Prospect Info: Blues 2024-2025 Prospect Thread

[Mike Liut]

Is this for lower level prospects that aren’t in Springfield?

 

[Celtic Note]

Not that I disagree with this sentiment, but I think fair to also point out that teams like Edmonton and Arizona/Utah have had really, really bad management for the past decade and a half. The Oilers were lucky and unlucky in the fact that they were able to draft #1 overall multiple years, but could never really figure out how to build a team. Their defense sucked for many years because they could neither draft nor develop any form of a top 4. As well, their #1 selections were good players but never first overall in terms of performance. It took them getting really lucky with Draisaitl's development and getting the best offensive player to possibly play the sport before they could sniff the playoffs. Despite 2 generational talents, they have still had a hard time -- I blame this on management.

I think Utah is in a much better spot now with BArmstrong at the helm (at least in terms of drafting, idk about him as a legit GM yet). Sure, they've drafted high in most drafts for the past decade, but unfortunately they've never supplanted the team with free agent talent around the young guys (also they would never pay for that anyway). They've only really had maybe 2 good drafts in 15 ish years (2016 and 2021), thus their scouting has been suspect. So along with being cheap, these young players have really had to fight and claw their way to find out what winning is like. I just looked this up: Did you you the Coyotes have only had 3 coaches since 2009-2010????? I think the game passed Tippett by as well as players getting older and retiring, but Tocchet is a good coach and Tourigny idk yet. I dont necessarily think the coaching is awful, but it's hard to say when the team is filled with who-the-heck-knows-at-any-given-point so it could be a combo of both. I put a lot of Airzona/Utah and Edmonton's issues over the years with management specifically because they've had opportunities to be better and have fallen short many of those years.

And this is why I add things at the end of posts saying if you have a bad front office I’d doesn’t matter what strategy, you will suck. In the past, Arizona would fail 10/10 times no matter the strategy. With BA at the helm we need more time to see if they have the right people in place now. IMO, we have to somewhat divorce the BA years from the previous ones as it’s a different regime.

People keep choosing the worst case scenarios as examples to refute the evidence and some are acting like people are saying a rebuild is a fool proof plan. It isn’t. You still have to be a well run organization with good scouting to leverage it.

Or in the case of the Oilers, just do it forever until luck circumvents your ineptitude. That’s certainly a strategy. It’s not one I would ever particularly care to employ.

For the Blues we have built a good base of forward depth, we have some pretty skilled guys, we built some good D depth recently and we already have goalies I feel comfortable will give us a chance to compete. On D we have a glaring hole still and at forward we need more high end talent. So I don’t see a need to go into this abyss that others are alluding to, nor do I believe our organization is run poorly and that it’s a guaranteed outcome.

However, what bottoming out for some period of time does is give you better odds you will draft better talent than you would otherwise. History and data clearly support that claim. It doesn’t mean you get pick number 5 or whatever top pick number and the moment you walk away from the podium you instantly have a star. There is a ton that goes into it before and after. Some of it is contingent on luck. Some draft years are just better than others. If you hit in a good year, you may not need to stay down for as long. But the longer you stay down, the less luck factors because law of averages is in your favor. This is why we were able to over come the EJ pick with the Pietrangelo one. We had more tries at it. The law of averages won out.

 

[Celtic Note]

I just counted the D drafted top 10, from 2007 until 2020 and it roughly comes out to about one out of 4 was on the ESPN survey
some of the other 75% are busts, some are JAGS, and some are good but not studs

Nice! I appreciate the work you put in.

Personally, I really like those odds. Certainly higher than the last half of the first round. Plus, I would wager we can do better than average there with our scouting staff at the helm.

But even if they only are 1:4, you still have the good but not greats, so it doesn’t need to be a completely blown pick. So what’s that rate? 60%? (I am not asking or even hoping you to do this. I realize it’s a fair bit of work to do).

Is this for lower level prospects that aren’t in Springfield?

