Prospect Info: Bruins Prospects XXII

[Gee Wally]

What surprises me the most is this thread gets very little action throughout the year until Cory Pronman writes an article then it's the busiest thread here.

 

[MarchysNoseKnows]

Lol, it's very funny that there is disappointment about the quality of the Bruins prospect pool. When the majority of you fine folks here, participate in the yearly tdl thread in which there are certainly slot of people want this team to go for it, every season. This includes trading draft picks, most importantly are in the first 3 rounds.
You can't have it both ways, there is always some sacrifices, it's going for it or keeping the picks.
They went with trading the picks, so everyone must live with it, and move on!.

I’d love to see a Venn diagram of posters clamoring to trade for a 1C right now and those who bitch about the prospect pool.

 

[Saxon Eric]

 

[Blowfish]

Not sure why but that scene above reminds me of this guy...Yeah weird .

 

[DKH]

When you are at or near the bottom going into draft and Chris Pelosi is your top pick if you aren’t 32 it’s a shock. Pronman works hard to cover 32 teams but he doesn’t strike me as a passionate overall knowledgeable hockey guy / he’s just not good. The Greek is insane on this he is probably watching a game right now - Pronman reads and talks to people if you listen to him on podcasts - I don’t think he actually knows hockey

 

[chizzler]

When you are at or near the bottom going into draft and Chris Pelosi is your top pick if you aren’t 32 it’s a shock. Pronman works hard to cover 32 teams but he doesn’t strike me as a passionate overall knowledgeable hockey guy / he’s just not good. The Greek is insane on this he is probably watching a game right now - Pronman reads and talks to people if you listen to him on podcasts - I don’t think he actually knows hockey

I really don’t care who thinks they have shit prospects.

 

[Dr Quincy]

When you are at or near the bottom going into draft and Chris Pelosi is your top pick if you aren’t 32 it’s a shock. Pronman works hard to cover 32 teams but he doesn’t strike me as a passionate overall knowledgeable hockey guy / he’s just not good. The Greek is insane on this he is probably watching a game right now - Pronman reads and talks to people if you listen to him on podcasts - I don’t think he actually knows hockey

The Greek rated the B's draft a D+.

 

[LSCII]

I’d love to see a Venn diagram of posters clamoring to trade for a 1C right now and those who bitch about the prospect pool.

Seems kind of silly to even suggest this no? I mean, shit. I'm not a smart guy, but maybe you can tell us all where their last two top 6 centers came from? Like how did the organization obtain David Krejci and Patrice Bergeron again? Can someone remind me because I can't put a finger on it...

The easiest way to keep the prospect pool stocked is to make good picks. I get you're going to argue that Sweeney does, but you have to go back to Lauko and his 23 games from the 2018 draft to find a player that they picked that has even played in the league. You have to go to the 17 draft to find a player or players who have played more than 50 games at the NHL level, and you have to go back to the 16 draft to find anyone that has played more than 100 NHL games. I'm not a math guy, but is it normal for none of your draft picks to hit in a 7 year span? Seriously?

 

[Saxon Eric]

The Greek rated the B's draft a D+.

Better than Vancouver's D

 

[LSCII]

Better than Vancouver's D

Yikes what a terrible take dude

 

[Dr Quincy]

Better than Vancouver's D

It is. And I'm not saying those grades are right or wrong. I just found it funny to complain about Pronman while pumping up a guy who just gave the B's a bad draft grade.

 

[Saxon Eric]

Yikes what a terrible take dude

It's sarcasm

 

[DKH]

I really don’t care who thinks they have shit prospects.

Yup

I have 14 Providence flex tickets so I get to watch the Baby Bruins and Merkulov is going to be fascinating to watch

The Greek rated the B's draft a D+.

yes I know and he loves this stuff - his passion is second to none.

I’d rather discuss baseball with Pronman - I like that Corey is a seemhead

I love the Celtics but I don’t watch 10 other NBA non Celtics games all year and only pick up college viewing when I was in tourney pools - but if I could get a full time gig paying well to be a basketball draft guru I’d jump in and do it

 

[Dr Quincy]

View attachment 738155


It's sarcasm

Hellberg ended up going undrafted. I never saw him play but just saw that he put up good numbers this year. We just had our HFL 9 rd entry draft and he was on my list of 3 or 4 undrafted guys to take in the 9th but I went with Dylan Hryckowian instead.

 

[Saxon Eric]

Hellberg ended up going undrafted. I never saw him play but just saw that he put up good numbers this year. We just had our HFL 9 rd entry draft and he was on my list of 3 or 4 undrafted guys to take in the 9th but I went with Dylan Hryckowian instead.

