Jonathan Lekkerimaki - Arrived in Abbotsford

[clay]

I completely agree with @MS. If he isn't a point per game, or very close to it, he's a very likely bust and becomes a "what if he's an outlier??" case given he won't make it as a checking forward.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Filip Forsberg scored about 0.7 PPG in the AHL as a teenager in his draft+2 and then scored 63 points in the NHL in his draft+3.

Off by a year, but you have to make an allowance for Lekk's lost year due to mono, which he clearly corrected this past year, and his relative age to his peers.

Lekk should get .7 PPG or above this season. I'm not concerned about it.

Someone like Fabian Lysell is only now getting his first full time shot at the NHL in his 22 year old season while scoring at a .68 pace in his first full AHL season. He's not toast. Nor will Lekkerimaki be if he does the same/similar.

 

[Vector]

I kind of don't have that high expectations for Lekkerimaki. I keep thinking he's going to end up similar to Victor Olofsson. Hopefully closer to 30-20-50 than the 20-20-40 Olofsson produced. Not a perfect comparable since Olofsson was a lot older when he reached North America.

 

[MS]

I completely agree with @MS. If he isn't a point per game, or very close to it, he's a very likely bust and becomes a "what if he's an outlier??" case given he won't make it as a checking forward.

Exactly.

It's not saying he's a guaranteed bust if he scores, say, 40 points in 65 games this year but he'll have put himself into a pool of players where the odds of making the NHL are much, much lower than of busting. And it would be a disappointing result given his season in 23-24.

Off by a year, but you have to make an allowance for Lekk's lost year due to mono, which he clearly corrected this past year, and his relative age to his peers.

Lekk should get .7 PPG or above this season. I'm not concerned about it.

Someone like Fabian Lysell is only now getting his first full time shot at the NHL in his 22 year old season while scoring at a .68 pace in his first full AHL season. He's not toast. Nor will Lekkerimaki be if he does the same/similar.

Forsberg literally led an NHL team in scoring at the same age that Lekkerimaki will be this year. Trying to equate that with scoring 0.7 PPG in the AHL and acting like it's a similar development curve is ... crazy.

And you don't just get to pretend 22-23 didn't exist. It happened and when you lose a development year both your upside and your chances of hitting it are altered.

Lysell was nearly a PPG player in the AHL last year at the same age that Lekkerimaki will be this year. Again, not really a great example.

Literally every example provided in this thread so far has been a guy who actually did produce quickly in the AHL and goes against the argument or a guy who was in the AHL at 18/19 so totally not the same thing.

 

[pitseleh]

Prospect stuck fluctuates wildly. Aatu Raty is an example I've given here before - at the start of his draft year, he was a consensus top-5 pick. Then he went 52nd. Then in the next 18 months he put himself in the position where he'd probably go 1st round in a re-draft. Now he's probably dropped a bit again. People saying he'd go top-5 in 2020 or late 2nd in 2021 or late first in 2023 aren't really voicing an opinion on the player, they're voicing an opinion on how the league likely values the player based on his most recent performance. And none of those takes would have been 'wrong' at the given point even though the fluctuations were massive.

Lekkerimaki was no different. His stock flew up with a great U18s and you're in total denial if you think it didn't drop in a huge way when he had a terrible draft+1. And then it rebounded when he had a much better draft+2.

Even the stock of NHL players changes quickly. We just watched a ten year veteran defender go from a player who was available for a couple of later round picks to a player worth a 6x$5 million deal on the market, and a couple of forwards who would have been hot commodities a year ago turn into pumpkins based on ~40-60 bad games.

With prospects there is so much less information, so you have to make quick adjustments in valuation or be left behind.

 

[MS]

Even the stock of NHL players changes quickly. We just watched a ten year veteran defender go from a player who was available for a couple of later round picks to a player worth a 6x$5 million deal on the market, and a couple of forwards who would have been hot commodities a year ago turn into pumpkins based on ~40-60 bad games.

With prospects there is so way less information, so you have to make quick adjustments in valuation or be left behind.

100%

Zadorov is a great example of how quickly perceptions and values can change.

The NHL draft is just a single snapshot of valuation for the players from a specific year over a many-years period of development, and fans are *way* too conservative in thinking that valuation tracks consistently into the future (unless their 4th rounder has a huge year).

