Prospect Info: Tyler Boucher (F) - PART III

[Hale The Villain]

“He’s not Tom Wilson, that’s not fair to the kid” — Trent Mann on TSN 1200 today.

Maybe if the guy who drafted him doesn’t think he’s gonna be the next Tom Wilson we shouldnt either.

What also wasn't fair to the kid was putting a target on his back by reaching for him with a top 10 pick when he should have been a 20-32 guy.

 

[Micklebot]

more Raffi Torres than Tom Wilson for sure.

Raffi Torres was highly skilled despite not playing that game at the next level.

 

[cudi]

Raffi Torres was highly skilled despite not playing that game at the next level.

obviously talking about the physicality aspect.

 

[JungleBeat]

“He’s not Tom Wilson, that’s not fair to the kid” — Trent Mann on TSN 1200 today.

Maybe if the guy who drafted him doesn’t think he’s gonna be the next Tom Wilson we shouldnt either.

Lol.

 

[FunkySeeFunkyDoo]

Lol.

 

[Agent Zuuuub]

Lol.

Nyr scared them into taking Boucher early while they picked up Othmann, a rugged hard nosed forward who put up 50 goals and 97 points this year.

Some reality.

 

[JungleBeat]

Nyr scared them into taking Boucher early while they picked up Othmann, a rugged hard nosed forward who put up 50 goals and 97 points this year.

Some reality.

Trading with NYR and passing up on Miller isn't looking good as well.

 

[Hale The Villain]

Rangers were a team that could afford to reach for a player like Boucher. May not have been the smartest move but they are absolutely loaded with talent and Boucher would provide something they are missing.

We don't have the luxury of being able to attract talent via UFA and trade like them. Finding impact talent through the draft is imperative and reaching with a top 10 pick for a role player is hilariously bad asset management.

 

[Ice-Tray]

What also wasn't fair to the kid was putting a target on his back by reaching for him with a top 10 pick when he should have been a 20-32 guy.

Riiiiight……… I love how people in here rag on the kid endlessly and then blame Trent cause he drafted the guy.

Trent still likes the kid, Trent is a positive factor in Boucher’s life. I’m gobsmacked at the notion that Trent victimized the kid by drafting him into the NHL.

How about bitter cynical fans take charge of themselves and take responsibility for the things they type. Taking a dump on a teenager online because of where he was drafted is pathetic behaviour. So many in here have such a terrible online presence, bring little beyond negativity and toxicity to everything they post about; and then blame everyone else for it.

Blame Trent for the target, but you’re still the guy firing all the shots.

 

[OD99]

This is so blown out of proportion.

People think he was a bad pick and hasn't shown enough to project to have an impact on the team. It was an important pick and they went off the board for reasons only they know.

We are in the middle of a rebuild and our top 10 pick is looking lost compared to the player many on here wanted/expected the team to take (and most other kids drafted actually). In fact Sillinger is looking like he may be a steal so it stings a bit more.

To the sunshine and rainbow crew this seems like we are big meanies as though we are hurling insults to Boucher's face. There is maybe enough posters to count on 1 hand who have been nasty about the pick. Most are reasonably disappointed and skeptical and that is it.

 

[RAFI BOMB]

This is so blown out of proportion.

People think he was a bad pick and hasn't shown enough to project to have an impact on the team. It was an important pick and they went off the board for reasons only they know.

We are in the middle of a rebuild and our top 10 pick is looking lost compared to the player many on here wanted/expected the team to take (and most other kids drafted actually). In fact Sillinger is looking like he may be a steal so it stings a bit more.

To the sunshine and rainbow crew this seems like we are big meanies as though we are hurling insults to Boucher's face. There is maybe enough posters to count on 1 hand who have been nasty about the pick. Most are reasonably disappointed and skeptical and that is it.

There should be room for some different perspectives on the pick. There are some, like myself, who like the raw tools Boucher has and are confident what he could be developed into. There are others who look at his draft ranking, his production since being drafted and their viewings of his play and aren't as confident in his upside.

