Prospect Info: Samkow Memorial HFCBJ 2024 Summer Prospect Rankings: #13

[Double-Shift Lasse]

Vote for the best prospect from the above poll (listed alphabetically) and post who you think should be added from the full (remaining) list below. Criteria is that they are under 25 and haven't spent the majority of a season in the NHL.

There are no set guidelines to determine how you vote. Peak potential, likelihood of NHL career, pathway to playing time, expectations based on draft status -- any/all of these can be used at your discretion. There is no right/wrong way to vote.

The list so far:
1. Cayden Lindstrom (C)
2. Denton Mateychuk (LD)
3. David Jiricek (RD)
4. Gavin Brindley (C/RW)
5. Charlie Elick (RD)
6. Jordan Dumais (RW)
7. Jet Greaves (G)
8. Stanislav Svozil (LD)
9. Sergei Ivanov (G)
10. James Malatesta (LW)
11. Luca Del Bel Belluz (C)
12. Evan Gardner (G)

Select your add from the list below:
Luke Ashton (LD)
Ole Julian Bjorgvik-Holm (LD)
Cameron Butler (RW)
Cole Clayton (RD)
James Fisher (RW/MOD)
Tanner Henricks (RD)
Aidan Hreschuk (LD)
Samuel Knazko (LD)
Nolan Lalonde (G)
Nikolai Makarov (LD)
Max McCue (C)
Hunter McKown (C)
Tyler Peddle (C)
Luca Pinelli (C)
Mikael Pyyhtia (LW)
Guillaume Richard (LD)
Martin Rysavy (LW)
Melvin Strahl (G)
Andrew Strathmann (LD)

Added:
Kirill Dolzhenkov (RW)


Add votes (as of CannonFire1):
Pinelli - 6
Fisher - 4
Richard - 3
Makarov - 1
Peddle - 1
Henricks - 1
Strathmann - 1
McCue - 1

Click to read more...

 

[Xoggz22]

Add Richard

I'm not sure what it says about either A) our prospect pool or B) you alls judge of talent, but the fact there are three goalies in our top 12 and not one of them is viewed as an NHL player by the supposed experts makes me second guess our prospect pool.

 

[MissADD]

Add Fisher

 

[majormajor]

Personally, as someone who is generally clueless, I'd love to hear why people have Whitelaw ahead of Ceulemans. Both played their D+1 for Wisconsin in the NCAA. Ceulemans had 22 points in 34 games, Whitelaw had 17 in 37. Acknowledging that stat-watching is silly, on the surface level, why is Whitelaw more promising than Ceulemans? Is it simply a by-product of Ceulemans not having a good season in the AHL and not showing enough development in the last few years, while Whitelaw has more time* to reach his potential, whatever that is?

That's not even mentioning Keskinen, who I think has impressed more than either of them.

*I.e. less data on Whitelaw -> more uncertainty about his ultimate quality.

It's not a very compelling performance from Whitelaw, not for a player that size. But he's still young enough to turn it around with a strong season with Michigan. The skills are good. I'd have him somewhere #15-#18.

Ceulemans I'd have after #20. Little to no discernable progress in his game. Play reading continues to be an issue. And he doesn't look much faster or stronger than when he was drafted.

Pinelli I'd have after #20 as well, I don't think he has the skills to make it and I don't think he has the strength to play a checking role. The Jackets in particular will almost certainly have better players for every conceivable role Pinelli might fill.

I think you're right that Keskinen profiles better. Not a high upside guy but he's a strong center that's been making big progress in a men's league.

I think Dolzhenkov and Marelli are more compelling prospects than Ceulemans, and Pinelli, and maybe even more than Whitelaw. Guillaume Richard I'd have ahead of all of them. Then you've got Knazko, Makarov, Mckown, and McCue that look low upside to me but they all have a better chance of making that Pinelli or Ceulemans.

