Prospect Info: Tyler Boucher (F) - PART III

[Ice-Tray]

We made multiple low percentage bets at the 2021 draft. We were not swinging for the fences.

That’s the definition of swinging for the fences.

I think maybe you’re assuming that the scouts were expecting theses guys to top out at what they are, instead of what they could be.

 

[Ice-Tray]

Fine to swing. But we very clearly were gifted a player who should have been ranked higher (Sillinger) and passed on him. If you got a player who is one of the most skilled in the draft and one of the more physical who has demonstrated excellence in *multiple* different leagues then missing on that was a big big miss for Mann. There's lots of people who want the most skilled guy every year but those people have big flaws. This wasn't that - no one thought he wouldn't be a top six forward. Our rebuild is in a different position with that pick not being a miss.

This isn't even like the Mantha situation where there were huge character questions. This is just really a departure from being able to understand what they were thinking. They drafted a player who they hoped would be 2 years down the road looking like Sillinger was in his draft year. Weird stuff.

Oh sure, I wanted Sillinger as well and had no idea about Boucher.

My point was just that they looked to have gambled to get a better player at each spot. They rolled with lack of viewings and some gaps in development, character to improve, and very likely some glimpses of excellence to try and swing at each pick.

In that crazy draft year it really is the only time where you could rationalize a draft strategy that was basically trying to find diamonds everywhere.

I’m not anymore enthused at anyones year than anyone else, but I kinda like the idea and I’m willing to see how these guys all pan out. They are all long term guys after all.

I am learning to accept that others are extremely disappointed

 

[aragorn]

Is this the end for Boucher's season or will he turn up somewhere else like B-Sens or Ott for a couple of games?

 

[stempniaksen]

My point was just that they looked to have gambled to get a better player at each spot. They rolled with lack of viewings and some gaps in development, character to improve, and very likely some glimpses of excellence to try and swing at each pic

I think this is where your opinion varies from others on this board honestly.

Some seem to think that because the Sens drafted these big/strong kids with (perceived) limited upside that they were continuing to build up the pool with guys who fit the vision instead of drafting for upside.

I'm somewhere in the middle, I see upside in Ostpachuk that some/most probably don't and they took the Johansson kid who seems all skill. While I don't see the upside that you may in Boucher/Roger I'm also not 100% sold that the team picked them thinking they were going to be "safe" picks. After all, takes balls to "overdraft" a kid like that at #10 overall.

 

[stempniaksen]

Is this the end for Boucher's season or will he turn up somewhere else like B-Sens or Ott for a couple of games?

Guys on the radio a couple days ago mentioned Belleville.

Just out of curiosity, I'm wondering if Boucher is eligible given how Sandy apparently wasn't.

 

[Cosmix]

Guys on the radio a couple days ago mentioned Belleville.

Just out of curiosity, I'm wondering if Boucher is eligible given how Sandy apparently wasn't.

I don't know the rules but given that he left college I think he no longer is subject to college rules. I hope he gets to play a game or so with belleville to see how he does and help his development.

 

[Ouroboros]

Guys on the radio a couple days ago mentioned Belleville.

Just out of curiosity, I'm wondering if Boucher is eligible given how Sandy apparently wasn't.

He's eligible to play in Belleville once the 67's are eliminated, so with games 4 and 5 on Wednesday/Thursday you could see him down there by the weekend.

Not sure if they'd put him in AHL playoff games though. I'm thinking probably not.

 

[stempniaksen]

I don't know the rules but given that he left college I think he no longer is subject to college rules. I hope he gets to play a game or so with belleville to see how he does and help his development.

If this is re: Sanderson, I assumed the same thing, but the guys on the radio claimed he was deemed ineligible for Belleville's post-season.

I could be way off, I'm going off a snippet I heard on the radio while I was fighting traffic on the highway, I may have missed some important info.

 

[Cosmix]

If this is re: Sanderson, I assumed the same thing, but the guys on the radio claimed he was deemed ineligible for Belleville's post-season.

I could be way off, I'm going off a snippet I heard on the radio while I was fighting traffic on the highway, I may have missed some important info.

That would be an AHL league rule then.

 

[aragorn]

Not sure of all the rules, but I suspect that since he has been signed & was playing in the CHL he is eligible to play in Belleville as Greig was last yr. Not sure why Sanderson would not be since a number of NCAA players have played in the AHL once they have signed a pro contract. It's more likely his injury is preventing him from playing more so than any rule.

