How much of prospects busting is "their fault"?

[Horvat1C]

But at the same time Virtanen and Juolevi were bad.

Yup, nobody bats 1000%.

 

[Warh1ppy]

It's 50/50 for sure

Hyper talented kids with the weight of an entire organization and their insane fanbase on their shoulders expected to come in and produce at Crosby/McDavid levels in their first year or else they're busts. It's a lot for kids who are 18-19 years old and the mental and physical toll it can play is immense

vs

Owners/Coaches/GMs who demand nothing but the best of these kids. Kids who are insane finesse players told by coaches to start checking , back checking, hitting the body of a grown as man 5 inches taller and 40 pounds heavier and forced to play a game that they aren't successful at. GMs who refuse to protect these kids and surround them with the talent they need to produce comfortably. Owners who treat these kids like they're essentially slave bought and paid for.

Ya it's an all over issue for sure.

 

[JKG33]

I think it varies. Some prospects play too little and some prospects play too much. The issue with Byfield has been while he’s been very mediocre, he hasn’t been given a green light to go screw up. He’s been unlucky with that. But also, the times where he does play you rarely notice him doing anything important.

You're kidding me right? Byfield's been given far more than he's earned, including a spot on the top line last year.

While I do think there's instances of teams screwing up a player, most times prospects (and drafts) just aren't that great

 

[WarriorofTime]

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.

Indeed. Players are basically assessed based on how they do against their own cohort, and it's difficult to say how that will project when they're playing the very best players from all over the world with about 95 % of players falling within about a 15 year age spread.

And even amongst the age cohort, players have a wide variety of potential growth between the time they're drafted and when they're in their prime about a decade later.

The results of the NHL Drafts would vary dramatically depending on time of draft if players were drafted at age 13, 15, 19 or 21 compared to how they end up. Drafts are very much a snapshot of time of scouts making reasonable guesses as to how prospects will progress.

 

[Bank Shot]

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.

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.

Both Tyler Seguin and Joe Thornton played small roles in their rookie seasons and they turned out fine. If you have the talent and skillset, you will show it when given an opportunity.

Its true that Lafrenierre and Kakko didn't get huge roles regardless of their play.

You are kind of advocating giving prospects big roles whether they perform or not in the short term, in order to maximize their potential. This attitude could lead to wasting on a lot of ice time on players that just don't have it IMO. There are only like 200 top six spots in the NHL and about 100 to 150 of them are locked down long term.

That doesn't leave enough top six spots for all the hot prospects being drafted every season. Most of them will fail. That is just a numbers game. You can't give every prospect 100 games in the top six just to see if they will turn out.

I don't think that is realistic is a league where the number one focus is winning hockey games. it's a little different on teams where they don't have any other options, but the coaches and players are still trying to win games and should play the players that are most likely to produce those results.

 

[Spirits]

With Kaapo Kakko, a former 2nd overall that has failed to meet expectations despite glimpses of the skill and smarts he was drafted for, being traded and a general negativity swirling around the Rangers (a team that seemingly struggles more than average with developing prospects and young players) in recent weeks, I've got to thinking about the magical "what ifs" of what prospects *could* have been in different circumstances.

It's incredibly hard to become an impact player in the NHL, and there are, seemingly, any number of reasons why a prospect might end up busting. Development may be affected in surprisingly significant ways by things as seemingly small and invisible to fans as how good your linemates are in the AHL, or what opportunities you're given when called up, or whether or not you get PP time, or how sporadic or consistent your ice time is, or what practices your team runs, or how buried you are on the depth chart, or what kind of system your coach is running and how suitable you are for it. Would an Olli Juolevi that failed to develop in Vancouver succeed if he were drafted by someone else? Would someone like Brayden Point who blossomed in Tampa Bay flounder if he were drafted one or two spots earlier? We all imagined that New York was set once they drafted Lafreniere and Kakko first and second overall: were they really just never all that talented after all, or were there systematic failures in how the Rangers introduced them into the league that stunted their ability to succeed?

The importance of all of this is underlined by players that end up "breaking out" somewhere else; while on the other hand, some players seem to have no more success when shopped around than they did on the team they already busted on to begin with (but maybe at that point the damage is already done - and failures to develop at critical developmental points cripple you as a player for good). A player like Nail Yakupov never had any success anywhere else, even after he had left the black hole of the pre-McDavid Oilers, but the pariah of the hour, Buffalo, is notorious for players developing into elite talent after they've moved on somewhere else.

