Prospect Info: CBJ Prospect Thread XI

[CBJx614]

The “is Sillinger a prospect” is an interesting question. Just a heads-up though as we head into prospect ranking voting season, he will not be for those purposes. The simple and straightforward criteria are “under 25 and have not spent the majority of a season in the NHL.”

Imo Marchenko shouldn't be either. He received votes for the Calder, which indicates he's played enough to be considered rookie of the year. Which imo should disqualify him for being eligible next season.

 

[5th Line Fanatic]

I'll buy everyone on here a beverage of their choice, when we no longer give a shit about prospect rankings. We can drink it together and talk about more interesting things like winning the Cup and almost any other topic.

 

[CBJWerenski8]

I'll buy everyone on here a beverage of their choice, when we no longer give a shit about prospect rankings. We can drink it together and talk about more interesting things like winning the Cup and almost any other topic.

 

[CoachWithNoTeam]

I think it’s perfectly fine to have a strict set of criteria for a prospect list based on time spent in the NHL/games/age, while also having an entirely separate projection for the youth pipeline going forward that includes very young players who have already played a season or two. They’re very different things to me.

 

[Crede777]

CBJ prospects on Scott Wheeler’s Top 50 drafted skaters:

3. Fantilli
9. Jiricek
32. Mateychuk
43. Dumais
Honorable mentions: Brindley, Ceulemans, Svozil

TBH Dumais is ranked too high.

Pronman ranking Michkov #2 reminds me of when they had Filatov #1.

 

[majormajor]

Pronman ranking Michkov #2 reminds me of when they had Filatov #1.

Who is they? I vaguely remember that but this is before Wheeler would have left grade school, not sure whose rankings you're talking about, The Hockey News?

 

[Crede777]

Who is they? I vaguely remember that but this is before Wheeler would have left grade school, not sure whose rankings you're talking about, The Hockey News?

It was The Hockey' Future (back when they did articles) and Bleacher Report although I can't find the articles from 2008.

Edit - Closest I can find now is The Bleacher Report's later article where they say:

Wasn't it also the same player who was rated the top prospect—in the later instance, prospect in the sense of not yet playing full-time in the NHL—in all of hockey by every major publication, Hockey's Future, The Hockey News, et al?

Filatov Fiasco: The Departure of Hockey's Top Prospect

Well, I guess we all received the answer to the question of whether Nikita Filatov was going to log more Time On Ice—TOI...

bleacherreport.com

 

[Double-Shift Lasse]

Imo Marchenko shouldn't be either. He received votes for the Calder, which indicates he's played enough to be considered rookie of the year. Which imo should disqualify him for being eligible next season.

Well, Marchenko played 59 games last season, so I think you're going to get your wish.

 

[Doggy]

I'll buy everyone on here a beverage of their choice, when we no longer give a shit about prospect rankings. We can drink it together and talk about more interesting things like winning the Cup and almost any other topic.

We will always care about prospect rankings. I suspect even Colorado and Vegas fans care about their prospect pool. I can multi-task, talk about winning the Cup and talk about our prospect pool.

 

[Viqsi]

I'll buy everyone on here a beverage of their choice, when we no longer give a shit about prospect rankings. We can drink it together and talk about more interesting things like winning the Cup and almost any other topic.

We could win four Cup rings in a row and still be having the prospect pool conversation every year around this time of the year because people care about that sort of thing. Get over it.

 

[cbjthrowaway]

The “is Sillinger a prospect” is an interesting question. Just a heads-up though as we head into prospect ranking voting season, he will not be for those purposes. The simple and straightforward criteria are “under 25 and have not spent the majority of a season in the NHL.”

this is why i prefer a broader "organization-wide U23" set of rankings rather than squabbling over service time. does a better job of showcasing the actual pipeline.

not that anyone asked, but if we're going with that criteria (non-'prospects' in orange):

1. fantilli
2. johnson (20)
3. jiricek
   ------
4. mateychuk
5. marchenko
6. sillinger (20)
7. boqvist (22)
   ------
8. svozil
9. dumais
10. chinakhov (22)
11. brindley
12. texier (23)
    ------
13. ceulemans
14. del bel belluz
15. whitelaw
16. pinelli
    ------
17. voronkov
18. malatesta
19. mckown
    ------
20. strathmann

HM: foudy (23), dolzhenkov, peddle, berni (23), knazko, christiansen (23) (note: TFW excluded as he's already 24 but would be an HM for me as well)

Tiers:

• Tier 1: projected building blocks (fantilli arguably in his own tier) (1-3)
  Tier 2: high-certainty top six/four NHL contributors (4-7)
• 8-12: medium-certainty top six/four NHL contributors (8-12)
• 13-16: projected mid-lineup players or high-potential/high-volatility (13-16)
• 17-19: high certainty bottom-half-of-the-lineup players (17-20)
• 20-HM: NHL tools but low certainty of being a regular

 

[koteka]

Here is a quick top 12 as of today. I reserve the right to change it. I was only going to do 10, but people may wonder where I rank Dumais and Tarasov, so I did 12.

