Management GM Pierre Dorion/Front Office Thread - Part IX [Mod Warning in post 1)

[Micklebot]

The real question to gauge how Ottawa “valued” Norris would be to compare him to the prospects that other teams offered. Not the other prospects in the SJ system.

From what was reported, Dallas, Tampa and Vegas were also in the mix.

Vegas is an interesting one, because they were having discussions with Ottawa at the 2018 deadline, and according to Bobby Ryan, he thought a deal would happen. And 3 days before the San Jose deal happened, they moved Suzuki for Pacioretty.

Could they have offered Suzuki in a package for Karlsson? That’s possible. And could Ottawa’s staff have valued Norris over Suzuki at the time, and that’s why they moved forward with the Sharks and not the Knights? Potentially.

This assumes a lot, including that the rest of the offers were equivalent, and that it was Ottawa that rejected the VGK's offer and not the other way around. Maybe VGK refused to include a first. I don't think you can boil down a deal that involved 7 pieces coming back to Norris vs one piece of another teams offer, in this case Suzuki, they could hypothetically have liked Suzuki more than Norris but not liked the rest of the deal. It's also possible they just didn't like Suzuki at all as the rumours were they were focused on Glass.

 

[JD1]

I don't know why we need to continually revisit a trade from 4 summers ago trying to find a way to discredit our GM for a trade that really bolstered this franchise and sunk the one we traded with. It was a homerun. The end.

 

[Tnuoc Alucard]

 

[YouGotAStuGoing]

I don't know why we need to continually revisit a trade from 4 summers ago trying to find a way to discredit our GM for a trade that really bolstered this franchise and sunk the one we traded way. It was a homerun. The end.

Right results, wrong process. There's every reason to dissect it if we're still trying to figure out his overall body of work so far, but keep trying to stifle conversation on a message board if that gets you off.

 

[DaveMatthew]

This assumes a lot, including that the rest of the offers were equivalent, and that it was Ottawa that rejected the VGK's offer and not the other way around. Maybe VGK refused to include a first. I don't think you can boil down a deal that involved 7 pieces coming back to Norris vs one piece of another teams offer, in this case Suzuki, they could hypothetically have liked Suzuki more than Norris but not liked the rest of the deal. It's also possible they just didn't like Suzuki at all as the rumours were they were focused on Glass.

It’s also possible they really like Norris the most, thought he could be a core piece for them moving forward, pulled the trigger on the trade, and got it right.

Norris was ranked as a first rounder in his draft year. He ended up drafted in the first round. He was then traded as a key component in a deal for a top-end NHL player.

Of course he was no sure thing. Maybe they didn't think he'd pace for 40+ goals in a season. But the guy was a high-quality prospect when we acquired him. That’s not assuming anything. That’s reality. It’s not even a debate. I'm not sure why anyone is trying to diminish it.

Luckily for us, he’s delivered on his potential. It doesn't always go that way (see: Erik Brannstrom, also a high-quality prospect from the same draft year).

 

[Micklebot]

It’s also possible they really like Norris the most, thought he could be a core piece for them moving forward, and got it right.

Norris was ranked as a first rounder in his draft year. He ended up drafted in the first round. He was then traded as a key component in a deal for a top-end NHL player.

The guy was a high-quality prospect when we acquired him. That’s not assuming anything. That’s reality. It’s not even a debate.

Luckily for us, he’s delivered on his potential.

He was a first rounder who's D+1 year didn't show the progress you'd like and who Mann was on record saying he thought he'd be a 3rd line center when they first acquired him. Being ranked in the first round in your draft year doesn't mean you will always be perceived as a high quality prospect going forward, how you progress going forward is more important than how you were ranked 12 months ago, that's reality. Nobody is saying he was a worthless piece, but it was far from clear that he'd be a top 6 player,

At the time of the trade:
He didn't make Wheeler's top 50
He didn't make TSN's top 50
He didn't make NHL.com's top 50

Those are all third parties who don't really have a horse in the race. Does that mean he was a bad piece, no, but it does back up the claims that his perceived value at the time may not have been what you've depicted. Now maybe Dorion valued him more than Wheeler, TSN, NHL.com and his own guy in his chief scout Mann. That's certainly possible, but I think it's pretty fair to say it's not set in stone.