Yes. ECHL is just below AHL. Typically if you don’t make the AHL team you get sen t down to the ECHL one. It’s still a pro league. Ellis for example when down there when we had our AHL logjam.

 

[Frenzy31]

And this is why I add things at the end of posts saying if you have a bad front office I’d doesn’t matter what strategy, you will suck. In the past, Arizona would fail 10/10 times no matter the strategy. With BA at the helm we need more time to see if they have the right people in place now. IMO, we have to somewhat divorce the BA years from the previous ones as it’s a different regime.

People keep choosing the worst case scenarios as examples to refute the evidence and some are acting like people are saying a rebuild is a fool proof plan. It isn’t. You still have to be a well run organization with good scouting to leverage it.

Or in the case of the Oilers, just do it forever until luck circumvents your ineptitude. That’s certainly a strategy. It’s not one I would ever particularly care to employ.

For the Blues we have built a good base of forward depth, we have some pretty skilled guys, we built some good D depth recently and we already have goalies I feel comfortable will give us a chance to compete. On D we have a glaring hole still and at forward we need more high end talent. So I don’t see a need to go into this abyss that others are alluding to, nor do I believe our organization is run poorly and that it’s a guaranteed outcome.

However, what bottoming out for some period of time does is give you better odds you will draft better talent than you would otherwise. History and data clearly support that claim. It doesn’t mean you get pick number 5 or whatever top pick number and the moment you walk away from the podium you instantly have a star. There is a ton that goes into it before and after. Some of it is contingent on luck. Some draft years are just better than others. If you hit in a good year, you may not need to stay down for as long. But the longer you stay down, the less luck factors because law of averages is in your favor. This is why we were able to over come the EJ pick with the Pietrangelo one. We had more tries at it. The law of averages won out.

To me, it is more about acquiring the following: doesn't matter how, clearly easier to get in the draft.

Need a legit number 1 center. (Not a 1b like Backes or Stas). (We have)
Need a number 1 Dman. (We need)
You need a solid top pairing (this isn't always a number 1 and 2 dman together- Pie was often paired with a weaker partner). 2nd Pairing also has to be able to hold the fort. Ideally two pairing that can cover 23 - 25 minutes a night in the playoffs and can help when you are on the road and can't get the matchups. (- this could be fixed if we got a number 1 dman or true first pairing guy).

Scoring depth in the bottom 6. Top lines usually cancel out, so to win you need to get scoring from other areas. (very visibly missing last year)

Ability to Grind and stand up to the grind. Puck control and cycling the puck is critical in the playoffs. Along with a physical forecheck that wears the D down over a series. (3rd and 4th lines were useless in this area - not only didn't we hit, we also stunk at cycling).

Goalie that can steal a game or make two to three critical saves at just the right time that lead to momentum changes or even goals the other way. (We have).

Everyone here agrees that it is easier to get impact players when drafting higher. But it isn't just the first round - but also 2nd round.
Drafting 5 and 37 is much different that drafting 16 and 48.

 

[Stealth JD]

Hell yeah - the Everblades play 15 minutes from me in Estero.
Great news!

 

[Frenzy31]

To me, a blue chip Dman is someone who is going to score ~50 points and positively impact their own side of the ice. For some that means being big and physical and clearing the crease and owning the boards. For others, it means having an elite stick and being a menace in the neutral zone. For others it means they skate so damn well nobody can get the puck away from them once they get it.

I’m high on Lindstein, and I see a path for him to become a top-4 fixture for us. But the man ain’t gonna come in to NA and drop a 10/40/50 stat line all of a sudden. I personally see Lindstein as more of an Anton Stralman type. Which is perfectly fine! More than enough to justify spending a first-round pick on him, for sure. But that -- to me -- doesn't mean he is a blue chipper.

Pie got sent back to Juniors after his 9 game trial - and I believe that was during his D2 season. It will take him time to transition to the NHL from Sweden - smaller ice surface so less room, speed of the game will be faster also. Once he comes over it will take 2-3 years to really establish himself.