 

[Korpse]

It's really hard to find the information but my understanding is that at the deadline, teams must submit a AHL playoff roster which can include signed prospects and ATOs. Boucher was signed at the deadline. Sanderson was not. Not exactly sur how the ATOs work but Zack Weresnki is an example of a college player who signed a ATO rather than a NHL contract and competed in the AHL playoffs. I can't think of any other college players playing the AHL playoffs but CHL prospects are quite common, likely because they can be under contract while playing in the CHL.

 

[BondraTime]

Boucher is eligible, Sanderson isn’t.

 

[Ouroboros]

It's really hard to find the information but my understanding is that at the deadline, teams must submit a AHL playoff roster which can include signed prospects and ATOs. Boucher was signed at the deadline. Sanderson was not. Not exactly sur how the ATOs work but Zack Weresnki is an example of a college player who signed a ATO rather than a NHL contract and competed in the AHL playoffs. I can't think of any other college players playing the AHL playoffs but CHL prospects are quite common, likely because they can be under contract while playing in the CHL.

For NHL contracted players the deadline is the NHL trade deadline. You have to be on an AHL roster as of 3PM on deadline day to maintain eligibility. That's why you see teams paper players down and recall them later on deadline day.

For AHL contracted players there's a separate deadline about a week later.

Signed prospects can play in the AHL once their obligations to their club teams are fulfilled. That covers guys like Lodin, Boucher, Greig, and Ostaphcuk.

Unsigned prospects can play on try-out contracts once their club team obligations are fulfilled. You often see NCAA prospects sign a deferred ELC which begins the following year [22-23 for contracts signed this spring] and go down to the AHL on an ATO. That's what Zach Werenski did in 2016. The year Binghamton won the Calder Cup they had Derek Grant and Mark Borowiecki join under those circumstances.

Players who sign after the trade deadline but have their contracts kick in immediately - like Jake Sanderson - are ineligible to go down to the AHL.

I believe there is a provision for players in the NHL that were injured at the eligibility deadlines [like Crookshank and Pinto] to go down when they get healthy. Believe if you've spent less than 25% of the season on an NHL active roster and were injured at the deadline you can go down once healthy. Not totally sure on that though.

 

[BondraTime]

Boucher will get a game or two in Belleville I’d think

 

[Sweatred]

Boucher will get a game or two in Belleville I’d think

Is there a reg season game he can get ? Not sure if they will use him in the playoffs.

 

[Ouroboros]

Boucher will get a game or two in Belleville I’d think

If the 67's are eliminated on Wednesday/Thursday, then I could maybe see him playing the final regular season game for Belleville on Saturday. Then again, it's possible that game could still be meaningful for playoff seeding so I'm not entirely sure that's the right environment to put him into. Same deal if they end up in a best-of-3 play-in series, just not a lot of room for error there.

Belleville are going to have a fairly decent group of forwards once Kelly goes back down and Chartier returns. They lack high-end skill, but they're deep and they play heavy. Doubt he cracks that group on merit the ywa a guy like Ridly Greig would.

 

[ottawah]

I have no problem calling Boucher a bad pick at this point but Brown was a brutal pick as well.

I cannot call Brown a brutal pick. He went about where expected. Ottawa really was looking for a big center. The pick made perfect sense. Yes, he did not pan out. Thats hardly uncommon. Drafting is not an exact science.

The issue many people have with the pick (and not Boucher as a player) is that he was projected to go no where near this high. Maybe taking a risk like Montreal did very late with the 31st pick is acceptable given the player they took had tumbled due to off ice issues, but 10th overall there are a lot of far less risky picks available than one who was ranked significantly lower due to his on ice achievements.


I did not shake my head at the Brown pick. But Boucher? Yeah. I wondered, what could Ottawa scouts have seen in him that hundreds of other scouts missed ......

 

[GCK]

I cannot call Brown a brutal pick. He went about where expected. Ottawa really was looking for a big center. The pick made perfect sense. Yes, he did not pan out. Thats hardly uncommon. Drafting is not an exact science.

The issue many people have with the pick (and not Boucher as a player) is that he was projected to go no where near this high. Maybe taking a risk like Montreal did very late with the 31st pick is acceptable given the player they took had tumbled due to off ice issues, but 10th overall there are a lot of far less risky picks available than one who was ranked significantly lower due to his on ice achievements.