 

[DaveMatthew]

He was a first rounder who's D+1 year didn't show the progress you'd like and who Mann was on record saying he thought he'd be a 3rd line center when they first acquired him. Being ranked in the first round in your draft year doesn't mean you will always be perceived as a high quality prospect going forward, how you progress going forward is more important than how you were ranked 12 months ago, that's reality. Nobody is saying he was a worthless piece, but it was far from clear that he'd be a top 6 player,

At the time of the trade:
He didn't make Wheeler's top 50
He didn't make TSN's top 50
He didn't make NHL.com's top 50

Those are all third parties who don't really have a horse in the race. Does that mean he was a bad piece, no, but it does back up the claims that his perceived value at the time may not have been what you've depicted. Now maybe Dorion valued him more than Wheeler, TSN, NHL.com and his own guy in his chief scout Mann. That's certainly possible, but I think it's pretty fair to say it's not set in stone.

Okay, sure. Unless you're a top-end, A+ prospect, it's not usually clear, at age 19, that you'll be a top 6 player. I'll give you that, Norris wasn't an A+ prospect. He wasn't Stützle or Raymond or Pettersson.

But he was a high-quality prospect. Just like Ridly Greig. Just like Shane Pinto. Neither of those guys are clear top 6 players either. They have a lot of work to do to get there, and they never might. Some scouts might say they'll do it, others might say their ceiling is the 3rd line. But if we traded them away tomorrow, fans on this board would say, "man, that's a high price to pay".

But now we're just getting into semantics. It's clear you and I have a different definition of what "high-quality prospect" means.

As a footnote, those lists are wild. Vilardi, Mittelstadt, Tolvanen and Samsonov over Tkachuk. Insanity.

 

[Micklebot]

Okay, sure. Unless you're a top-end, A+ prospect, it's not usually clear, at age 19, that you'll be a top 6 player. I'll give you that, Norris wasn't an A+ prospect. He wasn't Stützle or Raymond or Pettersson.

But he was a high-quality prospect. Just like Ridly Greig. Just like Shane Pinto. Neither of those guys are clear top 6 players either. They have a lot of work to do to get there, and they never might. But if we traded them away tomorrow, fans on this board would say, "man, that's a high price to pay".

But now we're just getting into semantics. It's clear you and I have a different definition of what "high-quality prospect" means.

Look at the lists that I posted, Greig is 18th on this years top NHL affiliated list by TSN, I'm not talking Stutzle, Raymond or Pettersson. Top 50 is a lot of prospects. Shane Pinto had a significantly better first year in College than Norris, and continued to progress after than, having already showed he can play at the NHL level in his callups, of course people will value a guy that's far more proven than Norris was. This isn't semantics, it trying to not re-write history.

 

[Senscore]

I don't have a dog in this fight but I think it's funny that in the summer 2018 San Jose board prospect rankings, they voted Norris #4 behind both Gambrell and Balcers.

 

[DaveMatthew]

Look at the lists that I posted, Greig is 18th on this years top NHL affiliated list by TSN, I'm not talking Stutzle, Raymond or Pettersson. Top 50 is a lot of prospects. Shane Pinto had a significantly better first year in College than Norris, and continued to progress after than, having already showed he can play at the NHL level in his callups, of course people will value a guy that's far more proven than Norris was. This isn't semantics, it trying to not re-write history.

Ridly Greig plays in Canada and was on the WJC two years in a row. If you don't think that impacts these lists... Hell, Shane Pinto was not on TSN's top 50 prospect list in 2020, 2021 or 2022. Button ranked him #61 after his 2nd NCAA season. Personally, I think he's a better prospect than Greig. Yet no love from the lists. Somehow Cody Glass and Nick Robertson are there. But no Pinto.

And it kind of makes my original point - that Josh Norris was an unknown due to being an American who played in the NCAA, and that contributed to the anger over the "poor return". If he had been playing in the CHL, had played for Canada at the WJC in 2018 instead of the US, and was one year removed from being the #19 pick, Sens fans would have considered him a "high-quality" prospect, even after a down year as a freshman. Look how long Logan Brown had perceived "value" on this board. It certainly took more than one off season for people to downgrade him as a prospect.

 

[Micklebot]

I don't have a dog in this fight but I think it's funny that in the summer 2018 San Jose board prospect rankings, they voted Norris #4 behind both Gambrell and Balcers.

Yeah, I don't think SJ management would have had the same ranking... Though it is interesting to note that Gambrell's offensive production in College and the AHL was actually quite good.

 

[Micklebot]

Ridly Greig plays in Canada and was on the WJC two years in a row. If you don't think that impacts these lists... Hell, Shane Pinto was not on TSN's top 50 prospect list in 2019, 2020 or 2021. Button ranked him #61 after his 2nd NCAA season. Anyone who actually watched him play and saw his tools knew that was far too low.