This is all, ultimately, rooted in the ephemeral concepts of "talent" and "learning," which are both extremely complicated and abstract topics that hardly anyone really understands. I've always imagined that anyone who ends up drafted in the first round has plenty of talent to spare and is receptive to teaching and learning new things - so why do so many of them struggle to keep improving once they're in the NHL? Are scouts really just failing to properly assess a players ability - or lack thereof - to learn new skills and develop further in the NHL? What are teams that successfully develop talent, like Tampa Bay, doing that teams that seem to struggle, like NYR, aren't? How much is busting a psychological process, where losing all of the confidence you had in junior cripples your ability to both play at peak performance and your ability to be passionate for the game? Do we place too much blame on individual players for failing to meet expectations, or are there real failures on their part to meet the expectations of the team that drafted them? Are there any prospects that you really believed in and think could have succeeded if a few things here and there were different?

Hard to say, the Oilers destroyed so many 1st OA picks in a half decade until they were gifted a guy even that franchise couldn't ruin.

 

[GeeoffBrown]

NHL is a very hard league featuring the best hockey players in the world. I think this is the main reason some players are not as good as they were in lower leagues

 

[Horvat1C]

Both Tyler Seguin and Joe Thornton played small roles in their rookie seasons and they turned out fine. If you have the talent and skillset, you will show it when given an opportunity.

Its true that Lafrenierre and Kakko didn't get huge roles regardless of their play.

You are kind of advocating giving prospects big roles whether they perform or not in the short term, in order to maximize their potential. This attitude could lead to wasting on a lot of ice time on players that just don't have it IMO. There are only like 200 top six spots in the NHL and about 100 to 150 of them are locked down long term.

That doesn't leave enough top six spots for all the hot prospects being drafted every season. Most of them will fail. That is just a numbers game. You can't give every prospect 100 games in the top six just to see if they will turn out.

I don't think that is realistic is a league where the number one focus is winning hockey games. it's a little different on teams where they don't have any other options, but the coaches and players are still trying to win games and should play the players that are most likely to produce those results.

I wasn't advocating giving every prospect an extended look in the top-6. I was advocating giving prospects who you believe can be elite scorers extended opportunities in the top-6. With Lafreniere and Kakko being 1st and 2nd overall picks, I'm saying they should have gotten extended looks in the top-6. That doesn't apply to Cuylle even though he's been great.

Here's a list of rookies who made their debuts in the last 5 years and played at least most of the season as teenagers:

• 2023-24: Bedard, Cooley
• 2022-23: McTavish
• 2021-22: Raymond, Seider, Mercer
• 2021 (COVID): Lafreniere, Byfield, Stutzle, Drysdale, Byram
• 2019-20: Q. Hughes, J. Hughes, Kakko, Dach

For the most part, if you play in the NHL as a teenager it's because you have a chance at being an elite player. There's no cookie-cutter way to develop players and each person and situation is unique, but the players from that list who look like good players right now were given minutes at the top of the lineup. The notable exceptions are Lafreniere, Byfield, Kakko (and maybe Drysdale and Dach but I don't remember their situations well, and McTavish is a really good player suffering from being in Anaheim). Lafreniere and Kakko were buried for reasons discussed earlier and Byfield is an enigma of a player who has taken an abnormal development path. If you have a potential star and want to develop them into a star, it helps to treat them like a star.

The Rangers prioritizing winning games is one of the contributing factors to cooking Kakko and until recently Lafreniere. If they won a Cup in any of their runs over the last 3 years then nothing matters, but they didn't. It's how it goes in sports.

 

[Schennanigans]

It’s a case by case basis. Some players may have been better developed on other teams but certain players were going to be great no matter where they went. Some players just can’t put it together when they get to the nhl for a variety of reasons.

 

[Brookbank]

Have questioned this many times over the years. But i lean towards it’s MOSTLY on the prospect. And failures in development are often overrated.

I mostly agree with this. But i think there is cases where the player is just in the wrong team at the wrong time and it really derails them and their career

 

[Brookbank]

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.

Valery Nichushkin literally busted in Dallas. Then went on to win cup and be a top 6 asset in Colorado. But I think this was mostly about age. Maybe if Sakic didn't sign that one year deal, Nich would have stayed in the KHL for his career.

 

[Captain3rdLine]

The situation a players is in and how they are developed by the team that drafts them plays a huge impact on how they turn out.

There are loads of players who would’ve been much better players in a different situation.
But the best of the best usually find a way regardless.

The position and type of player also plays a big role in this too.

 

[Rowlet]

But at the same time Virtanen and Juolevi were bad.

Those were bad picks even at the time though. The Canucks left obvious talent and picked losers that they were immediately clowned on over.

Virtanen and Juolevi were busts, but nobody would care as much if Nylander, Ehlers, Tkachuk, and Keller weren't still on the board.

 

[GIN ANTONIC]

Ultimately it’s on the player. It’s doesn’t really matter what percentage to attribute to them or the org as each situation is different but put it this way an organization isn’t going to turn a dud of a player into an all-star… they might recognize something that other teams missed or put them in a situation to succeed but the player still has to show up, do the work and make it happen to get the results.