I think if he had been drafted at 10, our fans would have a slightly different view and even expectations of him. Sometimes draft position plays a role in how we view prospects - not saying this is you, but I position does play a role in how someone is viewed.

 

[Carolina Blues]

Hell yeah - the Everblades play 15 minutes from me in Estero.
Great news!

We get them a few times a year here in Greenville SC to play our Swamp Rabbits (Rangers affiliate If memory serve)

 

[ezcreepin]

And this is why I add things at the end of posts saying if you have a bad front office I’d doesn’t matter what strategy, you will suck. In the past, Arizona would fail 10/10 times no matter the strategy. With BA at the helm we need more time to see if they have the right people in place now. IMO, we have to somewhat divorce the BA years from the previous ones as it’s a different regime.

People keep choosing the worst case scenarios as examples to refute the evidence and some are acting like people are saying a rebuild is a fool proof plan. It isn’t. You still have to be a well run organization with good scouting to leverage it.

Or in the case of the Oilers, just do it forever until luck circumvents your ineptitude. That’s certainly a strategy. It’s not one I would ever particularly care to employ.

For the Blues we have built a good base of forward depth, we have some pretty skilled guys, we built some good D depth recently and we already have goalies I feel comfortable will give us a chance to compete. On D we have a glaring hole still and at forward we need more high end talent. So I don’t see a need to go into this abyss that others are alluding to, nor do I believe our organization is run poorly and that it’s a guaranteed outcome.

However, what bottoming out for some period of time does is give you better odds you will draft better talent than you would otherwise. History and data clearly support that claim. It doesn’t mean you get pick number 5 or whatever top pick number and the moment you walk away from the podium you instantly have a star. There is a ton that goes into it before and after. Some of it is contingent on luck. Some draft years are just better than others. If you hit in a good year, you may not need to stay down for as long. But the longer you stay down, the less luck factors because law of averages is in your favor. This is why we were able to over come the EJ pick with the Pietrangelo one. We had more tries at it. The law of averages won out.

100%, unfortunately there are a lot of inner workings into building up a contending team. If you look at the Leafs strategy, they obviously drafted more forwards to push into the high octane offense makeup, but they were able to bottom out for conservatively 5 years (under new management outlook), accumulate picks, draft well, and season their prospects. Since they've done that, they've been a really good team despite their defensive struggles. My personal opinion is that the Blues have the personnel to build a team this way with obviously less resources than the Leafs have. Just with winning the cup, you have to get really lucky when you're bottoming out, but there are always good players in the draft; you have to hope your scouts are keen enough to identify them.

For teams like Columbus, Arizona, earlier Edmonton teams, Ottawa, Buffalo, etc, they have either lacked massively in the scouting department or their management is mediocre at best. We don't have to get into owners meddling with team decisions, but that is also a component to this. We're lucky that we have a fairly smart GM, generally good scouting and drafting, but we need to be doing better developing prospects to their full potential and pro scouting.

 

[STL fan in MN]

Is this for lower level prospects that aren’t in Springfield?

Yes. For example, Gaudet, Dickinson, Biakabutuka and Ellis were with the Orlando Solar Bears last season. Cranley was with the Reading Royals and Utah Grizzlies.

The first 4 also got some games in with Springfield, Ellis the most.

 

[MissouriMook]

Not that I disagree with this sentiment, but I think fair to also point out that teams like Edmonton and Arizona/Utah have had really, really bad management for the past decade and a half. The Oilers were lucky and unlucky in the fact that they were able to draft #1 overall multiple years, but could never really figure out how to build a team. Their defense sucked for many years because they could neither draft nor develop any form of a top 4. As well, their #1 selections were good players but never first overall in terms of performance. It took them getting really lucky with Draisaitl's development and getting the best offensive player to possibly play the sport before they could sniff the playoffs. Despite 2 generational talents, they have still had a hard time -- I blame this on management.

