Prospect Info: Sharks Prospect Info & Discussion Megathread XXI: "New, improved, and wayyyy too much info" Edition

  • PLEASE check any bookmark on all devices. IF you see a link pointing to mandatory.com DELETE it Please use this URL https://forums.hfboards.com/

sampler

Registered User
Aug 3, 2018
503
459
My head-canon with Marleau, supported by what little we know, is this:

Sutter constantly told Marleau that if he wanted to be an impact player in this league, he had to change his style of play, as his explosive style that did well in juniors wouldn't succeed in the NHL, and ultimately, he didn't have the offensive talent to be a true difference maker. Marleau and he clashed over that, as Sutter constantly hamstrung Marleau's minutes and forced him to play more defensively, to Marleau's consternation.

Then you have free-wheeling Ron Wilson, plus the lockout with new rules, and Marleau is allowed to open up offensively. Yes, playing with more talented offensive players (like Thornton) helped, but the rule and system changes are a big factor as well, and he puts up a lot of points. Then comes 2008; after two years of failing in the playoffs, Ron Wilson tries to get the team to play a more systematic, cautious, defensive game, which Marleau hates and clashes with the coach over. It's Sutter-Marleau all over again, but he's even worse.

Wilson is fired, and in comes T-Mac. At this point, and this is where it is pure speculation:

1) Marleau, having played with Thornton, realizes that Sutter was absolutely right...his path to stardom is a different one
2) Seeing Thornton do well even in a defensive system spurs Marleau to be the same
3) T-Mac is now the third coach telling him he needs to be more well-rounded, finally shifting Marleau's attitude

So from then on, Marleau embraces the role of true 3-zone, Selke-worthy, all-around threat...and with that, the points still come.

To bring it all back to your original question, that's the Marleau you get: a player with a long career and prime, with a few peak years as a borderline elite winger surrounded by many years as a top-6 forward, ending his career with a few stunted years as a bottom-6 forward.
I dont think marleau's career took off because of a coaching change or rules change. I remember clearly well how his game revolutionized quite literally the day jumbo arrived. the team was 8-16 and on a 10 game losing streak. Jumbo comes in and patty has FOUR consecutive three point games off the bat including several PP points shared with jumbo as part of a 7 game point streak. 16 points in jumbo's first 7 games! Obvisouly he didnt keep that kind of pace, but I think Jumbo's arrival revolutionized the PP, which revolutionized marleau's career. he had 44 PP points the year jumbo arrives, double his previous high.

Look at his annual PP stat lines pre/post jumbo:
Pre Jumbo: 7 pts, 10, 12, 8, 22, 21....
post Jumbo: 44, 37, 26 (this was even his horrible 48 pt season), 18, 26, 25, 23, 24, 25...

In other words, his leap from a 40-60 pt player to 70-80ish is largely attributable to Jumbo, and much of that is the jumbo led PP. Thats probably why he was actually a minus for his career as a shark. he only had 2 seasons of +11 or better and they were back to back. TWO! on a team that made the PO's like 18 times. Patty was no perrenial selke guy. he had TWO good defensive years.

To be honest, Im a bit biased as I have never liked patty or thought much of him for the majority of his career. I always judged him as a respectable sencond liner. I always felt he was mercurial, streaky, inconsistent defensively, inconsistant effort, a poor captain, and was the benficiary of playing so long with Jumbo. I mean, how many guys had great numbers playing with jumbo, only to fizz out when going to a different team or not being on his line.

Thus, if patty was a solid 80 pt, defensively solid player ON HIS OWN (i.e. not playing with arguably the greatest passer and puck possesser in the history of the game), then id take that anyday as a sure thing over Celly or Smith. But, Marleau himself, like HIM not a guy like him, Id rather smith and celly I think.

the other thing is that once a guy is 27+ (25 for celly, 16 for smith), hes a functional UFA and keeping him is really the job of the GM not the player, and the salary of the player is a market salary unless the GM does a supr job. Much of patty's longevity and success is a credit to DW, both for acquiring jumbo, but even more so to create a culture where Jumbo, patty, pavs, Cooch, Burns, Vlasic, and all the other stars very much wanted to stay for the vast majority of their career. Even karlsson and hertl wanted to be here forever. DW created a culture to keep the crew together, and while it backfired a bit at the very tale end, Patty's success was largely based on the great team around him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Trow

Juxtaposer

Outro: Divina Comedia
Dec 21, 2009
49,335
21,700
Bay Area
EP put out their top-100 NHL-affiliated prospects and here's where the Sharks land:

