Juraj Slafkovsky - Year Two

[Jaynki]

Draft is a crapshoot, development is not. Bobrov has been equally bad at drafting or Gorton has been horrible at developing.

Well, looking at every resume around the league, i think we could argue that its very bleak wherever you look.

When judging about these type of things, its misleading to go specifically into micro details.

Example : bergevin was the best trading GM! (Yet he was a complete failure on team building.)

Kulich / Mesar what a flop! Its a flop individually but its also a normal occurence that happens every draft. The 2022 NHL draft might be a major hit even with this flop. It looks like we exploded the odds with Beck, Hutson and Engstrom. (It remains to be seen!)

Are we expecting perfection or are we expecting to be top tier in terms of drafting ? Because the difference between the averages and the top tier may be tighter than we think.

Example : we pick 10 ov each year for a decade.

Historical stats gives 40% chance of a NHL regulars. (Made up stats, i cant find the real probabilities right now but its irrelevant for the exercice)

The top tier organisation will probably hit 50-60%. So out of 10 draft. They would have totally killed it. But there might also be some major flop along the way.

May i refer to RationalExpectations username.

I think we should aim for more hit than misses, but its unrealistic to expect perfection.

Problem with Bergevin was that we played under the probabilities AND had some obvious, franchise killing flop. Not sure its the case in NYR despite the Kravtsov and Andersson flop.

Its kinda similar to the law of big number.

 

[BaseballCoach]

I’d rather him be in the AHL but if they’re going to keep him up, he’d better be on the top six. I wasn’t happy with how he was handled last year.

First of all, I would be alright with 3rd line if Monahan is centering.

Second of all, we accepted Suzuki on a 4th for a while, why canM't slaf be on the 4th for a while at one year younger, and then move up? Mind you, I don't think he needs to even start this year on the 4th, I believe he is already 3rd line level.

 

[417]

Earlier you said we f***ed up on Slaf. You could be right but we won’t know for a while. The only thing I’d agree with though is that we messed up by not having him in the minors last year. It’s not disastrous but I think he’s have benefited from it.

If Slafkovsky ends up being a flop.

How will we know it's because they decided to play him in the NHL in a sheltered role his first season?

I'm curious when I see you write that, @Mrb1p could be right, but we won't know for a while?

We tend to do a lot of "correlation by causation" when I think development at its core, is such a complex concept that correlation doesn't always imply causation, IMO.

If one argues that bringing Player A up too early, is the root cause of that player's eventual demise.

Then we must also be consequent in using the same logic when a player is brought up early and has success, then that must also be the reason for his success. Cause and effect has to work both ways or else it doesn't work as an argument, IMO.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

If Slafkovsky ends up being a flop.

How will we know it's because they decided to play him in the NHL in a sheltered role his first season?

I'm curious when I see you write that, @Mrb1p could be right, but we won't know for a while?

We tend to do a lot of "correlation by causation" when I think development at its core, is such a complex concept that correlation doesn't always imply causation, IMO.

If one argues that bringing Player A up too early, is the root cause of that player's eventual demise.

Then we must also be consequent in using the same logic when a player is brought up early and has success, then that must also be the reason for his success. Cause and effect has to work both ways or else it doesn't work as an argument, IMO.

If he flops? I guess it’ll depend on the usage. You never really know how much is development vs wrong pick but if the team clearly does a bad job developing then I think they deserve criticism regardless.

Chuck was the most clear cut case of bad development I’ve seen. He was head and shoulders our best centre and we screwed around. He obviously had his problems but we made it so much worse. Therrien was the absolute worst coach we could’ve picked. In that case I feel like we drafted the right guy and mishandled him terribly. Plus when it was clear they didn’t trust him, they didn’t trade him either. Just so dumb.

KK seemed to look pretty good in his rookie year and then we inexplicably benched him. So YEAH the team should be roasted for that. That doesn’t mean he was the right pick though. He was a reach but he played Center. I seem to remember a lot of folks being happy with it thinking he might be another Kopitar. We bring him up, he plays well, we bench him. Devastating. And he regressed from there. I think regardless of how he was developed though it’s pretty clear that we should’ve taken Tkachuk. So it was a mistake at the draft board AND development.