So among the remainder, I'd have it somewhat loosely like this:

Richard
Keskinen
Dolzhenkov

16-20
Whitelaw
Marelli
Mckown
Henricks
Makarov

21+
McCue
Ashton
Knazko
Pyyhtia
Pinelli
Ceulemans

to add to the pinelli discourse, scott wheeler ranked his top 15 blue jackets prospects back in march and had pinelli ranked ninth, ahead of three names that are in this board's top 10 (malatesta, ivanov, greaves)

some of the callouts:

• high-energy (i.e. more of a brindley than a dumais) who plays bigger than his size
• keeps his feet moving + makes quick plays
• wins races, makes plays, elevates his linemates
• has some deception from his game + scoring ability
• hard worker off the ice + leadership traits (captain of his OHL team)

he's the kind of player that this board should be absolutely in love with, rather than completely disregarding because he's a small forward in a pool of other small forwards.

Wheeler's been so consistently wrong in his love for pint-sized players (e.g. Abramov) that this ought to discredit having Pinelli in our top 20.

luca pinelli is a greater prospect than guys in the system who project to be fringe or bottom-of-the-lineup players (dolzhenkov, ceulemans, malatesta, etc)

Dolzhenkov, FWIW, is a skill player. He's massive too, what he lacks is the motor. I can't make sense of how you're categorizing him unless you're just saying 6'6 = bottom of the lineup.

In the current NHL, sometimes 5'9 skill players do play on 4th lines, so I also wouldn't conclude that in the unlikely event that Pinelli makes it, that it will be higher in the lineup. And it certainly doesn't make him more valuable if you conclude that he's constitutionally incapable of playing on a 4th line.

 

[SavesEmNot]

Add Makarov.

 

[cbjthrowaway]

Wheeler's been so consistently wrong in his love for pint-sized players (e.g. Abramov) that this ought to discredit having Pinelli in our top 20.

he's written extensively about why abramov was a miss and an inflection point for his scouting process. in short, abramov played a type of game that was going to be hard to carry over to the pros.

pinelli's writeup paints a very different picture. where abramov stood out for his ability to flash skill, pinelli plays a well-rounded, effective game where he nails the details and elevates his linemates while playing a high-energy game.

pinelli, whitelaw and brindley are all very similar prospects, stylistically speaking, and have more dimensions in their game than abramov ever had.

Dolzhenkov, FWIW, is a skill player. He's massive too, what he lacks is the motor. I can't make sense of how you're categorizing him unless you're just saying 6'6 = bottom of the lineup.

i know that he's (nominally) a skill guy, but that's always qualified with "for a big guy" which makes me skeptical that the skill will ever be enough of a differentiating tool to carry him. on top of that, his lack of mobility and so-so hockey sense are going to limit how effective he can be with his skill/shot/size combination.

i think he has NHL potential, but i view that as purely bottom six or as an extra forward, rather than a true scoring line candidate.

In the current NHL, sometimes 5'9 skill players do play on 4th lines, so I also wouldn't conclude that in the unlikely event that Pinelli makes it, that it will be higher in the lineup. And it certainly doesn't make him more valuable if you conclude that he's constitutionally incapable of playing on a 4th line.

pinelli's game (similarly to brindley's) can work as a play-driver in the bottom six + high-energy penalty kill, but the scoring tools and production hint at the possibility of him playing on a scoring line, albeit likely in a complimentary capacity.

the versatility, production and intangibles yield a wide range of outcomes wherein he becomes a useful NHL player. i could envision his career turning going in any of these directions:

1. undersized bottom six energy guy / PK ace who can play up in a pinch (i.e. tyler motte or matt calvert)
2. complimentary middle six scorer (i.e. conor sheary or alex kerfoot)
3. legitimate top six scorer (i.e. viktor arvidsson)

my argument for pinelli isn't that his scoring profile suggests at him becoming a superstar, it's that his well-rounded game, production and intangibles hint at him having a variety of paths to become a long-time NHLer.