I think Utah is in a much better spot now with BArmstrong at the helm (at least in terms of drafting, idk about him as a legit GM yet). Sure, they've drafted high in most drafts for the past decade, but unfortunately they've never supplanted the team with free agent talent around the young guys (also they would never pay for that anyway). They've only really had maybe 2 good drafts in 15 ish years (2016 and 2021), thus their scouting has been suspect. So along with being cheap, these young players have really had to fight and claw their way to find out what winning is like. I just looked this up: Did you you the Coyotes have only had 3 coaches since 2009-2010????? I think the game passed Tippett by as well as players getting older and retiring, but Tocchet is a good coach and Tourigny idk yet. I dont necessarily think the coaching is awful, but it's hard to say when the team is filled with who-the-heck-knows-at-any-given-point so it could be a combo of both. I put a lot of Airzona/Utah and Edmonton's issues over the years with management specifically because they've had opportunities to be better and have fallen short many of those years.

I don't disagree about the Oilers' management, but at the same time you also have to feel like they picked a really bad time to have the 1 OA pick. With Hall, RNH and Yakupov in consecutive years, you have a borderline elite winger, a great (but not elite) center and a bust. Those three years followed Kane, Stamkos and Tavares as the 1 OA in the prior three drafts. If you look at the Top 10 for each of those 2010-2012 draft years, you obviously have some players you could argue were better, but no one really jumps off the page as a franchise cornerstone the likes of the prior three 1 OA picks. Their "bad luck of the draw" is similar to the Blues in that sense, given that we had the 1 OA with Erik Johnson bookended between Ovechkin and Crosby before and Kane, Stamkos and Tavares after. That doesn't excuse their inability to draft and develop the defense and goalie positions in the 12 years since the Yakupov draft, and they've certainly made some bad decisions in free agency and trades, but that run is a perfect example of how things can go wrong for you even when they go "right" in terms of tanking for top picks.

 

[MissouriMook]

To me, it is more about acquiring the following: doesn't matter how, clearly easier to get in the draft.

Need a legit number 1 center. (Not a 1b like Backes or Stas). (We have)
Need a number 1 Dman. (We need)
You need a solid top pairing (this isn't always a number 1 and 2 dman together- Pie was often paired with a weaker partner). 2nd Pairing also has to be able to hold the fort. Ideally two pairing that can cover 23 - 25 minutes a night in the playoffs and can help when you are on the road and can't get the matchups. (- this could be fixed if we got a number 1 dman or true first pairing guy).

Scoring depth in the bottom 6. Top lines usually cancel out, so to win you need to get scoring from other areas. (very visibly missing last year)

Ability to Grind and stand up to the grind. Puck control and cycling the puck is critical in the playoffs. Along with a physical forecheck that wears the D down over a series. (3rd and 4th lines were useless in this area - not only didn't we hit, we also stunk at cycling).

Goalie that can steal a game or make two to three critical saves at just the right time that lead to momentum changes or even goals the other way. (We have).

Everyone here agrees that it is easier to get impact players when drafting higher. But it isn't just the first round - but also 2nd round.
Drafting 5 and 37 is much different that drafting 16 and 48.

Looking at this from a slightly different perspective, I believe you need the following in addition to quality depth and good structure.

Elite 1C, Good/great 2C, 2 scoring wingers, 1D, two to three more D that are 2/3 quality, and a Top 10-15 goalie.

