5 winners 5 losers on deadline day

[yave1964]

Another team that I forgot to mention as a winner was the Los Angeles Kings because they took care of business before the deadline, adding Phaneuf and dumping the ghost of Gaborik while getting the Senators to eat part of Phaneuf's deal, trading a career backup goalie for what they hope will be a nice middle six winger in Tobias Reider and most importantly of all, while not a transaction in the literal sense of the word getting Jeff Carter who has been out since the 7th game of the year to spark the offense. 

[JR Ewing]

1 hour ago, belowthegoalline said:

 

So I disagree with you. The kid went to college, so he wasn't a pro until 22. He turned 24 during his second pro season. It would be the same as saying a 21 year old isn't a prospect after going through juniors.

 

When I say that I wouldn't classify O'Regan as a prospect, I'm not saying that he's a bum or will never turn out to be anything. I'm just saying that he's passed my (perhaps arbitrary) age cut-off. There's a certain limit where it's not proper to refer to players with limited NHL experience as prospects, and 24 is where I set that for myself many years ago. As you say, he went to college, and this pushes things back a bit, but (imo) not too much.

 

By 24, regardless of where you played hockey the year before, you should be more ready than a 21-year old, and he has struggled a fair bit so far in his NHL career. He could do quite well, and will have more opportunity on a team less deep than the Sharks. I'm not Carnak the Magnificent and don't pretend to be. But, I would hope for a more polished product at this age.

[J0e Th0rnton]

Evander Kane seems to have quick chemistry with joe pavelski as his C.

 

Hope this keeps up.

[yave1964]

@JR Ewing

 

Complete agreement that a player goes from prospect to suspect at somewhere around 23-24 years old regardless of the situation. If you are not established in the NHL by then the odds of you doing so fall off dramatically every year thereafter. Ryan in Carolina, Talbot in first New York then Edmonton and a few others have proven the exception but they stand out like sore thumbs because it happens less and less with each passing year after 23-24 so you cannot help but notice. Not saying O'Regan isn't going to have an NHL career, Buffalo is short of middlesix forwards and there drafting has been suspect for a decade or longer so a job is his for the taking but I seriously don't trust anyone much past his age who still hasn't gained traction.

[JR Ewing]

55 minutes ago, yave1964 said:

@JR Ewing

 

Complete agreement that a player goes from prospect to suspect at somewhere around 23-24 years old regardless of the situation. If you are not established in the NHL by then the odds of you doing so fall off dramatically every year thereafter. Ryan in Carolina, Talbot in first New York then Edmonton and a few others have proven the exception but they stand out like sore thumbs because it happens less and less with each passing year after 23-24 so you cannot help but notice. Not saying O'Regan isn't going to have an NHL career, Buffalo is short of middlesix forwards and there drafting has been suspect for a decade or longer so a job is his for the taking but I seriously don't trust anyone much past his age who still hasn't gained traction.

 

I was always fascinated with watching draft picks come and go. This is particularly true because I cheer for a team who, after their first 5 drafts (which were astoundingly productive) failed a lot more than they succeeded. I would read scouting reports and then excitedly watch carefully to see how the players matched up. One thing became glaringly obvious over the years: scouts are ALWAYS excited about kids, even if it turns out that they weren't really that much to get excited about.

 

I started coming up with little rules of thumb, especially notable since many are never talked about very often in the media. I by no means assume that I'm the only one to come up with them, either. They weren't laws so much as theories for me, but I think a lot of them hold up. I've never even made a point to write them down, and a number have doubtless slipped my mind today. In no particular order:

 

• Already mentioned: if he's 24, and hasn't been able to establish himself as an NHL player, I move him from the prospect group and into the tweener group. If he's 27, I move him into the career minor leaguer group. Again, these are perhaps arbitrary, but the numbers of decent players in the modern game, who can move out of it are very low. Fernando Pisani did a great job of it, only becoming an everyday player at 27.
• With that understanding, my timeline for making the call on a player is 5 years post-draft.
• If two potential draft picks have similar numbers and physical skills, but one is much younger, take the younger one. He could end up being markedly better.
• It's very rare for me to rank a defenseman #1 in the draft.
• I would never draft a goaltender #1.
• Defensemen develop by sundial.
• Injuries in your teens have a profound impact on development.
• If he hasn't been able to produce much by 21, the odds of him ever doing so are very low.
• You shouldn't be scared to draft skinny kids.
• The draft combine is interesting, but is ultimately not very helpful in telling us who the best hockey players will be in a group of young men.
• Drafting for current need is risky business. Players take time to develop, and your needs may be very different by the time they're ready, if they even make it that far anyway.
• Likewise, I think that drafting best player available is damned near always the way to go.
• Drafting Coke machines (huge, unskilled players) in anything other than the late rounds is a recipe for disaster.
• Using early picks based on a player's supposed character, without scoring numbers is to back it up, is a bad idea.
• Drafting defensive specialists is usually bound to blow up in your face.