Same thing with the top prospect in a less than ideal situation with a team. In life you have to find ways to persevere and overcome and get to where you want to be. Some guys just don’t have it despite having all the tools and pedigree on paper.

 

[FreeToShareWithMeOk]

Depends on the situation, for example Alexeyev could be no worse than Sandin or Fehervary right now but the Caps decided he's the odd man out after getting Sandin and he's been sitting every game but one this year and there's not much he can do to change his position since the other guys are playing well. Having one stunted coach/GM like the guys in New York or Nashville throw players in their teens and early 20s through a blender for a couple years can do huge damage to their careers.

 

[Nicko999]

It's 80% up to the prospect and only about 20% the team/system/coach.

A player who has played the game all his life is not gonna have a system make or break his career. The only way I see the team being responsible for a prospect busting is if he isn't being utilized properly in the long run by the coach.

 

[Machinehead]

It depends on the prospect. Everyone's path is different and everyone's reason for succeeding or not is different.

Maybe we look back on this in a bit and I'm wrong, but having seen a ton of both, I'm in the camp that Kakko just kind of sucks and just never took that jump to the NHL (and that jump is always there unless you're like, McDavid), while Lafreniere could have been better (maybe still could be better) if he was in an environment where his bad habits were cleaned up instead of exacerbated.

At the end of the day, Lafreniere is probably good enough, and at least secured a top six spot. Kakko isn't and never did.

 

[12ozPapa]

I think it comes down to skill vs talent. A kid can be super talented, but not skilled, and vice versa.

You need both, and I think some with loads if talent assume they can rely on that for success

 

[EdJovanovski]

Kakko and Laf were both stapled to the top six and PP to start their careers and played themselves off of it. The only prospects truly sabotaged by the org were Kravtsov & Rempe

 

[acor]

It depends on the prospect. Everyone's path is different and everyone's reason for succeeding or not is different.

Maybe we look back on this in a bit and I'm wrong, but having seen a ton of both, I'm in the camp that Kakko just kind of sucks and just never took that jump to the NHL (and that jump is always there unless you're like, McDavid), while Lafreniere could have been better (maybe still could be better) if he was in an environment where his bad habits were cleaned up instead of exacerbated.

At the end of the day, Lafreniere is probably good enough, and at least secured a top six spot. Kakko isn't and never did.

I usually don't watch any hockey except NHL, but once I was flipping TV channels, it was 2018, or 2019, don't remember excatly, and I stumbled upon some international hockey game.

Finland was playing someone, I watched just out of curiosity, and I must admit Kakko looked quite good... Definetly stood out from the rest.

Maybe competition was shitty, though...

 

[Machinehead]

Kakko and Laf were both stapled to the top six and PP to start their careers and played themselves off of it. The only prospects truly sabotaged by the org were Kravtsov & Rempe

Correct in the first half and then fumbled at the 1.

 

[Perfect_Drug]

My buddies kid brother was drafted and he felt he was shafted by politics of the organization.

(Take this with a grain of salt. These are his words he told to family and close friends):

But when he was drafted (2nd round) everything went well. Performed well in his D+1 D+2 and slowly developed in the AHL over 3 seasons culminating in leading his team in scoring and earning a 5-game callup with the big club, with a handshake deal that "he was now a full-time NHLer".

The part the public doesn't see, is that internally, the scouts that pushed for his drafting gets monetary bonuses for various milestones. So within the organization, 'his scouts' were pushing the coaches for him to recieve powerplay time, favorable zone starts, and better line mates.

Then that summer his scouts were fired and he no longer had anyone internally pushing for his development.

He found himself cut early from camp, and starting the AHL on the 3rd line with less-talented players. No offensive zone starts, and being quickly bypassed by newer draftees who had the full support of the organization.

His numbers plummeted, he was traded, and was in europe within 2 years.


Anyways. When I see a player like Kakko not reach his potential, I can't help but think he wasn't given a proper shot at developing into the player he could have been due to internal politics. If you've ever worked for a large corperation you'll know what this is like.

 

[80shockeywasbuns]

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

For NYR it has nothing to do with NHL competency. You talk about earning opportunities but really it just depends on your size/reputation and if you’re huge or hit then you have a chance to stick around. Offensive minded player? Good luck. You have to be Norris caliber almost immediately.

Zac Jones (small puck moving D) hasn’t been able to secure a spot for years and has always been better than Schneider in my opinion. NYR demoted Jones to play guys like Patrik Nemeth and Ben Harpur who went on to put up two of the worst analytical seasons in recent NYR history before falling out of the league entirely for being so bad. Jones has never been blocked by good NHL players and is in year 4 now of not being able to secure a 3rd pair role despite the team collecting mediocre 6/7 D like the infinity stones.

 

[Dotter]

Yzerman is putting a lot of emphasis into development. That seems to be his secret sauce morso than other franchises. Kakko would have gotten the Simon Edvinsson treatment under his regiment plan.