Prospect Info: Sharks Prospect Info & Discussion Thread XX

[OrrNumber4]

If we're scaling for the era, then we have to acknowledge that while subjectively we might have *felt* that the prospect pool was as good as today, objectively it wasn't.

The same thing will be true for today's team, which is part of my point.

Colagiacomo was a 4th round pick. Sure at one point, he was considered to be a potential first rounder but he fell hard (and it turned out rightfully so). I wouldn't say he's comparable at all aside from an injury that may have hurt his draft stock but Chernyshov was still was seen as a first round guy leading up to the draft. Cola not so much.

When the Sharks drafted Colgiacomo the hype was tremendous. He was labeled their 2nd best prospect in the TC guide that season. Fans thought they had snagged a top talent in round 4.

Plus you forgot Korky who might be your best case to go with. He was seen as a super creative player but there was concerns he wouldn't come over and was too small.

I did include Korolyuk, but I am also biased because the hype was probably unjustified. Dean Lombardi saying he could be a superstar if he stayed healthy, the hype from certain journalists...felt like they were oversold on his dangles and skill while ignoring his defensive deficiency.

Friesen wasn’t a prospect in 1997. He’d played 3 seasons in the NHL already. If you’re including him then we should include Eklund, which puts 2024 further out in front.

You are correct; my brain slippage there.

 

[coooldude]

The same thing will be true for today's team, which is part of my point.

No, your point was that in the past there was no internet and a lot less information flow to adequately assess prospects. "You have to also scale for the era. In today's internet era, it is much easier to research/speculate/hypothesize about prospects."

My contention was that this means we were over-hyping our prospects, e.g. "a fourth round talent is actually a top talent" in Colagiacomo, or "Zyuzin is a future Norris winner." But in today's more information-fluid environment, we can accurately assess, with lots of input from non-biased sources, that our prospect pool is actually in the top 3 for the entire league.

 

[OrrNumber4]

No, your point was that in the past there was no internet and a lot less information flow to adequately assess prospects. "You have to also scale for the era. In today's internet era, it is much easier to research/speculate/hypothesize about prospects."

My contention was that this means we were over-hyping our prospects, e.g. "a fourth round talent is actually a top talent" in Colagiacomo, or "Zyuzin is a future Norris winner." But in today's more information-fluid environment, we can accurately assess, with lots of input from non-biased sources, that our prospect pool is actually in the top 3 for the entire league.

This is true, but it's also easier to tendentiously propp up a prospect with all the available data. IE, in 1997 fans would point to printed draft material pointing to Colgiacomo being an absolute steal, while today they'll point to a hockey card model suggesting that Cagnoni was a steal. Moreover, it is easier today to understand which prospects the fanbase/etc. are excited about...just head to HFboards! This was harder to do in 1997.

5-10 years from now it will be interesting to do an "actual results" comparison, where we compare how the current group compares to the results from the 2003 or 1997 group.

 

[gaucholoco3]

This is true, but it's also easier to tendentiously propp up a prospect with all the available data. IE, in 1997 fans would point to printed draft material pointing to Colgiacomo being an absolute steal, while today they'll point to a hockey card model suggesting that Cagnoni was a steal. Moreover, it is easier today to understand which prospects the fanbase/etc. are excited about...just head to HFboards! This was harder to do in 1997.

5-10 years from now it will be interesting to do an "actual results" comparison, where we compare how the current group compares to the results from the 2003 or 1997 group.

It won’t matter after Captain Macklin lifts the cup after a 98-0 season.

 

[Sharksrule04]

Not a single one of those lists compares to our current prospect group. First, I don’t understand why we are removing Celebrini while keeping names like Marleau and Michalek who were both high picks as well. Second, tons of revisionist history with how some of the names are being portrayed as “highly rated”. Those late 90’s and early 00’s lists aren’t even close in high end talent or depth relative to how they were rated at the time.

 

[Sharksrule04]

No, your point was that in the past there was no internet and a lot less information flow to adequately assess prospects. "You have to also scale for the era. In today's internet era, it is much easier to research/speculate/hypothesize about prospects."

My contention was that this means we were over-hyping our prospects, e.g. "a fourth round talent is actually a top talent" in Colagiacomo, or "Zyuzin is a future Norris winner." But in today's more information-fluid environment, we can accurately assess, with lots of input from non-biased sources, that our prospect pool is actually in the top 3 for the entire league.