Matthew Savoie is another recent example where fans were AGHAST that a top-10 pick was traded for a 3rd liner but in reality he was tracking as a late 1st round pick comparable with Brad Lambert and nobody would have batted an eye if Lambert was traded for McLeod.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Forsberg literally led an NHL team in scoring at the same age that Lekkerimaki will be this year. Trying to equate that with scoring 0.7 PPG in the AHL and acting like it's a similar development curve is ... crazy.

And you don't just get to pretend 22-23 didn't exist. It happened and when you lose a development year both your upside and your chances of hitting it are altered.

Lysell was nearly a PPG player in the AHL last year at the same age that Lekkerimaki will be this year. Again, not really a great example.

Literally every example provided in this thread so far has been a guy who actually did produce quickly in the AHL and goes against the argument or a guy who was in the AHL at 18/19 so totally not the same thing.

The first year for both Forsberg and Lysell in the AHL was roughly .72 and .68 respectively. Lekkerimaki should meet or exceed these totals.

The disagreement is that you have him at a PPG+ while transitioning to the AHL in his first year. Neither one of Forsberg or Lysell had to do this. Your justification is that Lekk should be judged on his draft season++, not relative age to his peers or the lost year due to mono. My counterpoint to this is that Lekkerimaki bounced back in the next year and corrected this failing. So much so, that per NHLe (you have to love it), Lekk beat out the NHLe for both Forsberg and Lysell for their D+2 seasons: Lekk (33), Forsberg (29) and (27) respectively. Again, not concerned about Lekk.

Correct me if I'm wrong: Lysell's PPG AHL season is his D+3 year, correct?

 

[Vector]

100%

Zadorov is a great example of how quickly perceptions and values can change.

The NHL draft is just a single snapshot of valuation for the players from a specific year over a many-years period of development, and fans are *way* too conservative in thinking that valuation tracks consistently into the future (unless their 4th rounder has a huge year).

Matthew Savoie is another recent example where fans were AGHAST that a top-10 pick was traded for a 3rd liner but in reality he was tracking as a late 1st round pick comparable with Brad Lambert and nobody would have batted an eye if Lambert was traded for McLeod.

I would have but I don't like McLeod like everyone else seems to.

 

[RobertKron]

Even the example of Garland, aside from being 1’3”, that guy does loads of things aside from producing points that coaches will always love. He has an unreal motor, he’s constantly sticking his nose in the middle of everything, and his whole game is just getting greasy, and being absolutely relentless.

 

[Hodgy]

Someone like Fabian Lysell is only now getting his first full time shot at the NHL in his 22 year old season while scoring at a .68 pace in his first full AHL season. He's not toast. Nor will Lekkerimaki be if he does the same/similar.

Who said Lekkerimaki will be toast?

 

[MS]

The first year for both Forsberg and Lysell in the AHL was roughly .72 and .68 respectively. Lekkerimaki should meet or exceed these totals.

The disagreement is that you have him at a PPG+ while transitioning to the AHL in his first year. Neither one of Forsberg or Lysell had to do this. Your justification is that Lekk should be judged on his draft season++, not relative age to his peers or the lost year due to mono. My counterpoint to this is that Lekkerimaki bounced back in the next year and corrected this failing. So much so, that per NHLe (you have to love it), Lekk beat out the NHLe for both Forsberg and Lysell for their D+2 seasons: Lekk (33), Forsberg (29) and (27) respectively. Again, not concerned about Lekk.

Correct me if I'm wrong: Lysell's PPG AHL season is his D+3 year, correct?

Forsberg and Lysell were junior-aged when they played their first AHL season. That extra year of development is massive.

If Lekkerimaki had played in the AHL in 23-24, sure, at that age 0.7 PPG would have been fine. Now he's a full year older and more physically developed and has had a 3rd full season playing against men. Expectations are different.

If what you're saying is true, it should be very easy to find heaps of 1st round picks who played in the AHL in their draft+3, produced underwhelming numbers, and then went on to top-6 NHL careers. I'll save you the time and tell you that you won't find many.

Even the example of Garland, aside from being 1’3”, that guy does loads of things aside from producing points that coaches will always love. He has an unreal motor, he’s constantly sticking his nose in the middle of everything, and his whole game is just getting greasy, and being absolutely relentless.

Garland was also a late-round pick who didn't get the sort of opportunities that 1st rounders get.

A similar example here was Bains who should probably have produced substantially more in 22-23 but was basically left on the 4th line with no PP time for most of the season because he was a non-pedigree guy who didn't get the same looks as higher picks despite excellent performances.

High picks generally get spoonfed the best developmental opportunities and when they can't run with them quickly, it's a massive red flag.

