C Berkly Catton - Spokane Chiefs, WHL (2024, 8th, SEA)

[coooldude]

I haven't cherry-picked anything. I responded to your central argument and premise.

Hope this helps.

That's not a fair assessment of her post. The extra snark is lame and unnecessary.

 

[ReHabs]

That's not a fair assessment of her post. The extra snark is lame and unnecessary.

Below is another comment from the same user.

We’re not talking about marginal players, though.

For me, if Cayden Lindstrom doesn’t hit his upside, I can easily see him as a 20-20 third liner who can play any forward position and is mean as hell and hard to play against. Not a world-beater, but a player that anyone would love to have on their team. If Berkly Catton doesn’t hit his upside or at least close, he’s literally not an NHLer.

How is this not an appeal to the prospect's floor, again? A 40pt player in the modern NHL is not hard to find, it should not be a concern for any scout to use a top10 pick and in it evaluate someone's floor. Upside is what matters.

Again, I’m not arguing to pick high floor players over high ceiling players, just that floor isn’t something that can be ignored. I think Lindstrom and Catton have around the same upside (in terms of overall impact on a hockey game), just as an example, but because Lindstrom’s floor is much higher and his play style is much more attractive, I’d be much more comfortable taking him top-5 than I would Catton.

Thinking Lindstrom and Catton have the same upside is a totally different discussion, in this case of course a lot of other aspects come into view including size, tenacity, and their percieved floor... but it's a a significant stretch to claim they have the same upside. They simply dont.

 

[Reddawg]

I heard Catton was more of a #26-45 range prospect.

Wouldn't it just drive you insane if he went to Ottawa at #25?

 

[ReHabs]

Wouldn't it just drive you insane if he went to Ottawa at #25?

Catton's simply too short and slight to ever be a good hockey player. It's a miracle he's made it this far. Ottawa should sort by BMI and take the largest lad left.

 

[WarriorofTime]

You shouldn't use high draft picks for players for their percieved floor. You can pick up a checking-line player on the waiver wire.

Quality Stanley Cup caliber Middle-Six should not be available on Waiver Wire (of course sometimes they do end up there, but that's a market inefficiency the same way "draft a 1st line center in the third round" would be).

I'm not sure why people are so dismissive of the bulk of potential outcomes. If a player isn't a 1st or 2nd "skill" guy (evenly distributed, that's 64 players at a given moment in time league-wide made up of like a 20-year age range in total when you look at from, say, Bedard to Ovechkin, or a 15-year age range for a very high percentage), you have to consider how they fit into a lineup. You have 14 forwards on a roster, ice 12 of them per night and 8-10 of them are considered important players that will be relied on pretty heavily. These "B-Games" are very important to consider because only but a few players can get by based around their absolute upside.

 

[coooldude]

Let's see how professionals are hashing out this debate. From Pronman's just-released Draft Confidential (Editing to further protect paywall content -- honestly, the article is worth a subscription on its own)

• Scout 1: Lindstrom>Catton ... 1C upside with 3C playoff banger downside. this is the Juxtaposer argument
• Executive 1: Catton>Lindstrom... Lindstrom is just a 2C, Catton has a higher offensive ceiling this is the argument for drafting for upside
• Executive 2: Usually small guys can't stick at C, but Catton probably can, so go for him This is the argument for "maybe not usually small guys, but yes this small guy"
• Scout 2: Lindstrom is a can't miss 2C that you can rely on, no more, no less This is drafting not for floor, but for low risk/variance in outcome
• Executive 7: Catton would be 2OA if he were taller, disrespect is crazy This is the Berklievers argument
• Scout 4: Lindstrom>Catton or Iggy, they are smaller and don't have what it takes for the small guys to succeed This is the "he scores in junior but it won't translate" argument

FWIW, Catton also had one vote for "best skater" in the draft (Lindstrom had multiple). He had one vote for best hands (Demidov had multiple). And he had multiple votes for best hockey sense (Celebrini had majority).

tl;dr everyone on this thread could find a professional who agrees with them, so nobody is wrong and nobody is right. We're all dumb, and draft day will show us how the idiosyncracies of the draft order X widely varied opinions make him go high or fall.

