Calgarypuck Prospect Ranking 2016 - Round 1

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by thymebalm

For me, what I saw out of both Kulak and Shinkaruk were two players that could take the NHL pace in spurts, but saw they both lacked consistency in their showings. They were call up material, but not roster ready. What I saw with Wotherspoon during his final call up was a player able to play good minutes relatively mistake free. He isn't a flashy prospect, but I didn't see him looking out of place once last season.

I saw Wotherspoon / Nakladal as a completely acceptable 5/6 pairing. I didn't see a 200ft game from Shinkaruk that would make me want to play him 82 games this year, and Kulak just looked a little raw and lost.

I expected Wotherspoon to make the team out of camp last year, but Kulak exploded past him before fading back to where he was. they are close, but from where I'm sitting, Wotherspoon is ahead.

Shinkaruk vs Wotherspoon is obviously not an apples to apples comparison, but when a rookie comes in hungry to score and winds up a minus player, it makes me question their NHL maturity.

Agree 100% - well said

[N-E-B]

Tkachuk for me, and I don't think it's even close. I'm surprised it's as low as 81.7% to be honest. I thought it would be a lot higher.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by thymebalm

For me, what I saw out of both Kulak and Shinkaruk were two players that could take the NHL pace in spurts, but saw they both lacked consistency in their showings. They were call up material, but not roster ready. What I saw with Wotherspoon during his final call up was a player able to play good minutes relatively mistake free. He isn't a flashy prospect, but I didn't see him looking out of place once last season.

I saw Wotherspoon / Nakladal as a completely acceptable 5/6 pairing. I didn't see a 200ft game from Shinkaruk that would make me want to play him 82 games this year, and Kulak just looked a little raw and lost.

I expected Wotherspoon to make the team out of camp last year, but Kulak exploded past him before fading back to where he was. they are close, but from where I'm sitting, Wotherspoon is ahead.

Shinkaruk vs Wotherspoon is obviously not an apples to apples comparison, but when a rookie comes in hungry to score and winds up a minus player, it makes me question their NHL maturity.

Fair enough. We'll see how it shakes out. Hopefully they all turn out to be good NHL players. Will they all stick with the Flames or become a trade asset.

[Fire of the Phoenix]

Originally Posted by N-E-B

Tkachuk for me, and I don't think it's even close. I'm surprised it's as low as 81.7% to be honest. I thought it would be a lot higher.

I think people should be asking themselves if they would trade anyone on this list for Tkachuk. Once it becomes obvious that you wouldn't, I think it's pretty clear who the top prospect is.

Would anyone seriously trade Jankowski, Hickey or... Shinkaruk (???) for Tkachuk straight up?

[oldschoolcalgary]

Originally Posted by Fire of the Phoenix

I think people should be asking themselves if they would trade anyone on this list for Tkachuk. Once it becomes obvious that you wouldn't, I think it's pretty obvious who the top prospect is.

Would anyone seriously trade Jankowski, Hickey or... Shinkaruk (???) for Tkachuk straight up?

yeah, i am not sure how it isn't 95% to be honest...not sure if people are just being contrarians, or simply made a mistake by submitting w/o realizing who was on the list...

Hilariously, i got this from a canucks blog prior to the draft (when they thought they'd get PLD or Tkachuk):

Tkachuk had elite level production in his draft season, and that makes analyzing his potential with the pGPS system a little tricky. His era adjusted points per game were the 99th percentile of the 8500 OHL players in the pGPS database. He had only one match using the standard similarity threshold of 95% (Andrew Cassels' 151-point draft+1 OHL season in 1988). Just below that 95% are same very impressive names, including John Tavares, Corey Perry, Jason Allison and Jason Spezza, all with greater than 94% similarity to Tkachuk's 2015-16 season. Other stars such as Steven Stamkos and Eric Lindross (remember that era adjustment is used) were also above 90% similarity.

http://canucksarmy.com/2016/6/17/nation-network-prospect-profile-5-matthew-tkachuk

[chubeyr1]

Gotta choose Tkatchuk, yet to me Janko is the more ready player. Gillies could also be in talks too for number one prospect.

Never the less Tkatchuk has a much higher upside that we will probably see sooner than later.

Never the less if Tkachuk, Janko, and Gillies reach their ceilings Calgary is gonna be a scary good team for a very very long time.

[oldschoolcalgary]

Originally Posted by chubeyr1

Gotta choose Tkatchuk, yet to me Janko is the more ready player. Gillies could also be in talks too for number one prospect.