 

[Hodgy]

Who said Lekkerimaki will be toast?

And the reason I point this out is because this sort of thing ALWAYS happens on this forum. Even when someone unequivocally states reasonable chances for a prospect to make it or bust (i.e., 80/20 as MS did) based on past play or projected play of a prospect, you always get a bunch of posters throwing up strawmen stating that said poster has unconditionally stated that the prospect in question will bust.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Forsberg and Lysell were junior-aged when they played their first AHL season. That extra year of development is massive.

If Lekkerimaki had played in the AHL in 23-24, sure, at that age 0.7 PPG would have been fine. Now he's a full year older and more physically developed and has had a 3rd full season playing against men. Expectations are different.

If what you're saying is true, it should be very easy to find heaps of 1st round picks who played in the AHL in their draft+3, produced underwhelming numbers, and then went on to top-6 NHL careers. I'll save you the time and tell you that you won't find many.

Nobody is arguing that production, and the nuance involved in assessing production at lower levels (Hughes), is important. In fact, I think I'm more focused on draft year production than you are, based upon past conversations.

In this specific case, however, his mono year and relative peer age are mitigating factors. These things are true. They don't absolve him from the requisite baseline production of .7 PPG and up, but a PPG baseline expectation in his transition year is something Lysell didn't even do.

 

[MS]

Nobody is arguing that production, and the nuance involved in assessing production at lower levels (Hughes), is important. In fact, I think I'm more focused on draft year production than you are, based upon past conversations.

In this specific case, however, his mono year and relative peer age are mitigating factors. These things are true. They don't absolve him from the requisite baseline production of .7 PPG and up, but a PPG baseline expectation in his transition year is something Lysell didn't even do.

The mono thing can be a mitigating factor for his poor year in 22-23. But that's it. It doesn't mean a thing now, and it doesn't get some magic special credit that will make him better 24-25 or 25-26 as a result. It happened, he lost a year, he's still a 20 y/o in his draft+3 hitting the AHL just like his peers from that draft, with the same expectations who needs to produce the same level of excellence to move on to the NHL.

Lysell's 'transition year' was a year younger and coming from a much lower level league. It isn't comparable. At the age Lekkerimaki is now, he was a close-to-PPG AHL player.

And for the record, I don't think Lysell will be an NHL player of any value.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Who said Lekkerimaki will be toast?

The parameters by which Lekk will be deemed toast are being argued. Nobody has stated that MS has already made that determination.

MS: If he comes out and scores 41 points in 65 games or something at this level at this age ... he's probably toast.

Me: He's not toast. Nor will Lekkerimaki be if he does the same/similar.

The mono thing can be a mitigating factor for his poor year in 22-23. But that's it. It doesn't mean a thing now, and it doesn't get some magic special credit that will make him better 24-25 or 25-26 as a result. It happened, he lost a year, he's still a 20 y/o in his draft+3 hitting the AHL just like his peers from that draft, with the same expectations who needs to produce the same level of excellence to move on to the NHL.

Lysell's 'transition year' was a year younger and coming from a much lower level league. It isn't comparable. At the age Lekkerimaki is now, he was a close-to-PPG AHL player.

And for the record, I don't think Lysell will be an NHL player of any value.

The mono season happened and it affected his development, impact unknown. If he doesn't get mono, maybe he's in the AHL last year and has already struggled through the NA adjustment. This year then would be a cleaner assessment for PPG relative to his peers. But because mono delayed his move over to NA by a year, changing his game to a NA style remains a factor in his PPG assessment this year (like it or not).

 

[MS]

The parameters by which Lekk will be deemed toast are being argued. Nobody has stated that MS has already made that determination.

MS: If he comes out and scores 41 points in 65 games or something at this level at this age ... he's probably toast.

Me: He's not toast. Nor will Lekkerimaki be if he does the same/similar.

Of course Lekkerimaki is probably toast if he has a 0.6 PPG season at this level at this age as a 1st round pick. We have years of data to show this. It's not even arguable.

But 'probably toast' can range from 1% to 49%. I said that maybe he's at 20% if that's what his season looks like, and I think I'm being generous there, if anything.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Of course Lekkerimaki is probably toast if he has a 0.6 PPG season at this level at this age as a 1st round pick. We have years of data to show this. It's not even arguable.

But 'probably toast' can range from 1% to 49%. I said that maybe he's at 20% if that's what his season looks like, and I think I'm being generous there, if anything.