I think we should’ve put Slaf in the AHL last year. I think it would’ve been good for him. That didn’t happen but I don’t think we’d ruined him. MSL is a positive coach and there’s a plan. I may not agree with it but at least they’re clear and it looks like he’ll be on the top six with Dach. That’s not a bad thing as I think Dach has emerged as a really solid two way player who drives possession. So as much as I’d like him to spend time in the AHL at least they seem to be putting him in the top six. And who knows? It might be the best choice. I hope so…

People just need to be patient. He’s not a Steve Yzerman type flashy player. It’s going to take time to develop his game. I just think people need to chill out a bit. Let’s wait and see how he does. Last year he was on pace for a pretty good year until the team collapsed and that was with him on the third line. He doesn’t even have 80 games under him yet and yet some people are saying he’ll be a 50 point guy at best. How can we possibly know this right now?

 

[dackelljuneaubulis02]

If Slafkovsky ends up being a flop.

How will we know it's because they decided to play him in the NHL in a sheltered role his first season?

I'm curious when I see you write that, @Mrb1p could be right, but we won't know for a while?

We tend to do a lot of "correlation by causation" when I think development at its core, is such a complex concept that correlation doesn't always imply causation, IMO.

If one argues that bringing Player A up too early, is the root cause of that player's eventual demise.

Then we must also be consequent in using the same logic when a player is brought up early and has success, then that must also be the reason for his success. Cause and effect has to work both ways or else it doesn't work as an argument, IMO.

Yeah all you can do is infer. Let’s say our development goes well, with this management—at best its still inference.

Now one can’t ignore ‘evidence’ that our development is better or ‘right’ but if you really want to be scientific about it, it’s still just inference.

Development is a huge grey area, hence the heated debates. No one’s debating whether Caufield is a good goal scorer.

 

[417]

If he flops? I guess it’ll depend on the usage. You never really know how much is development vs wrong pick but if the team clearly does a bad job developing then I think they deserve criticism regardless.

So fair to say that it's a lot more complex than just the physical place of where a player is playing (I.e. NHL vs AHL).

Coaching, deployment, confidence, right surrounding cast, maturity, etc

There are a ton of micro variables that impact whether or not a player ultimately reaches his potential.

Yet there seems to be less focus on these issues and way more focus on just the “where” a player is playing.

Chuck was the most clear cut case of bad development I’ve seen. He was head and shoulders our best centre and we screwed around. He obviously had his problems but we made it so much worse. Therrien was the absolute worst coach we could’ve picked.

100% but he also was his own worst enemy to be honest.

A bit of a complex one because I think he was ready to play in the NHL @ 19, but he wasn't ready to be an NHLer off the ice @ 19.

KK seemed to look pretty good in his rookie year and then we inexplicably benched him. So YEAH the team should be roasted for that. That doesn’t mean he was the right pick though. He was a reach but he played Center. I seem to remember a lot of folks being happy with it thinking he might be another Kopitar. I think regardless how he was developed it’s pretty clear that we should’ve taken Tkachuk.

Again…agreed. I don’t think it didn't work out because they graduated him to the NHL @ 18.

They did a horrible job of using him but he was plain the wrong pick.

I think we should’ve put Slaf in the AHL last year. I think it would’ve been good for him. That didn’t happen but I don’t think we’d ruined him. MSL is a positive coach and there’s a plan. I may not agree with it but at least they’re clear and it looks like he’ll be on the top six with Dach. That’s not a bad thing as I think Dach has emerged as a really solid two way player who drives possession. So as much as I’d like him to spend time I. The AHL at least they seem to be putting him in the top six.

I'm glad you don't think it ruined him and while I don't agree with the overall sentiment that he should have been or should be in Laval.

I do get it from a pure ice time point of view.

But I also have a difficult time subscribing to the theory that playing in Laval is better for his development vs playing in Montreal.

I don't see a ton of test cases of players who went to Laval under Houle and he turned them into NHL players.

I do see what MSL did for Caufield or Dach though.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

So fair to say that it's a lot more complex than just the physical place of where a player is playing (I.e. NHL vs AHL).

Coaching, deployment, confidence, right surrounding cast, maturity, etc

There are a ton of micro variables that impact whether or not a player ultimately reaches his potential.

Yet there seems to be less focus on these issues and way more focus on just the “where” a player is playing.

100% but he also was his own worst enemy to be honest.