 

[majormajor]

he's written extensively about why abramov was a miss and an inflection point for his scouting process. in short, abramov played a type of game that was going to be hard to carry over to the pros.

pinelli's writeup paints a very different picture. where abramov stood out for his ability to flash skill, pinelli plays a well-rounded, effective game where he nails the details and elevates his linemates while playing a high-energy game.

pinelli, whitelaw and brindley are all very similar prospects, stylistically speaking, and have more dimensions in their game than abramov ever had.


i know that he's (nominally) a skill guy, but that's always qualified with "for a big guy" which makes me skeptical that the skill will ever be enough of a differentiating tool to carry him. on top of that, his lack of mobility and so-so hockey sense are going to limit how effective he can be with his skill/shot/size combination.

i think he has NHL potential, but i view that as purely bottom six or as an extra forward, rather than a true scoring line candidate.


pinelli's game (similarly to brindley's) can work as a play-driver in the bottom six + high-energy penalty kill, but the scoring tools and production hint at the possibility of him playing on a scoring line, albeit likely in a complimentary capacity.

the versatility, production and intangibles yield a wide range of outcomes wherein he becomes a useful NHL player. i could envision his career turning going in any of these directions:

1. undersized bottom six energy guy / PK ace who can play up in a pinch (i.e. tyler motte or matt calvert)
2. complimentary middle six scorer (i.e. conor sheary or alex kerfoot)
3. legitimate top six scorer (i.e. viktor arvidsson)

my argument for pinelli isn't that his scoring profile suggests at him becoming a superstar, it's that his well-rounded game, production and intangibles hint at him having a variety of paths to become a long-time NHLer.

Okay that is somewhat clarifying. I can almost see a Conor Sheary path for Pinelli, but it's narrow. There are so few players that size that make it. I don't lump in every smallish player quite like that because there are many dozens of 5'11 players in the league, a few dozen 5'10 players, and just a handful of 5'9's. As reductive as that sounds you have to play the odds down to the inch.

My upside case for Dolzhenkov is perhaps like Mason Marchment, a guy who fits best on a third scoring line, which doesn't sound like much, but I think he's about as valuable as Conor Sheary was in his prime. Playing in the top six is great and all but if you're just the complementary small guy you're not necessarily more valuable than an average third liner.

 

[CBJWerenski8]

Personally, as someone who is generally clueless, I'd love to hear why people have Whitelaw ahead of Ceulemans. Both played their D+1 for Wisconsin in the NCAA. Ceulemans had 22 points in 34 games, Whitelaw had 17 in 37. Acknowledging that stat-watching is silly, on the surface level, why is Whitelaw more promising than Ceulemans? Is it simply a by-product of Ceulemans not having a good season in the AHL and not showing enough development in the last few years, while Whitelaw has more time* to reach his potential, whatever that is?

That's not even mentioning Keskinen, who I think has impressed more than either of them.

*I.e. less data on Whitelaw -> more uncertainty about his ultimate quality.

For me I’m picking whitelaw based off projection. Iirc, he was coming on at the end of the year. Now he’s going to a better program with better teammates and better coaching.

If whitelaw doesn’t have a good year, he will free fall from my rankings

 

[Xoggz22]

For me I’m picking whitelaw based off projection. Iirc, he was coming on at the end of the year. Now he’s going to a better program with better teammates and better coaching.

If whitelaw doesn’t have a good year, he will free fall from my rankings

I think the opposite. I think he's a fringe player that would need to have a big year to get ON the radar. I guess the law of averages would suggest one of the smaller prospects will pan out but I don't know that any of them outside of Dumais has a high end skill/trait to fall back on. I don't believe any are elite skaters, none have elite skill, size is out but they do all seem to have the high compete level and pretty high IQ as I recall. I guess nothing jumps out to me that, for me, would push these guys up the prospect list. I guess just splitting hairs when outside the top 10. Although I have Keskinen, Richard, Makarov and Dolzenkhov all ranked higher than guys like Whitelaw, Pinelli and Gardner (a goalie, I know) with Ivanov right there with them. I think they all have a trait that makes them intriguing and think of the 4 I named, Richard has the best chance at a NHL career. They all have their warts too. We'll see. I'm just a little sour today

 

[cslebn]

Add fisher

 

[tunnelvision]

Add McCue

 

[ThirdPeriodTurtle]

My opinion is that posters are just tossing stuff on the wall and will be happy if some of it sticks.