 

[FlyguyOX]

Let's see how professionals are hashing out this debate. From Pronman's just-released Draft Confidential:

• Scout 1:“With Lindstrom, best case you’re getting a legit No. 1 center. I think even if you miss on Lindstrom and he’s a third-line center, he’s a type of third-line center a GM is ecstatic to have, the kind that winning teams have in the playoffs.” this is the Juxtaposer argument
• Executive 1: “I do have a concern on Lindstrom that you’re just getting a second-line two-way guy. His tools are outstanding but I don’t see the high-end skill and sense to score a lot in the NHL. They’re small but my lean is to Catton or Demidov because they have so much offense.” this is the argument for drafting for upside
• Executive 2: “Catton looks like a can’t-miss top-line forward. He could be a first-line center. I don’t say this lightly about 5-10 forwards, because so few of them can stay in the middle, but I’d be surprised if he wasn’t a 1C in the NHL.” This is the argument for "maybe not usually small guys, but yes this small guy"
• Scout 2: “It’s Lindstrom for us. You may be getting a second-line center, but he’s a second-line center who plays super hard, is a great skater and your coaches will be able to rely on.” This is drafting not for floor, but for low risk/variance in outcome
• Executive 7: “The disrespect I see for Catton is crazy. He scored 110 points, Captain Canada at the Hlinka where he dominated, is a dynamic play-driving center. If he were two inches taller he’s the no questions asked No. 2 pick.” This is the Berklievers argument
• Scout 4: “I would probably take the big guy in Lindstrom. The skating, the heaviness, the offense, it’s all very appealing. I like Catton and Iginla but I don’t see special small-guy traits in them.” This is the "he scores in junior but it won't translate" argument

FWIW, Catton also had one vote for "best skater" in the draft (Lindstrom had multiple). He had one vote for best hands (Demidov had multiple). And he had multiple votes for best hockey sense (Celebrini had majority).

tl;dr everyone on this thread could find a professional who agrees with them, so nobody is wrong and nobody is right. We're all dumb, and draft day will show us how the idiosyncracies of the draft order X widely varied opinions make him go high or fall.

Posting paid premium info is not cool.

 

[coooldude]

Posting paid premium info is not cool.

I cut it down to parts of 6 quotes and editorialized it. If this is too close to the line, I can edit it down further.

 

[Juxtaposer]

Below is another comment from the same user.


How is this not an appeal to the prospect's floor, again? A 40pt player in the modern NHL is not hard to find, it should not be a concern for any scout to use a top10 pick and in it evaluate someone's floor. Upside is what matters.


Thinking Lindstrom and Catton have the same upside is a totally different discussion, in this case of course a lot of other aspects come into view including size, tenacity, and their percieved floor... but it's a a significant stretch to claim they have the same upside. They simply dont.

If the ceiling on two players is the same and one player’s floor is higher, you take that player.

Just because you think Catton has higher upside doesn’t mean it’s true.

 

[jfhabs]

You shouldn't use high draft picks for players for their percieved floor. You can pick up a checking-line player on the waiver wire. You use high draft picks for the percieved ceiling of players, because that upside is near-impossible to get outside of the draft.


I heard Catton was more of a #26-45 range prospect.

What about 10% first line / 50% top 6 / 30% bottom 6 / 10% bust player VS 20% first line / 20% top 6 / 20% bottom 6 / 40% bust

Essentially high floor vs boom or bust

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

This has become a very stupid discussion.

 

[GordieHowYaDoin]

This has become a very stupid discussion.

Agreed. Most of the threads these days get derailed into stupidity.

 

[Boxscore]

If the game was being played in 1995, I'd be a little more skeptical of his potential impact. But, since it's not, I have zero concerns. Catton is one of my favorite prospects in the draft and I think in the right situation he can end up over a PPG top line offensive driver in the NHL.