I think the issue here is when people that like the pick or don't like the pick demand that everyone else agree with their take. It is understandable that a number of people are disappointed in the pick and you are correct that they aren't being mean or unfair for expressing their frustrations. People who like the pick can do so while allowing others to not like the pick, and people who don't like the pick can allow others to like the pick. None of us need to demand a consensus on here.

Personally, I like Boucher as a prospect and I disagree with anyone who thinks he is a bad prospect. Whether he was picked in the right spot or not seems like a pretty debatable thing. I think it brings on a much more complex discussion about the theories of optimal drafting strategy. That includes minimum expectations of projected upside per pick, what a prospect needs to demonstrate to indicate sufficient confidence levels in them achieving that projected upside, what the development path is supposed to look like for any given pick range, where raw project picks should be drafted, how scarcity of skill set should be valued, whether the emphasis should be on drafting players to play for your organization or accumulating assets for future trades or the balance between those two priorities, whether end outcome after the prospect has completed their development is of greater or lesser importance than projected upside at the point of the draft.

Given the number of different variables that could go into an optimal drafting strategy and that there are polarizing perspectives on them it is really difficult to attain a consensus on the best strategy and by extension what objective assessment should be made about the quality or lack thereof of any given pick.

 

[Sun God Nika]

I love Trent Mann.

But I hope he got a good ear-full for this pick behind closed doors.

 

[OD99]

There should be room for some different perspectives on the pick. There are some, like myself, who like the raw tools Boucher has and are confident what he could be developed into. There are others who look at his draft ranking, his production since being drafted and their viewings of his play and aren't as confident in his upside.

I think the issue here is when people that like the pick or don't like the pick demand that everyone else agree with their take. It is understandable that a number of people are disappointed in the pick and you are correct that they aren't being mean or unfair for expressing their frustrations. People who like the pick can do so while allowing others to not like the pick, and people who don't like the pick can allow others to like the pick. None of us need to demand a consensus on here.

Personally, I like Boucher as a prospect and I disagree with anyone who thinks he is a bad prospect. Whether he was picked in the right spot or not seems like a pretty debatable thing. I think it brings on a much more complex discussion about the theories of optimal drafting strategy. That includes minimum expectations of projected upside per pick, what a prospect needs to demonstrate to indicate sufficient confidence levels in them achieving that projected upside, what the development path is supposed to look like for any given pick range, where raw project picks should be drafted, how scarcity of skill set should be valued, whether the emphasis should be on drafting players to play for your organization or accumulating assets for future trades or the balance between those two priorities, whether end outcome after the prospect has completed their development is of greater or lesser importance than projected upside at the point of the draft.

Given the number of different variables that could go into an optimal drafting strategy and that there are polarizing perspectives on them it is really difficult to attain a consensus on the best strategy and by extension what objective assessment should be made about the quality or lack thereof of any given pick.

I agree and don't lump you in to the group that calls people, "haters" for not being high on the pick.

You are clearly very analytical in your process and I respect that whether I agree or disagree with your assessment of a player.

 

[SENATOR]

Took me one hour of research during the draft day in 2021 and I knew the kid would not even play in NHL. And if he does not fight and he doesn't, his hopes to join the league are slim to none. Mann is an absolute garbage as a head scout, the worst in the league. The team does not have funds to pay for a decent talent.

 

[Micklebot]

Personally, I like Boucher as a prospect and I disagree with anyone who thinks he is a bad prospect.

I think a lot of frustration with the pick gets misinterpreted as "bad prospect". He's got NHL upside, that makes him a good prospect. If he'd been picked in the 2nd round, people might be disappointing with how his season has gone, but I don't think you'd see as much discussion about him, the issue is we spent a lot to bring him in. If we trade 7 OA for Blake Coleman, that doesn't make Blake Coleman a bad hockey player, but lots of people would be frustrated by the trade, and I think the same holds true here.

 

[RAFI BOMB]

I think a lot of frustration with the pick gets misinterpreted as "bad prospect". He's got NHL upside, that makes him a good prospect. If he'd been picked in the 2nd round, people might be disappointing with how his season has gone, but I don't think you'd see as much discussion about him, the issue is we spent a lot to bring him in. If we trade 7 OA for Blake Coleman, that doesn't make Blake Coleman a bad hockey player, but lots of people would be frustrated by the trade, and I think the same holds true here.

