Prospect Info: San Jose Sharks #6 Prospect

[Sharksrule04]

So it'd be fair to say that that was said of O'Regan (because of his size concerns in a different paradigm), but people definitely thought that world-beaters like Abeltshauser, Bergman, Chartier, Rod, Letunov, Suomela, etc. were sure-fire bets to make the NHL in some capacity.

Even players like Ryan and Mueller were thought to have high-floors, and neither player has 200 NHL games under his belt (and it doesn't seem likely that they will).

No way people felt that way. IIRC people were fairly high on Rod based on his WJC performances but still weren't sure he'd ever come to North America. Chartier we were high on and if not for injuries I expect he'd have been an NHL player. In no way was the majority of our group here banking on Letunov being an NHL regular or Abeltshauser. Bergman I remember people mixed on as well. I really don't remember what people though about Danny O'Regan. As someone who has followed Hockey East very closely since '03 I was never terribly impressed with him. Figured he'd be the type to have a nice career in Europe. Lastly Suomela doesn't really fit in with that group and I do recall people expecting him to be a 4th liner.

 

[Patty Ice]

So it'd be fair to say that that was said of O'Regan (because of his size concerns in a different paradigm), but people definitely thought that world-beaters like Abeltshauser, Bergman, Chartier, Rod, Letunov, Suomela, etc. were sure-fire bets to make the NHL in some capacity.

Even players like Ryan and Mueller were thought to have high-floors, and neither player has 200 NHL games under his belt (and it doesn't seem likely that they will).

Not sure what you are trying to say here. I do see a collection of a few second round and mid round picks that never showed much after being drafted (at least at the levels the 3 higher pedigree prospects in question have shown). If you want to believe that they are more likely to fail than succeed to the NHL level based on percentages is all well and good but the eye test is always the better indicator IMO (a registered trademark of the good @Doctor Soraluce)

 

[Doctor Soraluce]

Not sure what you are trying to say here. I do see a collection of a few second round and mid round picks that never showed much after being drafted (at least at the levels the 3 higher pedigree prospects in question have shown). If you want to believe that they are more likely to fail than succeed to the NHL level based on percentages is all well and good but the eye test is always the better indicator IMO (a registered trademark of the good @Doctor Soraluce)

I can't see what you're replying too so Im not sure if you're taking a shot at me or not here... As far as the comment though, definitely not registered. It's just more common with people who have extensive experience as opposed to the spread sheet warriors. I've long said both have their place in helping determine value.

 

[Patty Ice]

I can't see what you're replying too so Im not sure if you're taking a shot at me or not here... As far as the comment though, definitely not registered. It's just more common with people who have extensive experience as opposed to the spread sheet warriors. I've long said both have their place in helping determine value.

Wasn't a shot at you. I was giving you trademark credit and hope to have a longstanding running joke on the board

 

[Doctor Soraluce]

Wasn't a shot at you. I was giving you trademark credit and hope to have a longstanding running joke on the board

I feel like that's not going to be a good thing. Funny thing... I don't think I really ever use that phrase. The people here that do are typically the ones with little to no real world experience.