1. Macklin Celebrini
10. Will Smith
15. Quentin Musty
21. Sam Dickinson
45. Igor Chernyshov
96. Shakir Mukhamadullin
HM. Cagnoni, Edstrom
No mention of Bystedt, Halttunen

My take is that Smith is a little low (I would take him over Levshunov, Parekh, and Iginla who they have over him; Leonard, Gauthier, and Lindstrom are close enough that I wouldn't fight it), Musty is a little high, and Mukhamadullin is way too low. They grade Mukh as having below average skating and hockey IQ, which I just don't agree with, but they do think he can be a #4D. They've always been low on Smith, so that ranking doesn't surprise me. I was interested to see that they have Gabe Perreault all the way down at 30.

Still, five guys in the top-45 seems pretty good.
 

Hodge

Registered User
Apr 27, 2021
6,227
7,484
EP put out their top-100 NHL-affiliated prospects and here's where the Sharks land:

1. Macklin Celebrini
10. Will Smith
15. Quentin Musty
21. Sam Dickinson
45. Igor Chernyshov
96. Shakir Mukhamadullin
HM. Cagnoni, Edstrom
No mention of Bystedt, Halttunen

My take is that Smith is a little low (I would take him over Levshunov, Parekh, and Iginla who they have over him; Leonard, Gauthier, and Lindstrom are close enough that I wouldn't fight it), Musty is a little high, and Mukhamadullin is way too low. They grade Mukh as having below average skating and hockey IQ, which I just don't agree with, but they do think he can be a #4D. They've always been low on Smith, so that ranking doesn't surprise me. I was interested to see that they have Gabe Perreault all the way down at 30.

Still, five guys in the top-45 seems pretty good.
Musty over Dickinson undermines any credibility that list might have had.
 

coooldude

Registered User
Sponsor
Jul 25, 2007
4,051
4,362
Musty over Dickinson undermines any credibility that list might have had.
I mean, one ranking doesn't undermine EP's credibility. They have their biases, notably against Smith and Dickinson (and others), but they're still one of the best groups out there.

A lot of the lists I've seen post-draft have Musty as high or higher than Dickinson. There are serious questions about Dickinson's upside and Musty crushed his draft position in D+1. This coming from a Dickinson fan, btw.
 

Juxtaposer

Outro: Divina Comedia
Dec 21, 2009
49,335
21,700
Bay Area
Musty over Dickinson undermines any credibility that list might have had.
EP has always been super high on Musty and I can see their perspective. He has legit star upside, even if it isn't all that likely. But they must think the likelihood of him hitting legit first line level is higher than I do and I hope they're right.

A single ranking that you don't agree with doesn't invalidate the whole thing, especially since you don't watch prospects.
 

OrrNumber4

Registered User
Jul 25, 2002
16,424
5,783
Musty over Dickinson undermines any credibility that list might have had.
It's not unreasonable to think that a guy drafted in the late first and had a fantastic season is better than a player just drafted in the mid-first
 

Hodge

Registered User
Apr 27, 2021
6,227
7,484
EP has always been super high on Musty and I can see their perspective. He has legit star upside, even if it isn't all that likely. But they must think the likelihood of him hitting legit first line level is higher than I do and I hope they're right.

A single ranking that you don't agree with doesn't invalidate the whole thing, especially since you don't watch prospects.
I watch prospects. I'm just not arrogant enough to think I know better than actual NHL teams that clearly value Dickinson significantly higher than Musty given their respective draft positions.

It's not unreasonable to think that a guy drafted in the late first and had a fantastic season is better than a player just drafted in the mid-first
It's unreasonable because offensive wingers aren't worth much to begin with unless they're literally Kucherov/Pastrnak level while big defensemen who can skate well enough to handle 20+ minutes a night in the NHL are among the most valuable assets in the league.
 

coooldude

Registered User
Sponsor
Jul 25, 2007
4,051
4,362
I watch prospects. I'm just not arrogant enough to think I know better than actual NHL teams that clearly value Dickinson significantly higher than Musty given their respective draft positions.
You're smarter than this. There's an entire D+1 year that shows Musty outpaced his draft position significantly. Maybe EP is a little too high on him, but to say "because he was drafted later in his draft he's a worse prospect" is reasoning that is below your abilities.

Dickinson skates very well and he's big, but there are questions about decision making and hockey sense. That tamps the hype a bit. Still a great prospect to have in the pipeline and the fact that they put him at 21 is a lot of respect. I personally wouldn't have Parekh as high, but it's just one list and it's useful info.
 