For example, if he drops to 12 and ends up in Philly playing with Michkov for 10 years. he could produce on the level of Nicklas Backstrom. I don't think he will be as great as a Jack Hughes or Kaprizov, per se, but I can see him in the Barzal/Keller class... and Backstrom with the right combo.

Love this kid.

 

[danisonfire]

If I was Montreal I would pick Catton if he is available at 5.

 

[FlyguyOX]

If the game was being played in 1995, I'd be a little more skeptical of his potential impact. But, since it's not, I have zero concerns. Catton is one of my favorite prospects in the draft and I think in the right situation he can end up over a PPG top line offensive driver in the NHL.

For example, if he drops to 12 and ends up in Philly playing with Michkov for 10 years. he could produce on the level of Nicklas Backstrom. I don't think he will be as great as a Jack Hughes or Kaprizov, per se, but I can see him in the Barzal/Keller class... and Backstrom with the right combo.

Love this kid.

I keep seeing him mocked to the flyers and think there's no way he drops that far, right? Would be a great pick

 

[Doug Prishpreed]

How many teams have 5’10” guys in their bottom-6? Genuine question, not trying to be snotty. I just don’t see any NHL coach actually deploying a guy like Catton in their bottom-6.

Jack Drury? Even Rodriguez?

 

[TLEH]

Agreed. Most of the threads these days get derailed into stupidity.

Pavel is literally one of the biggest offenders for it. Go check the Adam Fantilli thread and watch him moan about Michkov for page after page.

On the actual subject. IQ and effort will take you a long ways. Catton has that along with a quick release, great feet, soft hands. I genuinely would be fine taking him at 2.

 

[Jersey Fan 12]

Pavel is literally one of the biggest offenders for it. Go check the Adam Fantilli thread and watch him moan about Michkov for page after page.

On the actual subject. IQ and effort will take you a long ways. Catton has that along with a quick release, great feet, soft hands. I genuinely would be fine taking him at 2.

Yep. What he said.

 

[rt]

I think part of this mentality comes from the Benson debate of last year. I just don’t think the players are comparable at all outside of “small skilled WHL winger”.

With Zach Benson, very genuinely if you hadn’t seen him play, there’s no way you’d “get it” with him. Literally the least impressive thing about him was his point totals, in that he was elite defensively, elite on the forecheck, elite on special teams, elite in transition, physically engaged, you name it.

Catton is a much more prototypical “small skilled forward”. He’s shifty, great hands, super agile, and no slouch in the defensive zone, but his point total does a pretty good job of painting the picture of what he is. I came away from every Zach Benson viewing last year blown away and thinking that maybe I was ranking him too low, and I already had him ranked 5th. Every Catton viewing this year has been like “yep, that’s Catton, he’s skilled, shouldn’t fall out of the top-10”, but that’s it.

Catton doesn’t have the B-game of a Zach Benson type, who was going to be a clear-cut NHLer in some type of role even if the offense didn’t translate. If Catton’s offense doesn’t translate at an elite level, what role does he have? If he isn’t at least a 50 point guy, then I don’t really have time for him on my team. He’s worth a pick in the 7-10 range because the upside is so high without a doubt, but it’s reasonable to cast doubt on his projection.

Great post. Totally agree.

Posting paid premium info is not cool.

He posted 4% of the article and he paraphrased heavily.

 

[TLEH]

I think part of this mentality comes from the Benson debate of last year. I just don’t think the players are comparable at all outside of “small skilled WHL winger”.

With Zach Benson, very genuinely if you hadn’t seen him play, there’s no way you’d “get it” with him. Literally the least impressive thing about him was his point totals, in that he was elite defensively, elite on the forecheck, elite on special teams, elite in transition, physically engaged, you name it.

