Prospect Info: Blues 2024-2025 Prospect Thread

[tfriede2]

Not only is Lindstein a major omission over a large number of other prospects but I'd argue he is above both Jiricek and Stenberg just internally.

No doubt. Fine with us if he’s under the radar. He’ll surprise people soon enough.

 

[Celtic Note]

EP released their Top 100 Affiliated Prospects list today. The Blues had 4 on the list:

22. Dalibor Dvorsky
29. Jimmy Snuggerud
80. Adam Jiricek
92. Otto Stenberg

Not sure how you leave Lindstein off this list but I imagine it has more to do with their low initial pre-draft ranking than anything else. He's obviously improved his stock.

This list is an illustration that we have drafted well despite our positions, we have a decent amount of good prospects, but also that we do not have blue chippers.

 

[Bye Bye Blueston]

EP released their Top 100 Affiliated Prospects list today. The Blues had 4 on the list:

22. Dalibor Dvorsky
29. Jimmy Snuggerud
80. Adam Jiricek
92. Otto Stenberg

Not sure how you leave Lindstein off this list but I imagine it has more to do with their low initial pre-draft ranking than anything else. He's obviously improved his stock.

that list was just weird.

 

[Snubbed4Vezina]

that list was just weird.

Agreed. Despite the consensus being that the 2023 class was one of the most talented in recent memory, they flooded this list with 2024 picks.

For Lindstein to not even get an 'Honorable Mention' and end up below defensemen like Logan Mailloux, EJ Emery, Ben Danford, Harrison Brunnicke, Charlie Elick, etc. makes me think it was an oversight.

 

[bleedblue1223]

Those individuals could just have recency bias, maybe they just stay focused on draft prospects and don't go back and re-evaluate previously drafted prospects.

 

[Celtic Note]

Agreed. Despite the consensus being that the 2023 class was one of the most talented in recent memory, they flooded this list with 2024 picks.

For Lindstein to not even get an 'Honorable Mention' and end up below defensemen like Logan Mailloux, EJ Emery, Ben Danford, Harrison Brunnicke, Charlie Elick, etc. makes me think it was an oversight.

O think you are probably right.

 

[Kshahdoo]

Koromyslov 1+4 in 3 preseason games for Lada...

 

[bleedblue1223]

Hoping he has a breakout this season. Feel like he has a lot of potential, just has to put it together.

 

[Kshahdoo]

Hoping he has a breakout this season. Feel like he has a lot of potential, just has to put it together.

It looks like he's going to move to NA after this season, and he's still just 20. I love the kid. Good size, good skating, solid offensively and defensively. Of course he's mostly played in the MHL and VHL, but it's ok for a Russian 20 yo player. I'm pretty sure if he'd played for some other club than SKA he'd have already been a KHL regular.

 

[bleedblue1223]

It looks like he's going to move to NA after this season, and he's still just 20. I love the kid. Good size, good skating, solid offensively and defensively. Of course he's mostly played in the MHL and VHL, but it's ok for a Russian 20 yo player. I'm pretty sure if he'd played for some other club than SKA he'd have already been a KHL regular.

Do you have any projections or expectations on what he can become?

 

[542365]

I don't find it surprising that Lindstein wasn't on the list. The big knock on him at the draft was that he doesn't create anything offensively and then he spent his draft +1 year in a lower level league and again basically didn't produce outside of the tiny sample size of the World Juniors. A bottom pairing defensive Dman doesn't really hold much value and that's all he's going to be unless he can start impacting the game offensively.

 

[Beauterham]

It looks like he's going to move to NA after this season, and he's still just 20. I love the kid. Good size, good skating, solid offensively and defensively. Of course he's mostly played in the MHL and VHL, but it's ok for a Russian 20 yo player. I'm pretty sure if he'd played for some other club than SKA he'd have already been a KHL regular.

Why do you think he's moving to NA after this season?

 

[ezcreepin]

It looks like he's going to move to NA after this season, and he's still just 20. I love the kid. Good size, good skating, solid offensively and defensively. Of course he's mostly played in the MHL and VHL, but it's ok for a Russian 20 yo player. I'm pretty sure if he'd played for some other club than SKA he'd have already been a KHL regular.

