Have you revised your assessment criteria given Sokolov's failure to make it with our team? Not a dig, just genuinely curious given how much optimism you had for him.
Partially...I think the situation with Sokolov helped me see how difficult it is for prospects to adapt to new roles. There is a pathway to the NHL for many prospects but it may require them taking on a role that isn't so glamorous. I think a lot of prospects have a hard time accepting that and hold onto the role that they have grown accustomed to. That it can take them a long time to finally start dedicating themselves towards becoming a good role player and even then there is still a powerful part of them that drifts back to trying to become the player that they thought they were going to be.
I thought he was going to have to go through a kind of Nick Paul kind of adjustment after he struggled to make the jump in his first few seasons. I thought he could do it and still think he can do it but it seems to be a more difficult task than I initially thought. Paul started out and continued to develop as a strong defensive player who eventually excelled at battling for and protecting the puck.
I saw some similarities with Stone in Sokolov's game, but Stone was the stronger defensive player and had more grit and battle in his game. Sokolov can be a bit of an agitator but he doesn't do that consistently. He wasn't as effective at battling along the boards and digging pucks out of the corners. He wasn't as poised defensively.
I guess the major takeaway for me would be to stress the importance in defensive play/poise, consistency in battle/compete and the ability to take on less exciting roles and to be the "unsung hero" on a team when evaluating prospects. That it is a lot harder to get prospects to incorporate those elements into their game and their mentality if they aren't consistently and clearly exhibiting it.