And it kind of makes my original point - that Josh Norris was an unknown due to being an American who played in the NCAA, and that contributed to the anger over the "poor return". If he had been playing in the CHL, had played for Canada at the WJC in 2018 instead of the US, and was one year removed from being the #19 pick, Sens fans would have considered him a "high-quality" prospect, even after a down year as a freshman. Look how long Logan Brown had perceived "value" on this board.

Again, take a look at his d+1 year. That's why he was not viewed as a top prospect the way Greig was. Greig was a high pick that improved his stock. I'll give you that Pinto goes under the radar, his latest injury probably played a big role in that but there are examples of other college guys that have not. It's a lazy argument to say he just wasn't known because he was an American who played college, maybe if he wasn't a 1st rounder that might make sense but everyone knew who he was. You can't simultaneously say he was hidden because "American in the NCAA" while saying one year removed from being a 1st rd pick, The reality is that guys that turn into big producers typically produce far more than Norris did, which is why he didn't get the attention of even a guy like White who produced much better in college (ranked 22nd in TSN's 2017 list btw) or Jost (ranked 15th). If you play well in college, you'll get noticed, especially as a former first round pick. Norris just didn't. He's since put in the work and became a wonderful player, but at the time of the trade, his value wasn't perceived the way you're suggesting.

 

[DaveMatthew]

Again, take a look at his d+1 year. That's why he was not viewed as a top prospect the way Greig was. Greig was a high pick that improved his stock. I'll give you that Pinto goes under the radar, his latest injury probably played a big role in that but there are examples of other college guys that have not. It's a lazy argument to say he just wasn't known because he was an American who played college, maybe if he wasn't a 1st rounder that might make sense but everyone knew who he was. You can't simultaneously say he was hidden because "American in the NCAA" while saying one year removed from being a 1st rd pick, The reality is that guys that turn into big producers typically produce far more than Norris did, which is why he didn't get the attention of even a guy like White who produced much better in college (ranked 22nd in TSN's 2017 list btw) or Jost (ranked 15th). If you play well in college, you'll get noticed, especially as a former first round pick. Norris just didn't. He's since put in the work and became a wonderful player, but at the time of the trade, his value wasn't perceived the way you're suggesting.

Nobody on this board knew who he was. Fans didn't know who he was. That contributed to the anger over the return. If we had acquired a CHL player who had name recognition but with the exact same profile (including the down D+1 season) as Josh Norris, the return would have been viewed differently on social media. That was my original point.

I never said that NHL scouts and GMs didn't know who he was. I'm sure they all did. And I'm sure there were wildly differing opinions on what his upside and floor was, just like there are with all prospects. I'm sure some predicted what he's become. I'm sure others thought he'd never make it at all. From what we know, it seems there were different projections within Ottawa's own scouting room.

But at the end of the day, all trades involve luck and the end results are what matters. And the Karlsson trade is trending to be as big a win for Ottawa as the Yashin trade, and that one set us up for years of contention. Hopefully that's what happens here, and we won't need to dissect what Dorion projected Norris to be in August 2018 just like we don't dissect what Johnston projected Chara to be in June 2021.

 

[Micklebot]

Well that was my original point. Nobody on this board knew who he was. Fans didn't know who he was. That contributed to the anger over the return. If we had acquired a CHL player who had name recognition but with the exact same profile (including the down D+1 season) as Josh Norris, the return would have been viewed differently on social media.

I never said that NHL scouts and GMs didn't know who he was. I'm sure they all did. And I'm sure there were wildly differing opinions on what his upside and floor was, just like there are with all prospects. I'm sure some predicted what he's become. I'm sure others thought he'd never make it at all.

That's complete bull.

People knew who he was, As you've so aptly pointed out, he was a first round draft pick one year prior for christ sake. He also followed that up with 23 pts in 37 games in his first year of college, that's why people didn't have high hopes. His stock dropped as a result of a disappointing D+1. Our own Chief scout saw him as a 3rd line center when we acquired him, I'm sure some saw more potential than Trent did, but there's an example of a Pro (in our own org no less) that had similar expectations to a lot of the fans who gripped about the piece as part of the return.

If we had acquired a CHL player that failed to hit a pt per game in his D+1 year people would have been down on him as a key part of the acquisition too.

 

[DaveMatthew]

That's complete bull.