A bit of a complex one because I think he was ready to play in the NHL @ 19, but he wasn't ready to be an NHLer off the ice @ 19.

Again…agreed. I don’t think it didn't work out because they graduated him to the NHL @ 18.

They did a horrible job of using him but he was plain the wrong pick.

I'm glad you don't think it ruined him and while I don't agree with the overall sentiment that he should have been or should be in Laval.

I do get it from a pure ice time point of view.

But I also have a difficult time subscribing to the theory that playing in Laval is better for his development vs playing in Montreal.

I don't see a ton of test cases of players who went to Laval under Houle and he turned them into NHL players.

I do see what MSL did for Caufield or Dach though.

I think if he’d have gone down to the AHL he’d would’ve had a dominant year. I think he could’ve worked out some kinks there and come back far more ready than he was. So yeah I think we made a mistake but not a fatal one.

They’re leaving him up. Okay, not what I’d do but alright. If he’s in the top six then I won’t have much of a problem with it. But if they demote him to the third I’ll be pissed. If you’re going to do that just send him to the AHL.

 

[Jaynki]

He doesn’t even have 80 games under him yet and yet some people are saying he’ll be a 50 point guy at best. How can we possibly know this right now?

First of all, good post.

To answer this question : the Wright bias. Or simply just bias. Or PTSD from KK/Galchenyuk.

All are not relative to Slaf but will taint our perception.

 

[waffledave]

If Slafkovsky ends up being a flop.

How will we know it's because they decided to play him in the NHL in a sheltered role his first season?

I'm curious when I see you write that, @Mrb1p could be right, but we won't know for a while?

We tend to do a lot of "correlation by causation" when I think development at its core, is such a complex concept that correlation doesn't always imply causation, IMO.

If one argues that bringing Player A up too early, is the root cause of that player's eventual demise.

Then we must also be consequent in using the same logic when a player is brought up early and has success, then that must also be the reason for his success. Cause and effect has to work both ways or else it doesn't work as an argument, IMO.

If he flops it's because of a miss in terms of scouting.

His flaws were obvious prior to the draft and pointed out by many.

Can they be overcome? Yes, but improving your on-ice awareness and the speed at which you process what's going on around you and your general hockey IQ is not easy. And typically someone you draft 1st overall doesn't need to overcome such glaring holes in their game.

All you can hope is that the pros saw something in him that makes them thing he can learn in this capacity. Very few can but hopefully he's one of them.

 

[417]

Yeah all you can do is infer. Let’s say our development goes well, with this management—at best its still inference.

Now one can’t ignore ‘evidence’ that our development is better or ‘right’ but if you really want to be scientific about it, it’s still just inference.

Development is a huge grey area, hence the heated debates. No one’s debating whether Caufield is a good goal scorer.

Caufield is a good example…

Playing in the AHL 2 years ago for 6 games did Jack shit for his game.

His game and as a result, production, increased after the coaching change brought in different deployment strategies.

I happen to think these types of factors are way more common and meaningful than just where a player is playing.

Of course this doesn't imply that sticking say…Ty Smilanic in the NHL is fine and he’ll come out of it in the other side.

But we should perhaps acknowledge that the AHL is not the “fix all” solution its being presented as.

If Slafkovsky is sent down to Laval and he's still being used in a sheltered role…the output will look exactly the same.

 

[Deebs]

If he flops it's because of a miss in terms of scouting.

His flaws were obvious prior to the draft and pointed out by many.

Can they be overcome? Yes, but improving your on-ice awareness and the speed at which you process what's going on around you and your general hockey IQ is not easy. And typically someone you draft 1st overall doesn't need to overcome such glaring holes in their game.

All you can hope is that the pros saw something in him that makes them thing he can learn in this capacity. Very few can but hopefully he's one of them.

Very much agree with all of this.

 

[River Meadow]

If he flops it's because of a miss in terms of scouting.

His flaws were obvious prior to the draft and pointed out by many.

Can they be overcome? Yes, but improving your on-ice awareness and the speed at which you process what's going on around you and your general hockey IQ is not easy. And typically someone you draft 1st overall doesn't need to overcome such glaring holes in their game.

All you can hope is that the pros saw something in him that makes them thing he can learn in this capacity. Very few can but hopefully he's one of them.

Bingo.

That one hurts like hell.

 

[Wats]

If Slafkovsky ends up being a flop.

