropov comparison ?

 

[Frank8]

You're not a professional. No real scouts had Rossi ahead, most real scouts didn't even have Rossi first on his own jr team. My point stands.

Really, "real scouts"? We're still doing this after Jokke's hiring? You can bet Cam will be next. Your old school thinking is being replaced, my friend. Plus, Frank8 is a genius.

 

[Xspyrit]

Really, "real scouts"? We're still doing this after Jokke's hiring? You can bet Cam will be next. Your old school thinking is being replaced, my friend. Plus, Frank8 is a genius.

Jokke wasn't a "real scout" until his hire, he had potential and a team "picked" him. He'll still have to prove himself to them. It's like anything else. Hockey players aren't pro hockey players until they turn pro. Jarrod Maidens never had the chance to be a pro hockey player.

It doesn't mean a random people's opinion (including you, inluding me, including these "internet scouts") is not valuable, but in the end it's just one opinion in a sea of opinions. "Real scouts" have opinions too, but they are paid because they have some kind of track record and spent a lot of time developing some kind of expertise to have those opinions. Jokke spent a lot of time towards becoming more "professional" and now he has the chance to. Good for him