People knew who he was, As you've so aptly pointed out, he was a first round draft pick one year prior for christ sake. He also followed that up with 23 pts in 37 games in his first year of college, that's why people didn't have high hopes. His stock dropped as a result of a disappointing D+1. Our own Chief scout saw him as a 3rd line center when we acquired him, I'm sure some saw more potential than Trent did, but there's an example of a Pro (in our own org no less) that had similar expectations to a lot of the fans who gripped about the piece as part of the return.

If we had acquired a CHL player that failed to hit a pt per game in his D+1 year people would have been down on him as a key part of the acquisition too.

Really? You think the average fan from Stittsville calling into TSN 1200 to vent about the trade knew who Josh Norris was in August 2018?

How many fans on this board can give a good scouting report on Matthew Samoskevich? What does he project to be? After all, he was a 1st round pick just last year. Is he a 2nd line winger? 3rd? Destined for the AHL? Shouldn't we all know? If we acquire him tomorrow, we'll all be ready with an instant, well-thought-out reaction, that's not based on one look at his HockeyDB profile, I'm sure.

C'mon, you're better than that.

It's also funny how you're so hung up on one quote from Trent Mann (which he made well after Norris had broken out in the AHL, 2 years after the trade happened) yet completely ignore what Pierre Dorion said right after the trade was made.

Let's call a spade a spade. The Erik Karlsson trade is a perfect example of how wrong NHL fans and media can be. People thought Ottawa was trading an elite defenseman. We were not. People thought we acquired quantity but no quality. We did not. At the time of the trade, Erik Karlsson was wildly overvalued and Josh Norris was wildly undervalued. That's the reality of it.

Besides, Ottawa fans (myself included) never looked at that trade or return objectively back then. In the moment, we were clouded by anger at Melnyk, and rightfully so based on his comments and actions over the previous 12 months.

 

[Micklebot]

Really? You think the average fan from Stittsville calling into TSN 1200 to vent about the trade knew who Josh Norris was in August 2018?

How many fans on this board can give a good scouting report on Matthew Samoskevich? What does he project to be? After all, he was a 1st round pick just last year. Is he a 2nd line winger? 3rd? Destined for the AHL? Shouldn't we all know?

C'mon, you're better than that.

It's also funny how you're so hung up on one quote from Trent Mann (which he made well after Norris had broke out in the AHL, 2 years after the trade happened) yet completely ignore what Pierre Dorion said right after the trade was made.

The average fan from Stittville read in the paper that he was selected 19th OA and that's all they know since the average fan doesn't know squat about prospects that aren't on their team. The guys from TSN, Athletic and NHL.com though, and Trent Mann to name a few, do know prospects, just like the fans that regularly come to a site devoted to hockey futures also knows a bit about prospects and know where to go to fill in the blanks when they don't know about one.

Look in the mirror man, you're so deep into your argument that you won't let facts get in the way. Of course Dorion is going to hype the trade he just made, that's been his MO forever, Brannstrom was his proudest moment, his nick name was P.R. Dorion for gods sake.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion that he was viewed as a high end prospect at the time of the trade, all I'm doing is providing evidence of why maybe that wasn't the case. I'm sure it won't change your opinion and that's fine, but when all you've done to support your position is tell me his draft position, that the GM hyped up a trade he just made, and try to convince me that because he's american and played NCAA nobody knew who he was, well it isn't all that compelling an argument.

 

[DaveMatthew]

The average fan from Stittville read in the paper that he was selected 19th OA and that's all they know since the average fan doesn't know squat about prospects that aren't on their team. The guys from TSN, Athletic and NHL.com though, and Trent Mann to name a few, do know prospects, just like the fans that regularly come to a site devoted to hockey futures also knows a bit about prospects and know where to go to fill in the blanks when they don't know about one.

Look in the mirror man, you're so deep into your argument that you won't let facts get in the way. Of course Dorion is going to hype the trade he just made, that's been his MO forever, Brannstrom was his proudest moment, his nick name was P.R. Dorion for gods sake.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion that he was viewed as a high end prospect at the time of the trade, all I'm doing is providing evidence of why maybe that wasn't the case. I'm sure it won't change your opinion and that's fine, but when all you've done to support your position is tell me his draft position, that the GM hyped up a trade he just made, and try to convince me that because he's american and played NCAA nobody knew who he was, well it isn't all that compelling an argument.

His draft position and the toolset he's always had. Norris always had an elite shot. He was always an above-average skater. He always had good size. He always had high character, a high motor, and was very coachable. Those physical attributes and skills made him a high-end prospect.