Never the less Tkatchuk has a much higher upside that we will probably see sooner than later.

Never the less if Tkachuk, Janko, and Gillies reach their ceilings Calgary is gonna be a scary good team for a very very long time.

I guess we'll see.. the poll was for the best player - the most ready player is another story all together.

Janko is another guy I am still not sold on.... i guess we'll find out, but honestly i don't see him as better than 8 on our list... jmho.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by oldschoolcalgary

yeah, i am not sure how it isn't 95% to be honest...not sure if people are just being contrarians, or simply made a mistake by submitting w/o realizing who was on the list...

I guess?

If someone is going on pure upside I could see Kylington or Gillies getting votes, both have star potential IMO.

[flamesrule14]

Tkachuk easily for me. Gillies would be the only one I would possibly consider, but with his injury last year gotta give it to tkachuk. I think the vote will get very interesting the next 3-4 picks.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by oldschoolcalgary

I guess we'll see.. the poll was for the best player - the most ready player is another story all together.

It's top prospect using any criteria people want to use, as it has been every year. As it says in the OP. Some emphasize ceiling, others likelihood of making it, others go by who is the closest to making it right now, and some people considerpotrntial impact for this team. Most probably combine several angles.

Just by "best player" (or highest ceiling) it should be a lot closer between Gillies and Tkachuk IMO. Gillies has the potential to be a top starting goalie, which is both more rare and more important than Tkachuks potential of top winger.

But Tkachuk is closer to making it and more of a sure thing.

[TheScorpion]

Tkachuk still looked real raw at the Dev. Camp. He's still quite young, and he's still adjusting to the professional game, if you ask me. He certainly wasn't the guy readiest for the NHL on that ice, I'd say that honour would go to one of Jankowski, Carroll, or Hickey. These three are more seasoned than Chuck and I think they'd have more success in the NHL at this point.

In terms of highest potential and skillset, though, I have to choose Tkachuk. I would any day of the week. There's so much raw talent there, it's impossible to ignore. He just has to refine his game a little bit. And of course, Development Camp is not the way to base long-term assessments, what with the small sample size and very controlled situations.

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

I admittedly have seen very little of his play last year, but what does it mean he wasn't given an opportunity to produce offensively? I understand he may have been slotted in a defensive role but was he told not to cross center ice?

He rarely had offensive zone starts, rarely saw PP time, played almost exclusively on a checking line.

I know +/- isn't the most telling of stats, but considering Klimchuk played primarily a defensive role and he was one of just 4 players to play in 30+ games for the Heat and not be a minus player, I think that says a decent amount about how he played for the team.

[1qqaaz]

Originally Posted by Fire of the Phoenix

I think people should be asking themselves if they would trade anyone on this list for Tkachuk. Once it becomes obvious that you wouldn't, I think it's pretty clear who the top prospect is.

Would anyone seriously trade Jankowski, Hickey or... Shinkaruk (???) for Tkachuk straight up?

Yep, you hit the nail on the head here. And Tkachuk should always win by this logic.

People might like the NHL readiness or high ceiling of other prospects, but those are just a few of many factors to consider.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

I guess?

If someone is going on pure upside I could see Kylington or Gillies getting votes, both have star potential IMO.

LOL, yes, of course they do, but so does Tkachuk, and quite frankly, he's done more in his very short junior career than either of those two to justify his future star potential.

I like both of those players a heck of a lot too, but if star potential is the major driving factor for a vote, wouldn't you go with the guy most likely to be an NHL star?

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

LOL, yes, of course they do, but so does Tkachuk, and quite frankly, he's done more in his very short junior career than either of those two to justify his future star potential.

I like both of those players a heck of a lot too, but if star potential is the major driving factor for a vote, wouldn't you go with the guy most likely to be an NHL star?

Not all of us think Tkachuk is the most likely to be an NHL star though. He has 1 year in the CHL playing for a dominant team on what was likely the best line in the CHL. I'm not convinced Tkachuk is this future star powerforward or that his numbers are not inflated due to his linemates. I don't believe anyone outside Matthews is a lock to be a star from the most recent draft like.

Where as Gillies I have seen him grow into one of the most dominant NCAA goalies in recent years, I have seen his Hockey East counterpart in Hellebyuck already make a big splash for the Jets, the man he shared the crease with at the World Juniors, John Gibson made Freddie Andersen available in Anaheim and I watched him play very well in his first handful of pro games. I have no reason at this moment not to think Gillies will follow the paths of Gibson and Hellebyuck at this point in time and believe he will be a dominant NHL goaltender.