Juxtaposer

Outro: Divina Comedia
Dec 21, 2009
49,335
21,700
Bay Area
I watch prospects. I'm just not arrogant enough to think I know better than actual NHL teams that clearly value Dickinson significantly higher than Musty given their respective draft positions.


It's unreasonable because offensive wingers aren't worth much to begin with unless they're literally Kucherov/Pastrnak level while big defensemen who can skate well enough to handle 20+ minutes a night in the NHL are among the most valuable assets in the league.
Musty fell to a draft position far lower than his talent level because of questions about his work ethic, attitude, and consistency. He has legit Mikko Rantanen upside, even if I personally don't think he's likely to hit that upside.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sandisfan

Hodge

Registered User
Apr 27, 2021
6,227
7,484
Musty fell to a draft position far lower than his talent level because of questions about his work ethic, attitude, and consistency. He has legit Mikko Rantanen upside, even if I personally don't think he's likely to hit that upside.
Why stop there? He has Gordie Howe upside, even if I don't think he's likely to hit it.

By all accounts, including Todd Marchant's, those questions about Musty's work ethic, attitude and consistency remain. As do questions about whether his play away from the puck will ever be good enough for a NHL head coach to trust him in a top six role.

Honestly forget about Dickinson for a second. It is insane to call Quentin Musty the 15th best prospect in the NHL. If he wasn't one of ours I think everyone would agree.

You're smarter than this. There's an entire D+1 year that shows Musty outpaced his draft position significantly. Maybe EP is a little too high on him, but to say "because he was drafted later in his draft he's a worse prospect" is reasoning that is below your abilities.

Dickinson skates very well and he's big, but there are questions about decision making and hockey sense. That tamps the hype a bit. Still a great prospect to have in the pipeline and the fact that they put him at 21 is a lot of respect. I personally wouldn't have Parekh as high, but it's just one list and it's useful info.
Nothing a prospect does in his D+1 year in junior hockey matters, except negatively.
 

Hodge

Registered User
Apr 27, 2021
6,227
7,484
If the ranking is in any way a reflection of how the league actually views Musty we should capitalize on his trade value immediately.

Musty for Askarov one for one?
 

Hodge

Registered User
Apr 27, 2021
6,227
7,484
Right. By that logic, the Sharks should trade Eklund for a 5th-round pick.
No. By that logic, the Sharks should trade Eklund for a similar aged top 4 defenseman. Owen Power or Kaiden Guhle for example. I would be all for that.
 

Pinkfloyd

Registered User
Oct 29, 2006
71,126
14,741
Folsom
If the ranking is in any way a reflection of how the league actually views Musty we should capitalize on his trade value immediately.

Musty for Askarov one for one?
I would have no problems trading Musty for Askarov but I'm sure Nashville wouldn't.
No. By that logic, the Sharks should trade Eklund for a similar aged top 4 defenseman. Owen Power or Kaiden Guhle for example. I would be all for that.
I need a winger prospect to actually step in and prove themselves to be an NHL'er before I'm ready to make a proven NHL'er by comparison available but if that does happen, I'm for pursuing an Eklund trade if it gets that sort of player in return.
 

timorous me

Gristled Veteran
Apr 14, 2010
2,123
3,474
Musty fell to a draft position far lower than his talent level because of questions about his work ethic, attitude, and consistency. He has legit Mikko Rantanen upside, even if I personally don't think he's likely to hit that upside.
Not to mention having mono that year! I swear, those other things you mentioned probably got established to some extent simply because, you know, he was totally sapped after coming back from mono. (Not to say they're not concerns, but I think they're overblown, pretty significantly.)

The good thing is that we have an example of the mono effect that we've seen in our own organization with Timo. That turned out pretty well, didn't it. And for a winger, no less! 😂
 

landshark

They'll paint the donkey teal if you pay.
Sponsor
Mar 15, 2003
3,745
3,155
outer richmond dist
Not to mention having mono that year! I swear, those other things you mentioned probably got established to some extent simply because, you know, he was totally sapped after coming back from mono. (Not to say they're not concerns, but I think they're overblown, pretty significantly.)