To clarify, if he has a 0.7 PPG season, he's 20% toast in your estimation? That is being generous, something your initial statement didn't indicate. Edit: You meant the opposite. He's 80% toast.

The range of difference in our expectations is 0.7 PPG to 1 PPG. Let's see what happens.

I think Lekk is going to have a difficult 20~ or so game adjustment specifically because he defaults to a more passive style and looks for longer shot ranges. He will need to correct this here. Once he does so, he will then have to make up the production shortfall in the remaining 35-40 games.

 

[MarkusNaslund19]

It's actually incredible I'm still needing to have these arguments. I've been having them back to when Nathan Smith and Jordan Schroeder flopped when they hit the AHL and I've been right pretty nearly every time ... and people still don't get how it works.

These are the 18 forwards from the 2019 draft, as an example, and where they were in their draft +3:

1. Jack Hughes - 3rd full NHL season.
2. Kaapo Kakko - 3rd full NHL season.
3. Kirby Dach - 3rd full NHL season.
5. Alex Turcotte - 0.67 PPG in the AHL.
7. Dylan Cozens - 2nd full NHL season.
9. Trevor Zegras - 1st full NHL season (1.2 PPG in the AHL the previous year).
10. Vasily Podkolzin - 1st full NHL season.
11. Matt Boldy - 1st (mostly) full NHL season, (1.2 PPG in brief AHL stint).
15. Cole Caufield - 1st full NHL season (1.1 PPG in brief AHL stint).
16. Alex Newhook- 1st full NHL season (1.1 PPG in brief AHL stint).
17. Peyton Krebs - 1st (mostly) full NHL season (1.0 PPG in brief AHL stint)
21. Samuel Poulin - 0.5 PPG in the AHL.
23. Simon Holmstrom - 0.65 PPG in the AHL.
24. Philip Tomasino - 1st full NHL season (1.1 PPG in brief AHL stint).
25. Connor McMichael - 1st full NHL season (close to PPG in brief AHL stint as a teenager).
26. Jacob Pelletier - 0.93 PPG in the AHL.
28. Ryan Suzuki - 0.41 PPG in the AHL.
29. John Beecher - still in NCAA, 0.55 PPG in late-season AHL stint.

12 of the 18 guys were already NHL regulars by their draft+3 season. To even be in the AHL at this point means you're behind the curve.

Moreover, of those 12 guys 7 spent a bit of time in the AHL and *all 7* were over a PPG or very close to it.

Of the remaining 6, it looks like 2 will stick in the NHL and both of those were big defensive players (Holmstrom and Beecher) with totally different offensive expectations who basically profiled as bottom-6 guys.

And it's always like this. The guys that make the NHL move up quickly through levels and dominate/barely touch the AHL. If you're spending 100+ games in the AHL, you're in a pool of very questionable guys and most of the guys that make it out of that pool are depth defensive players.

And people just never understand this, and when some 1st round pick is sitting at 0.6 PPG in the AHL they think everything is just fine, and then are utterly confused when the player is on waivers 2 years later.

__________

Nothing in my takes on Lekkerimaki so far has been unreasonable/incorrect.

And again, people don't grasp how prospect valuations fluctuate. A guy like Lekkerimaki flew way up in the draft based on a 7-game U18 sample and people can't grasp that he might have gone significantly the other way based on a 50-game sample of poor play. Or that saying this isn't saying he's a bust, and he could rebound and improve his stock again. Fans also LOVE to think their 3rd round pick would go in the first round in a re-draft when they have a massive season, but god forbid you say the opposite about a high pick who has a terrible season.

And I loved Boeser as a prospect, for the record. I thought he could have been signed and stepped straight into the NHL in the summer of 2016 based on what I'd seen from him.

Respectfully, stuff like this really misses the forest for the trees.

For one thing, I don't think it's really fair to compare a player who grows up playing on International rinks with those who come up playing in North America in terms of how quickly they should be expected to acclimatize to high level North American professional hockey.

Secondly, all of this stuff is pretty low-info comparisons. It's sort of up there with NHLE stuff where people project what 50 points in whatever league means they would have scored in the NHL based on comparing it to other players across times and across different situations.

Like, I just don't think that how Connor McMichael did playing in Washington's system coming up in North America as a Canadian is particularly relevant to how I should feel about Lekkerimaki.

You are also just patently incorrect about the 'fluctuations' in prospect value unless you're evaluating their worth in the eyes of low information fans.
Real scouts take things like injury, concussion, playing time, linemates, etc etc into consideration. So the idea that Lekkerimaki would be worth a 3rd because he had a bad season (other than playoffs) with a TON of mitigating circumstances is simply incorrect. It might be where your valuation was, and time is showing that valuation to be grossly incorrect.