If Tkachuk goes back to the OHL and dominants, carries the Knights then maybe my views would change. But as it stands I am not convinced, but with Gillies I am convinced.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

Not all of us think Tkachuk is the most likely to be an NHL star though. He has 1 year in the CHL playing for a dominant team on what was likely the best line in the CHL. I'm not convinced Tkachuk is this future star powerforward or that his numbers are not inflated due to his linemates. I don't believe anyone outside Matthews is a lock to be a star from the most recent draft like.

Where as Gillies I have seen him grow into one of the most dominant NCAA goalies in recent years, I have seen his Hockey East counterpart in Hellebyuck already make a big splash for the Jets, the man he shared the crease with at the World Juniors, John Gibson made Freddie Andersen available in Anaheim and I watched him play very well in his first handful of pro games. I have no reason at this moment not to think Gillies will follow the paths of Gibson and Hellebyuck at this point in time and believe he will be a dominant NHL goaltender.

If Tkachuk goes back to the OHL and dominants, carries the Knights then maybe my views would change. But as it stands I am not convinced, but with Gillies I am convinced.

I get where you're coming from, but I respectfully disagree. There are three major factors that make me hesitate to say Gillies is going to be a star:

1) Major hip surgery: He lost an entire season to hip surgery and recovery, and that area is 2nd only to knees for being a career destroyer for goalies. We have yet to see what post-surgery Gillies looks like against pro competition. Sounds like he's still experiencing pain and isn't quite 100%, so we'll have to wait and see what he looks like in training camp.

2) Just a handful of professional games: This is where we'll see what he can bring to the table. He looked good in a couple games last year, picking up shutouts, but he also looked like he was adjusting to the new league and higher level of competition in a couple games as well. A full season in the AHL will tell you how good Gillies is, and how close he is to playing in the NHL. That doesn't even get into the possibility of being a star player.

3) Goalies take longer to develop: There's no way to know for sure what Gillies will end up being in the future at this point. We think he's got the tools to be a starting goaltender in the NHL, but people have thought the same thing about Jacob Markstrom for years and years, and only now is he resembling the player they thought he might be. Still not a star though. However, Henrik Lundqvist, a 7th round pick that came out of nowhere, has been one of the top 3 goalies in the league for near a decade now. Who would have predicted that?

Compare that with high ranking forwards, who seem to smoothly transition into the NHL without much difficulty, especially if they are big bodies with skill. Also, the peak age for forwards tends to be much younger than goalies...by nearly a decade. This makes a high skill, power winger like Tkachuk almost a sure bet to be a good NHL player, if not a star. Gillies has far more question marks at this point compared to Tkachuk. Sure, he won a championship and did very well in college, but he's still has almost no professional experience so far, and in that way is very much like Tkachuk (who also won a major championship).

I've been bullish on Gillies since we drafted him, and I think he'll make the NHL at some point, but I always hedge my bets with goalies because it's an incredibly hard position to figure out at times. Tkachuk is much more of a sure bet in my opinion.

[Da_Chief]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

LOL, yes, of course they do, but so does Tkachuk, and quite frankly, he's done more in his very short junior career than either of those two to justify his future star potential.

I like both of those players a heck of a lot too, but if star potential is the major driving factor for a vote, wouldn't you go with the guy most likely to be an NHL star?

I picked Tkachuk too but really if you're argument is that he's done more then those guys, how so? when compared to Gillies.

He has a World Junior Gold as a backup, NCAA championship, posted some stellar numbers in the NCAA. Was named to All-American Teams, Frozen Four MVP, goaltender of the year etc etc.

I think this is where you're head is going, 3rd round pick vs 6th overall pick? Boom 6th overall has way future star potential then the 3rd round pick.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by Da_Chief

I picked Tkachuk too but really if you're argument is that he's done more then those guys, how so? when compared to Gillies.

He has a World Junior Gold as a backup, NCAA championship, posted some stellar numbers in the NCAA. Was named to All-American Teams, Frozen Four MVP, goaltender of the year etc etc.

I think this is where you're head is going, 3rd round pick vs 6th overall pick? Boom 6th overall has way future star potential then the 3rd round pick.

First, see my post above.

Second, Tkachuk did a ton in his first OHL season, much more than Gillies did in his first couple of years in college.

However, it's an apples and orange comparison. Goalies and forwards are very difficult to compare at the same age.

[Da_Chief]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

First, see my post above.

Second, Tkachuk did a ton in his first OHL season, much more than Gillies did in his first couple of years in college.