I would have gone Hyrckowian too
Hard to pass on high floor guys

 

[MarchysNoseKnows]

Seems kind of silly to even suggest this no? I mean, shit. I'm not a smart guy, but maybe you can tell us all where their last two top 6 centers came from? Like how did the organization obtain David Krejci and Patrice Bergeron again? Can someone remind me because I can't put a finger on it...

The easiest way to keep the prospect pool stocked is to make good picks. I get you're going to argue that Sweeney does, but you have to go back to Lauko and his 23 games from the 2018 draft to find a player that they picked that has even played in the league. You have to go to the 17 draft to find a player or players who have played more than 50 games at the NHL level, and you have to go back to the 16 draft to find anyone that has played more than 100 NHL games. I'm not a math guy, but is it normal for none of your draft picks to hit in a 7 year span? Seriously?

OK I'll bite.

Let's go through it, but three points of context matter:

1) The Bruins were contending all throughout, and used picks to help them do that. You can argue that they shouldn't have (or that they should have traded Marchand, Bergeron and Krejci like Rico), but I don't think that's the point of discussion. They didn't have high picks.
2) Because they have been contending recently, there haven't been many slots open for prospects to be in the lineup
3) Given #1 above, it's foolish to assume picks from the last few years would be playing much in the NHL right now

All I've argued is that Sweeney has drafted very well the last several years. I'm not rehashing 2015 here. So let's go draft by draft and take a look, and let's see how many Top 6 centers Sweeney missed on.

2022: First pick was Poitras at 54, and I don't think anyone would argue that was a good pick. Only five (5) players in the whole draft have played in the NHL, and that includes 39 games from the #1 overall, and 1 game from Owen Beck.

2021: Lysell at 21. Universally considered a strong pick at that point in the draft. Some wanted Wyatt Johnson (who went two picks later), and early on they look right. But Johnson wasn't a slam dunk pick either. Other than Johnson, there have been a total of 149 games played by players picked after Lysell, across only 5 players. 125 of those are from JJ Moser, a defenseman for Arizona who wouldn't make the Bruins roster. Would Lysell have gotten games already for Arizona? Pretty safe to say he would have. Same if he was in Columbus or Detroit. But he's in Boston.

2020: Lohrei at 58. I don't know how anyone could complain about this pick. He's right on schedule development wise, if not well ahead for a late second round pick. Only 19 players picked after Lohrei have played in the NHL, mostly scattered single digit numbers. Nils Aman has played the most - after being traded to Vancouver. He wouldn't come close to making this roster, and only crazy people would rather have him than Lohrei.

2019: Beecher at 30. We've already had enough Beecher arguments in here, and many have written him off. Not going to pound the table on this one. Pinto was picked after him and he's certainly a better player now, though not a true top 6 guy and may never be. If you want to argue Kaliyev have at it, but this board would despise the way he plays. After that, you have Hoglander (ok I guess), Alexi Protas for WAS (not a top 6 C), and then it's the fourth round when Macelli hits. I think if Beecher was in the Flyers organization, or the Sharks, or Vancouver, etc, he would have gotten NHL games last year. But yeah, he needs to make a leap for this not to be a disappointing pick, though there's only one player you could possibly project as a top 6 C (Pinto) and that's a big reach for a contending team.

2018: First pick was Andersson at 57, and he's been used to dump Backes. Trade would have looked a lot different if Kase didn't have such sad concussion history. Best players picked after him are Jack McBain and Kurashev - neither top 6 C, and they were third and fourth rounders, and Sharangovich in the 5th - a good player picked there is just a good job by the other GM. Not a great pick by the Bruins, but they didn't pass over a litany of good players or especially top six centers. Lauko in the third here was a solid pick.

And now we're all the way back to 2017, with the obvious miss on Thomas and Norris. I don't think Vaak was a terrible pick and would have turned out differently were it not for concussions, but I wanted Thomas then and we flailed there. Everyone passed on Jason Robertson before he was picked at 39. You're not going to get an argument from me that 2017 was a good job by the front office, but Swayman in the fourth has to get points awarded there no?

2016: Just for fun. McAvoy at 14 would be picked fourth at worst in a redraft after Matthews, Fox (in the third!) and Matt Tkachuk, though I think you could make a strong argument for McAvoy at 2. Frederic at 29. The Kyrou/Debrincat argument comes in now, and obviously would rather have either player. Both would be top 10 in a redraft, and everyone passed on them once. But neither is that elusive top 6 center. Boston also picked Lindgren in the second, who has become a bonafide NHLer, by the way.

So yes, if you use 2017 and 2016, there were some big misses. No argument. But since 2018, show me where they really dropped the ball, especially for a top 6 center?

The general argument is that Sweeney should have gotten top six centers in the draft. But to do that, the team would have had to have gotten significantly worse over that time to do it (again, after 2017). So how was that going to happen?