Just because Sharks fans were overhyping a guy like Adam Colagiacomo doesn’t mean the prospect pool was good. The whole league is hyping our current players. The fact Colagiacomo was once considered a top 2-3 prospect in our pool says how crap it actually was. D+1 Colagiacomo would probably be anywhere from 8-12 in our current pool.

Our current prospect pool features two franchise centers, a top pairing d-man and about 7-8 other guys who have top 6 fwd / top 4 d-man potential. Nothing In Sharks history has compared to that.

 

[OrrNumber4]

Just because Sharks fans were overhyping a guy like Adam Colagiacomo doesn’t mean the prospect pool was good. The whole league is hyping our current players. The fact Colagiacomo was once considered a top 2-3 prospect in our pool says how crap it actually was. D+1 Colagiacomo would probably be anywhere from 8-12 in our current pool.

I find that people over hype like they always did. They just have more tools to do so!

Our current prospect pool features two franchise centers, a top pairing d-man and about 7-8 other guys who have top 6 fwd / top 4 d-man potential. Nothing In Sharks history has compared to that.

Case in point.

It's very easy to go back and say that fans were obviously wrong about Michalek or Colgiacomo or Friesen; the hard part is realizing that you're repeating that same mistake now...

 

[CaptainShark]

Just because Sharks fans were overhyping a guy like Adam Colagiacomo doesn’t mean the prospect pool was good. The whole league is hyping our current players. The fact Colagiacomo was once considered a top 2-3 prospect in our pool says how crap it actually was. D+1 Colagiacomo would probably be anywhere from 8-12 in our current pool.

Our current prospect pool features two franchise centers, a top pairing d-man and about 7-8 other guys who have top 6 fwd / top 4 d-man potential. Nothing In Sharks history has compared to that.

While I love Will Smith, I wouldn’t call him a franchise center. His projection is more a number 1 center on a weaker or a really great Nr.2 center on a contender

 

[OrrNumber4]

This forum is always quixotic about prospects. Usually, that's meant taking a pathetic group and pumping it up into a half-decent one...but now when the prospect pool is indeed excellent, it gets amplified into being legendary. All this leads to unreasonable expectations about players, on the staff, and about the timeline.

What I'm going to propose is a modification of the 3P method (Possible, Plausible, Probable) as outlined by Hakan Andersson to classify players; I hope others will follow. To understand this, think of a curve with 0% being the worst possible outcome, and 100% being the best possible outcome. From an undeniable non-expert opinion, looking at scouting reports, numbers, and draft positions for skaters under 25:

	90%	75%	50%	25%	10%
Celebrini	Generational	Franchise	Franchise	1A	2nd line
Smith	Franchise	Elite	1B	2nd line	3rd line
Eklund	Elite	1B	2nd line	2nd line	3rd line
Zetterlund	1B	2nd line	2nd line	2nd line	3rd line
Musty	Elite	1B	3rd line	4th line	NA
Chernyshov	Elite	1B	3rd line	Journeyman	NA
Bystedt	1A	2nd line	3rd line	4th line	NA
Edstrom	1A	2nd line	3rd line	4th line	NA
Halttunen	Elite	2nd line	Journeyman	NA	NA
Graf	1A	2nd line	3rd line	Journeyman	NA
Gushchin	Elite	2nd line	Journeyman	NA	NA
Cardwell	2nd line	3rd line	4th line	Journeyman	NA
Bordeleau	2nd line	3rd line	4th line	Journeyman	Journeyman
Dellandra	2nd line	3rd line	4th line	4th line	4th line
Wetsch	3rd line	3rd line	4th line	NA	NA
Lund	2nd line	4th line	Journeyman	NA	NA
Dickinson	#1	#2	#3	#4-5	Journeyman
Mukhamadullin	#1	#3	#4-5	#6-7	Journeyman
Emberson	#2	#3	#4-5	#4-5	#6-7
Thrun	#2	#3	#4-5	#6-7	#6-7
Thompson	#2	#3	#4-5	#6-7	Journeyman
Sahlin-Wallenius	#2	#4-5	Journeyman	NA	NA
Pohlkamp	#2	#3	#4-5	#6-7	NA
Cagnoni	Elite	#3	Journeyman	NA	NA
Havelid	#3	#6-7	Journeyman	NA	NA