I don't know much about the MHL or VHL admittedly, but assuming the scouting reports from fans are right, I don't really care too much where he's playing as long as he's playing a lot. I don't think he's going to end up being a top 4 defenseman, but if he can continue to develop naturally and he ends up as a bottom pairing defenseman, then that is good value. Even if he's an AHL defenseman or a 7th guy, I think that's still good value in the 4th round. To get any player to be a contributor on the NHL squad after the 2nd or 3rd round is great, but I like to include that guys like McGing, Laferriere, MAG, Ellis, Zherenko, etc helping the AHL team is also really valuable.

 

[Majorityof1]

I don't know much about the MHL or VHL admittedly, but assuming the scouting reports from fans are right, I don't really care too much where he's playing as long as he's playing a lot. I don't think he's going to end up being a top 4 defenseman, but if he can continue to develop naturally and he ends up as a bottom pairing defenseman, then that is good value. Even if he's an AHL defenseman or a 7th guy, I think that's still good value in the 4th round. To get any player to be a contributor on the NHL squad after the 2nd or 3rd round is great, but I like to include that guys like McGing, Laferriere, MAG, Ellis, Zherenko, etc helping the AHL team is also really valuable.

I disagree with the bolded from a fundamental standpoint. The great thing about young players is they have upside and are relatively cheap. If their max upside is 7th D, then they do not have upside and are not cheap relative to what you can sign an NHL vet for that role either. A draft pick who at best is a 7D or 4th liner is absolutely worthless, imo. I'd much rather have a 1 in 10million lottery chance of getting a top 4/6. What is the value of Tucker who we are sending down to the AHL when we just went and signed POJ to push him down the lineup at roughly the same price.

 

[Kshahdoo]

Do you have any projections or expectations on what he can become?

I think he can become a top4 NHL defenseman, he has all the tools for it. But now we shall see whether he has the toolbox or not.

I'd say, Zub can be a good projection for him.

 

[Blueswin]

MSN

 

[LGB]

Wrong thread

 

[ezcreepin]

I disagree with the bolded from a fundamental standpoint. The great thing about young players is they have upside and are relatively cheap. If their max upside is 7th D, then they do not have upside and are not cheap relative to what you can sign an NHL vet for that role either. A draft pick who at best is a 7D or 4th liner is absolutely worthless, imo. I'd much rather have a 1 in 10million lottery chance of getting a top 4/6. What is the value of Tucker who we are sending down to the AHL when we just went and signed POJ to push him down the lineup at roughly the same price.

From a drafting standpoint in a vacuum, getting an NHL player in the 4th round or later is incredibly valuable. There's only one legitimate "study" I can find with references and statistical analysis, but for example the odds a defenseman drafted after the 3rd round playing 200+ games is: 8% - 4th, 6% - 5th, 9% - 6th, and 8% - 7th. The analysis was done for drafts in 1990-1999 I believe so there's going to be some discrepancy, but getting someone that late is objectively big value. Now whether or not someone like Tucker plays 200 games is a massive question mark, but I could potentially see him getting 100 games in his career and that's not nothing for a player drafted in the 7th round.

I'm not going to debate the point that you're making because 1) I don't necessarily agree with it but 2) That's not what I'm arguing for. You're probably right that there is much more value in signing an established NHL player to play the 4th line or as a 7th defenseman as opposed to a draft pick you have that is trying to break into the league. I think it would be disingenuous to say it's not better for your team to do that. However, my focus is strictly on a drafting standpoint neglecting all other external factors.

 

[Majorityof1]

From a drafting standpoint in a vacuum, getting an NHL player in the 4th round or later is incredibly valuable. There's only one legitimate "study" I can find with references and statistical analysis, but for example the odds a defenseman drafted after the 3rd round playing 200+ games is: 8% - 4th, 6% - 5th, 9% - 6th, and 8% - 7th. The analysis was done for drafts in 1990-1999 I believe so there's going to be some discrepancy, but getting someone that late is objectively big value. Now whether or not someone like Tucker plays 200 games is a massive question mark, but I could potentially see him getting 100 games in his career and that's not nothing for a player drafted in the 7th round.

I'm not going to debate the point that you're making because 1) I don't necessarily agree with it but 2) That's not what I'm arguing for. You're probably right that there is much more value in signing an established NHL player to play the 4th line or as a 7th defenseman as opposed to a draft pick you have that is trying to break into the league. I think it would be disingenuous to say it's not better for your team to do that. However, my focus is strictly on a drafting standpoint neglecting all other external factors.