 

[mar2kbos]

Trashing article writers saying the prospect pool of the Bruins is not good while those same people trashing have also made predications of prospects that never came to fruition is highly comical. Also we hear well they been a contending team for awhile and so they havent picked high which is why the prospect pool is the way it is. Now that is 100% the truth of it all, its ok to admit that. Dont need to defend the prospect pool and trash the people reviewing as not knowledgeable. We had a bunch of contending years we have drafted low or not at all it was bound to have an effect.

 

[TCB]

 

[Dr Quincy]

OK I'll bite.

Let's go through it, but three points of context matter:

1) The Bruins were contending all throughout, and used picks to help them do that. You can argue that they shouldn't have (or that they should have traded Marchand, Bergeron and Krejci like Rico), but I don't think that's the point of discussion. They didn't have high picks.
2) Because they have been contending recently, there haven't been many slots open for prospects to be in the lineup
3) Given #1 above, it's foolish to assume picks from the last few years would be playing much in the NHL right now

All I've argued is that Sweeney has drafted very well the last several years. I'm not rehashing 2015 here. So let's go draft by draft and take a look, and let's see how many Top 6 centers Sweeney missed on.

2022: First pick was Poitras at 54, and I don't think anyone would argue that was a good pick. Only five (5) players in the whole draft have played in the NHL, and that includes 39 games from the #1 overall, and 1 game from Owen Beck.

2021: Lysell at 21. Universally considered a strong pick at that point in the draft. Some wanted Wyatt Johnson (who went two picks later), and early on they look right. But Johnson wasn't a slam dunk pick either. Other than Johnson, there have been a total of 149 games played by players picked after Lysell, across only 5 players. 125 of those are from JJ Moser, a defenseman for Arizona who wouldn't make the Bruins roster. Would Lysell have gotten games already for Arizona? Pretty safe to say he would have. Same if he was in Columbus or Detroit. But he's in Boston.

2020: Lohrei at 58. I don't know how anyone could complain about this pick. He's right on schedule development wise, if not well ahead for a late second round pick. Only 19 players picked after Lohrei have played in the NHL, mostly scattered single digit numbers. Nils Aman has played the most - after being traded to Vancouver. He wouldn't come close to making this roster, and only crazy people would rather have him than Lohrei.

2019: Beecher at 30. We've already had enough Beecher arguments in here, and many have written him off. Not going to pound the table on this one. Pinto was picked after him and he's certainly a better player now, though not a true top 6 guy and may never be. If you want to argue Kaliyev have at it, but this board would despise the way he plays. After that, you have Hoglander (ok I guess), Alexi Protas for WAS (not a top 6 C), and then it's the fourth round when Macelli hits. I think if Beecher was in the Flyers organization, or the Sharks, or Vancouver, etc, he would have gotten NHL games last year. But yeah, he needs to make a leap for this not to be a disappointing pick, though there's only one player you could possibly project as a top 6 C (Pinto) and that's a big reach for a contending team.

2018: First pick was Andersson at 57, and he's been used to dump Backes. Trade would have looked a lot different if Kase didn't have such sad concussion history. Best players picked after him are Jack McBain and Kurashev - neither top 6 C, and they were third and fourth rounders, and Sharangovich in the 5th - a good player picked there is just a good job by the other GM. Not a great pick by the Bruins, but they didn't pass over a litany of good players or especially top six centers. Lauko in the third here was a solid pick.

And now we're all the way back to 2017, with the obvious miss on Thomas and Norris. I don't think Vaak was a terrible pick and would have turned out differently were it not for concussions, but I wanted Thomas then and we flailed there. Everyone passed on Jason Robertson before he was picked at 39. You're not going to get an argument from me that 2017 was a good job by the front office, but Swayman in the fourth has to get points awarded there no?

2016: Just for fun. McAvoy at 14 would be picked fourth at worst in a redraft after Matthews, Fox (in the third!) and Matt Tkachuk, though I think you could make a strong argument for McAvoy at 2. Frederic at 29. The Kyrou/Debrincat argument comes in now, and obviously would rather have either player. Both would be top 10 in a redraft, and everyone passed on them once. But neither is that elusive top 6 center. Boston also picked Lindgren in the second, who has become a bonafide NHLer, by the way.

So yes, if you use 2017 and 2016, there were some big misses. No argument. But since 2018, show me where they really dropped the ball, especially for a top 6 center?

The general argument is that Sweeney should have gotten top six centers in the draft. But to do that, the team would have had to have gotten significantly worse over that time to do it (again, after 2017). So how was that going to happen?