Catton is a much more prototypical “small skilled forward”. He’s shifty, great hands, super agile, and no slouch in the defensive zone, but his point total does a pretty good job of painting the picture of what he is. I came away from every Zach Benson viewing last year blown away and thinking that maybe I was ranking him too low, and I already had him ranked 5th. Every Catton viewing this year has been like “yep, that’s Catton, he’s skilled, shouldn’t fall out of the top-10”, but that’s it.

Catton doesn’t have the B-game of a Zach Benson type, who was going to be a clear-cut NHLer in some type of role even if the offense didn’t translate. If Catton’s offense doesn’t translate at an elite level, what role does he have? If he isn’t at least a 50 point guy, then I don’t really have time for him on my team. He’s worth a pick in the 7-10 range because the upside is so high without a doubt, but it’s reasonable to cast doubt on his projection.

Super well thought out post. I agree with most everything other than I just like Cattons B game better than you do. I think the hockey sense will take him to the checking forward role if the offense doesn’t translate.

 

[Zarzh]

You shouldn't use high draft picks for players for their percieved floor. You can pick up a checking-line player on the waiver wire. You use high draft picks for the percieved ceiling of players, because that upside is near-impossible to get outside of the draft.


I heard Catton was more of a #26-45 range prospect.

The problem is Catton's realistic upside isn't that high and you could theoretically get a higher upside player on the waiver wire every once in a while if you want to make that argument.

The problem with Catton is the opportunity cost, he isn't a player you can just slot in at 2C and not worry about, you're going to want someone who is better defensively, harder to play against, or scores more especially in the playoffs and as his career goes on.

The appeal is cheap scoring early in his career, or maybe he outscores all realistic expectations.

 

[Faceboner]

The problem is Catton's realistic upside isn't that high and you could theoretically get a higher upside player on the waiver wire every once in a while if you want to make that argument.

The problem with Catton is the opportunity cost, he isn't a player you can just slot in at 2C and not worry about, you're going to want someone who is better defensively, harder to play against, or scores more especially in the playoffs and as his career goes on.

The appeal is cheap scoring early in his career, or maybe he outscores all realistic expectations.

The thing with catton, the main reason he draws comparisons to Benson other than size, he has a motor maybe not as high as Benson but it's there and looks translatable as he has a high iq. I think he has a better shot and skating than Benson but everything else would say goes to benson.

 

[Mattb124]

It wasnt. It could be said before the draft about player on the draft who will be drafted not in top-5. Its useless.

Overall compete level and positional game through all three zones is what separating Benson from Catton. Thats why questions for Catton are legit and Benson fall was a sequence of incorrect decisions. But we saw the same with Michkov previous draft, its not like Benson was the only one.
Catton could be the player who will be drafted lower than he should, still in pre draft circumstances he isnt perfect candidate for being drafted higher - as other candidates who can or can not be drafted higher in the draft day. Its all on GMs and scouts who will like some specific players.
Next year Catton will not be ready to be NHL player as good as Benson was this year.

So there are nothing with Benson. Still I wish Catton all the best. He is interesting player and deserve to be picked by any team from 7 to 14 pick.

The point of the comparison was clear as day to me, and still seems to escape you even after explanation. Weird.

 

[ReHabs]

The problem is Catton's realistic upside isn't that high and you could theoretically get a higher upside player on the waiver wire every once in a while if you want to make that argument.

Nonsense

 

[bert]

Below is another comment from the same user.


How is this not an appeal to the prospect's floor, again? A 40pt player in the modern NHL is not hard to find, it should not be a concern for any scout to use a top10 pick and in it evaluate someone's floor. Upside is what matters.


Thinking Lindstrom and Catton have the same upside is a totally different discussion, in this case of course a lot of other aspects come into view including size, tenacity, and their percieved floor... but it's a a significant stretch to claim they have the same upside. They simply dont.

In a vacuum of course its easy. But if that player can skate is 6'3 plays a heavy game, plays center and scores, that is a completely different discussion. This is the type of player that thrives in the playoffs.

You are right Lindstrom has more upside and I like Catton. Lindstroms raw tools and upside are so much higher due to his physical abilities and his longer development curve.