You don't have to debate it. Your call. I know the studies you are referencing. But you are conflating rarity with value. Those are not necessarily the same. Getting a below replacement level player who plays at a below replacement level yet happens to play 100 or 200 games because of hope he'll get better, injuries, poor roster construction or whatever isn't valuable in the least. I do not care that it is rare. It provides no value to the team.

As an example, it may be incredibly rare to win a prize in a carnival game. The carnival game cheats, so only 5% of people win. But you can go to the dollar store and buy a that prize for $1. The prize isn't valuable, its worth $1.

 

[ezcreepin]

You don't have to debate it. Your call. I know the studies you are referencing. But you are conflating rarity with value. Those are not necessarily the same. Getting a below replacement level player who plays at a below replacement level yet happens to play 100 or 200 games because of hope he'll get better, injuries, poor roster construction or whatever isn't valuable in the least. I do not care that it is rare. It provides no value to the team.

As an example, it may be incredibly rare to win a prize in a carnival game. The carnival game cheats, so only 5% of people win. But you can go to the dollar store and buy a that prize for $1. The prize isn't valuable, its worth $1.

I reject your statement because I don't believe there is a bigger conspiracy in the NHL that there are huge lists of below replacement level players playing in the league for one reason or another. They are playing because they bring some sort of value the team desires, whether we as fans agree or not. If there were better players available, and the team had the means and the want to get them, then they would. If, for example, the Blues feel like Tucker can give you 70 or 80% of what someone like Suter provides and they decide to play Tucker over Suter, then that would seem to me that he is a more valuable player than an established veteran. I think in general teams are going to play the players that give them the best chance to win.

 

[Majorityof1]

I reject your statement because I don't believe there is a bigger conspiracy in the NHL that there are huge lists of below replacement level players playing in the league for one reason or another. They are playing because they bring some sort of value the team desires, whether we as fans agree or not. If there were better players available, and the team had the means and the want to get them, then they would. If, for example, the Blues feel like Tucker can give you 70 or 80% of what someone like Suter provides and they decide to play Tucker over Suter, then that would seem to me that he is a more valuable player than an established veteran. I think in general teams are going to play the players that give them the best chance to win.

Who said it is a conspiracy theory? Worse players play all the time because they are under contract already and there are contract limits and internal spending limits. Nobody is giving us a 4th for Tucker. If a player was drafted 4th and ended up being a 100 game player as a 7th D who gets in games early hoping he grows and then is an injury fill-in, nobody is giving up a 4th for that guy. So he was not valuable for a 4th. He is worth less than a 4th on the open market. Reject the theory all you want, but the market shows the truth. A 7th D with no upside is not worth more than a 4th.

 

[britishblue]

It really depends on how you look at it.

Statistically getting games out of players drafted after the 4th round is significant as most wont ever play in the NHL.

The quality of the games (in terms of 4th line, bottom pairing etc.) will be easy to replicate in most cases however.

Take a guy like Tucker, 50 NHL games for somebody drafted in the 7th round is impressive, and I imagine he will get more over the course of his career. Could we have got those 50 games from any number of free agents? Yes.

Those later picks just don't hold much value, because of exactly that reason.

In terms of why say a Tucker makes the team as opposed to free agent xyz. It is likely to do with the deaper knowledge the team has on that player. If you have 2 players at similar abilities, you will likely go for the one the organisation has a better knowledge of, and that will be the one who was drafted. He will know the players, know the system etc.

So in terms of value a guy like Tucker will hold more value to us then the other teams in the league. The other 31 teams will have similar guys.

But then an organisation may value a free agent more if they want an outside voice or veteran leadership.

In terms of why you draft a guy like Tucker who only has 6/7 upside, well your oganisation still needs those types. Be that in prospect camps, the minors etc. How many players in the Blues organisation have played with Tucker vs say Joseph? Joseph definitely has a higher ceiling and is a better player, but both likely hold similar value to the Blues at this point.

I doubt either would return a 4th if we looked to trade them.

Its far to simplistic however to say a players value is based purely on their game performance (although obviously that is the biggest factor by a long way).

 

[AyeBah]

 

[CaliforniaBlues310]

After watching the Giants offseason Hard Knocks series, it bums me out not hearing the names of all the other players they bleep out.

They were very open with who they were considering drafting, so it just makes me more curious to see who they were actually talking about.

 

[ChicagoBlues]

After watching the Giants offseason Hard Knocks series, it bums me out not hearing the names of all the other players they bleep out.

They were very open with who they were considering drafting, so it just makes me more curious to see who they were actually talking about.

I needz da jooosss!!!