Goaltenders are too difficult to nail down; I couldn't think of anyone else in the system who has at least a 50% chance of being a "Journeyman". Still, just looking at it I think I'm being optimistic

Here is the key:

Key	F Example	D Example
Legendary	McDavid	Orr
Generational	Crosby	Makar
Franchise	Kopitar	Karlsson
Elite	Pavelski	Vlasic
1A/#1	Marleau	Boyle
1B/#2	Couture	Ehrhoff
2nd line/#3	Sturm	Braun
3rd line/#4-5	Coyle	Ferraro
4th line /#6-7	Wingels	Ryan
Journeyman	Gambrell	Joslin
NA	<100/50 games

Edit: Added Emberson

 

[Stewie Griffin]

Not to be rude but I think you need to bump every player down 1 tier and that's probably more realistic.

 

[gaucholoco3]

Not to be rude but I think you need to bump every player down 1 tier and that's probably more realistic.

I think this is the exact problem that @OrrNumber4 is trying to get prospects have wide range of outcomes. We think the ones we like hit the 90% but that is higher than you expected and we think the ones we don’t like hit the 25% outcomes. Most will fall between 25% and 75%

 

[ISharkted]

Is there a list (or a link to one) where all the Sharks prospects are currently assigned - like the two guys going to Denver U. this upcoming season?

 

[Stewie Griffin]

Is there a list (or a link to one) where all the Sharks prospects are currently assigned - like the two guys going to Denver U. this upcoming season?

San Jose Sharks - In the System - Elite Prospects

Statistical overview of all San Jose Sharks prospects.

www.eliteprospects.com

 

[ISharkted]

San Jose Sharks - In the System - Elite Prospects

Statistical overview of all San Jose Sharks prospects.

www.eliteprospects.com

Thank you, much appreciated.

 

[ISharkted]

This forum is always quixotic about prospects. Usually, that's meant taking a pathetic group and pumping it up into a half-decent one...but now when the prospect pool is indeed excellent, it gets amplified into being legendary. All this leads to unreasonable expectations about players, on the staff, and about the timeline.

What I'm going to propose is a modification of the 3P method (Possible, Plausible, Probable) as outlined by Hakan Andersson to classify players; I hope others will follow. From an undeniable non-expert opinion, looking at scouting reports, numbers, and draft positions for skaters under 25:

	90%	75%	50%	25%	10%
Celebrini	Generational	Franchise	Franchise	1A	2nd line
Smith	Franchise	Elite	1B	2nd line	3rd line
Eklund	Elite	1B	2nd line	2nd line	3rd line
Zetterlund	1B	2nd line	2nd line	2nd line	3rd line
Musty	Elite	1B	3rd line	4th line	NA
Chernyshov	Elite	1B	3rd line	Journeyman	NA
Bystedt	1A	2nd line	3rd line	4th line	NA
Edstrom	1A	2nd line	3rd line	4th line	NA
Halttunen	Elite	2nd line	Journeyman	NA	NA
Graf	1A	2nd line	3rd line	Journeyman	NA
Gushchin	Elite	2nd line	Journeyman	NA	NA
Cardwell	2nd line	3rd line	4th line	Journeyman	NA
Bordeleau	2nd line	3rd line	4th line	Journeyman	Journeyman
Dellandra	2nd line	3rd line	4th line	4th line	4th line
Wetsch	3rd line	3rd line	4th line	NA	NA
Lund	2nd line	4th line	Journeyman	NA	NA
Dickinson	#1	#2	#3	#4-5	Journeyman
Mukhamadullin	#1	#3	#4-5	#6-7	Journeyman
Henry Thrun	#2	#3	#4-5	#6-7	#6-7
Jack Thompson	#2	#3	#4-5	#6-7	Journeyman
Sahlin-Wallenius	#2	#4-5	Journeyman	NA	NA
Pohlkamp	#2	#3	#4-5	#6-7	NA
Cagnoni	Elite	#3	Journeyman	NA	NA
Havelid	#3	#6-7	Journeyman	NA	NA

Goaltenders are too difficult to nail down; I couldn't think of anyone else in the system who has at least a 50% chance of being a "Journeyman". Still, just looking at it I think I'm being polyannish.

