Confirmed Trade: [EDM/VAN] Vasily Podkolzin for OTT '25 4th

WetcoastOrca

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Jun 3, 2011
40,022
25,759
Vancouver, BC
The Nuke comparison is so flawed. Nichuskin was such an aberration that it gives people hope that every top ten pick bust will turn it around after several years.
Love the kid as he works hard and I hope he succeeds but I think he likely won’t be in the NHL for long.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nturn06 and BCNate

Oilslick941611

Registered User
Jul 4, 2006
17,333
18,262
Ottawa
Podkolzin has some nice attributes, but he's a rare breed..... an extremely hard worker who is simultaneously extremely inconsistent.
One of the most frustrating players I've ever seen.
And that’s fine for the oilers, he’s going to play down in the line up where he wont be expected to make contributions. there will no pressure on him to score goals. All that will be expected of him to make smart choices and take enough time on the ice to let the big guys rest. It’s almost a perfect situation for him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dan Kelly

GirardSpinorama

Registered User
Aug 20, 2004
21,837
10,826
The Nuke comparison is so flawed. Nichuskin was such an aberration that it gives people hope that every top ten pick bust will turn it around after several years.
Love the kid as he works hard and I hope he succeeds but I think he likely won’t be in the NHL for long.
Almost literally what Dallas fans thought. Even good GMs make mistakes and vancouver certainly doesnt have a management team as good as Dallas.
 

NailsHoglander

Registered User
Feb 20, 2024
498
683
The Nuke comparison is so flawed. Nichuskin was such an aberration that it gives people hope that every top ten pick bust will turn it around after several years.
Love the kid as he works hard and I hope he succeeds but I think he likely won’t be in the NHL for long.

The concerning thing about Pod is that he couldn't even play a bottom 6 grinding role without getting physically abused. His IQ is just too low to even assert himself physically. That doesn't scream Nuke at all...

And forget about scoring if he can't do it in the AHL.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WetcoastOrca

Dan Kelly

Registered User
Sep 27, 2017
2,602
963
The concerning thing about Pod is that he couldn't even play a bottom 6 grinding role without getting physically abused. His IQ is just too low to even assert himself physically. That doesn't scream Nuke at all...

And forget about scoring if he can't do it in the AHL.
It's going to be very interesting to see what the Oilers get from this guy this season!
 

kp61c

Registered User
Apr 3, 2012
3,984
1,369
separate civilization
never have been a fan and was pretty sure he would bust. you look like a turd in the khl and still can't have the peace till you are in the nhl, why?
 

Juxta Position

Registered User
Jul 2, 2006
2,357
1,965
I mean, when he first came over to North America, he definitely showed flashes of being a useful Top-9 filler with size and some puck protection skills, and enough skill to not get in the way. Which was...pretty much the realistic "projection" imo from the day he was drafted.

It wasn't exactly "impressive"...but it wasn't nothing either.

He just completely fell apart after that though. Largely seemed mental. Hoglander was exactly the same...and he managed to really "turn it around". So...you never really know...unless there's more to the story off the ice or something. :dunno:
No top 10 draft pick is ever selected with the expectation that they will only project to what you laid out above. You're "realistic" projection is what teams hope their 2nd, 3rd, 4th round picks turn into. A player drafted 10th overall is expected to be a difference maker, not a "top 9 filler" like you stated.

I think you need to change the work "realistic" to "revisionist".
 

Oilslick941611

Registered User
Jul 4, 2006
17,333
18,262
Ottawa
Why are people acting like he’s going to come in and play on the 2nd line and fail?

This guy is going to play on the 4th line. We don’t need him to score or do anything other than be a body to let the top 2 lines rest and make a few smart choices with the puck.
 

biturbo19

Registered User
Jul 13, 2010
27,270
12,402
No top 10 draft pick is ever selected with the expectation that they will only project to what you laid out above. You're "realistic" projection is what teams hope their 2nd, 3rd, 4th round picks turn into. A player drafted 10th overall is expected to be a difference maker, not a "top 9 filler" like you stated.