Here is how I think our roster will look at the end of the 2025-26 season:

1C - Thomas

2C - Could be Dvorsky or could still be a need

Scoring wingers - Kyrou, Buch, Neighbors, Bolduc and Snuggy all fit this category

1D - we'll still be looking

2/3 D - Parayko will likely still be a Stay-At-Home 3D, but we will need Jiricek and Lindstein to eventually ascend into these Top 4 roles, with at least one addition likely from outside the organization

Top 10-15 goalie - Binnington and Hofer have us pretty much set here

The way I see it, in order to get us back to being contenders, we will need to start acquiring (through trade or free agency) a 1D, one or two 2/3 D, and possibly a 2C. The 1D is going to be a tall order, and it will likely hurt quite a bit given that it will probably cost us 1-2 of our best prospects, but we should have plenty of cap space in 24 months and (hopefully) be able to accomplish what we need in the off-seasons of 2026 and 2027. I'm not as pessimistic about our current trajectory as most.

 

[PerryTurnbullfan]

Yes. For example, Gaudet, Dickinson, Biakabutuka and Ellis were with the Orlando Solar Bears last season. Cranley was with the Reading Royals and Utah Grizzlies.

The first 4 also got some games in with Springfield, Ellis the most.

It’s fun to watch. Got some games in with my Flo Hockey package watching USHL games. Gaudet didn’t look too bad. Maybe a step or so above the league the Otters were in.

 

[ezcreepin]

I don't disagree about the Oilers' management, but at the same time you also have to feel like they picked a really bad time to have the 1 OA pick. With Hall, RNH and Yakupov in consecutive years, you have a borderline elite winger, a great (but not elite) center and a bust. Those three years followed Kane, Stamkos and Tavares as the 1 OA in the prior three drafts. If you look at the Top 10 for each of those 2010-2012 draft years, you obviously have some players you could argue were better, but no one really jumps off the page as a franchise cornerstone the likes of the prior three 1 OA picks. Their "bad luck of the draw" is similar to the Blues in that sense, given that we had the 1 OA with Erik Johnson bookended between Ovechkin and Crosby before and Kane, Stamkos and Tavares after. That doesn't excuse their inability to draft and develop the defense and goalie positions in the 12 years since the Yakupov draft, and they've certainly made some bad decisions in free agency and trades, but that run is a perfect example of how things can go wrong for you even when they go "right" in terms of tanking for top picks.

There's definitely truth to that. Those 2010-2012 drafts were certainly some of the weakest I can remember, but how much of Edmonton's failures are from the weak draft vs prospect development? They rushed every prospect they had for some stupid reason and were super lucky that Draisaitl didn't stunt his growth. I wonder what the outlook of the team would have been if they would have just let those guys marinate a year or two while they still bottomed out year after year after year after year.

To your point though, they drafted high in A LOT of weak drafts (but also missed hard when they could have gotten assets). Gagner at #6, Paajarvi at #10, Hall at #1 (Seguin was there at 2 as a center), RNH at #1 (good player but why not trade down?), Yakupov at #1 (if you draft Nuge why not trade down to get a dman?), and Puljujarvi at #4 (I know he had a crazy WJC but Tkachuk was there and also how many mf forwards do you need????).

 

[Celtic Note]

Looking at this from a slightly different perspective, I believe you need the following in addition to quality depth and good structure.

Elite 1C, Good/great 2C, 2 scoring wingers, 1D, two to three more D that are 2/3 quality, and a Top 10-15 goalie.

Here is how I think our roster will look at the end of the 2025-26 season:

1C - Thomas

2C - Could be Dvorsky or could still be a need

Scoring wingers - Kyrou, Buch, Neighbors, Bolduc and Snuggy all fit this category

1D - we'll still be looking

2/3 D - Parayko will likely still be a Stay-At-Home 3D, but we will need Jiricek and Lindstein to eventually ascend into these Top 4 roles, with at least one addition likely from outside the organization

Top 10-15 goalie - Binnington and Hofer have us pretty much set here

The way I see it, in order to get us back to being contenders, we will need to start acquiring (through trade or free agency) a 1D, one or two 2/3 D, and possibly a 2C. The 1D is going to be a tall order, and it will likely hurt quite a bit given that it will probably cost us 1-2 of our best prospects, but we should have plenty of cap space in 24 months and (hopefully) be able to accomplish what we need in the off-seasons of 2026 and 2027. I'm not as pessimistic about our current trajectory as most.