Yeah I could see that being part of the problem. There are certain heightened expectations with a top 10 pick so it is understandable that people want more than just a "good prospect". I'm more optimistic about Boucher's upside but even I will re-evaluate my assessment of the pick based on what he eventually becomes. I'm confident that I will like the player he eventually becomes and be very happy to have him on the team but there will still be a certain production threshold to justify such a high selection.

He will very likely be a fun player with a lot of entertainment value and be a fan favorite. He will also be a pretty valuable piece for trying to win the cup. The question will be what kind of production he peaks out at once he is fully developed. If his production ends up high enough then a lot of people will feel the high pick is justified, it is isn't then there might still be a lot of people who like the player but feel he was picked way too high and wish the Sens found a way to get him with a later pick.

 

[Icelevel]

Some of you guys sound nuts.
Way too early to be posting the things you’re posting.

Im pretty excited about Boucher and how he’ll fit in with this group. Could be a very important piece. Nothing wrong with picking him there.

 

[Burrowsaurus]

K so did Trent Mann actually say he drafted Boucher for money issues in the future? That seems to be all the rage but I haven’t listened to the interview, not sure I want to anyway. But everyone seems to be parroting that quote.

 

[BondraTime]

K so did Trent Mann actually say he drafted Boucher for money issues in the future? That seems to be all the rage but I haven’t listened to the interview, not sure I want to anyway. But everyone seems to be parroting that quote.

No, he said that some guys are hard to find and get in trade and free agency for a fair price, seems to equate Boucher to one of these guys. Pushed back a bit on the insinuation that the Sens may want to redo the draft if given the benefit of hindsight.

 

[Nac Mac Feegle]

Picking a player too high and setting unrealistic expectations on such a player or draft pick has killed (or at least badly harmed) quite a few potential careers over the years.

There is nothing wrong by saying a team screwed up by picking a player so early - especially a project pick. Boucher can't exactly wave a magic wand and give himself the two years or so of experience and development he lost so he could be in-line with his (draft slot) peers, and a lot of casual fans will freak out because of it.

That's exactly why I sad in one of these threads a few months ago, that the best thing we can do for the kid, is to stop talking about him (ironic, I know) and forget he exists for the next four years or so. Let the kid try and figure things out in peace for the next little while, and let him slow cook in Belleville for two seasons. Then take a look and see where he's at.

 

[Burrowsaurus]

No, he said that some guys are hard to find and get in trade and free agency for a fair price, seems to equate Boucher to one of these guys. Pushed back a bit on the insinuation that the Sens may want to redo the draft if given the benefit of hindsight.

Thank you. It sounds like most of Twitter didn’t listen to the interview either.

 

[Xspyrit]

Wait... Who the hell is "taking a dump" on Boucher? That has nothing to do with him. He's not responsible for having been taken too high. Hopefully, it doesn't destroy his career by being put under too much undeserved pressure.

Lol.

Did Mann get Dorionized/Melnykized over time???? Scary... unless we're all blind and are missing something on Tyler Boucher's reality. It's crazy how much non-Sens fans are laughing at us because of that selection . Hopefully everyone except the Sens brass eats crow

Trading with NYR and passing up on Miller isn't looking good as well.

Dorion should definitely be on the Rangers cup if they win.

Zibanejad, Miller (Othmann in the future)

Rangers were a team that could afford to reach for a player like Boucher. May not have been the smartest move but they are absolutely loaded with talent and Boucher would provide something they are missing.

We don't have the luxury of being able to attract talent via UFA and trade like them. Finding impact talent through the draft is imperative and reaching with a top 10 pick for a role player is hilariously bad asset management.

Tyler Boucher at 16th OA would have been much more "acceptable" though. Reaching from 29th to 16th is not as disastrous. 29th to 10th OA is a BIG BALLS reach and absolutely has to pay, can't afford a Lee over Kopitar result

You absolutely want a Tyler Boucher? Draft Cole Sillinger and trade him for 3 Tyler Bouchers then.