 

There are probably more, but they're not readily coming to mind like they do when I'm watching a game and am pissed off at my team.

 

 

[yave1964]

@JR Ewing

 

You and I clearly are students of the Bill James school of thought. Baseball statistics are easier to project than Hockey in most cases, in baseball you get 4 at bats, 500 or so in a season and it is easier with the samplesize to compare to other players, to predict what comes next.

  In Hockey so much is arbitrary, in baseball you may score less or drive in less depending on your teammates but your BA and slugging pct. and OBP are yours, you own them.  In Hockey you may be a slug like Abdelkader but if you catch a lucky break and wind up on a top line you might score 25 goals one year or the reverse, it may appear that you are slipping because you have a poor center who you don't mesh with killing your numbers or you are asked to play more of a defensive game killing your offense.

  Boone Jenner comes to mind, a few years ago he had a surprise 30 goal season and the next year with greater expectations Torts assigned him a checking role and Torts swears he is more valuable scoring 15 then he was scoring 30. Tortorella gushes about his selfless play. So often you are at the mercy of your coach statistically. 

  I like your list with prospects, I like it quite a lot actually. One thing I personally put in is players in Juniors who are good or average who suddenly spike always makeme suspicious. It kind of goes with your first point, to me if an underrage player dominates he is special, if an over ripe player suddenly comes alive when facing younger competition, I treat them as counterfeit until proven different.

  I don't know, I might take a defenseman first but it would have to be a weak class of forwards and a truly special defenseman like this year with Rasmus Dahlin with no clear cut forward of equal value. It would have to be a perfect scenario though because as you mentioned defenseman are slower to develop. If you are a coach/gm on the hot seat you are going to take the safer forward if all else is equal. Dahlin looks to be the no brainer consensus first pick and deservedly so.

[JR Ewing]

1 minute ago, yave1964 said:

@JR Ewing

 

You and I clearly are students of the Bill James school of thought. Baseball statistics are easier to project than Hockey in most cases, in baseball you get 4 at bats, 500 or so in a season and it is easier with the samplesize to compare to other players, to predict what comes next.

 

If Bill James wrote a ransom note on a roll of toilet paper, I would probably read it.

 

1 minute ago, yave1964 said:

  In Hockey so much is arbitrary, in baseball you may score less or drive in less depending on your teammates but your BA and slugging pct. and OBP are yours, you own them.  In Hockey you may be a slug like Abdelkader but if you catch a lucky break and wind up on a top line you might score 25 goals one year or the reverse, it may appear that you are slipping because you have a poor center who you don't mesh with killing your numbers or you are asked to play more of a defensive game killing your offense.

  Boone Jenner comes to mind, a few years ago he had a surprise 30 goal season and the next year with greater expectations Torts assigned him a checking role and Torts swears he is more valuable scoring 15 then he was scoring 30. Tortorella gushes about his selfless play. So often you are at the mercy of your coach statistically. 

 

• If a player experiences a sudden change in productivity, either more or less, examine to see what circumstances changed. Is the coach using him in the same role as before?

 

1 minute ago, yave1964 said:

  I like your list with prospects, I like it quite a lot actually. One thing I personally put in is players in Juniors who are good or average who suddenly spike always makeme suspicious. It kind of goes with your first point, to me if an underrage player dominates he is special, if an over ripe player suddenly comes alive when facing younger competition, I treat them as counterfeit until proven different.

 

Thank you for reminding me another:

• Be wary of 19-year olds who come out of nowhere and start scoring at the junior level when they never did before.

 

 

1 minute ago, yave1964 said:

  I don't know, I might take a defenseman first but it would have to be a weak class of forwards and a truly special defenseman like this year with Rasmus Dahlin with no clear cut forward of equal value. It would have to be a perfect scenario though because as you mentioned defenseman are slower to develop. If you are a coach/gm on the hot seat you are going to take the safer forward if all else is equal. Dahlin looks to be the no brainer consensus first pick and deservedly so.

