How much of prospects busting is "their fault"?

[Horvat1C]

Pointing out that they had three consecutive Calder finalists doesn't say anything about the Canucks' prospect development because Boeser, Pettersson and Hughes skipped the minor leagues, went straight from the NCAA or the SHL to the NHL and were immediately successful.

Boeser went straight from North Dakota to the Canucks in the spring of 2017, suited up immediately and scored 4 goals in 9 games before the season ended. Quinn Hughes went straight from Michigan to the Canucks in the spring of 2019 and had 3 assists in 5 games before the season ended. Pettersson went from MVP in the Swedish Hockey League to starting the 2018-19 season with the Canucks, had 3 goals and 2 assists in his first 2 games and 10 goals and 6 assists in his first 10 games.

The Canucks did nothing to develop these guys. They arrived already good.

That was the Canuck way during those years. A player had to be an immediate NHL success, be a goaltender or wait until he went elsewhere to succeed or he wasn't going to make it.

Given that the Canucks had their own high first round disappointments (Virtanen and Juolevi) who turned out worse than Lafreniere and Kakko have, what is there to make one think that Lafreniere and Kakko would have done better in Vancouver?

The Canucks used their high end rookies as their best players almost immediately and steadily increased their responsibilities. Contrast that with the Rangers who buried their high end rookies and did not play them in situations that fit their skillset, like the powerplay or other offensive situations. That has to do with the way both teams were built, but also the mindset in how you are going to treat your rookies in terms of ice time and opportunity.

Lafreniere would have started in the top-6 and PP1. Same with Kakko.

 

[Bank Shot]

The Canucks used their high end rookies as their best players almost immediately and steadily increased their responsibilities. Contrast that with the Rangers who buried their high end rookies and did not play them in situations that fit their skillset, like the powerplay or other offensive situations. That has to do with the way both teams were built, but also the mindset in how you are going to treat your rookies in terms of ice time and opportunity.

Lafreniere would have started in the top-6 and PP1. Same with Kakko.

Perhaps the high end rookies in NY just didn't show anything when given opportunities.
Rangers certainly didn't have any problems breaking in a bunch of rookie D men which is a harder position to be competent in at the NHL level.

Fox got played in a prime time role right away. Guys like Lindgren, Miller, Schneider all got playing time despite being young.

 

[Goose]

The higher the pick the more it’s their fault typically, as high pedigree picks get lots of chances compared to later round picks.

 

[Elvs]

0%

It's not kids "fault" that the NHL is a multi billion dollar bussiness and have teams invest in their futures.

 

[johan f]

It is too big gap between junior hockey and NHL. There are fewer young high picks that makes impact today than before. So if looking ro blame someone we need to point att those training/coaching junior players. The culture has gone south within juniors when it comes to preparing for adult hockey and 200 foot hockey.

 

[CashMash]

Like others have said, I think it depends on the prospect. Crosby, McDavid, Ovechkin, and Malkin and those types of talents would likely succeed anywhere. Edmonton wasn't looking too hot early on, but McDavid still reached his potential. Others may need a good environment to thrive... Especially if the player is temperamental. If you struggle a lot early, it takes a lot to get that confidence back, I'd wager. Some might never get it back.

 

[Howboutthempanthers]

Some prospects are anomalies. They will succeed no matter what. But for most, the organization has to be able to develop them further after they draft them. It's not just the individual and their skill set. They have to fit their skill set within the team concept in the NHL. If that team is dysfunctional, right off jump that is a problem.
This is not an easy task to achieve for a prospect or an organization, no matter how much talent the prospect might have.
Because the human element is very impactful, like the prospect's confidence. If they lose that, it might take a lot to get it back. And some never get it back, and therefore never succeed. And confidence can be a very fragile thing for younger players especially. It takes a lot of good efforts by a lot of people to be able to develop these players well.

 

[McGarnagle]

Someone give me an example of a prospect that busted on a team that wouldn’t have busted on another.

Boucher would have busted anywhere else, but I always wonder if Yakupov could have carved himself a second line power play career. 30 goal, 20 assist kind of guy if he was deployed better.

It's purely speculation and armchair psychology, but I've always had this sense that the circumstances of his draft pick just completely ruined Zach Senyshyn's chances of ever becoming anything. Massive reach, but still projected to be a solid late 2nd/early 3rd round pick and a decent NHL depth forward. But the weight of being the face of the worst draft blunder in the history of the NHL was heavy on him. It's a lot of pressure to get over, and he never developed whatsoever in the AHL and obviously never did anything in the NHL.

I feel like if he were drafted anywhere else he doesn't come with that baggage and maybe could've hung as a fourth liner in the league for a while.