1. Fantilli
2. Jiricek
3. Mateychuk
4. Voronkov
5. Ceulemans
6. Brindley
7. Del Bel Belluz
8. Svozil
9. McKown
10. Maletesta
11. Dumais
12. Tarasov

I’d say there is a big gap between 2 and 3, and then 3-8 are pretty close, and then a gap between 8 and 9.

 

[CBJWerenski8]

Here is a quick top 12 as of today. I reserve the right to change it. I was only going to do 10, but people may wonder where I rank Dumais and Tarasov, so I did 12.

1. Fantilli
2. Jiricek
3. Mateychuk
4. Voronkov
5. Ceulemans
6. Brindley
7. Del Bel Belluz
8. Svozil
9. McKown
10. Maletesta
11. Dumais
12. Tarasov

I’d say there is a big gap between 2 and 3, and then 3-8 are pretty close, and then a gap between 8 and 9.

Why so high on DBB and Ceulemans but low on dumais and svozil?

 

[Double-Shift Lasse]

this is why i prefer a broader "organization-wide U23" set of rankings rather than squabbling over service time. does a better job of showcasing the actual pipeline.

not that anyone asked, but if we're going with that criteria (non-'prospects' in orange):

1. fantilli
2. johnson (20)
3. jiricek
   ------
4. mateychuk
5. marchenko
6. sillinger (20)
7. boqvist (22)
   ------
8. svozil
9. dumais
10. chinakhov (22)
11. brindley
12. texier (23)
    ------
13. ceulemans
14. del bel belluz
15. whitelaw
16. pinelli
    ------
17. voronkov
18. malatesta
19. mckown
    ------
20. strathmann

HM: foudy (23), dolzhenkov, peddle, berni (23), knazko, christiansen (23) (note: TFW excluded as he's already 24 but would be an HM for me as well)

Tiers:

• Tier 1: projected building blocks (fantilli arguably in his own tier) (1-3)
  Tier 2: high-certainty top six/four NHL contributors (4-7)
• 8-12: medium-certainty top six/four NHL contributors (8-12)
• 13-16: projected mid-lineup players or high-potential/high-volatility (13-16)
• 17-19: high certainty bottom-half-of-the-lineup players (17-20)
• 20-HM: NHL tools but low certainty of being a regular

No one is squabbling. It’s a very clear and simple distinction.

 

[koteka]

Why so high on DBB and Ceulemans but low on dumais and svozil?

As I said, 3-8 are really close. I don’t see a big difference between DBB, Ceulemans, and Svozil as prospects. DBB and Ceulemans play more valuable positions. I have Dumais third when it comes to our small skilled wings. I think he is a TJ Tynan type who will be a really good AHL player but not be able to make that NHL jump. Malatesta is stronger and has a build where I could see him making the NHL. Brindley has played a season of major D1 college hockey. Malatesta and Brindley will be facing better competition this season and develop more than Dumais will going back to the OHL.

 

[CBJWerenski8]

DBB and Ceulemans play more valuable positions.

Well yeah that might make them more valuable, but not necessarily better prospects. If that makes sense

 

[Cowumbus]

Rank - Name - Ceiling / NHL Position - Confidence Level

Blue Chip
1. Fantilli #1 C (75%) *
2. Jiricek #1b D (70%) *
A
3a Mateychuk #3 D (65%) *
3b Brindley #2 RW (65%) *
B
5. Voronkov #3 C (75%) *
6. Svozil #4 D (50%) *
7. Pyyhtia #3 LW (40%) *
-
8. Cuelemans #4 D (40%) *
9. Tarasov #1b G (40%) *
10. McKown #3 C (40%) *
11. Del Bel Belluz #3 C (40%) *
C
12. Malatesta #4 RW (60%) *
13. Dumais #2 RW (30%)
14. Whitelaw #3 RW (35%)
15. Strathman #5 D (50%)
16. Ivanov #2a G (40%)
17. Makarov #4b D (25%)
18. Pinelli #2 LW (25%)
D
19. Hreschuk #6 D (20%)
20a Dolzhenkov #4 RW (20%)
20b Richard #6 D (20%)

Examples:
1 C = Roope Hintz level talent
1b D = Zach Werenski level talent
1b G = Tristran Jarry level talent
2a G = Keith Kinkaid level talent
2 C = Brayden Schenn level talent
2 W = Gus Nyquist level talent
3 D = Damon Severson level talent
3 C = Pius Suter level talent
3 W = Warren Foegele level talent
4 D = Jake McCabe level talent
4b D = Nick Hague level talent
5 D = Derek Forburt level talent
4 W = Keegan Kolesar level talent

* denotes prospects who I think have a good chance for a few games in the NHL (at minimum) in the next 2 seasons
** yes some of them already have

FWIW, If Sillinger was still considered a prospect, he would be tied for 3rd:
3c. Sillinger #2 C (55 %) *

 

[koteka]

Well yeah that might make them more valuable, but not necessarily better prospects. If that makes sense

It all depends on how you define what makes a better prospect. If that makes sense.