You just need one Tyler Boucher? Ok so trade the other 2 for other assets.


Speaking of asset management, this is what I wrote yesterday (elsewhere) when someone talked about EK's return :

Funnily, Pierre Dorion found a way (as he always does) to DIMINISH the return by :

- Waiving Rudolfs Balcers before he gains value (played guys like Cedric Paquette, Artem Anisimov and Alex Galchenyuk instead)
- NOT trading Chris Tierney at peak (I have been SCREAMING for that since summer 2019) until he was worthless (who could have seen that coming? )
- Trade Dylan DeMelo for a freaking 3rd round pick when RD was clearly our weakest position... so Chabot has to play with Nikita freaking Zaitsev

Like for his second best trade, Ryan Dzingel for Duclair and two 2nd round picks. That trade was amazing but :

- he let Duclair go as a RFA (who scored 90 pts in 117 GP with the Panthers since)
- he traded a 2nd round pick for Derek freaking Stepan who didn't even want to be in Canada during the pandemic
- he traded the other 2nd for Matt Murray, which was fine in itself but he gave him a bloated 4 years contract, to a guy who was already massively injury prone.

S-P-E-C-T-A-C-U-L-A-R and there's still some who believe he is actually a good manager. I wouldn't even entrust him with a $100 bill

 

[Tuna99]

Mann meant by salary Cap when he mentioned Boucher is these type of players (big, rugged, playoff type) cost a lot to acquire (Goodrow, Paul, Hyman, C. Brown) because teams can easily fit them in Cap wise to have no pressure points to trade them like you see with the higher paid players being moved more frequently because they don’t fit Cap wise (Stone, Karlsson, Pacioretty, E. Kane)

Boucher when he’s fully developed is going to be a valuable piece to the identity of the team. You can’t have a big, fast hard team if you don’t draft these players because teams don’t give them up easily - see the cost of 2nd/3rd like guys who can play in the playoffs and it’s a high cost. Maybe not a tenth overall but you will pay to get that piece

 

[Micklebot]

Yeah I could see that being part of the problem. There are certain heightened expectations with a top 10 pick so it is understandable that people want more than just a "good prospect". I'm more optimistic about Boucher's upside but even I will re-evaluate my assessment of the pick based on what he eventually becomes. I'm confident that I will like the player he eventually becomes and be very happy to have him on the team but there will still be a certain production threshold to justify such a high selection.

He will very likely be a fun player with a lot of entertainment value and be a fan favorite. He will also be a pretty valuable piece for trying to win the cup. The question will be what kind of production he peaks out at once he is fully developed. If his production ends up high enough then a lot of people will feel the high pick is justified, it is isn't then there might still be a lot of people who like the player but feel he was picked way too high and wish the Sens found a way to get him with a later pick.

Yeah, sort of how I feel. I mean, if he becomes another Chris Neil, that's a hugely popular and pretty impactful player, but it's not really what you think of from a top 10 pick even though it's arguably better than you should expect at 10 (people tend to expect too much out of picks imo).

People see 10 OA as a shot at the next Barzal, or Rantanen, I don't think there's much of a chance at Boucher becoming that impactful, but there are a lot more Baertschi and Ritchie's out there.

 

[Agent Zuuuub]

Mann meant by salary Cap when he mentioned Boucher is these type of players (big, rugged, playoff type) cost a lot to acquire (Goodrow, Paul, Hyman, C. Brown) because teams can easily fit them in Cap wise to have no pressure points to trade them like you see with the higher paid players being moved more frequently because they don’t fit Cap wise (Stone, Karlsson, Pacioretty, E. Kane)

Boucher when he’s fully developed is going to be a valuable piece to the identity of the team. You can’t have a big, fast hard team if you don’t draft these players because teams don’t give them up easily - see the cost of 2nd/3rd like guys who can play in the playoffs and it’s a high cost. Maybe not a tenth overall but you will pay to get that piece

They don't cost a lot to acquire though?

Available every trade deadline and a fully developed version for much less than 10 overall. A late 1st, couple of seconds, or a good prospect. For a player who is probably going to be better than what Boucher turns into.