I think you need to change the work "realistic" to "revisionist".

I don't think that's really true at all. It was a pretty mediocre to weak draft with a noticeable drop-off right around where he was selected. There's obviously the hope when drafting Podkolzin that he'd pan out as a legit Top-6 Winger...but the "realistic" outcome with him was always that he was a guy who'd be useful even if he doesn't pan out as a bona fide Top-6 Winger. And drafted highly as a pretty "safe" bet to at least end up as a very useful, big, physical, two-way complementary winger (once again, proof that there is no such thing as "safe" in the draft).

I think a lot of fans probably got way ahead of themselves (as they always do) and projected him out as something much more than that. But the realistic approach, was always to expect that he's more likely to pan out as a Top-9 complementary winger. Nothing "revisionist" about that at all.

The need to "revise" projections tends to stem most often, from inflated and completely unrealistic expectations in the first place. From fans projecting out to the absolute "ceiling" if the player's development ends up being an absolute "home run". Most actual scouts and teams tend to be a lot more realistic about it, even if they do the obligatory "talking up" of the positives and the "ceiling" to drive some hype for the fans.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LemonSauceD

Juxta Position

Registered User
Jul 2, 2006
2,357
1,965
I don't think that's really true at all. It was a pretty mediocre to weak draft with a noticeable drop-off right around where he was selected. There's obviously the hope when drafting Podkolzin that he'd pan out as a legit Top-6 Winger...but the "realistic" outcome with him was always that he was a guy who'd be useful even if he doesn't pan out as a bona fide Top-6 Winger. And drafted highly as a pretty "safe" bet to at least end up as a very useful, big, physical, two-way complementary winger (once again, proof that there is no such thing as "safe" in the draft).

I think a lot of fans probably got way ahead of themselves (as they always do) and projected him out as something much more than that. But the realistic approach, was always to expect that he's more likely to pan out as a Top-9 complementary winger. Nothing "revisionist" about that at all.

The need to "revise" projections tends to stem most often, from inflated and completely unrealistic expectations in the first place. From fans projecting out to the absolute "ceiling" if the player's development ends up being an absolute "home run". Most actual scouts and teams tend to be a lot more realistic about it, even if they do the obligatory "talking up" of the positives and the "ceiling" to drive some hype for the fans.
Fair enough, but I think that's true of really any pick outside the top 5. Any first rounder picked is expected to be an NHL player of some quality, that's why they go in the first round. To say that someone picked at 10 is only "realistically" expected to be a top 9 filler is, in my opinion, not actually being realistic, but pessimistic.

I have found on this site over my very long tenure here that people often confuse realism with pessimism.

A realistic expectation for a forward picked 10th overall is a top 6 contributor, weak draft or not. It is usually only when that player doesn't pan out as expected for a high draft pick, does the revisionism kick in. If it truly was the belief that said player was only ever going to peak as a filler/fringe player, a NHL team team would be insane to waste a top 10 pick on them.

I'm not saying this to knock anyone, but to say 5 years after the fact "we've never expected him to be a top 6 player" when he doesn't pan out is disingenuous.
 

McShogun99

Registered User
Aug 30, 2009
18,844
15,533
Edmonton
I might be wrong but wasn't he considered a reach when he was drafted and Canuck fans weren't happy with the pick?
 

Rowlet

Registered User
Sponsor
Oct 13, 2018
4,464
5,253
I might be wrong but wasn't he considered a reach when he was drafted and Canuck fans weren't happy with the pick?

He actually fell a bit, he was speculated to go top 5 basically all year, some in year predictions thought he could go top 3 iirc.

At the last ranking, he's generally placed between 7-10.

 

biturbo19

Registered User
Jul 13, 2010
27,270
12,402
Fair enough, but I think that's true of really any pick outside the top 5. Any first rounder picked is expected to be an NHL player of some quality, that's why they go in the first round. To say that someone picked at 10 is only "realistically" expected to be a top 9 filler is, in my opinion, not actually being realistic, but pessimistic.