I did not shake my head at the Brown pick. But Boucher? Yeah. I wondered, what could Ottawa scouts have seen in him that hundreds of other scouts missed ......

I remember Brown in Windsor, never saw it from the player. Entitled and non-competitive. Awful pick with McAvoy and Chykrun available.

 

[DylanSensFan]

Whoops. delete.

 

[R2010]

Oh sure, I wanted Sillinger as well and had no idea about Boucher.

My point was just that they looked to have gambled to get a better player at each spot. They rolled with lack of viewings and some gaps in development, character to improve, and very likely some glimpses of excellence to try and swing at each pick.

In that crazy draft year it really is the only time where you could rationalize a draft strategy that was basically trying to find diamonds everywhere.

I’m not anymore enthused at anyones year than anyone else, but I kinda like the idea and I’m willing to see how these guys all pan out. They are all long term guys after all.

I am learning to accept that others are extremely disappointed

It'll certainly be interesting to see how it goes. I do think that swinging for the fences on risk-reward is for the end of the 1st and beyond if you choose to. Not for 10th overall with guaranteed top six/ top 4 d available.

Either way I hope a couple of thing work out. Ostapchuk has a lot of potential upside.

In terms of what we should have done? 10th overall to Seattle in exchange for them taking Tierney and sending us McCann. Last year was definitely the year to use that pick to get a strong asset.

 

[Senator Stanley]

I remember Brown in Windsor, never saw it from the player. Entitled and non-competitive. Awful pick with McAvoy and Chykrun available.

He was always a challenging prospect. He was so bad/disinterested at the Canadian Hlinka camp in August of his draft year that he didn't make the team, but then was dominant playing for the Americans at the U18s in April/May. At 11OA and without the benefit of hindsight, gambling on the big centre who might have just figured it out made sense.

 

[Agent Zuuuub]

That’s the definition of swinging for the fences.

I think maybe you’re assuming that the scouts were expecting theses guys to top out at what they are, instead of what they could be.

to me swinging for the fences is taking a guy you think could be the next kucherov or point.

trying to snipe the next raffi torres or josh anderson is not swinging for the fences, its the opposite.

 

[ijif]

That’s the definition of swinging for the fences.

I think maybe you’re assuming that the scouts were expecting theses guys to top out at what they are, instead of what they could be.

Swinging for the fences is taking high variance bets. That is not the same as taking low probability bets.

If you think anyone assumes what you stated, you need to get your thinking checked.

 

[RAFI BOMB]

With the 67's now eliminated Boucher will be able to join Belleville as soon as tomorrow. I think it will end up being very good for his development. Troy Mann is an excellent coach and will help give him some important guidance. He will also likely get some more direct coaching and even one-on-one work with the Sens development coaches. He will also benefit from being around players like Sokolov and Kastelic who had excellent production at the CHL level as well as being around a highly skilled player like Lodin. He may even be able to learn some important things from a player like Kelly.

If he gets a chance to play some games, he will benefit from being in such a structured environment with more of a hard working, puck protection cycle game that Belleville plays. He will also be able to take on a lesser role which will allow him to play to his strengths of generating energy and providing physicality. If Belleville can manage to go on a bit of a run there is just a ton he could learn from being around that, practicing with the team and playing some of the games. That could set him up well for a big offseason of development.

 

[Ice-Tray]

Swinging for the fences is taking high variance bets. That is not the same as taking low probability bets.

If you think anyone assumes what you stated, you need to get your thinking checked

In my opinion you’re confusing your personal opinions post draft, with the scouting staff opinions pre draft. You’re also confusing what you think you know now, with what they thought they knew then.

My point is that you’re taking your hindsight opinion and placing yourself in the scout’s shoes pre draft. The scouts didn’t bet on Boucher being the player you or others think he’ll become. They were betting on Boucher becoming the player they think he’ll become. Try and consider that they were swinging for their fence, not yours or anyone else’s. These are very different timeframes, and perspectives.

What should be clear to you is that the scouting staff of the team didn’t, and likely still doesn’t, share the same opinion about the player as you do, and thus doesn’t view their ‘reach’ to draft him in the same light as you do.

Time will tell if they were right or wrong, but they definitely swung on each pick, pretty much missing any consensus picks in this under scouted draft. They had a specific draft strategy.

It was a bold strategy that could unearth some gems, fail completely, or do a little of both.

Your last paragraph was lame and unnecessary.