 

[Rebels57]

Scouts realllllly need to start putting a bigger emphasis on prospects that process and play the game fast. A lot of these recent top draft picks that are busting all fit the bigger, slower mold. Patrick in 2017, Kotkaniemi in 2018, Kaako and Dach in 2019, Byfield in 2020, Slafkovsky in 2022. Their not all total busts, but they are not meeting expectations relative to draft position. Teams are loaded with smaller speedy checking forwards in their bottom 6 now and these bigger slower processors just don't have the time or space to be effective.

 

[amnesiac]

84%

 

[57special]

71%

 

[Cursed Lemon]

I mean it obviously depends on the development system.

Almost zero prospects survived the Red Wings 2010-2020 idiot-gauntlet.

 

[DelZottoHitTheNetJK]

In the NHL, it's entirely the players fault. You can either skate at this level or you can't.

This is not the NFL where rookie QBs have to have an entire scheme build around them to protect them.

 

[Horvat1C]

Perhaps the high end rookies in NY just didn't show anything when given opportunities.
Rangers certainly didn't have any problems breaking in a bunch of rookie D men which is a harder position to be competent in at the NHL level.

Fox got played in a prime time role right away. Guys like Lindgren, Miller, Schneider all got playing time despite being young.

Even now Lafreniere is not on PP1. I'm saying Lafreniere and Kakko did not get good opportunities in New York and you're saying they did. What opportunities did they get?

Their rookie defensemen were not 18-19 year olds. Fox was like 24. Miller and Schneider are good examples of guys who were developed.

 

[Bank Shot]

Even now Lafreniere is not on PP1. I'm saying Lafreniere and Kakko did not get good opportunities in New York and you're saying they did. What opportunities did they get?

Their rookie defensemen were not 18-19 year olds. Fox was like 24. Miller and Schneider are good examples of guys who were developed.

I'm saying that if Lafreniere and Kakko were deserving of playing high in the lineup, they probably would have gotten those roles.

Fox was like 20/21 when he started with the Rangers and he never had a problem earning opportunities. Likewise with the other D-men.

If the D-men had no problem getting good opportunities in NY, then why did Laf and Kakko struggle to get those same opportunities?

My theory is that they just didn't show enough to earn them.

 

[Chet Manley]

Busts are created through expectations set by analyzing children playing against other children. Of course development and self-determination matter but projecting what children will achieve as adults is pretty imperfect.

 

[Jumptheshark]

There is no easy answer for this question.

Not all highly regarded prospects have what it takes to be an nhler and not all teams have the structure to properly develop their prospects.

I am convinced that Nail Yalupov did not have what it took to be a NHLer long term. Burke took a massive dislike towards him and made it clear the kid had no clue during the interviews. He had an attitude problem that rubbed people the wrong way. HE is not in the KHL and has bounced around. He had raw talent but it looks like he did not have the work ethic to make the nhl.

Robbie Schemp and Patrick Sullivan is a fun discussion on the oiler board. According to both it is the oilers fault they did not stick in the NHL. Schremp was in the Oiler organization for 5 years and O'Sullivan for 92 games. Both have taken shot at the oilers for not developing them right. Schremp, in his draft year was projected to be a top 10 pick and on draft day fell like a rock to the Oilers at 25. Several teams had him on their no draft lists. Schremp refused to admit he was part of the problem. O'Sullivan has a well known problems that started long before he joined the oilers. He was drafted by the wild but they moved him before he played a game with them, he went to the LAK has some success but there had been some problems there. they traded him to the Oilers in March 09 and the Oilers moved him in June 2010. He has spent more time blasting the oilers for not "helping" his mental issues enough. The oilers had in place professional help for players having trouble but reportedly O'Sullivan had his own "private help" and wanted the oilers to pay for it or something. Like Schremp, O'Sullivan was a top pick who fell due to his off ice issues. Both players at different times blamed the oilers for not having an nhl career. O'Sullivan does not address he went to the Canes, Wild and Arizona before his NHL career ended and how they did or did not help his career.

On the flip side, from the oilers, I believe they rushed players that should have gone back to JRs for at least another year or two, Rusinsky Gelinas, Gagner. Yamamoto, and a couple other players. And they also rushed a few European prospects like Lander, Magnus Paajarvi and others. They should have waited till they were about 21/22 years old before they brought them over. While Rucinsky, Gelinas and Gagner went onto NHL careers, they were also the ones who people thought they should have done a lot more than they did.

Each prospect needs to be treated differently and it is a hit a miss thing sometimes.

Remember, there were people in 1978 who did not believe Wayne Gretz would make it in the NHL. His first year in the NHL he was reportedly just 150 to 160 pounds depending on the source and was only 185 when his career ended.

