If people want to be negative and plan for a world Lindstrom doesn't play that's fine, I'm just going to continue anticipating a good outcome until I'm told in an official announcement I should stop
Prospect Info: Cayden Lindstrom
- Thread starter CBJx614
- Start date
Cowumbus
Registered User
I’m not really concerned with the perseption of how people view it, but more hinting at the implications of taking on that risk (on top of the usual risk of projecting a player’s career), with respect to long term roster construction. Our team must get better next year (as other teams will), and the coming years to make the playoffs. At the time of the draft there were other high impact guys available such as Buium and Demidov. Our current roster consists of players with room for growth sure, and we are going to lose some guys (Provorov, Fabbro) but another part of getting stronger as a team is having high picks come in and play well causing non-core pieces to be slotted lower in the lineup; increasing overall depth. We saw that with Werenski, Dubois, and to some extent Mateychuk. Players like Buium and Demidov have a decent chance to positively impact their (fringe playoff) teams next year. I worry about the timeline for Lindstrom, but even more so the fact that we need him to be an NHL player, because we will not be able to draft a player with that high of a ceiling as easily picking 10-20OA.
I think of Lindstrom as more of a potential cherry on top piece that could make a big difference in the playoffs some years down the road. He's pretty unlikely to help us make the playoffs in the next few years - young players in general are not good at doing that, they just as often cost you with their mistakes.
And it's hard to find guys like Lindstrom in any draft period which is why I think the risk was taken in the 1st place. Also we have a pretty solid foundation so I don't know how often we will actually be drafting and how often those picks will be used as tradeable assets to get NHL ready players.
I'm not super worried about the short-term and what a kid does immediately. Plus it's not like goals are something we are starved of so waiting an extra year isn't a sky is falling situation. Even if the forward group stays relatively the same we are in good shape there next year. Defense and goaltending needs work and I assume Waddell is going to focus his efforts. As exciting as a kid like Buium is I wouldn't be expecting him to be the immediate player this team needs so again I'm not worried about who is in the lineup 1st, I just want the right guy when they are ready to start making major impact on the ice.
The expected timelines are later than many people think, not just for a guy with injury issues like Lindstrom, but prospects in general.
Fantilli and Carlsson are two #1OA caliber talents, and they are both just breaking out now after being useless for the first half of their D+2 seasons. Almost every prospect should have a later timeline than that. Kent Johnson just had a very rough D+3 (his 21 year old season).
Lindstrom's expected NHL debut is getting pushed back by the injury but the chances that he was going to be a difference maker in the NHL before the age of 22 were never that high. Lindstrom's progression matters a lot long term but not short term.
Cowumbus
Registered User
It is different for top 5 picks, especially forwards.
Kent Johnson had a 40 point NHL season at age 20 and wasn’t 6’4” 215lbs.
Laf, Kakko, Byfield are all about to be stars any moment now.
Byfield was bigger than Lindstrom but a good example that sometimes you gotta wait for the player to grow into what you project him to be
Last edited:
Cowumbus
Registered User
Comparable draft selections
2010 4OA Johansen D+4 60 point player
2011 5OA R. Strome D+4 50 point player
2013 5OA Lindholm D+2 40 point player
2013 6OA Monahan D+2 60 point player
2014 4OA S Bennett D+2 36 point player
2014 7OA W Nylander D+3 60 point player
2015 4OA Marner D+2 60 point player
2016 3OA Dubois D+2 48 point player
2016 6OA M. Tkachuk D+1 48 point player
2017 5OA Pettersson D+2 65 point player
2018 4OA B. Tkachuk D+1 45 point player
2019 7OA Cozens D+4 68 point player
2020 3OA Stutzle D+2 58 point player
2020 4OA Raymond D+2 57 point player
2021 5OA K Johnson D+2 40 point player
2022 4OA Wright D+3 40 point player
2022 5OA Gauthier D+3 40 point player
2023 4OA W Smith D+2 40 point shooter player
2023 7OA Michkov D+2 60 point player
For reference, CBJ total # of players with over 40 points:
2024 6, 2023 3, 2022 5, 2021 7, 2020 N/A, 2019 4, 2018 6, 2017 5, 2016 8, 2015 6, 2014 5, 2013 4, 2012 N/A, 2011 4, 2010 5
Last edited:
Pretty mixed group that doesnt really disagree with what Ive said. For some of those guys those numbers were actually their peak or close to it. A guy like Bennett was deemed disappointing early and traded for a lot less than the draft pick used to draft him. Many of them have taken time to be actual rounded players and not just kids getting offensive minutes on bad teams. Dont see a ton of names on this list that would offer any significant boost within a couple seasons, it is fun to see kids put up points though
No, not really.