Svozil has a pretty good shot at becoming the type of player we could easily obtain in a trade. 6 foot tall offensive left defensemen are not a rarity and don’t hold much value. Ceulemans is a right D who is 30 lbs heavier than Svozil and has a pretty good offensive skill set. He has the kind of body that can clear guys out from in front of the net and bang with forwards down low. Svozil has a had the advantage of playing with Bedard while Ceulemans played for a horrible Wisconsin team. It will be interesting to see how they both develop in Cleveland.

 

[Cowumbus]

It all depends on how you define what makes a better prospect. If that makes sense.

Svozil has a pretty good shot at becoming the type of player we could easily obtain in a trade. 6 foot tall offensive left defensemen are not a rarity and don’t hold much value. Ceulemans is a right D who is 30 lbs heavier than Svozil and has a pretty good offensive skill set. He has the kind of body that can clear guys out from in front of the net and bang with forwards down low. Svozil has a had the advantage of playing with Bedard while Ceulemans played for a horrible Wisconsin team. It will be interesting to see how they both develop in Cleveland.

To be fair Svozil had 3x as many points as the next D man on Regina, and was second in points on the team in the playoffs. I think Svozil’s creativity is higher than Corson’s, he reminds me a lot of Orlov.

Where did you get the 30 pounds heavier from? I see Svozil (Regina site) listed at 182 and Cuelemans listed at 196 (Wisco site).

âï¸ S P B

12 seconds · Clipped by Nicholas Vogel · Original video "Pittsburgh Penguins vs. Columbus Blue Jackets | Full Game Highlights" by NHL on ESPN

youtube.com

 

[tunnelvision]

Svozil has a pretty good shot at becoming the type of player we could easily obtain in a trade. 6 foot tall offensive left defensemen are not a rarity and don’t hold much value. Ceulemans is a right D who is 30 lbs heavier than Svozil and has a pretty good offensive skill set. He has the kind of body that can clear guys out from in front of the net and bang with forwards down low. Svozil has a had the advantage of playing with Bedard while Ceulemans played for a horrible Wisconsin team. It will be interesting to see how they both develop in Cleveland.

Although I haven't watched Ceulemans play nearly as often, I feel fairly confident saying Svozil has a better shot at becoming more effective defensive player. The difference in anticipation at both sides of the puck has been that significant. In WHL he has shown he can play impressive shut-down game with controlled minutes. But of course, if I didn't take hockey IQ into account and only emphasize physical measurements and stats then I'd probably rank Ceulemans higher as well.

So far both have been more or less inconsistent defensively, they definitely need to improve their conditioning and learn to make smarter reads in d zone. In comparison Svozil may have more work to do with conditioning and Ceulemans more with awareness and decision making.

I think Svozil’s creativity is higher than Corson’s, he reminds me a lot of Orlov.

Orlov is a good comp.

I think Ceulemans has better technical tools to be a pure offensive D/PPQB in the NHL (right handedness, harder slap and wrist shot, quicker release, maybe a bit better skater) but seems to lack creativity, vision and patience with the puck Svozil has.

 

[stevo61]

To be fair Svozil had 3x as many points as the next D man on Regina, and was second in points on the team in the playoffs. I think Svozil’s creativity is higher than Corson’s, he reminds me a lot of Orlov.

Where did you get the 30 pounds heavier from? I see Svozil (Regina site) listed at 182 and Cuelemans listed at 196 (Wisco site).

âï¸ S P B

12 seconds · Clipped by Nicholas Vogel · Original video "Pittsburgh Penguins vs. Columbus Blue Jackets | Full Game Highlights" by NHL on ESPN

youtube.com

hockey DB still lists his old 167lb weight

 

[Cowumbus]

hockey DB still lists his old 167lb weight

Makes sense. After watching him in person, I knew there was no way that he could be that small.

Slightly bigger build than KJ I’d say.

 

[koteka]

hockey DB still lists his old 167lb weight

That is what I used. A big thing with a lot of these guys is how their bodies grow.

 

[Cowumbus]

That is what I used. A big thing with a lot of these guys is how their bodies grow.

I think they take a long time to update weights, so normally I just look at program weights.

IIRC, they had Michkov at like 150 pounds, until just after the draft

 

[CBJx614]