 

[HanSolo]

It all depends on the prospect and the situation

Pretty much. Some kids just don't have it at the next level. Some are not put in positions to succeed and/or are rushed in and the struggles to adapt can get to a guy emotionally and mentally. Some need proper mentoring and coaching to adapt and don't get it.

Some teams have better track records than others developing prospects into at least decent players. So it's not all on the prospects.

 

[Rorschach]

Case by case.

 

[NikF]

My opinion is that cream rises to the top no matter what and those who don't have it equally sink no matter what.

But there is a HUGE space in-between. And besides what you mentioned, there are tons of other factors. One thing that I think most sports fans underestimate is that professional sports is just as self-serving egoistic dog-eat-dog environment as any toxic corporate business. I think there is a tendency among sports fans to ignore personal and political interests various actors from players to staff to business execs to agents have in the game and then there is shock when stuff like Babcock comes out, when that is probably just the tip of the iceberg.

To illustrate a point, through a friend who is inside the business, I know of a situation in soccer where the director of the national teams (so all selections down to juniors) puts pressure on coaches of those selections to favor players that are signed to an agent that he is friends with. Of course national appearances boost those players' careers, monetary value and scouting interest from foreign clubs. You do the rest of the math. Various interests like these, favors back and forth, politics and the like certainly impact player development, especially as there is little difference between talent-levels once you move past the absolute best star talents.

I think sports fans are a little blind to the political nature of the industry that is just as filled with personal interests as any other cutthroat industry.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

I mean it obviously depends on the development system.

Almost zero prospects survived the Red Wings 2010-2020 idiot-gauntlet.

Same thing with Montreal. It was an absolute disaster there.

As for all prospects making it, in 1980 Doug Wickenheiser was a can’t miss. And probably would’ve succeeded anywhere else, but Claude Ruel wanted the Canadiens tod raft Savard. When that didn’t happen he took it out on Wickenheiser. That was definitely a case of really bad development.

 

[JianYang]

It's really a case by case basis. First of all, players are drafted based on what they are projected to become and not what they are today. So inherently, you are going to have some wild misses where even the best developing environments can't save you.

Environment also plays a factor, although more of a secondary one. Some teams might be integrating prospects while doing well in the standings, and they don't have the appetite to deal with the mistakes that come with those youngsters. That's probably not an ideal environment, but I also think that if a player is good enough, they rise to the top eventually.

 

[Beerz]

All of it.

 

[Horvat1C]

I'm saying that if Lafreniere and Kakko were deserving of playing high in the lineup, they probably would have gotten those roles.

Fox was like 20/21 when he started with the Rangers and he never had a problem earning opportunities. Likewise with the other D-men.

If the D-men had no problem getting good opportunities in NY, then why did Laf and Kakko struggle to get those same opportunities?

My theory is that they just didn't show enough to earn them.

The Rangers had many more roadblocks on forward than on defense (Panarin, Zibanejad, Kreider all occupying spots at the top on the lineup).

I think with young players there needs to be a grace period where they are allowed to play in positions without getting the rug pulled out from under them. Anybody needs time to adjust to the speed and physicality of the NHL and then figure out how they can apply their own skillset in that new environment. Basically you need a decent sample size of a player (especially a rookie you are hoping will be elite) before you can evaluate whether or not they can sink or swim.

I don't think Lafreniere or Kakko got a that runway in New York early on, likely for a number of reasons. They already had guys in those LW spots, they had a rookie coach who might've been too heavy handed, they put them in situations that went against their natural game (ie. bottom 6), they prioritized winning every game, etc. All of those factors put Lafreniere in the bottom 6 with grinders instead of the top 6 with scorers, which drained his confidence.

I think Lafreniere should've been in the top-6 for his entire first year regardless of how he played, with some nights or situations where he is managed. If you want to develop a scorer he has to learn how to play with scorers. The Rangers had one of the best players for him to develop an offensive game with in Panarin and didn't utilize it fully. No coincidence that Lafreniere has taken off playing on the top line and with the best offensive player on the team.

The Canucks didn't bury Pettersson or Boeser to force them to learn a defensive game even though they weren't great defensively. The Devils didn't bury Jack Hughes after 2 rough seasons as a teenager. The Senators didn't bury Stutzle after lackluster team results. Even Torts doesn't bury Michkov at the bottom of the lineup (although he does manage him). Unless you are Crosby, McDavid, Matthews, Bedard, etc. level, you have to be patient and truly develop your potential star players into stars.

 

[Bjornar Moxnes]

I think Lafreniere and Kakko were both sabotagedby New York. Around the same time Vancouver had 3 straight Calder trophy finalists (Boeser, Pettersson, Hughes) and I'm confident that if either was drafted by Vancouver their careers would've gone differently.

But at the same time Virtanen and Juolevi were bad.