If we lost our two best prospects for that #1D that would be something along the lines of Dvo and Snuggy. That would hurt a lot.

 

[MissouriMook]

If we lost our two best prospects for that #1D that would be something along the lines of Dvo and Snuggy. That would hurt a lot.

I am hopeful that we could identify a target that would fit the description and only cost us one of Kyrou/Snuggerud/Bolduc and a 1st round pick. Looking at the 25-27 year old D who will be UFA in Summer 2026 I’m not feeling good that we can fill the need in free agency.

 

[Celtic Note]

I am hopeful that we could identify a target that would fit the description and only cost us one of Kyrou/Snuggerud/Bolduc and a 1st round pick. Looking at the 25-27 year old D who will be UFA in Summer 2026 I’m not feeling good that we can fill the need in free agency.

FA would be a mistake IMO. You are getting guys much closer to 30, you have to pay a premium, and you undoubtedly will have to pay for the declining years.

The highest problem of the three is the age. You tighten your window by getting a guy with limited peak and productive years.

 

[Mike Liut]

Hell yeah - the Everblades play 15 minutes from me in Estero.
Great news!

I have a place in Naples and pass this place every time I go to the airport in fort Meyer.

 

[Frenzy31]

I have a place in Naples and pass this place every time I go to the airport in fort Meyer.

In-laws are in Punta Gorda. Same when he head to Naples for the beach.

 

[sfvega]

Not for nothing, but we have used two 1sts, two 2nds, two 3rds and five 4th-7th round picks on D in the last 3 drafts, including picking D with our first 3 selections at the most recent draft. All in all, that's 11 of our 24 total picks in those 3 drafts and 6 of our 13 picks in the top 100 that were used on D.

That's about 45% of our picks on a position that makes up 40% of your skaters on the ice at 5 on 5 and just 33% of the skaters you dress. We neglected D early in the draft for a few years, but I have seen this conscious prioritization of D at the draft since taking Dvorsky at 10th overall (which is a draft slot where you absolutely have to take BPA).

We've added a large amount of D prospects to the oven recently.

Yes and no. We have definitely invested more in the defense, especially this year. But not as many premium picks as it seems. Top 100 picks is a weird measuring stick. Outside of Parayko, we haven't really gotten much out of 3rd, 4th, 5th rounders in the last 25 years on D. Guys like Mikkola and Walman, Hakanpaa leave and have varying degrees of more success. But you add these guys up and get maybe 200 games with the Blues. We have hopes for guys like Buchinger, Loof, and Burns, but what are realistic expectations for them?

To me, we have had 10 top 50 picks the last 7 drafts. 4 were defense. One is on a 1-year prove it deal, and another is a very large project. High ceiling, but very big project. To me we have 2 guys who I feel comfortable banking on being top 4 guys going forward. And we have a lot of depth and some potential, but only 2 guys I think we can realistically expect to play real quality top 4 minutes for our franchise. We've still got quite a bit of work to do. I look at Montreal and they already had Guhle progressing well and Hutson breaking out in his development, and still took Reinbacher with a premium pick when he wasn't thought to be the BPA.

 

[Frenzy31]

Locked on Hockey does some pretty good evaluations. There is actually a pod cast dedicated to the blues -. Locked on Blues.

But here is a link to Adam Jiricek's review. If found it very interesting - especially the physicality piece.

 

[SirPaste]

Strick is saying it looks like Jiricek will play in Brantford next season

 

[kimzey59]

Strick is saying it looks like Jiricek will play in Brantford next season

Brantford is a really good place for him.

Former Blues Draft pick Steve Staios(1002 NHL games played) is the team's Alternate Governor.
Former Blue Jay McKee(802 NHL games, 158 of them with St. Louis) is the Head Coach.
Former NHL'ers Andreas Karlsson(264 NHL games) and Andrew Campbell(only 42 NHL games) are the Assistants.