Your comparison about fans loving to think their 3rd rounder would go in the 1st in a redraft just proves my point. Who cares what myopic fans, most of whom don't follow the league or understand the game beyond a superficial level, think? If you're saying that Joe six pack thought his value went way down, no argument. But that's not how I perceived your argument. Your argument seemed to speak to his absolute value and it's simply an incorrect assessment.


This reminds me of how shocked you are that Quinn Hughes has come along because of what's 'supposed to happen' based on statistical comparisons to different players in different situations before the NHL.
I'm certainly not saying I'm never wrong, but I watched a few shift by shift games of Hughes when he was playing in College and I crowed from the rooftops that we needed to get him because he was going to be a star. This was based on projectable evaluation of his skill set, not comparing him to what someone playing for Boston College did with completely different circumstances.

-
Instead of comparing players with blunt instruments compared to all other forwards, we need to look at projectable tools.
Lekkerimaki is quite small, but has good hockey sense and a superlative shot. Guys like this, particularly coming from a bigger rink, can take longer to adjust before they find their stride, discover when they can make moves/what moves they can make, and when to make the safe play. How they can find space on this rink, etc.
How Samuel Poulin is doing has very very little relevance to his development.

And with Boeser I wasn't speaking of him during his draft year. I was speaking of how often you said we would be lucky to deal him for nothing but cap space etc etc. It's been proven to be a catastrophically bad take, and he's not a completely dissimilar player profile.

 

[MS]

Respectfully, stuff like this really misses the forest for the trees.

No, it doesn't.

For one thing, I don't think it's really fair to compare a player who grows up playing on International rinks with those who come up playing in North America in terms of how quickly they should be expected to acclimatize to high level North American professional hockey.

European players who have spent *years* playing against men in high-level men's leagues should have an advantage over CHLers who are stepping up from playing against kids, not the opposite.

And high Euro picks who make the NHL consistently blow through the AHL quickly just like their NA peers. There's nothing statistically to back up your claims.

Secondly, all of this stuff is pretty low-info comparisons. It's sort of up there with NHLE stuff where people project what 50 points in whatever league means they would have scored in the NHL based on comparing it to other players across times and across different situations.

Of course it is. I've never said it wasn't.

Someone asked a general question about what the expectations should be for a player of his age/history/draft position and I gave a general answer based on what we know from similar players historically.

Like, I just don't think that how Connor McMichael did playing in Washington's system coming up in North America as a Canadian is particularly relevant to how I should feel about Lekkerimaki.

When we have years of data from pretty much every team telling us the same thing it is relevant.

Guys who make the NHL blow through levels quickly. Period. It's a fact. It's indisputable.

You are also just patently incorrect about the 'fluctuations' in prospect value unless you're evaluating their worth in the eyes of low information fans.
Real scouts take things like injury, concussion, playing time, linemates, etc etc into consideration. So the idea that Lekkerimaki would be worth a 3rd because he had a bad season (other than playoffs) with a TON of mitigating circumstances is simply incorrect. It might be where your valuation was, and time is showing that valuation to be grossly incorrect.

Go back to my Raty example.

Real scouts had Raty top-5 in 2020.

Real scouts saw him picked 52nd in 2021.

A real NHL GM in Allvin said he was comparable to a 1st in early 2023.

It's absolutely functionally insane to think that Lekkerimaki's stock didn't take a huge tumble after a terrible season. Common sense tells us this. History tells us this.

And guess what? A guy like Eduard Sale is probably worth a 3rd right now, too, after the season he just had. Again, this shit changes quickly with new information.

Your comparison about fans loving to think their 3rd rounder would go in the 1st in a redraft just proves my point. Who cares what myopic fans, most of whom don't follow the league or understand the game beyond a superficial level, think? If you're saying that Joe six pack thought his value went way down, no argument. But that's not how I perceived your argument. Your argument seemed to speak to his absolute value and it's simply an incorrect assessment.

No, the point is that fans are able to understand that their 3rd round draft pick might move up into the 1st round in a re-draft after a great season, but unable to comprehend the reverse and react the way you're reacting when someone suggests a player's stock fell after a bad season.

And NHL GMs are no different. Again, see Raty. See Zadorov in the last 8 months.