The good thing is that we have an example of the mono effect that we've seen in our own organization with Timo. That turned out pretty well, didn't it. And for a winger, no less! 😂
Cooter also. Capt Cooter that is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: timorous me

sampler

Registered User
Aug 3, 2018
503
459
Its obviously possible for a player to take a huge leap in rankings in the D+1 year. The idea that a players forever value is somehow locked in on draft day is laughable. Musty had a fantastic D+1 year. He was a top liner on the WJSS, paired with the current consensus #1 overall for next year after destroying the O. He also looked terrific in development camp last year and this year.

If draft position locked in a player then I guess the Nail yakupov (2012 #1 is way better than lowly Tomas Hertl taken hours later at #17).

Grier and his scouting team did a great job getting musty, and his high ranking is arguably too high, but not at all because he was a 26th, rather than 1st or 201st pick. That number is now, basically, equally relevant to the pavelski's #203 or dan boyle's complete skipping over. Its all about how good you actually are, and at age 18, 19, or 20, the answer to that can change pretty dramatically in a few months let alone a year or two.

I would say Im suprised by chernyshov at 45. I was not that impressed in the dev camp with him and while ranked around #20th overall, he fell to 33 (and unlike musty who is a year later, Cherny hasnt done anything that would have changed that pick spot other than maybe come to NA). Seems like a high number, esecially since bystedt and haltunnen seem to be well on their way to getting NHL looks.
 

sampler

Registered User
Aug 3, 2018
503
459
As for the whole winger vs. D debate, I will admit I believe you build a team from the Net out. Goalie, then D, then Centers, then wingers.

The major reason for that thought is that there is only ONE goalie, and a good one plays 3/4 of the time. Thats a hugely important position, cemented by a single person.

Then, a great defenseman can play 25+ mins per night consistently. They can even play upwards of 30 mins in a pinch. That means you need only 4 good D to make a team. The other pair can play very limited, unimportant and sheltered minutes.

Then Centers, because of their two way responsibilities come next. Since top C's can play about 20 mins/night, you only need 3.

This means that you really only need 8 top players to make a damn good team.

Backup G, bottom 2 D, 4th line C, and wingers are just far less important. Perhaps this is why the suggestion is to be very open to dealing any top 6 wing for a top 4D.

(As a side note: I do not buy into the idea of a top pairing D or top line C. While matching up is very much a thing, games have 60 minutes, and there are no rules on how many minutes an individual player can play. Thus I would invest the most in the players that I would want to play the most. Thus G>D>F). The sharks stink because they got it backwards. They've drafted and paid for O instead of D a ton the last several years. Ryan Merkley is the only 1st round D theyve drafted in the last decade (before Dickinson), and Merkley, Mueller, and petrecki are the only 1st round D since 2007. They have never drafted a G in the 1st round.

Constrast that to Ekblad, matheson, Gudbranson, Kulikov, and Ellerby drafted by florida between 2007-2014) including a #1, #3, and #10 overall.

DW managed to overcome not drafting 1st rounder D by having incredible 2-7 round hits like Vlasic, Braun, Ehrhoff, Demers, Carle, Demelo, Ferraro, etc). But, the top dogs always came by trade (Boyle, Burns, karlsson...) or UFA (Blake, martin, Dillon...). The sharks always had a very good top 4. I think focusing there makes alot of sense going forward)
 

OrrNumber4

Registered User
Jul 25, 2002
16,424
5,783
(As a side note: I do not buy into the idea of a top pairing D or top line C. While matching up is very much a thing, games have 60 minutes, and there are no rules on how many minutes an individual player can play.
Scoring-by-committee, as a strategy, has never worked. It's like bringing knives to a gun fight.
Thus I would invest the most in the players that I would want to play the most. Thus G>D>F). The sharks stink because they got it backwards. They've drafted and paid for O instead of D a ton the last several years. Ryan Merkley is the only 1st round D theyve drafted in the last decade (before Dickinson), and Merkley, Mueller, and petrecki are the only 1st round D since 2007.
How much of that is a function of not having many first-round picks?

I think a lot of the focus on drafting forwards was DW misanalyzing the team, thinking he had the defense locked down while searching for cheap bottom-6 depth and/or the next Thornton/Marleau.

They have never drafted a G in the 1st round.
I still think the team never adjusted to Strelow's death or Thomas's retirement

Constrast that to Ekblad, matheson, Gudbranson, Kulikov, and Ellerby drafted by florida between 2007-2014) including a #1, #3, and #10 overall.
Consider it this way; from 2005-2021, the Panthers have drafted 12 forwards and 5 defensemen in the first round; the Sharks have drafted 9 forwards and 4 defensemen. Not a big difference
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad