Prospect Info: Prospects and Marlies Thread: Marlies Calder Cup Champions Edition

[GoldenGOOSE]

Grundstrom could become a Babcock toy for sure.

 

[ER89]

Grundstrom is a sick player.

0.55ppg as a teenager in the Swedish Hockey League as well, including a 0.69ppg season last year. Tore up the AHL as well.

He's projecting well to become a 30-40 point player in the NHL, as well as the physicality and defensive abilities he brings.

Have you seen a lot of him? Asking because I have not so was wondering if you think 30-40 is the safe projection or his likely projection. Can he not be a 55 pt 2 way second liner at his best?

 

[Duke16]

Martins Dzierkals joins Dinamo Riga in the KHL

 

[Cor]

Have you seen a lot of him? Asking because I have not so was wondering if you think 30-40 is the safe projection or his likely projection. Can he not be a 55 pt 2 way second liner at his best?

He could certainly be a 55-60 point guy in a peak year where he gets power play time.

However I expect his usage to be similar to Hyman’s, where he’s playing heavy 5v5 time and and PK.

So anywhere from 30-45 points is actually good production for a player with no power play time.

 

[SeaOfBlue]

Martins Dzierkals joins Dinamo Riga in the KHL

Well that is not exactly a terrible thing. He can get more ice time over there than he probably could get on the Marlies. Plus since we drafted him out of a non-transfer league, and he's going back to a non-transfer league, we should keep his rights indefintiely. However that whole thing is confusing.

It should mean Piccinich has a better chance of making the Marlies now.

 

[Liminality]

Well that is not exactly a terrible thing. He can get more ice time over there than he probably could get on the Marlies. Plus since we drafted him out of a non-transfer league, and he's going back to a non-transfer league, we should keep his rights indefintiely. However that whole thing is confusing.

It should mean Piccinich has a better chance of making the Marlies now.

That's the same situation we had with Komarov right?

 

[Animal]

Have you seen a lot of him? Asking because I have not so was wondering if you think 30-40 is the safe projection or his likely projection. Can he not be a 55 pt 2 way second liner at his best?

I think he can put up similar numbers to Andrew Shaw, 15-20 goals, 35-40 points. Obviously more if he rides shotgun with Matthews or Tavares.

 

[Joey Hoser]

I always sorta thought that trying to project point production is a bit silly. It always depends so much on situation.

Say Marleau or Hyman tear their ACL/MCL in training camp and Grundstrom plays on one of the top two lines. If he's there all year and gets PP time, he could be a 50+ point NHL player this year just for showing up. Maybe he plays half the year with Matthews and then goes to the fourth line, do you judge him by his production with Matthews, or what he did on the fourth line? Or if everyone is healthy, he just goes and plays in the AHL. Same guy, different situations, dramatically different conclusions.

Unless you're a star who you know will drive a top line, like Tavares or Matthews, it should be more about projecting role, than production.

 

[SeaOfBlue]

That's the same situation we had with Komarov right?

Honestly, I do not even know how it works entirely.

We drafted Komarov out of Finland. In the current CBA, that would mean we'd have 4 years with him because there is a transfer agreement with Finnish leagues and the NHL. Back then, maybe there was not. Assuming there was one, there is the added fact that before Komarov's rights expired, he went to the KHL. Of course, there is no transfer agreement there. So he can be marked as "defective" and be kept indefinitely (or for as long as he stays in a non-transfer agreement league or he becomes a legal UFA, which I believe would be 26).

Now it gets funkier when North America gets involved. Dzierkals was drafted out of a non-transfer league, came to North America for a few years, and then decided to go back to a non-transfer league. As far as I would know, that should mean we get to keep his rights indefinitely (or until one of the other conditions listed above is met), much like we do with Herzog's rights.

On the other hand, when it comes to guys like Rasanen and Bobylev, I have no idea. They were drafted by a CHL team, but it makes a difference regarding whether they were loaned (like Sandin) or sold to the CHL in terms of how long we get to keep them. It also apparently affects how long we get to keep their rights if they go to non-transfer leagues as they have now (both to the KHL). Apparently we only get to keep Rasanen's rights an additional two years despite going to the KHL. I think that is stupid and we should get to keep him for as long as he stays in the KHL, but those are the rules. I would imagine it's the same thing with Bobylev too.

If you are confused, then we are on the same page. But if I got it right, we got/get to keep Dzierkals, Herzog and Komarov indefinitely (or until the other conditions are met), but not Bobylev and Rasanen, who are essentially just treated like Europeans from a transfer league and we only get to keep them another two years before their rights expire. Personally I think it would be a lot simpler if teams were just able to keep their guys indefinitely, regardless of what league they were drafted from, if they go to a non-transfer league before their rights expire.

 

[Liminality]

Honestly, I do not even know how it works entirely.

We drafted Komarov out of Finland. In the current CBA, that would mean we'd have 4 years with him because there is a transfer agreement with Finnish leagues and the NHL. Back then, maybe there was not. Assuming there was one, there is the added fact that before Komarov's rights expired, he went to the KHL. Of course, there is no transfer agreement there. So he can be marked as "defective" and be kept indefinitely (or for as long as he stays in a non-transfer agreement league or he becomes a legal UFA, which I believe would be 26).

Now it gets funkier when North America gets involved. Dzierkals was drafted out of a non-transfer league, came to North America for a few years, and then decided to go back to a non-transfer league. As far as I would know, that should mean we get to keep his rights indefinitely (or until one of the other conditions listed above is met), much like we do with Herzog's rights.

On the other hand, when it comes to guys like Rasanen and Bobylev, I have no idea. They were drafted by a CHL team, but it makes a difference regarding whether they were loaned (like Sandin) or sold to the CHL in terms of how long we get to keep them. It also apparently affects how long we get to keep their rights if they go to non-transfer leagues as they have now (both to the KHL). Apparently we only get to keep Rasanen's rights an additional two years despite going to the KHL. I think that is stupid and we should get to keep him for as long as he stays in the KHL, but those are the rules. I would imagine it's the same thing with Bobylev too.

If you are confused, then we are on the same page. But if I got it right, we got/get to keep Dzierkals, Herzog and Komarov indefinitely (or until the other conditions are met), but not Bobylev and Rasanen, who are essentially just treated like Europeans from a transfer league and we only get to keep them another two years before their rights expire. Personally I think it would be a lot simpler if teams were just able to keep their guys indefinitely, regardless of what league they were drafted from, if they go to a non-transfer league before their rights expire.

Yes very much so.

 

[LaPlante94]

I read Dzierkals has requested a trade. Any truth to this or was this a false article?

 

[SeaOfBlue]

I read Dzierkals has requested a trade. Any truth to this or was this a false article?

I have never seen anything like that. We are pretty deep right now so it's tough for him to draw in despite playing at a pretty good level (just ask Bracco), but I do not think that means he would request a trade. However, given the amount of competition he'd have to face just to get into the Marlies lineup (notably Piccinich and Ferguson), it does make sense for him to go back home to Riga and likely get top 6 or at least top 9 minutes over there. Similarily to Aaltonen.

He may be used in a trade, but not because he forced us to include him in a trade.

 

[LaPlante94]

I have never seen anything like that. We are pretty deep right now so it's tough for him to draw in despite playing at a pretty good level (just ask Bracco), but I do not think that means he would request a trade. However, given the amount of competition he'd have to face just to get into the Marlies lineup (notably Piccinich and Ferguson), it does make sense for him to go back home to Riga and likely get top 6 or at least top 9 minutes over there. Similarily to Aaltonen.

He may be used in a trade, but not because he forced us to include him in a trade.

HockeyBuzz.com - Aivis Kalnins - Toronto prospect moves to KHL - admits to making a trade request

This is the article I was talking about

 

[93LEAFS]

Honestly, I do not even know how it works entirely.

We drafted Komarov out of Finland. In the current CBA, that would mean we'd have 4 years with him because there is a transfer agreement with Finnish leagues and the NHL. Back then, maybe there was not. Assuming there was one, there is the added fact that before Komarov's rights expired, he went to the KHL. Of course, there is no transfer agreement there. So he can be marked as "defective" and be kept indefinitely (or for as long as he stays in a non-transfer agreement league or he becomes a legal UFA, which I believe would be 26).

Now it gets funkier when North America gets involved. Dzierkals was drafted out of a non-transfer league, came to North America for a few years, and then decided to go back to a non-transfer league. As far as I would know, that should mean we get to keep his rights indefinitely (or until one of the other conditions listed above is met), much like we do with Herzog's rights.

On the other hand, when it comes to guys like Rasanen and Bobylev, I have no idea. They were drafted by a CHL team, but it makes a difference regarding whether they were loaned (like Sandin) or sold to the CHL in terms of how long we get to keep them. It also apparently affects how long we get to keep their rights if they go to non-transfer leagues as they have now (both to the KHL). Apparently we only get to keep Rasanen's rights an additional two years despite going to the KHL. I think that is stupid and we should get to keep him for as long as he stays in the KHL, but those are the rules. I would imagine it's the same thing with Bobylev too.

If you are confused, then we are on the same page. But if I got it right, we got/get to keep Dzierkals, Herzog and Komarov indefinitely (or until the other conditions are met), but not Bobylev and Rasanen, who are essentially just treated like Europeans from a transfer league and we only get to keep them another two years before their rights expire. Personally I think it would be a lot simpler if teams were just able to keep their guys indefinitely, regardless of what league they were drafted from, if they go to a non-transfer league before their rights expire.

Pretty sure Rasanen's rights are automatically extended every year he's in the KHL. So, if he comes back, he has to play a full year in another leagure for us to lose his rights. Even if he doesn't sign his ELC by the cut-off point this year we maintain his rights.

 

[MyBudJT]

Dzeirkals isn't even that good... don't get the hype he had around here or why he was voted so high in our top 30 prospects.