This reminds me of how shocked you are that Quinn Hughes has come along because of what's 'supposed to happen' based on statistical comparisons to different players in different situations before the NHL.
I'm certainly not saying I'm never wrong, but I watched a few shift by shift games of Hughes when he was playing in College and I crowed from the rooftops that we needed to get him because he was going to be a star. This was based on projectable evaluation of his skill set, not comparing him to what someone playing for Boston College did with completely different circumstances.

I always go by 'most likely outcomes' when I'm looking at things like this.

In 2019 there was no such thing as a 5'9 top-pairing NHL defender and there was no precedent for a guy with his statistical profile blowing up like a Norris winner. And when I watched games, I didn't see it. Good player, great skater, probably a good PP QB, Norris winner? Not likely.

Sometimes outlier results happen.

-
Instead of comparing players with blunt instruments compared to all other forwards, we need to look at projectable tools.
Lekkerimaki is quite small, but has good hockey sense and a superlative shot. Guys like this, particularly coming from a bigger rink, can take longer to adjust before they find their stride, discover when they can make moves/what moves they can make, and when to make the safe play. How they can find space on this rink, etc.
How Samuel Poulin is doing has very very little relevance to his development.

Good players move up levels quickly. Period. It's consistent across the board for all types of players.

And with Boeser I wasn't speaking of him during his draft year. I was speaking of how often you said we would be lucky to deal him for nothing but cap space etc etc. It's been proven to be a catastrophically bad take, and he's not a completely dissimilar player profile.

The notion that trading Brock Boeser for the ability to acquire a different $7 million player was probably a good idea is not a 'catastrophically bad take' and thinking so means you still don't understand how the league works in the cap era after nearly 20 years.

And again (and I'll put it in bold this time since people have such a problem understanding it) : not a single thing I've said in this series of posts has been critical of Lekkerimaki.

I would say *exactly* the same things if this was a discussion of Frank Nazar or Rutger McGroarty or Liam Ohgren and what their expectations should be. And they're correct. And if you're disagreeing with them, you're wrong.

 

[MarkusNaslund19]

No, it doesn't.

Lol. Love that this was it's own section.

European players who have spent *years* playing against men in high-level men's leagues should have an advantage over CHLers who are stepping up from playing against kids, not the opposite.

And high Euro picks who make the NHL consistently blow through the AHL quickly just like their NA peers. There's nothing statistically to back up your claims.

Again, statistics are an attempt at quantifying humans, not the other way around. Context matters.

If you're merely saying, "all things being equal, his prognosis is better if he scores 1.2 points per game, than it is if he scores 0.6 per game" then agreed, but that's a point that's so banal as to be not worthy of the breath it takes to make.

But this speaking in absolutes "on the road to being a bust" just allows zero space for human context. These are not algorithms skating around, these are humans. And he's a hell of a lot different from a Virtanen or a Owen Tippett type (though he ironically broke out later) where it's all brute size and speed and low hockey IQ so if it doesn't play at a young age, it might not play at all.

I also forgot to rebut your point that his draft year was all based on the U18s. It wasn't, it was also based on him scoring at a historical (not record breaking, but historically very noteworthy) rate for his extremely young age in the SHL.

Of course it is. I've never said it wasn't.

Someone asked a general question about what the expectations should be for a player of his age/history/draft position and I gave a general answer based on what we know from similar players historically.

I think this "I was merely answering a general question" stuff would be easier to take if there was less apparent reticence to cop to bad takes. You're a very insightful poster and I look forward to reading your posts as much as anyone on these boards, but I also find that you sometimes try to debate lord yourself out of just saying, "yup, wrong on that one" from time to time.

When we have years of data from pretty much every team telling us the same thing it is relevant.

Guys who make the NHL blow through levels quickly. Period. It's a fact. It's indisputable.

It's true on most levels for most players. Like, if a guy is still playing B in Midget, they're probably not going to make it (and I didn't lol).

But again, there are human elements here that need to be recognized and sometimes it's acknowledging how little we know from the outside.

But as an example, I have yet to hear you acknowledge that you didn't give remotely enough credence to the numerous mitigating circumstances that made his D+1 year go awry, and that made it very easy to predict that he would bounce back.

Go back to my Raty example.

Real scouts had Raty top-5 in 2020.

Real scouts saw him picked 52nd in 2021.

A real NHL GM in Allvin said he was comparable to a 1st in early 2023.

It's absolutely functionally insane to think that Lekkerimaki's stock didn't take a huge tumble after a terrible season. Common sense tells us this. History tells us this.