Was it a sure thing he'd max out his potential? Of course not. Most prospects don't. Even the high-end ones.

But your argument of "well Trent Mann made a comment two years after the trade" and "he didn't make TSN's top 50 list" isn't all that compelling either.

What was it, in 2018, that made you think he was unlikely to be a top 6 player in the NHL? What did he lack? What was going to hold him back?

And it's funny that you bring up Brannstrom, who all the analysts and lists agreed was a top-end prospect at the time of his trade, so why would you use that as an example of Dorion baselessly hyping a prospect up? That was the consensus opinion on Brannstrom. It wasn't Dorion. It was Button, HFBoards, McKeens, etc.

Dorion was right on Norris. He was wrong on Brannstrom.

 

[Micklebot]

His draft position and the toolset he's always had. Norris always had an elite shot. He was always an above-average skater. He always had good size. He always had high character, a high motor, and was very coachable. Those physical attributes and skills made him a high-end prospect.

Was it a sure thing he'd max out his potential? Of course not. Most prospects don't. Even the high-end ones.

But your argument of "well Trent Mann made a throwaway comment two years after the trade" and "he didn't make TSN's top 50 list" isn't all that compelling either.

What was it, in 2018, that made you think he was unlikely to be a top 6 player in the NHL? What did he lack?

Lol, so now Trent Mann giving his initial opinion is a throw away comment...

Lots of prospects have the physical tools he did as a prospect to one degree or another, most don't pan out. His performance just wasn't cutting it, he had a lot of development to go, you're the one making the claim that he was always viewed as a top prospect, I provided evidence he wasn't viewed as that, people and publications that went on the record. You're the one trying to claim how he was perceived. My perception of him isn't really what's in question here since I'm one person, so if I tell you I just didn't see the offensive awareness to be more than a 3rd liner, where does that get us in the debate, nowhere. But when you throw away people and publications in the business who gave on the record evaluations and label them as not compelling, well I think we're at an impasse. I'm sure none of Trent Mann, TSN, Athletic, or NHL.com knew about his coachability or physical attributes when they assessed him.

 

[DaveMatthew]

Lol, so now Trent Mann giving his initial opinion is a throw away comment...

And anything that Pierre Dorion says is baseless hype...

Lots of prospects have the physical tools he did as a prospect to one degree or another, most don't pan out. His performance just wasn't cutting it, he had a lot of development to go, you're the one making the claim that he was always viewed as a top prospect, I provided evidence he wasn't viewed as that, people and publications that went on the record. You're the one trying to claim how he was perceived. My perception of him isn't really what's in question here since I'm one person, so if I tell you I just didn't see the offensive awareness to be more than a 3rd liner, where does that get us in the debate, nowhere. But when you throw away people and publications in the business who gave on the record evaluations and label them as not compelling, well I think we're at an impasse. I'm sure none of Trent Mann, TSN, Athletic, or NHL.com knew about his coachability or physical attributes when they assessed him.

I was never arguing that TSN or the Athletic considered him a high-end prospect. They didn't see him as a top guy, and neither did the fans. That's obvious.

I'm arguing that Pierre Dorion and the Ottawa Senators organization, as a whole, had a different view. They did consider him a high-end prospect. And their high opinion of him was one of the driving reasons why they made the trade.

And they said as much. And they turned out to be right. The analysts, lists and fans turned out to be wrong.

Dorion has made countless mistakes. But he also has a track record of identifying talent when others don't. Is it that hard to believe that he had a much higher opinion of Josh Norris than the hockey media, or even Trent Mann? After all, he also had a much higher opinion of Erik Karlsson than the hockey media, and Bryan Murray (who admitted that was the case), back in 2008.

 

[Micklebot]

And anything that Pierre Dorion says is baseless hype...

Well, one guy has a proven track record of hyping up prospects, while the other has a reputation that's more down to earth. I guess you can ignore that history if you want,

I was never arguing that TSN or the Athletic considered him a high-end prospect.

I'm arguing that Pierre Dorion and the Ottawa Senators organization, as a whole, considered him a high-end prospect.

And they said as much. And they turned out to be right. The lists and fans turned out to be wrong.

Except that you aren't really doing that. There's no actually evidence aside from the Mann comments that specifically identifies what they projected him as. Heck, even a year after being traded here and him playing a month under him, Troy Mann was saying he should be able to develop into a sure fire 3rd liner with a chance to be a 2nd liner, and that was after he had a very good albeit injury shortened 2nd college year.