Your list is largely young kids who scored 40 or 50 pts and got outplayed. That's not what you draft for. It's what comes after, when they score 70 or 80 or perhaps score less but become smart playdrivers, that's what you're waiting for.
And how much of a difference did KJ make for us, in terms of winning games? I don't just mean to refer to the Blue Jackets record, but he wasn't that good of a player in his rookie year. 40 pts and getting outplayed isn't that valuable, and then he had a worse season in his D+3. We didn't draft KJ for what he's done before this year, and likewise we didn't draft Lindstrom for what he'll do in the next couple years.
Cowumbus
Registered User
Whoever we drafted in 2023 wouldn’t be on a bad team though.
Marner year 1, Leafs make playoffs.
M. Tkachuk year 1, Calgary makes playoffs. E. Petterson year 2 leads in scoring, 3 leads team in playoff scoring.
2024 you are meaning? No they wouldn't be which may push them down the lineup and not look as sexy on the stat sheetWhoever we drafted in 2023 wouldn’t be on a bad team though.
Marner year 1, Leafs make playoffs.
M. Tkachuk year 1, Calgary makes playoffs. E. Petterson year 2 leads in scoring, 3 leads team in playoff scoring.
The year before when Toronto was not so secretly tanking and then added Marner, Matthews, Nylander, Andersen and probably more I'm forgetting?
Or look at Calgary's goalies the year before that happened
Cowumbus
Registered User
Yes, really. High draft picks are expected to play earlier and help the team, due to combination of their playing ability and ELC cap hit.
M Thakchuk year 1 60% Corsi 48 points
M Marner year 1 56% Corsi 59 points
B Tkachuk year 1 54% Corsi 45 points
E Pettersson year 1 58% Corsi 65 points
R Johansen year 3 55% Corsi 62 points
L Raymond year 1 55% Corsi 57 points
PL Dubois year 1 59% Corsi 48 points
I’m not going through all the rest of these guys stats but I don’t see what you’re talking about..
KJ age 20 season, 51% Corsi 40 points.
Obviously that’s not the point lmao. You draft for the best career. And we took an additional risk, that comes with a cost.
Last edited:
Cowumbus
Registered User
And they would still be an upgrade on our bottom 6, while getting easier minutes to develop - unless they earn it. That’s exactly my point, depth improves.
Fantilli was not a 1C but are we not all in agreement that having him in the middle 6 made the Jackets better last season??
Last edited:
There was an NHL season last year? I must have blocked that out.
He was highly exciting and was showing glimpses of the future but that team was shit with him off the ice and shit with him on the ice. Fantilli was also a much more highly regarded prospect than any of Lindstrom, Demidov, Buium, etc, its not a normal comparison.
Depth of scoring isn't even an immediate need of ours, having lines you can trust to shut down top lines and be trusted sure is though
KJ in his 40 pt season did not have a 51% corsi, he was around 44%, with similar goals results - outscored 48 to 39. He was very good for a rookie, but not very good overall.
You're listing the quickest developing players drafted in the last fifteen or so years, that's not the average. I'm also not sure about your numbers or why corsi would be relevant here.
You draft them to try and find huge difference makers, All Star caliber players, but very few of them become that in the first five years. Have a look at the list of skaters by gamescore (you can do a similar exercise by points). Our own Kirill Marchenko is 26th on this list. Monahan and Werenski are higher up. Name the players younger than Marchenko on this list. I found Jack Hughes and Seth Jarvis, and that was it. Only two guys younger than Marchenko who made the top 30. Thomas Harley and Lucas Raymond are the only other guys younger than Marchenko who made the top 50. Everyone is else is 25 or older. The league's best players are older than you think.