 

[SprDaVE]

Dzeirkals isn't even that good... don't get the hype he had around here or why he was voted so high in our top 30 prospects.

He never was that good. He had tools but no toolbox. He would hang on to the puck for far too long and had tunnel vision on the ice. He's a good skater with good stick handling but he never improved from his rookie campaign in the Q.

 

[Randy Randerson]

He could certainly be a 55-60 point guy in a peak year where he gets power play time.

However I expect his usage to be similar to Hyman’s, where he’s playing heavy 5v5 time and and PK.

So anywhere from 30-45 points is actually good production for a player with no power play time.

based on Hyman hitting the 40pt plateau, I wouldn't be surprised to see Grundstrom settle into the 50 range even without PP time. Grundstrom is a much better finisher than Hyman and would have a lot of chances created for him playing with Matthews & Nylander. Can't believe how often Hyman hits a goalie in the logo from 5 feet out

 

[Cor]

based on Hyman hitting the 40pt plateau, I wouldn't be surprised to see Grundstrom settle into the 50 range even without PP time. Grundstrom is a much better finisher than Hyman and would have a lot of chances created for him playing with Matthews & Nylander. Can't believe how often Hyman hits a goalie in the logo from 5 feet out

Just 6 players scored 50+ points at 5v5/PK. So that’s very unlikely

Approximately only 40 score 40+ points at 5v5/PK.

People wildly undervalue Hymans production this past season and it blows my mind.

 

[Randy Randerson]

Just 6 players scored 50+ points at 5v5/PK. So that’s very unlikely

Approximately only 40 score 40+ points at 5v5/PK.

People wildly undervalue Hymans production this past season and it blows my mind.

there's not many scenarios around the league that have a linemate scenario like Matthews/Nylander, the puck-to-net volume for that line will be on the elite end of the spectrum. He may not average that, and Hyman may not (probably won't) average 40, but he's better than Hyman and putting away those opportunities created for him so I think the combo of his own talent and an elite set of linemates will let him put up that sort of production

he would have a good chance of getting PP time imo too, front of the net bodies are a need for us

 

[MyBudJT]

there's not many scenarios around the league that have a linemate scenario like Matthews/Nylander, the puck-to-net volume for that line will be on the elite end of the spectrum. He may not average that, and Hyman may not (probably won't) average 40, but he's better than Hyman and putting away those opportunities created for him so I think the combo of his own talent and an elite set of linemates will let him put up that sort of production

he would have a good chance of getting PP time imo too, front of the net bodies are a need for us

I think it’s premature to say Grundstrom is better than Hyman... Grundstrom has potential to be better, but as of now, he is not.

The Hyman hate on this board is comical...

 

[hector morrison]

Just 6 players scored 50+ points at 5v5/PK. So that’s very unlikely

Approximately only 40 score 40+ points at 5v5/PK.

People wildly undervalue Hymans production this past season and it blows my mind.

So the number of missed opportunities doesn't bother you? His plainly obvious lack of skill is no where in the realm of a first line winger! Or a second line winger! His motor is good,to be sure,but the gps isn't on!

 

[Cor]

So the number of missed opportunities doesn't bother you? His plainly obvious lack of skill is no where in the realm of a first line winger! Or a second line winger! His motor is good,to be sure,but the gps isn't on!

I think Hyman had a pretty terrific year and did everything we asked him to.

Expecting Hyman to put up 50 points without Powerplay time is simply ridiculous considering only 6 players scored 50 points at 5v5+PK. The guy was an animal in the playoffs as well.

If he regresses back to below 30 points, that when there will be an issue. But Hyman did well this season.

 

[Cor]

I think it’s premature to say Grundstrom is better than Hyman... Grundstrom has potential to be better, but as of now, he is not.

The Hyman hate on this board is comical...

Agree. I really like Grundstrom, but Hyman is massively underrated.

People’s irrational expectations for Hyman sets him up to fail. Though I suppose that is what some of them want

 

[firstemperor]

Agree. I really like Grundstrom, but Hyman is massively underrated.

People’s irrational expectations for Hyman sets him up to fail. Though I suppose that is what some of them want

I agree Hyman is underrated but I think most are upset about his usage, not the player.

It's not Hyman's fault Babcock uses him as a #1LW, or has him leading the forwards in ice-time the odd night- when games are close and/or we need a goal or two.

 

[Cor]

I agree Hyman is underrated but I think most are upset about his usage, not the player.

It's not Hyman's fault Babcock uses him as a #1LW, or has him leading the forwards in ice-time the odd night- when games are close and/or we need a goal or two.

That’s fair.

However given his production, even that shouldn’t be as big of a worry as it seems to be to a lot of people here.

Mike Babcock has never stacked lines. Not even with Team Canada. The fact that we can now roll Marleau/Matthews/Nylander, Hyman/Tavares/Marner, and Johnsson/Kadri/Kapanen is stacked all within itself.

However it’s natural to look for something to criticize about. Even in a record setting year like last year there were still people who would have probably fired Babcock if they had the option