What you've done is make a claim without anything of substance to back it up. Basically, you've provided an opinion. It's fine, your opinion is he had the tools to be viewed by the org as a top prospect that projected better than a 3rd liner. Nobody debates that the team targeted him in the trade, but Dorion's post trade hype aside, there isn't really much to suggest that the org viewed him at that time in the way you've presented it, while the two Mann's comments suggest maybe the org would be pumping the brakes a bit on those types of projections.

 

[JD1]

Both of you guys are pretty hung up on this

At the time, this board downplayed the return. There's no question about that. Downplaying it fed the PD is a buffoon narrative. I remember, in trying to see the positive in it, posting that two time world junior players typically had a high correlation to NHL success. That got shot down. He panned out though.

I do agree with Dave that if Norris had been an 18 year Canada WJC player he would have been better received by the fan base.

We won the trade. It was a homerun. I think we can close the book on it.

Right results, wrong process. There's every reason to dissect it if we're still trying to figure out his overall body of work so far, but keep trying to stifle conversation on a message board if that gets you off.

So you're still trying to figure out how the flawed process led to the home run result. Well, conduct a forensic exercise I guess. I'm looking forward to your findings

 

[DaveMatthew]

Well, one guy has a proven track record of hyping up prospects, while the other has a reputation that's more down to earth. I guess you can ignore that history if you want,

Except that you aren't really doing that. There's no actually evidence aside from the Mann comments that specifically identifies what they projected him as. Heck, even a year after being traded here and him playing a month under him, Troy Mann was saying he should be able to develop into a sure fire 3rd liner with a chance to be a 2nd liner, and that was after he had a very good albeit injury shortened 2nd college year.

What you've done is make a claim without anything of substance to back it up. Basically, you've provided an opinion. It's fine, your opinion is he had the tools to be viewed by the org as a top prospect that projected better than a 3rd liner. Nobody debates that the team targeted him in the trade, but Dorion's post trade hype aside, there isn't really much to suggest that the org viewed him at that time in the way you've presented it, while the two Mann's comments suggest maybe the org would be pumping the brakes a bit on those types of projections.

This is a high-end prospect. This is Ridly Greig and Shane Pinto. Surefire NHLers. No doubt about them. This was Josh Norris. This is my point.

I bet if you asked Trent Mann what he projects Ridly Greig to be in the NHL - he'd say a 3rd line center with a chance to be a 2nd line player. I bet if you asked him if he was a high-end prospect - he'd say absolutely.

No, not Stützle/Sanderson. Those are potential franchise-changing prospects. But high-end nonetheless.

But that's not what fans thought. There were prospect lists that had Johnny Tychonik above Josh Norris. The perception of him amongst this fanbase immediately after the trade was ridiculous, especially in hindsight.

 

[Micklebot]

This is a high-end prospect. This is Ridly Greig and Shane Pinto. Surefire NHLers. No doubt about them. This was Josh Norris. This is my point.

No, not Stützle/Sanderson high-end. But high-end nonetheless.

Good lord...

Ok, so you've gone from being critical of my suggesting he developed more than expected and backing up what we potentially expected out of him with Trent Mann's on the record account, to now saying well actually that initial Trent Mann projection is that of a high end prospect... I think I'm done here, your point is a moving target and i'm no longer interested.

 

[YouGotAStuGoing]

This is a high-end prospect. This is Ridly Greig and Shane Pinto. Surefire NHLers. No doubt about them. This was Josh Norris. This is my point.

I bet if you asked Trent Mann what he projects Ridly Greig to be in the NHL - he'd say a 3rd line center with a chance to be a 2nd line player. I bet if you asked him if he was a high-end prospect - he'd say absolutely.

No, not Stützle/Sanderson. Those are potential franchise-changing prospects. But high-end nonetheless.

But that's not what fans thought. There were prospect lists that had Johnny Tychonik above Josh Norris. The perception of him amongst this fanbase immediately after the trade was ridiculous, especially in hindsight.

Surefire NHLer does not mean high-end prospect. Most agree Tyler Boucher will be a surefire NHLer, but you'd be very hard-pressed to find anyone who'd agree he's a high-end prospect.

 

[Micklebot]

Surefire NHLer does not mean high-end prospect. Most agree Tyler Boucher will be a surefire NHLer, but you'd be very hard-pressed to find anyone who'd agree he's a high-end prospect.

Trent Mann and Dorion