I agree with some things. Disagree with some that maybe I'll get around to commenting on more in depth with names and stats, at some point.
But you really lost me when you suggest you can't compare guys taken in the 3rd round and are successful to a guy taken at the end of the 2nd. Pretty weak.

Jordan Harris was a local kid, from Haverhill, played in Boston, had a successful rookie year... but apparently we can't use him because then it would hurt the case that Andersson was a bad pick.

We also can't use trades of players that were bad because there were injuries.

And we can't use players that have out produced Bruins prospects at every level since the draft because those players haven't played in the NHL or if they have played they've only played "x" number of games, with the "only" descriptor being used to whatever number it is they've played. And no matter what success these players have had since the draft, we ignore it since they haven't played NHL games.. yet if a B's prospect has yet to play NHL games, that won't stop us from calling it a good pick, or a pick nobody can complain about.


If you have to resort to those sorts of things then I'd say you really aren't putting up the defense you think you are.

 

[HustleB]

Disagree on Vancouver and PITT
Agree on NYI 100%... worst in the league
Tampa... toss up

EDIT: Adding some reasons
VAN- Willander > > Lohrei, Podkolzin, Klimovich, Raty, Lekkerimakki > Lysell, Merkulov, Poitras, Beecher but would be an interesting discussion

PITT- Tough one Yager> any B's F, Pickering >any B's D,

After that Broz vs. Poitras... arguable either way. B's have more depth but I'd rather have a 1/2 C and a better D than depth. But I'm sure others will see it differently.

Agree about COL and NYI.

I don't know these guys but I truly appreciate the context to this discussion and hope it continues.

I will try to research some later.

 

[MarchysNoseKnows]

I agree with some things. Disagree with some that maybe I'll get around to commenting on more in depth with names and stats, at some point.
But you really lost me when you suggest you can't compare guys taken in the 3rd round and are successful to a guy taken at the end of the 2nd. Pretty weak.

Jordan Harris was a local kid, from Haverhill, played in Boston, had a successful rookie year... but apparently we can't use him because then it would hurt the case that Andersson was a bad pick.

We also can't use trades of players that were bad because there were injuries.

And we can't use players that have out produced Bruins prospects at every level since the draft because those players haven't played in the NHL or if they have played they've only played "x" number of games, with the "only" descriptor being used to whatever number it is they've played. And no matter what success these players have had since the draft, we ignore it since they haven't played NHL games.. yet if a B's prospect has yet to play NHL games, that won't stop us from calling it a good pick, or a pick nobody can complain about.


If you have to resort to those sorts of things then I'd say you really aren't putting up the defense you think you are.

His whole argument was that the Bruins haven't had players play NHL games, or did you miss that? I added some color along with the numbers.

"You have to go to the 17 draft to find a player or players who have played more than 50 games at the NHL level, and you have to go back to the 16 draft to find anyone that has played more than 100 NHL games. I'm not a math guy, but is it normal for none of your draft picks to hit in a 7 year span? Seriously?"

 

[BlackFrancis]

This halo polishing in defense of Pronman, a guy who once wrote on this very site that he watches 10-20 games, many (can't remember if he said most or not) live, of every player he ranks, back in a time where streaming wasn't nearly as prevalent, is some quality entertainment.

 

[MarchysNoseKnows]

This halo polishing in defense of Pronman, a guy who once wrote on this very site that he watches 10-20 games, many (can't remember if he said most or not) live, of every player he ranks, back in a time where streaming wasn't nearly as prevalent, is some quality entertainment.

I feel like they're not defending Pronman specifically, they're defending anyone who shits all over Bruins prospects. Even though that's not the criticism of Pronman. It's Pavlovian.

 

[Dr Quincy]

His whole argument was that the Bruins haven't had players play NHL games, or did you miss that? I added some color along with the numbers.

"You have to go to the 17 draft to find a player or players who have played more than 50 games at the NHL level, and you have to go back to the 16 draft to find anyone that has played more than 100 NHL games. I'm not a math guy, but is it normal for none of your draft picks to hit in a 7 year span? Seriously?"

So why did you omit a non-Bruins player taken a few picks after Andersson that has played NHL games...

You responded to his complaint and your defense was to hide evidence that went against your side of the argument.

Interesting.

 

[MarchysNoseKnows]

So why did you omit a non-Bruins player taken a few picks after Andersson that has played NHL games...

You responded to his complaint and your defense was to hide evidence that went against your side of the argument.

Interesting.

Huh? I didn’t mention Connor Dewar or Paul Cotter either. There are tons of guys picked after Andersson who have played NHL games. I was in no way defending the Andersson pick? I chose the three best forwards as examples, primarily because the other part of the discussion is about finding top-6 centers, and many here still list Kyrou as a centerman. Who are the top-6 centers drafted after Andersson that year?