 

Yeah, we're coming at this from the same place. I would never rule out picking a defenseman first, but I believe it presents higher risk, and would feel more comfortable doing it if there wasn't a truly high end forward in the pool. Aaron Eckblad is a good example, and I thought the Sens were crazy for picking Daigle over Pronger in 1993. Also:

• Be careful with offense-only kids from the QMJHL, as it's traditionally a high-offense league which doesn't always preach two-way player the same as the WHL and OHL. This is especially true if that kid doesn't light the world on fire.

I wish I could find it, but I had a large piece I did years and years ago on Daigle. The long and the short of it was that his numbers were absolutely just average for a Q scoring champion, and how there were a pile of better options out there.

 

[yave1964]

@JR Ewing

Another little subtle thing I look at when looking at a Junior is his linemates, if a player puts up great numbers with inferior linemates I rate him much higher, whereas Martin Frk had Drouin and MacKinnon as linemates and was overage before putting up eye popping numbers. He has been meh with the Wings which is probably what one should expect, his was a perfect storm. Same with O'Regan in college playing with Eichel as 21 year old, the next year sans Eichel his goals scored sliped from 23 to 17 and no way no how would I have touched a guy like that with a ten foot pole. Like Frk, overage and perfect storm of linemates.

[belowthegoalline]

On 3/4/2018 at 11:30 AM, JR Ewing said:

 

When I say that I wouldn't classify O'Regan as a prospect, I'm not saying that he's a bum or will never turn out to be anything. I'm just saying that he's passed my (perhaps arbitrary) age cut-off. There's a certain limit where it's not proper to refer to players with limited NHL experience as prospects, and 24 is where I set that for myself many years ago. As you say, he went to college, and this pushes things back a bit, but (imo) not too much.

 

By 24, regardless of where you played hockey the year before, you should be more ready than a 21-year old, and he has struggled a fair bit so far in his NHL career. He could do quite well, and will have more opportunity on a team less deep than the Sharks. I'm not Carnak the Magnificent and don't pretend to be. But, I would hope for a more polished product at this age.

 

Completely agree with you, but look at rookie Yanni Gourde this season. The kid scored his 24th goal on the year last night, second among rookies. I don't care he's 26. He's still a good young player.

[JR Ewing]

@yave1964

 

• If you think the abilities of a centre and a winger are close, take the centre. If he's unable to handle the two-way responsibility of the position and/or win faceoffs, It's much easier to convert a centre into an effective winger than it is to convert a winger into an effective centre. Otherwise known as the "what I would do with Ryan Nugent-Hopkins" situation.
• Not a revelation, but bears mentioning: build from the middle-out.

[JR Ewing]

30 minutes ago, belowthegoalline said:

 

Completely agree with you, but look at rookie Yanni Gourde this season. The kid scored his 24th goal on the year last night, second among rookies. I don't care he's 26. He's still a good young player.

 

 

I don't want to crap on Gourde; not at all. I have to admit, though, I would have my concerns about his ability to produce at anything approaching this rate in the future. When a guy (sort of) comes out of nowhere, and scores as much as he ever did at the minor league level, and does it off the back of a 21% shooting percentage, I'm leery of his ability to produce at the level again. Even by the air hockey offensive standards of the 1980s, that SH% is off the charts high. Would be good for 5th best of all-time. I think it's great that he's having a good year, hope he has fun, and hope he can cash in on this hot streak.

 

Again, I can't predict the future, but one thing we can do is ask ourselves what reasonable expectations we should place on the future. In Gourde's case, I don't think it's reasonable to expect a repeat performance, but I would love to be wrong.

 

 

[JR Ewing]

On 3/7/2018 at 5:11 PM, JR Ewing said:

@yave1964

 

• If you think the abilities of a centre and a winger are close, take the centre. If he's unable to handle the two-way responsibility of the position and/or win faceoffs, It's much easier to convert a centre into an effective winger than it is to convert a winger into an effective centre. Otherwise known as the "what I would do with Ryan Nugent-Hopkins" situation.

 

So, about a week after I mentioned this idea here, Todd McLellan started using Ryan Nugent-Hopkins as Connor McDavid's left-winger. In 7 games together:

 

McDavid, 5-8-13, +13

Nuge, 4-5-9, +10