I have found on this site over my very long tenure here that people often confuse realism with pessimism.

A realistic expectation for a forward picked 10th overall is a top 6 contributor, weak draft or not. It is usually only when that player doesn't pan out as expected for a high draft pick, does the revisionism kick in. If it truly was the belief that said player was only ever going to peak as a filler/fringe player, a NHL team team would be insane to waste a top 10 pick on them.

I'm not saying this to knock anyone, but to say 5 years after the fact "we've never expected him to be a top 6 player" when he doesn't pan out is disingenuous.

The thing is...especially around a site like this, but even just with fans in general...there is that inflated expectation that every top pick is going to be a stud. However, it's not altogether "realistic". It's not "pessimistic" to look at the average results over a huge swath of draft years and realize that...whatever the "high hopes" for "upside" on a player, the more realistic outcome tends to be somewhere well south of there.

It's the same thing that leads fans to think every tiny little scoring winger who did a million points in juniors is the "steal of the draft"...because they project out to the "ceiling" of what that player could be. But there usually a very clear reason that player "fell" and the draft outside the top few picks is actually a lot more of a crapshoot than people like to admit. In many cases, it is actually more about "managing outcomes".


Like yeah...if the "hope" for Podkolzin's "ceiling" was "Top-9 complementary winger" he wouldn't have been drafted anywhere near there. His "hope" and "ceiling" was Top-6 complementary winger. But the draft is more about ranges of projection and realistic ranges of outcomes. If a guy hits say...80% of his potential, or 75% or 50%...what is that player going to be worth to my team? And in those more realistic ~50% +/- 25% in either direction brackets, Podkolzin looked like an okay bet with a "realistic" projection as a Top-9 Complementary Winger with all sorts of grit and size and two way intangibles and all the rest.

Just hasn't worked out that way because he's turned out to be a total headcase...in more ways than one. :dunno:

I might be wrong but wasn't he considered a reach when he was drafted and Canuck fans weren't happy with the pick?

Well THIS is "revisionist" for sure.

Podkolzin was ranked...generally higher than 10 even. A faller toward the draft, which tends to keep falling on draft day. But he was typically ranked well within that draft range, not really a "reach" at all in those terms. And i don't recall a lot of Canucks fans being that upset with the pick at the time. Obviously many had other preferences...but it was a very open part of the draft where they grabbed a guy who was ranked in many places, higher than they actually got him. There was plenty of excitement about Podkolzin at the time...and honestly, even as a rookie...he genuinely looked promising.

Then his confidence just disappeared into the ether and never came back. :dunno:
 
  • Like
Reactions: FrankSidebottom

Jumptheshark

Rebooting myself
Oct 12, 2003
101,030
14,901
Somewhere on Uranus
Let's fire up the time machine for this site and what was posted



If you search his name on this site there is about 15 pages where he is discussed
 
  • Like
Reactions: GirardSpinorama

Petes2424

Registered User
Aug 4, 2005
8,505
3,319
He does hit, it's not devastating though, he was trending pretty well after his rookie season, and then he somehow regressed under Tocchet. The problem is between his ears. He has no confidence to make offensive plays, but is very conscientious defensively. If he gets past his "afraid to make a mistake" mindset, he will strive with his physical sturdiness. He has leadership qualities and is loved by all his teammates.
There’s some of this with him but the real issue, is the same issue for most wingers who bust. They simply need more time to make decisions on the ice. Time that just doesn’t exist at the NHL level.

The good part, and why he’s probably worth the 4th Round pick is, it’s not getting his shot off, like it is with many players. He’s shown stretches where he gets his shot off in plenty of time. It’s the rest of his game, where he still needs that extra second, that just doesn’t exist in the NHL.

There’s a reason we see so many “very skilled” Russian and Czechs (especially) “Natural” wingers, bust in the NHL. The systems they grow up playing, give tons of space to wingers on the outside, because their systems have dmen collapse towards the net.