And guess what? A guy like Eduard Sale is probably worth a 3rd right now, too, after the season he just had. Again, this shit changes quickly with new information.

Again, if you view things through this prism then you're just excusing yourself for incredibly stupid evaluations and dumb trades.
So let's say we traded Lekkerimaki for a late 2nd the following year and he then goes on to score like Marchessault. You genuinely believe that would be fine to react so impulsively and myopically and lose such a useful asset because 'if we just look at his last 5 months without context, it didn't look good at the time'?

It feels like you're offering the sort of rationale that gets Benning to trade Forsling for Clendenning.

No, the point is that fans are able to understand that their 3rd round draft pick might move up into the 1st round in a re-draft after a great season, but unable to comprehend the reverse and react the way you're reacting when someone suggests a player's stock fell after a bad season.

And NHL GMs are no different. Again, see Raty. See Zadorov in the last 8 months.




I always go by 'most likely outcomes' when I'm looking at things like this.

In 2019 there was no such thing as a 5'9 top-pairing NHL defender and there was no precedent for a guy with his statistical profile blowing up like a Norris winner. And when I watched games, I didn't see it. Good player, great skater, probably a good PP QB, Norris winner? Not likely.

Sometimes outlier results happen.

Sometimes it's as important to lean into the art of the sport as it is the science.
I have had some really wrong takes, like thinking that I saw some Claude Giroux in Nic Petan when I saw him in junior.

But to me, it was easy to see that Quinn Hughes was an absolute stud of a prospect based on his elusiveness and superlative hockey sense.

The game was clearly changing after the Young Stars team in the World Cup made a lot of guys look old and slow, McDavid coming in and changing the league in a similar (though polar opposite) way to a young Lindros, and precedent couldn't tell you that, but context and appreciating the art of the sport could.

Good players move up levels quickly. Period. It's consistent across the board for all types of players.



The notion that trading Brock Boeser for the ability to acquire a different $7 million player was probably a good idea is not a 'catastrophically bad take' and thinking so means you still don't understand how the league works in the cap era after nearly 20 years.

No it doesn't. It WOULD if Boeser was actually a replacement level player. But again, mitigating circumstances like literally watching your father pass away slowly from across the continent and falling out of love with the sport.

Maybe I consider the human element of the sport more than the average person because I work in the social services field, but I feel like a lot of your uncharacteristically poor takes seem to neglect the human element and forget that these are not automatons skating around, but people with complex motivations, fears, hopes, yearnings, and reward systems.

And again (and I'll put it in bold this time since people have such a problem understanding it) : not a single thing I've said in this series of posts has been critical of Lekkerimaki.

I would say *exactly* the same things if this was a discussion of Frank Nazar or Rutger McGroarty or Liam Ohgren and what their expectations should be. And they're correct. And if you're disagreeing with them, you're wrong.

Again, it's how absolutist you are in your speech.

"It's a far better sign if he scores X than if he scores Y(lower amount)" is banal.

"He's on the path to bustville if (x ppg)" is just an unnuanced, blunt force take and is how terrible personnel decisions get made.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Lol. Love that this was it's own section.

Again, statistics are an attempt at quantifying humans, not the other way around. Context matters.

If you're merely saying, "all things being equal, his prognosis is better if he scores 1.2 points per game, than it is if he scores 0.6 per game" then agreed, but that's a point that's so banal as to be not worthy of the breath it takes to make.

But this speaking in absolutes "on the road to being a bust" just allows zero space for human context. These are not algorithms skating around, these are humans. And he's a hell of a lot different from a Virtanen or a Owen Tippett type (though he ironically broke out later) where it's all brute size and speed and low hockey IQ so if it doesn't play at a young age, it might not play at all.

I also forgot to rebut your point that his draft year was all based on the U18s. It wasn't, it was also based on him scoring at a historical (not record breaking, but historically very noteworthy) rate for his extremely young age in the SHL.

I think this "I was merely answering a general question" stuff would be easier to take if there was less apparent reticence to cop to bad takes. You're a very insightful poster and I look forward to reading your posts as much as anyone on these boards, but I also find that you sometimes try to debate lord yourself out of just saying, "yup, wrong on that one" from time to time.

It's true on most levels for most players. Like, if a guy is still playing B in Midget, they're probably not going to make it (and I didn't lol).

But again, there are human elements here that need to be recognized and sometimes it's acknowledging how little we know from the outside.

But as an example, I have yet to hear you acknowledge that you didn't give remotely enough credence to the numerous mitigating circumstances that made his D+1 year go awry, and that made it very easy to predict that he would bounce back.