How will we know it's because they decided to play him in the NHL in a sheltered role his first season?

I'm curious when I see you write that, @Mrb1p could be right, but we won't know for a while?

We tend to do a lot of "correlation by causation" when I think development at its core, is such a complex concept that correlation doesn't always imply causation, IMO.

If one argues that bringing Player A up too early, is the root cause of that player's eventual demise.

Then we must also be consequent in using the same logic when a player is brought up early and has success, then that must also be the reason for his success. Cause and effect has to work both ways or else it doesn't work as an argument, IMO.

I'd be interested in seeing the stats on 18/19 year old making NHL as regulars and how many of those players go on to have successful careers for Montreal vs rest of NHL.

Just going off memory, it really feels like junior aged players that are doing so well/showing talent to actually make NHL early do worse in Montreal career wise. If this is true, there is more to it than arguing causation vs correlation. The variable of being on a high pressure market like Montreal becomes an issue.

We all argue that it is hard to attract UFAs because of this being a special market, would it really be so surprising that development wise this market is also special. I didn't like the Slafkovsky pick but obviously he has potential... If he fails at coming close to that potential it's on the scouts for taking him yes but there is no way he was put in best situation to be the best he can be as well when you look at what we've seen happens to teens in Montreal.

 

[Mrb1p]

If he flops it's because of a miss in terms of scouting.

His flaws were obvious prior to the draft and pointed out by many.

Can they be overcome? Yes, but improving your on-ice awareness and the speed at which you process what's going on around you and your general hockey IQ is not easy. And typically someone you draft 1st overall doesn't need to overcome such glaring holes in their game.

All you can hope is that the pros saw something in him that makes them thing he can learn in this capacity. Very few can but hopefully he's one of them.

Its both. You scout the kid and you clearly see his weaknesses... you clearly see he needs time to learn to process at a high level and then, boom you plug him in the NHL? Wtf

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

First of all, good post.

To answer this question : the Wright bias. Or simply just bias. Or PTSD from KK/Galchenyuk.

All are not relative to Slaf but will taint our perception.

Well I think it’s too early to know if he’ll be a star too.

I can see why we drafted him. As he gets stronger he’ll be tough to contain. But that doesn’t necessarily mean he’ll be a big scorer. Josh Anderson is big and fast but he’s not what I’d want from a top five pick let alone first overall.

As I said, I think he’s a bit of a mystery box. We’ll know more by the end of the year. People just need to chill out.

 

[417]

I'd be interested in seeing the stats on 18/19 year old making NHL as regulars and how many of those players go on to have successful careers for Montreal vs rest of NHL.

Just going off memory, it really feels like junior aged players that are doing so well/showing talent to actually make NHL early do worse in Montreal career wise. If this is true, there is more to it than arguing causation vs correlation. The variable of being on a high pressure market like Montreal becomes an issue.

Agreed...but wouldn't you agree this then becomes less of an on ice issue and more of a environment and maturity issue for the player?

I think this is where the organization in the past has done a piss poor job of managing. They either let the kid fend for themselves or played yo-yo with them in the lineup.

But you're right...Montreal market is a different animal. That has to be considered when trading for, signing or drafting any players.

We all argue that it is hard to attract UFAs because of this being a special market, would it really be so surprising that development wise this market is also special. I didn't like the Slafkovsky pick but obviously he has potential... If he fails at coming close to that potential it's on the scouts for taking him yes but there is no way he was put in best situation to be the best he can be as well when you look at what we've seen happens to teens in Montreal.

Excellent point....I really like the way you put this.

This is again, more related to the mental side of it...rather than the actual ability to play. They seem to think they're dealing with a very mature young man, different situation than say Alex Galchenyuk who really struggled with the demands of being an every day professional hockey player and the sacrifices that required outside of the rink.

 

[Andy]

B. Tkachuk, M. Tkachuk and Rantanen generate most of their offense 5-on-5 in plays around the net with simple touches, redirects, or power moves. Most of their offense is not "highlight reel" material, if you look at their highlight packages on YouTube, frankly, they're much more boring than other players in the league. On the PowerPlay M. Tkachuk and Rantanen set up in the exact same place as Slafkovsky on the powerplay and generate their points from one timers or puck distribution. Slafkovsky was already doing some of this last year and has done more of this style in the pre-season as well.