However, it's an apples and orange comparison. Goalies and forwards are very difficult to compare at the same age.

Right, as pointed out he was playing on the best line in the juniors on a team that won a memorial cup.

Here is Gillies first year NCAA accomplishments:

2012-2013 NCAA (East) Second All-American Team
NCAA (Hockey East) All-Rookie Team
NCAA (Hockey East) First All-Star Team
NCAA (Hockey East) Rookie of the Year
NCAA (New England) D1 All-Stars
NCAA (New England) Rookie of the Year
U20 WJC Gold Medal

His second year is well-documented, winning the NCAA championship and taking home tons of awards. So still can't say Tkachuk did much more then Gillies.

It is apples to oranges but both have star potential. Heck Tkachuk could go back to the minors and not have as great of a year and Gillies could have the best season in the AHL. Neither of those things are impossible.

[Plaedo]

Originally Posted by Fire of the Phoenix

I think people should be asking themselves if they would trade anyone on this list for Tkachuk. Once it becomes obvious that you wouldn't, I think it's pretty clear who the top prospect is.

Would anyone seriously trade Jankowski, Hickey or... Shinkaruk (???) for Tkachuk straight up?

This.

As an FYI, I have been a creeping "member" of this forum for many years now but finally decided to register, and it seems like the same debate comes up every time we go through this exercise of ranking our top prospects (which of late has been annual).

I ask myself what the point is of ranking our prospects on this board, and I always come up with something that relates to how an NHL GM would think, since most of us wish we could be a GM, or we at least enjoy thinking about the same things that an NHL GM would think about. Ranking them helps us assess any potential trades that involve our prospects, and helps us reconcile our feelings when one such trade sends a prospect elsewhere.

In order to look at the hierarchy of our prospects the way that an NHL GM would look at them we ought to take a comprehensive perspective instead of a one-dimensional one. I have always thought that this multi-dimensional perspective is captured by simply thinking about a prospect's true trade value, provided that there is full disclosure on the prospect and while ignoring potential synergies. This is something that we all likely do subconsciously when thinking about trade value, where we attribute different values to different factors in the equation. Let me expound on some of these factors.

Only looking at potential ceiling can be misleading, because the more time that has passed without seeing substantial progress in the prospect's developmental trajectory, the greater the risk of the prospect not reaching their potential becomes, and thus their trade value begins to decrease. In a similar manner, the closer a prospect is to their ceiling, or further along their developmental trajectory, the less vague their capabilities become, the less risk involved, and their trade value will increase proportionately.

Only looking at current NHL readiness is also misleading, for obvious reasons, as top prospects that are "green," such as Tkachuk, may not be adapted to the NHL game currently, but will have a much higher trade value than a grinding 4th liner that is finally looking to be pushing for an NHL spot. That being said, there is value attributed to the reduced risk of a prospect showing greater NHL readiness. At some point, potential ceiling and NHL readiness cross over the same trade value, where a lower risk and lower potential reward is equivalent to a higher risk with a higher potential reward.

Mathematically these two factors can be expressed something like the following:
Potential Ceiling (1-10) - Current Risk of Not Reaching Ceiling (1-10) = Trade Value

Of course other factors are considered in a trade, such as how much of an impact could the prospect have on the club due to their position (the whole Goalie>Defenseman>Centre>Forward relationship), or even longevity of the prospect (how long will the prospect provide a certain benefit to the team, i.e. the prospect could have a high ceiling but have a history of injuries, and thus increasing the risk of the prospect).

Maybe these factors are more of a coefficient in the equation, such as:
(Potential Ceiling (1-10))*Positional Impact Factor - Current Risk of Not Reaching Ceiling (1-10))*Longevity Factor = Trade Value

Another, less important factor for a GM is how much of an impact the prospect could have because of the current structural make-up of the team (whether giant holes are being filled at a certain position or whether great depth is simply being added to in said position). I think factors like this are probably secondary for a GM when considering trading away a prospect since most competent GMs will seek to maximize the value of the return for their assets (see also; Drafting Best Player Available), instead of getting fleeced because they put themselves in such a desperate situation where they need a certain role or position filled (*cough* Edmonton *cough* ). I would consider this factor a synergistic factor, much like the potential synergies with line-mates, which should all be ignored.

There are a lot of contributing factors that could be considered when trying to determine our top prospects; but in short, it comes down to potential risk versus potential reward, as that is how GMs assess trade value. This way we can come up with a valid, relevant, and useful prospect hierarchy. (Sorry for the essay...)