This 100%. And in my case, I'm only reading HFCBJ. Occasionally some of the generic player threads on the main prospect side, but mostly just here. I can maybe watch a couple of minutes of a highlights video if it's posted in a thread. So my opinions on players are really amalgamations of y'all's opinions. (And now I'm running on fumes here.)

And I have goalies high because if they hit, it could be a big impact. It's a bit of a crapshoot with goalies anyway until they make it.

 

[Viqsi]

Add Richard

I'm not sure what it says about either A) our prospect pool or B) you alls judge of talent, but the fact there are three goalies in our top 12 and not one of them is viewed as an NHL player by the supposed experts makes me second guess our prospect pool.

I suspect it's more that every one of us has a goalie we like and a goalie we're kind of "meh" about and another we barely acknowledge, and all that combined to push all of them up the rankings higher than they would be otherwise.

That said, the fact that the meme pick is currently tied for next add does kind of remove some credibility from our process here.

 

[cbjthrowaway]

I suspect it's more that every one of us has a goalie we like and a goalie we're kind of "meh" about and another we barely acknowledge, and all that combined to push all of them up the rankings higher than they would be otherwise.

my theory is that goalie rankings in this exercise are being inflated because goaltending is the biggest issue on the NHL roster, and folks are wish-casting that a savior exists within the pipeline.

 

[tunnelvision]

I'm not sure what it says about either A) our prospect pool or B) you alls judge of talent, but the fact there are three goalies in our top 12 and not one of them is viewed as an NHL player by the supposed experts makes me second guess our prospect pool.

I suspect it's more that every one of us has a goalie we like and a goalie we're kind of "meh" about and another we barely acknowledge, and all that combined to push all of them up the rankings higher than they would be otherwise.

There's probably a lot of variability with how people evaluate goalies in relation to skaters, and that could be a major factor in it. For example, how much more/less valuable is a potential 3G compared to a 7D, or a backup to a 3C? Depends on the poster.

This year I have Ivanov ranked at #8 (1B ceiling - 2G likeliest outcome - AHL-level G floor), Greaves at #11 (1B ceiling - 3G likeliest outcome - 3G floor) and Gardner at #13 (1B ceiling - 3G likeliest outcome - AHL G floor).

 

[koteka]

I am meh about a lot of our prospects and meh about the goalies, but I have all the goalies in my top 11 because I’d say there is a decent shot all three could be a #2 or #3 goalie.

Cayden Lindstrom, David Jiricek, Denton Mateychuk, and Charlie Elick are all really good prospects. Gavin Brindley looks like a pretty good prospect and Jet Greaves is already a #3 goalie. Beyond that is a lot of meh. A whole bunch of short wings. Maybe some guys hoping to be 6/7 D. 2 possible back up goalies. 2 Lucas that I think have a shot at being regular NHL players, and 1 Luca that would shock me if he became a regular NHLer.

My long shot to make it in the NHL is Henricks. Ceulemans is a guy I used to be excited about but have given up on. Dumais is who I think is our most overrated prospect. I wouldn’t be sad if Ceulemans and Dumais prove me wrong.

 

[hockey17jp]

Add Pinelli. Guy is super underrated.

 

[CannonFire1]

Add Pinelli

 

[Viqsi]

Next up:

Prospect Info: - Samkow Memorial HFCBJ 2024 Summer Prospect Rankings: #14

Vote for the best prospect from the above poll (listed alphabetically) and post who you think should be added from the full (remaining) list below. Criteria is that they are under 25 and haven't spent the majority of a season in the NHL. There are no set guidelines to determine how you vote...

forums.hfboards.com