Quoting this post for emphasis as I think it helps identify what type of player Slafkovsky will become.

He will not be a speedster or a player who will dangle his way out of a phone booth to create chances. He's going to use his frame to create space and time to make a play (which we have seen a number of times this pre-season), and will use his reach to get at loose pucks and put them in a scoring area (which we have also seen a number of times this pre-season).

I'm not sure I agree with folks who are suggesting that his delay is decision making is a lack of hockey IQ, and that it's very hard to make up for that type of absence. I've played in environments where the game was too fast for where I was at. It took a while, but my decision making caught up with more opportunities.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

Quoting this post for emphasis as I think it helps identify what type of player Slafkovsky will become.

He will not be a speedster or a player who will dangle his way out of a phone booth to create chances. He's going to use his frame to create space and time to make a play (which we have seen a number of times this pre-season), and will use his reach to get at loose pucks and put them in a scoring area (which we have also seen a number of times this pre-season).

I'm not sure I agree with folks who are suggesting that his delay is decision making is a lack of hockey IQ, and that it's very hard to make up for that type of absence. I've played in environments where the game was too fast for where I was at. It took a while, but my decision making caught up with more opportunities.

I just got everyone drunk so they’d slow down to my speed.

 

[Andy]

I just got everyone drunk so they’d slow down to my speed.

That made me lol.

Also, I wanted to add that when I played sports, the only time I was able to adjust to a higher speed is when I actually played at that level. There was no other way for me to get that opportunity. It took time to adjust, but I got there. I could not envision another way in which I could have gained that experience to a faster game without actually playing at that level.

 

[Habssince89]

Well I think it’s too early to know if he’ll be a star too.

I can see why we drafted him. As he gets stronger he’ll be tough to contain. But that doesn’t necessarily mean he’ll be a big scorer. Josh Anderson is big and fast but he’s not what I’d want from a top five pick let alone first overall.

As I said, I think he’s a bit of a mystery box. We’ll know more by the end of the year. People just need to chill out.

Yeah but Slaf has some additional tools Anderson doesn't have, like passing and puckhandling beyond being able to protect it with one's body. The hard to contain element will serve Slaf better because it means he will be able to make plays once he has possession because he can wait for a play to develop. Anderson has to shoot or crash the net immediately because once he slows down he's not good at keeping possession.

 

[Deebs]

Yeah but Slaf has some additional tools Anderson doesn't have, like passing and puckhandling beyond being able to protect it with one's body. The hard to contain element will serve Slaf better because it means he will be able to make plays once he has possession because he can wait for a play to develop. Anderson has to shoot or crash the net immediately because once he slows down he's not good at keeping possession.

For as big as Slaf is, he gets knocked off the puck quite easily. Balance is definitely something he'll need to improve moving forward. Similar to Andy, he has an upright stance. Needs to get his butt down ala Draisaitl

 

[Scriptor]

Yeah but Slaf has some additional tools Anderson doesn't have, like passing and puckhandling beyond being able to protect it with one's body. The hard to contain element will serve Slaf better because it means he will be able to make plays once he has possession because he can wait for a play to develop. Anderson has to shoot or crash the net immediately because once he slows down he's not good at keeping possession.

We already saw some interesting playmaking from Slaf after digging the puck out of the corner and coming up with it on his stick in traffic.

Slaf will have an impact on the game that will create scoring opportunities out of nothing as he matures. Playing on a line with Dach and Roy, let's say will provide line mats that can capitalize on chances he creates by using his size and strength.

For as big as Slaf is, he gets knocked off the puck quite easily. Balance is definitely something he'll need to improve moving forward. Similar to Andy, he has an upright stance. Needs to get his butt down ala Draisaitl

OR JAGR

 

[Andy]

For as big as Slaf is, he gets knocked off the puck quite easily. Balance is definitely something he'll need to improve moving forward. Similar to Andy, he has an upright stance. Needs to get his butt down ala Draisaitl

He's also still a kid. 19 years old is still very young and he's still developing his strength.

 

[Mrb1p]

The only thing I want to stop seeing from Slaf is the blind pass down the middle. f*** thats a dumb play and I feel its his play 75% of the time.

 

[Deebs]

He's also still a kid. 19 years old is still very young and he's still developing his strength.

For sure, so why not start applying that now. Leverage is a beautiful thing