Cowumbus
Registered User
51% is all situations. Kent Johnson Stats, Height, Weight, Position, Title | Hockey-Reference.com
And before you say 5v5 is all that matters, keep in mind Cole Sillinger is a career 46% Corsi player in all situations (48 is his best).
Lmao, I just went draft by draft and took forwards drafted near 4OA. You insinuated these guys weren’t good players, and were all outplayed as young guys. Corsi = simple way to look at value on ice. Look em (stats) up yourself if you don’t trust them.
I don’t think you understand that I am not asking/expecting for them to be elite players year 1. However, these high drafted & high skill guys can be good players right from the jump. And having them instead of *insert replacement level forward* here can make your team better! And does not limit them from being an elite player later down the line.
So at the end of the day, no matter how likely you think it is to happen, the Jackets no longer have the same ability to get better next season through a recent high draft pick being inserted into the lineup like some other teams can / have done in the past. We will have to improve via trade, signings and hope for even more growth (which as we know is not linear).
No analyst uses all situations corsi. It just means you found a collection of young players who got PP time and didn't play PK. It becomes a bad measure of deployment, not how much you tilt the ice.
Cowumbus
Registered User
If they get PP time that young they are good players no? -> normally you want your best players out there for the man advantage?
M Tkachuk year 1 56% Corsi 5v5
M Marner year 1 50.5% Corsi 5v5
B Tkachuk year 1 49.3% Corsi 5v5
E Pettersson year 1 50.2% Corsi 5v5
R Johansen year 3 51% Corsi 5v5
L Raymond year 1 48.2% Corsi 5v5
PL Dubois year 1 55.7% Corsi 5v5
Weird how it works. Boone Jenner hasn’t been above a 50% Corsi 5v5 in 10 years, until this year.
Last edited:
Xoggz22
Registered User
I don't think the bolded is clear at all. They knew he had an issue, saw his medicals and felt he would be fine long term or they wouldn't have drafted him. It's those on the outside that want to read into this as maybe a bigger problem than it is because he HAS missed a full season. Not saying that's ideal, but it's also not a death nail and if he's now considered healthy, he picks up where he left off. I think there still remains too much woe is the CBJ in our fanbase because the sky always falls. That simply isn't true, it's all perspective.
I guess we'll see what the long term becomes and determine then whether this was a mistake/problem or not. I don't feel it's going to be a problem. Just my optimism I guess.
Doggy
Registered User
- Oct 11, 2011
- 3,406
- 3,461
During the summer, GMDW said Lindstrom would be signed before training camp. To me that means the front office fully expected Lindstrom to be a full participant in training camp. When that didn't happen they pushed off signing the ELC which still has not been signed. I think it's clear GMDW did not expect Lindstrom to be just skating on his own in the Ice Haus at the end of the 2024-2025 season and to have lost an entire season of development.
Xoggz22
Registered User
You may or may not be aware that signing the ELC also impacts the slide implications and maybe, just maybe there was the thought that he would go the college route? Of course I have no idea, but they did know he would miss time, and likely did not plan the full season. They also knew he wasn't going to be playing in Columbus this year or likely next year (and not eligible for the AHL next year either). So signing the ELC was not really relevant in this situation. Hey, you could be correct, maybe all this was way more than expected. Just my opinion that I don't think it was clear and that this management group is taking an overly cautious approach. The reality is...it doesn't matter. They went the cautious route which leads to wild speculations by the fans. Who cares. They know what's going on and we can speculate - good or bad - on what that means and the impact.
They really thought he'd be pain free on his own, without surgery. And he just didn't get there. The surgery and additional recovery period was not expected when we drafted him.
koteka
Registered User
I hope they at least realized there was a chance he would still be out. Recovery is not a definite thing - there are multiple outcomes that are possible.
I think they probably factored in a lot of uncertainty.
Personally I thought he might have lingering injury issues, but even if he does there's still a chance he is very useful in spurts, and perhaps very useful when it matters some years down the road in the playoffs. That possibility wasn't enough for me to rank him ahead of Demidov, but he was still top 5 for me even with some significant injury risk included. Lindstrom is just that good of a prospect.