Solid group of forward talent to work with(Patrick Thomas, Flor Xhekaj, Jake O'Brien, Marek Vanacker, Zach Lavoie, Nick Lardis).
Not a ton of competition for prime ice time on the blueline(Hamara(fellow Czech) and Sobolev as NHL draftee's) but also not completely devoid of talent.

Brantford was 2nd in their Division last year and should be right there again this season.

Overall, really good place for Jiricek to develop.
Now, where is Pekarcik going to play?

 

[Brian39]

I have to say, I love the trend of getting these guys picked out of European pro leagues into junior for their D+1 seasons. I love the CHL as a development league for a high end prospect in his D+1 season. However, the NHL-CHL agreement can make the D+2 season tough for a guy drafted out of the CHL. "Not good enough for the NHL, but outgrown the CHL" is a real risk that can cause a bit of a 'wasted' development year for some guys.

But the Euro to CHL to AHL path feels like an ideal path for a guy who isn't NHL ready in his D+2 season. I'm really, really happy that this appears to be an active developmental strategy by the Blues organization.

 

[Majorityof1]

I have to say, I love the trend of getting these guys picked out of European pro leagues into junior for their D+1 seasons. I love the CHL as a development league for a high end prospect in his D+1 season. However, the NHL-CHL agreement can make the D+2 season tough for a guy drafted out of the CHL. "Not good enough for the NHL, but outgrown the CHL" is a real risk that can cause a bit of a 'wasted' development year for some guys.

But the Euro to CHL to AHL path feels like an ideal path for a guy who isn't NHL ready in his D+2 season. I'm really, really happy that this appears to be an active developmental strategy by the Blues organization.

Not challenging you at all here, just curious. Are there examples of guys that have really blossomed under this development path?

Edit: Answering my own question. This is similar to Kucherov's path. KHL -> drafted 2nd round -> QMJHL -> AHL -> NHL -> Top 10 player in the world, although he didn't spend long in the AHL.

 

[Brian39]

Not challenging you at all here, just curious. Are there examples of guys that have really blossomed under this development path?

Edit: Answering my own question. This is similar to Kucherov's path. KHL -> drafted 2nd round -> QMJHL -> AHL -> NHL -> Top 10 player in the world, although he didn't spend long in the AHL.

Kucherov isn't a perfect example because he played 1 year split between Russian junior and KHL in his D+1 season. Then he played in the Q in his D+2 season, then a brief pit stop in the AHL for his D+3 season.

I can't think of any guys who blossomed under this exact development path. However, I also can't think of any guys who took this development path. Most these guys can make as much or more money playing pro in Europe until they are NHL (or AHL) ready vs getting their signing bonus and then playing junior hockey without getting a salary. Signing the NHL deal and then coming over to play junior requires a real commitment from the player.

The reason I am excited about it isn't because of any track record of success. It is based on the avoidance of pitfalls common to other paths as well as liking the projected 'role' the prospect will play at each stage of development.

There are tons of highly touted European prospects who struggle mightily with the transition from European pro hockey to North American hockey when they make the jump from Europe to the NHL/AHL in their D+2 or D+3 season. My biggest concern about drafting a European player has been that season where they are acclimating to North American ice/style while playing against pros that are as good or better than the ones they played against the previous year. Making all the timing/decision/physicality adjustments in a league full of guys bigger/stronger than you is no small task and mistakes can have serious injury consequences.

Having that adjustment period take place in a league where you outclass most of the competition seems much safer and allows the player to continue focusing on developing raw skills instead of just treading water and/or surviving out there.

I could absolutely be wrong and maybe I'm just forgetting a long list of prospects that have gone down this path and failed. But I can't recall any and I really like the setup of a guy acclimating to NA while still being able to dominate competition and then making the jump into NA pros the following year without that jump having to be at the NHL level.