Again, if you view things through this prism then you're just excusing yourself for incredibly stupid evaluations and dumb trades.
So let's say we traded Lekkerimaki for a late 2nd the following year and he then goes on to score like Marchessault. You genuinely believe that would be fine to react so impulsively and myopically and lose such a useful asset because 'if we just look at his last 5 months without context, it didn't look good at the time'?

It feels like you're offering the sort of rationale that gets Benning to trade Forsling for Clendenning.

Sometimes it's as important to lean into the art of the sport as it is the science.
I have had some really wrong takes, like thinking that I saw some Claude Giroux in Nic Petan when I saw him in junior.

But to me, it was easy to see that Quinn Hughes was an absolute stud of a prospect based on his elusiveness and superlative hockey sense.

You make some good points MS19, but you have to realize that your take won't be seen as logical specifically because you're arguing for the exception, not the rule. MS' insistence on the rule is correct, if a bit repetitive. The counter point isn't to argue that all players are exceptional. Instead, it's to identify whether Lekk's path to the NHL has deviated from the norm so as to allow for some variance.

It's not about Tippet's delayed break out, or MS being wrong about Hughes, it's just about Lekk fitting into the model of a normal prospect or not, given his history to date.

The game was clearly changing after the Young Stars team in the World Cup made a lot of guys look old and slow, McDavid coming in and changing the league in a similar (though polar opposite) way to a young Lindros, and precedent couldn't tell you that, but context and appreciating the art of the sport could.

No it doesn't. It WOULD if Boeser was actually a replacement level player. But again, mitigating circumstances like literally watching your father pass away slowly from across the continent and falling out of love with the sport.

Maybe I consider the human element of the sport more than the average person because I work in the social services field, but I feel like a lot of your uncharacteristically poor takes seem to neglect the human element and forget that these are not automatons skating around, but people with complex motivations, fears, hopes, yearnings, and reward systems.


Again, it's how absolutist you are in your speech.

"It's a far better sign if he scores X than if he scores Y(lower amount)" is banal.

"He's on the path to bustville if (x ppg)" is just an unnuanced, blunt force take and is how terrible personnel decisions get made.

Boeser is another example, yes (and there are a whole host of others (we all have them)).

But really, if MS had just said "But 'probably toast' can range from 1% to 49%. I said that maybe he's at 20% if that's what his season looks like" at the beginning, this exchange goes a lot differently imo.

 

[MarkusNaslund19]

You make some good points MS19, but you have to realize that your take won't be seen as logical specifically because you're arguing for the exception, not the rule. MS' insistence on the rule is correct, if a bit repetitive. The counter point isn't to argue that all players are exceptional. Instead, it's to identify whether Lekk's path to the NHL has deviated from the norm so as to allow for some variance.

It's not about Tippet's delayed break out, or MS being wrong about Hughes, it's just about Lekk fitting into the model of a normal prospect or not, given his history to date.




Boeser is another example, yes (and there are a whole host of others).

But really, if MS had just said "But 'probably toast' can range from 1% to 49%. I said that maybe he's at 20% if that's what his season looks like" at the beginning, this exchange goes a lot differently imo.

Again, to say that a bad season from him is a bad sign is...self-evident.

It's the rigid language ignoring all human factors and even on-ice context that I take issue with.

It feels a bit similar to people who point to WAR charts and say, 'this guy is better, look he has blue by his name' when there are myriad factors to consider.

 

[RobertKron]

You folks are familiar with the word "probably," right?

 

[Bleach Clean]

You folks are familiar with the word "probably," right?

You're aware that someone arguing dogmatically isn't going to get the benefit of nuance, right?

Again, to say that a bad season from him is a bad sign is...self-evident.

It's the rigid language ignoring all human factors and even on-ice context that I take issue with.

It feels a bit similar to people who point to WAR charts and say, 'this guy is better, look he has blue by his name' when there are myriad factors to consider.

Ironically, I think MS hates WAR charts lol.

Edit: MS has often argued for freshman year production in draft year prospects. He did so for Matthew Wood. If this is seen as impressive due to the difficulty of transitioning to a new league, why would transitioning from SWE to NA be seen as insignificant for Lekkerimaki now? It's still a league to league transition. I understand that he is older, but this is still a factor we have to account for.

 

[Peen]

You're aware that someone arguing dogmatically isn't going to get the benefit of nuance, right?





Ironically, I think MS hates WAR charts lol.

that post reminded me of this