Here is the key:

Key	F Example	D Example
Legendary	McDavid	Orr
Generational	Crosby	Makar
Franchise	Kopitar	Karlsson
Elite	Pavelski	Vlasic
1A/#1	Marleau	Boyle
1B/#2	Couture	Ehrhoff
2nd line/#3	Sturm	Braun
3rd line/#4-5	Coyle	Ferraro
4th line /#6-7	Wingels	Ryan
Journeyman	Gambrell	Joslin
NA	<100/50 games

I mean holy cow, look how far we’ve come in basically two years. That is a really strong pool of players < 25yo.

 

[Alaskanice]

I mean holy cow, look how far we’ve come in basically two years. That is a really strong pool of players < 25yo.

And this is all Mike Grier. He hired the staff to accomplish this. They created the culture here. Tore it down, to his credit and broke ground to build a shiny new team. This is exciting.

 

[OrrNumber4]

I think this is the exact problem that @OrrNumber4 is trying to get prospects have wide range of outcomes. We think the ones we like hit the 90% but that is higher than you expected and we think the ones we don’t like hit the 25% outcomes. Most will fall between 25% and 75%

Exactly. To me, it's a good sanity check.

 

[Shark Finn]

Exactly. To me, it's a good sanity check.

Ummm.. How does one read the table, regarding the percentages?

 

[OrrNumber4]

Ummm.. How does one read the table, regarding the percentages?

Think of it like a curve, and the values are the player's outcome at the exact interval. So for example, there is a 90% chance that Smith is at least a 3rd-liner and a 10% chances he's at "least" a Generational talent. His most probable outcome is a low-end(1B) first-liner.

 

[jMoneyBrah]

Think of it like a curve, and the values are the player's outcome at the exact interval. So for example, there is a 90% chance that Smith is at least a 3rd-liner and a 10% chances he's at "least" a Generational talent. His most probable outcome is a low-end(1B) first-liner.

So when I’m reading the table I should just invert the table column labels to understand the likelihood of a player hitting that value? 90% column means 10% likelihood and 10% column means 90% likelihood?

 

[Sharksrule04]

I find that people over hype like they always did. They just have more tools to do so!


Case in point.

It's very easy to go back and say that fans were obviously wrong about Michalek or Colgiacomo or Friesen; the hard part is realizing that you're repeating that same mistake now...

No one is saying that. Michalek was a good player and did become a top 6 forward. Was also a top 6 forward. Both IMO lived up to some of their hype. Colagiacomo I will not agree on. Sharks fans rightfully thought we might have gotten a decent player considering he was a mid-round pick but his big jump happened as a 20 year old in his D+2 season. He is not in the same conversation as guys like Chernyshov or Musty. Colagiacomo at his peak hype would not have been even in the top 10 in our current prospect pool. That really is the power behind the current prospects, there is elite franchise changing talent and then guys who have good upside and could arguably fall outside the top 10 within the franchise.

 

[Sharksrule04]

This forum is always quixotic about prospects. Usually, that's meant taking a pathetic group and pumping it up into a half-decent one...but now when the prospect pool is indeed excellent, it gets amplified into being legendary. All this leads to unreasonable expectations about players, on the staff, and about the timeline.

What I'm going to propose is a modification of the 3P method (Possible, Plausible, Probable) as outlined by Hakan Andersson to classify players; I hope others will follow. From an undeniable non-expert opinion, looking at scouting reports, numbers, and draft positions for skaters under 25:

	90%	75%	50%	25%	10%
Celebrini	Generational	Franchise	Franchise	1A	2nd line
Smith	Franchise	Elite	1B	2nd line	3rd line
Eklund	Elite	1B	2nd line	2nd line	3rd line
Zetterlund	1B	2nd line	2nd line	2nd line	3rd line
Musty	Elite	1B	3rd line	4th line	NA
Chernyshov	Elite	1B	3rd line	Journeyman	NA
Bystedt	1A	2nd line	3rd line	4th line	NA
Edstrom	1A	2nd line	3rd line	4th line	NA
Halttunen	Elite	2nd line	Journeyman	NA	NA
Graf	1A	2nd line	3rd line	Journeyman	NA
Gushchin	Elite	2nd line	Journeyman	NA	NA
Cardwell	2nd line	3rd line	4th line	Journeyman	NA
Bordeleau	2nd line	3rd line	4th line	Journeyman	Journeyman
Dellandra	2nd line	3rd line	4th line	4th line	4th line
Wetsch	3rd line	3rd line	4th line	NA	NA
Lund	2nd line	4th line	Journeyman	NA	NA
Dickinson	#1	#2	#3	#4-5	Journeyman
Mukhamadullin	#1	#3	#4-5	#6-7	Journeyman
Emberson	#2	#3	#4-5	#4-5	#6-7
Thrun	#2	#3	#4-5	#6-7	#6-7
Thompson	#2	#3	#4-5	#6-7	Journeyman
Sahlin-Wallenius	#2	#4-5	Journeyman	NA	NA
Pohlkamp	#2	#3	#4-5	#6-7	NA
Cagnoni	Elite	#3	Journeyman	NA	NA
Havelid	#3	#6-7	Journeyman	NA	NA

Goaltenders are too difficult to nail down; I couldn't think of anyone else in the system who has at least a 50% chance of being a "Journeyman". Still, just looking at it I think I'm being optimistic

Here is the key:

Key	F Example	D Example
Legendary	McDavid	Orr
Generational	Crosby	Makar
Franchise	Kopitar	Karlsson
Elite	Pavelski	Vlasic
1A/#1	Marleau	Boyle
1B/#2	Couture	Ehrhoff
2nd line/#3	Sturm	Braun
3rd line/#4-5	Coyle	Ferraro
4th line /#6-7	Wingels	Ryan
Journeyman	Gambrell	Joslin
NA	<100/50 games

Edit: Added Emberson

Best method IMO was always the old HF method which had a number rating along with a letter to assign probability of hitting that level. Obviously some players blew those ratings away (everyone remembers Pavs being like a 5F or something like that), but I think its the best way of projecting players based on ceilings and floors. The old timers here will recall the Sharks rarely had players 8 and above. This current Sharks group would probably have 2 9's and a handful of 8's and then another handful of 7's.

 

[OrrNumber4]

No one is saying that. Michalek was a good player and did become a top 6 forward. Was also a top 6 forward.

At Michalek's first camp people were drooling over his skills and talent. "He can stickhandle in a phone-booth!" People were thinking this was a future elite 80-point (in the DPE) winger.

Both IMO lived up to some of their hype. Colagiacomo I will not agree on. Sharks fans rightfully thought we might have gotten a decent player considering he was a mid-round pick but his big jump happened as a 20 year old in his D+2 season. He is not in the same conversation as guys like Chernyshov or Musty. Colagiacomo at his peak hype would not have been even in the top 10 in our current prospect pool.

I think you are not properly remembering the hype surrounding Colagiacomo. The draft guide labeled him the steal of the draft. The pre-season guide had him #2 on the Sharks's prospect rankings, ahead of guys like Sturm and Kiprusoff.

It's comparable to how Cagnoni was seen when the Sharks nabbed him in the 4th, except that Cagnoni had size concerns and Coagiacomo had attitude concerns (which, lets be fair, fans paper over far more readily).

That really is the power behind the current prospects, there is elite franchise changing talent and then guys who have good upside and could arguably fall outside the top 10 within the franchise.

The current group is obviously excellent and league-leading, but I still think that expectations are much too high.

Best method IMO was always the old HF method which had a number rating along with a letter to assign probability of hitting that level. Obviously some players blew those ratings away (everyone remembers Pavs being like a 5F or something like that), but I think its the best way of projecting players based on ceilings and floors. The old timers here will recall the Sharks rarely had players 8 and above. This current Sharks group would probably have 2 9's and a handful of 8's and then another handful of 7's.

Part of this was because Kevin Wey was a very realistic (if not conservative) writer who thought about pick values and reasonable expectations before that was even a thing. Of course, he was frequently attacked for that on here (and that might have been what drove him away!). I'll always remember his snappy comeback to another poster whining about his pessimism; he pointed out how if you went to the Washington Capitals's prospect page, every single prospect was at a 6.0 or higher, which he pointed out was absolutely ludicrous.

 

[one2gamble]

I think you have PTSD from being a sharks fan

 

[OrrNumber4]

I think you have PTSD from being a sharks fan

Mayhaps!