So they have all the time in the world to set things up. They’re not forced to “think the game” so quickly. Or just react “Naturally.”

They may even have initial success in the NHL. Guys like Yakupov for example. Because in the NHL, the dmen will give you the outside initially. Basically they’re cheating their angles, and daring you to create offense from the outside. Once a player proves he can score in that outside space though, NHL Dmen are so talented, they’ll take that space away from these players.

Once that happens, guys like Michkov (this coming season) for example, is gonna have to prove he can take his game to a whole new level, he’s never had to before. Took Nichushkin 5-6 years. Zadina still hasn’t figured it out. Neither has Podkolzin.

The thing is though, you just never know until they play in the NHL, because that part of the game, only exists in the NHL. NHL Dmen are very unique in this regard. They have insane “one on one” skills you just dont see in other leagues. There’s not KHL Dmen who can play this way. Exactly why they collapse towards the net and give the outside away. It’s also why we see so many Russian Dmen struggle defensively in the NHL as young players. They have to be broken from playing the way they always have.

Where here in NA and in Sweden now, we don’t see the busts as much anymore, because our kids play much more “one on one” hockey growing up now. The crazy thing is, it used to be the complete opposite. Until all those great skill oriented coaches from the Soviet Union, all left Russia and came over to coach in NA in the 1990s. They started developing a lot of very skilled kids in the States and USA Hockey took notice. We then seen USA Hockey, followed by Hockey Canada and then Sweden Minor Hockey as well, get away from systems and teach more “one on one” skills to our kids.. While back in Russia, systems took over. Those who now controlled Russian Minor Hockey, were the old rivals of the very skill oriented type coaches who controlled Soviet Hockey for decades, but left for America. Finland has finally switched in recent years as well. Russia and the Czechs though? They need big changes. We should see it soon though, because look at all those same very skilled players from the 1990s now coaching in Russia. Sergei Fedorov for example. His dad, was one of those coaches who came over and brought Russian training to the States.

Anyway. That’s how we got here with all these very skilled players busting in the NHL.

If you notice, most Russian and Czech wingers in the NHL, were also natural Cs back at home. They grew up playing in traffic, and naturally developed skills to create space and make decisions quickly. Most of these very skilled wingers we see bust in the NHL, never had to do so, and it’s a skill that has to come naturally because it’s like a muscle memory. Its done immediately when they get the puck. There’s no time to think.

Podkolzin is gonna have a nice hockey career. It’s just likely to be in the KHL, where he’ll have plenty of time to make decisions. Like it or not though, we have several GMs in the NHL who are almost scared to use a top pick on a Russian Winger. This is the reason why. They’ll use 2nd and 3rd round picks, but not high picks. Michkov for example, will have a lot of pressure on him to produce. He busts, guarantee the Flyers will be added to that list of teams who won’t touch Russian Wingers with a top pick for a long time.
 

tantalum

Hope for the best. Expect the worst
Sponsor
Apr 2, 2002
25,530
14,771
Missouri
The only question is does McDavid bounce 20, 30, 40 or 50 off his butt into the net…?
Call me crazy but I don't think McDavid is going to be playing in Bakersfield....

Seriously, I don't think Podz will be any more than 4th line player and that is likely a best case scenario. I wish him well as he seems like a great guy and he works hard. It's nice to see a player like that finally put it together but his last few stints in the NHL have simply been bad. It wasn't like his improvement plateaued it's that he has regressed since his rookie season and every time he was given a shot he just looked worse than last time.
 

nturn06

Registered User
Nov 9, 2017
3,907
3,298
Sure. And what everyone who wins with a lottery ticket thinks too.
I mean that’s like saying every minor league 30 year old plus goalie turns into Tim Thomas. The exception doesn’t make the rule.
At the same time, unlikely events do happen. At some point someone does win the lottery.

I wonder why teams keep drafting in the late rounds, the chances of getting a decent player are similar(or worse) to VP chances of becoming a good player.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad