SJ HFBoards 2024-25 Prospect Pyramid- Tier I

[Juxtaposer]

For those that care about this sort of thing... Pronman ranked all U23 players over at the Athletic (https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/57...-prospects-under-23-bedard-stutzle-celebrini/)

Spoilers: Celebrini lands third of four in Tier 1 (Elite NHL players) behind Bedard and Stutzle(??) and ahead of Fantilli.

Smith lands in the "bubble NHL All-Star/top of the lineup player" tier alongside guys like McTavish, Catton, Sennecke, Cooley, and Jarvis, ahead of Byfield/Raymond types. Dickinson in the next tier (top of the lineup player) with peers like Parekh, Mintyukov, Faber, and Simashev and a tier above Clarke, Nemec, Korchinski, Edvinsson, and D. Jiricek.

Askarov is the second goalie, one total spot right behind Wallstedt in the "bubble top of the lineup, definitely a good player" tier. Eklund is also in that tier, with peers Mercer, Benson, Helenius, Peterka, etc.

Chernyshov sits in a tier alongside Brandsegg-Nygard. Sahlin-Wallenius and Mukhamadullin chilling with L. Hutson, Willander, and Pickering. Bystedt, Musty, and Halttunen all check in towards the very end of the list.

As usual, I strongly disagree with a lot of these rankings (not just Sharks ones), but it's always interesting to see how these guys are perceived by unbiased sources, even if the evaluations are questionable.

If anything... man as much as I love Eklund, it would be really nice to have a 6'2" offensively skilled RHD in Brandt Clarke instead. Eklund is great but as established, small LWs have to be the least valuable position.

 

[Lebanezer]

Nem? Verbose? Nahhhh

 

[Kcoyote3]

Celebrini - 3
Smith - 20
Dickinson - 39
Askarov - 55
Eklund - 63
Chernyshov - 77
LSW - 88
Mukhamadullin - 89
Bystedt - 107
Musty - 144
Halttunen - 149

 

[matt trick]

^Equal distribution would be something like 5 players. In a snake that’s 3, 61, 67, 125, 131. Given we moved the pick that became Stuzzle in the Karlsson trade, it’s amazing how much capitol the Sharks have amassed in a 5 year period.

I had Eklund, Clarke, and Gunther in my top 8, so I knew were going to get a top prospect. I liked Clarke best, but his skating scared me. Other than that, and Buium over Dickinson, I have no complaints, and it’s entirely possible Eklund and Dickinson end up the best of those four.

Edstrom was 67 and I believe only Wallstedt and Askarov got goalie mentions.

I like some of it, and I appreciate it’s one person’s opinion, rather than a water down consensus. Respect the monumental task something like this is. Doubly so when comparing all positions and guys in their draft year all the way through to draft+4.

 

[The Nemesis]

Thank you Nem for running this!

My guess is that people are voting for non-Celebrini choices because the first post is somewhat verbose. I read the whole thing, but I wouldn't be surprised if others did not But yeah, this is only Celebrini. You could even potentially argue that Celebrini might not be a "Perennial all-star and frequent major award contender", but he has as good of a shot as any.

I can't really win in that regard, because if I try to be extra brief to appeal to short attention spans, people will likely not have a clear enough picture of the criteria and say it's because the rules weren't explained well enough. But if I give enough time and space to explain everything people stop reading because apparently posts that take longer than 30 seconds to read are anathema to a lot of people.

At least if I do the latter it's not really on me whether or not someone decides to not pay attention.

 

[The Nemesis]

Part of my goal on the timing of these polls is that starting yesterday would allow us to wrap up just ahead of the pre-season opening up. But at this point it seems pretty clear that nobody else is going to get into this tier besides Celebrini. Even if 40 people suddenly showed up and all voted for Smith he would still miss the cut-off by a couple of percentage points. I may decide to wrap up tomorrow and move onto tier II where things can start getting more interesting.

 

[jMoneyBrah]

I guess my question is: are we assigning these ratings on ceiling projections or most-likely projections? Because for Smith and Askarov I could hear arguments that their ceiling projections are Tier-1 (and that is how I voted). But if the goal is to rate based on most-likely projections I’d have both as Tier-2.

EDIT: Okay, Nem provided clarification with this novella, like 12 comments into the thread:

I should've been a little clearer at the start that risk matters. Obviously I put lottery ticket boom/bust guys at tier 3 (or Tier III since I did intend to use roman numerals for it because it looks fancy) but part of the deal, especially at the top of the pyramid, is that how likely it is someone reaches their ceiling matters. It's less of an issue at the bottom because it's rare to really see a guy who's like "well if everything goes right he might be a 4th liner or bottom-pairing D, but that's a low percentage outcome" and not just view him as a non-prospect to begin with. But at the top it is more part of the equation.

Tier I is supposed to be the absolute best of the best of the best. Like, to use an over-used phrase, the "generational" guys. Most versions of prospect pyramids that I've seen acknowledge that it should not be weird for a team to not have anyone in the highest tier, because there's usually only 1 or 2 of those guys in the league-wide prospect pool in a given year. It's the Crosby/Ovechkin/McDavid/MacKinnon/Makar tier of "this is a singular guy who you can build your whole team around no matter what else you have." players. The difference between Tier I and Tier II is like the difference the career of Erik Karlsson (3x Norris winner, 2x 2nd place, 4x 1st team all-star, 3 top 10 Hart finishes) and Brent Burns (1x Norris winner, 1x 2nd place finish, 1x 3rd place finish, 2x 1st team all-star, 1x 2nd team all-star, 1x top 10 Hart finish) One is "at his best he might be the best in the league at his position" and that peak happens a small number of times, and the other is "At his best he might be one of the best in the league regardless of position" and that happens with a bit more regularity.

That's why I voted Celebrini and only Celebrini for this tier. I like Smith but I think he's a Tier II guy, a strong top-of-the-lineup player, but not a franchise-carrier. And Askarov too, he has perennial Vezina upside as his like 99th percentile outcome, but there's enough risk there that I think he's more projectable right now as a very good starter who can occasionally steal a game for you rather than a guy who has that in him every single night.

I didn't want to be too specific when I started for fear of poisoning the poll with my viewpoint, but that was the thought process that went into molding the tiers.

In light of that I’m keeping my votes to Celebrini and Smith - as I view Smith’s ceiling as Patrick Kane level contribution (not necessarily play-style or skillset) and a solid likelihood he hits it: that’s perennial All-Star, during his peak regularly in conversation for overall scoring lead, and a Hall of Famer when all is said and done.

 

[sharski]

Celebrini is clearly tier 1, nobody else... I am actually somewhat rooting more for Smith since he's gotten overshadowed by Celebrini when he has just as much reason to be a fan favorite

My tier 1 test is if you're actually living in reality, how many other players of the same age would/could GMMG trade them for straight up for?

I can't think of many same age players in the NHL that I think GMMG would swap 1 for 1 with celebrini, but for Smith I think there'd be significantly more possibilities

 

[The Nemesis]

I guess my question is: are we assigning these ratings on ceiling projections or most-likely projections? Because for Smith and Askarov I could hear arguments that their ceiling projections are Tier-1 (and that is how I voted). But if the goal is to rate based on most-likely projections I’d have both as Tier-2.

EDIT: Okay, Nem provided clarification with this novella, like 12 comments into the thread:



In light of that I’m keeping my votes to Celebrini and Smith - as I view Smith’s ceiling as Patrick Kane level contribution (not necessarily play-style or skillset) and a solid likelihood he hits it: that’s perennial All-Star, during his peak regularly in conversation for overall scoring lead, and a Hall of Famer when all is said and done.

Yeah, risk/probability matters. Because really, every prospect's absolute highest upside ceiling would be Tier 1. Chernyshov could break out and become an Ovechkin-esque perennial 50-goal scorer. Musty could turn into a bruising Cam Neely type power forward. Halttunen could be Finnish Brett Hull. Mukhamadullin really could be bigger, taller, Russian-ier Bobby Orr (Vladimir Orrlov? ). Askarov could be Hasek 2.0... etc.

What separates most prospects is what their best somewhat-realistic outcome would be and how likely they are to reach it. Celebrini could be NorCal Crosby. He could also be a suboptimal version of Jonathan Toews. But the most reasonable expectation for him is to be one of the best and most complete players in the game. Not quite on the upper echelons of the game like Crosby, McDavid, MacKinnon, but impactful enough to be the sort of player who has few equals across the league.

Will Smith could be a perennial Art Ross contender, but it seems more likely he ends up as Mitch Marner, an excellent scorer who probably has a few elite scoring seasons but isn't necessarily in the Art Ross conversation most of the time (I think he was on the fringes of the top 10 at best)

 

[Bizz]

if his defensive ability is as good as everyone says it is, Celebrini should be a perennial Selke candidate.

 

[Sharksfan66]

Maybe I should've also said that Tier I is the "this person should be in the hall of fame if their career goes to plan" tier.

Like if you think Askarov is Tier I then you're expecting him to have a Hasek, Roy, Brodeur level career. It's rarified air.

I said "Vezina-Caliber" but it's not so much "they can win a Vezina." as it is "they're in the conversation to win one almost every year."


Based on voting:

Celebrini = Crosby
Smith = Datsyuk
Dickinson = Orr
Askarov = Hasek
Mukhamadullin = Orr, but tall and Russian.
Musty = Bossy
Eklund = Both of the Sedins put together.

We might never lose again!

I think if you had written your OP this way I would have voted for just Celebrini. But I read your OP to say goalies would include guys like Hellebuyck, Shesterkin, etc. Top goalies in the league but not exactly “rarified air.” Gosh, I’m not even sure Celebrini fits that bill. It almost sounds like you are talking generational players here?

 

[gaucholoco3]

if his defensive ability is as good as everyone says it is, Celebrini should be a perennial Selke candidate.

His size might be what prevents him from having a Barkov type of impact.

 

[Barrie22]

His size might be what prevents him from having a Barkov type of impact.

Would rather a bergeron or datsyuk type impact. Players slightly bigger or smaller.

 

[OrrNumber4]

Yeah, risk/probability matters. Because really, every prospect's absolute highest upside ceiling would be Tier 1. Chernyshov could break out and become an Ovechkin-esque perennial 50-goal scorer. Musty could turn into a bruising Cam Neely type power forward. Halttunen could be Finnish Brett Hull. Mukhamadullin really could be bigger, taller, Russian-ier Bobby Orr (Vladimir Orrlov? ). Askarov could be Hasek 2.0... etc.

What separates most prospects is what their best somewhat-realistic outcome would be and how likely they are to reach it. Celebrini could be NorCal Crosby. He could also be a suboptimal version of Jonathan Toews. But the most reasonable expectation for him is to be one of the best and most complete players in the game. Not quite on the upper echelons of the game like Crosby, McDavid, MacKinnon, but impactful enough to be the sort of player who has few equals across the league.

Will Smith could be a perennial Art Ross contender, but it seems more likely he ends up as Mitch Marner, an excellent scorer who probably has a few elite scoring seasons but isn't necessarily in the Art Ross conversation most of the time (I think he was on the fringes of the top 10 at best)

I like to think about it in terms of percentiles. I'd say that Smith and Askarov have a roughly 10% chance of becoming superstars/franchise players. But the most likely outcome for Smith is a 1B type forward (think Couture) and for Askarov is a solid starter (think Mike Vernon).

 

[Shark Finn]

His size might be what prevents him from having a Barkov type of impact.

Would rather a bergeron or datsyuk type impact. Players slightly bigger or smaller.

I'd rather have people talk about having players with a Celebrini-type of impact in a couple of years.

 

[tahoesharksfan]

From most of the takes here you should have just given Celebrini this one and moved on to the Tier-II poll.
I'm not trying to be argumentative and wouldn't argue with those takes...

 

[hohosaregood]

i'm worried for the guy who didn't vote for celebrini

 

[Cas]

i'm worried for the guy who didn't vote for celebrini

It's Will Smith.

 

[Star Platinum]

It's Will Smith.

It's Hodge, who is concerned that Celebrini isn't 6 feet tall.

(actually Hodge didn't vote, but I do know which person didn't vote for Celebrini and I'll never tell)

 

[Juxtaposer]

It's Hodge, who is concerned that Celebrini isn't 6 feet tall.

(actually Hodge didn't vote, but I do know which person didn't vote for Celebrini and I'll never tell)

It's definitely someone's burner.

 

[OrrNumber4]

I don't get the joke. It's public information; @Trow didn't vote for Celebrini. No message history.

 

[OrrNumber4]

Name the miscreants and they repent. Welcome back to civilized society @Trow.