Summer 2014 Prospect Ranking Poll Rd3

[flambers]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Why would we demote Sven because he had a bad season but then promote Gillies for having an arguably worse season as a prospect?

Have heard Flames talk about prospects on the radio, they still speak very highly in regards to Gillies.

Sven has serious holes in his game... question the organization will ask can it be fixed...

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I wonder if the team might have a longer view of this problem in light of some of his problems with injuries in the past two years, which quite likely have had a palpable psychological impact on his game.


I suspect that the team exercises some flexibility in their employment of this rule to each player individually. We will see, but based on what we have heard compared to what we have seen, the team seems to take a much more focused individual approach to each player's development. For all we know, circumstances and history have affected the hard and fast employment of this rule for a player like Baertschi.

I completely agree with what you are saying. There is likely no hard and fast rule here. I think what does come into play is the waiver issue and not wanting to lose the player if he is not yet ready. I suspect that if Baertschi isn't showing he is ready, by say Christmas, he may be traded for a player in a similar position, but better addresses team needs (RW or RD). I doubt they want to be pushed into the waiver corner a la Colborne. Hopefully this is all a moot point and Baertschi comes to camp and blows the doors off everyone.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Why would we demote Sven because he had a bad season but then promote Gillies for having an arguably worse season as a prospect?

Maybe because Gillies didn't have a bad season. He didn't look good on a poor American team at the juniors, and that shook his confidence for about a month, but he bounced back and finished the year great. He did NOT have a poor season.

[FlamesAddiction]

These polls always bring up the idea of ceiling vs. likelihood of reaching it. It's really a difficult balance. I personally find that I weight them differently in each round and have trouble staying consistent with how I value one over the other.

I think some people put the ceiling as the trump card, which in that case I would also pick Baertschi over Poirier and Granlund. In that case, I would also put Jankowski ahead of them too and a guy like Eric Roy would probably end up ranking quite high as well. At some point, the likelihood of reaching the ceiling has to play into it as well IMO.

[FeyWest]

The only problem with the ranking players on opinion is I bet there are lots who see Granlund, Poirier, Baertschi, etc... as Tied, I think it's more representative in a Tier type ranking because they are so close for me at least.

I'm excited we have such a crop of prospects and it's great to have the problem of deciding which player is better because each has their own merits. We'll need the variety going forward as it will make playing Calgary tough and I look forward to seeing what happens in future years s we can look back on this poll and grin or cry (relatively)

*Edit* And just because a player is ranked 3, 4, 5... by us it's not the end of the world, I'd say the weighting of the players is likely 8/10 if that makes sense.

[djsFlames]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Baertschi's ceiling is the highest among remaining prospects and there's little to indicate that anyone else is more a of a "sure thing" to override that. It's not crazy to vote for Sven under that framework.

Poirier is a great prospect but his ceiling isn't as high. Likewise Granlund. Considering that Sven has played actual NHL games and showed that he's close to being a full time NHL player should disabuse anyone of the notion that the other guys are better prospects at this point.

Sven doesn't have any "framework" yet. Still hasn't whole heartedly bought in to the fact that there are other facets to the game, that he needs to learn and have the drive to succeed at before he can become an NHL player at all. Racking up a few points in 50 or so total games doesn't negate that fact.

Offensive talent/ceiling doesn't always make the player. Plenty of past players who had real talent weren't able to become players because of they weren't able to develop a full game. Sure, teams may sign these one dimensional players, but at the end of the day they aren't going to contribute to the team winning. People are totally missing the point here of those who may be voting for other prospects.

Perhaps you've stored Sven away on your untouchables list, because of what he did in a few games, but he still has a ways to go. Also Granlund may have a more similar ceiling to Sven than you may think, but I think he's got a better grasp of a 200 ft game, and is getting it done offensively as well.

Should just change the rankings to most talented prospects poll.. There are other factors that play in.

[wingmaker]

There certainly are no right answers in a poll like this. It's great that everyone can pick the best prospect and use whatever criteria they want.

The one thing that irks me, though, is this idea that a prospect already has a determined "ceiling". What an asinine concept. I am willing to bet that David Moss's "ceiling" was a third/fourth line grinder when he was drafted in the 7th round, and yet he has played as a second line player for stretches of his career and scored 20 goals, which is higher than his "ceiling". Similarly, Iginla's "ceiling" was probably a second/first line winger, not a hall of fame, franchise player. Brodie's "ceiling" was supposed to be a second or third pairing defensman, and yet he is playing on a top pairing and still growing as a player. Giordano wasn't even drafted and yet was loosely considered for the norris last year. All of these players have far exceeded the "ceiling" that was assumed for them at the time they were draft eligible and in the early years of their development.

So people saying that Granlund or Poirier have lower ceilings than Baertschi does is just their guess at what type of player they will become. It has nothing to do with what their actual potential is. I see no reason why either of those players couldn't become top end offensive players given their current development curve. It doesn't mean that it will happen, but I don't know why we would assume what their potential is just because they were drafted later than Baertschi was.

[Fire]

Originally Posted by New Era

Maybe because Gillies didn't have a bad season. He didn't look good on a poor American team at the juniors, and that shook his confidence for about a month, but he bounced back and finished the year great. He did NOT have a poor season.

Yeah, he's still a top 10 prospect on this team for sure. His numbers didn't improve from his previous season but when his numbers were so outstanding his first season, it's hard to surpass that.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by wingmaker

There certainly are no right answers in a poll like this. It's great that everyone can pick the best prospect and use whatever criteria they want.

The one thing that irks me, though, is this idea that a prospect already has a determined "ceiling". What an asinine concept. I am willing to bet that David Moss's "ceiling" was a third/fourth line grinder when he was drafted in the 7th round, and yet he has played as a second line player for stretches of his career and scored 20 goals, which is higher than his "ceiling". Similarly, Iginla's "ceiling" was probably a second/first line winger, not a hall of fame, franchise player. Brodie's "ceiling" was supposed to be a second or third pairing defensman, and yet he is playing on a top pairing and still growing as a player. Giordano wasn't even drafted and yet was loosely considered for the norris last year. All of these players have far exceeded the "ceiling" that was assumed for them at the time they were draft eligible and in the early years of their development.

So people saying that Granlund or Poirier have lower ceilings than Baertschi does is just their guess at what type of player they will become. It has nothing to do with what their actual potential is. I see no reason why either of those players couldn't become top end offensive players given their current development curve. It doesn't mean that it will happen, but I don't know why we would assume what their potential is just because they were drafted later than Baertschi was.

Ouch, that's a little harsh. I think it can be a little short sighted when people assume the ceiling is more than just theoretical mark based on achievements to date, but it is a concept used by many scouting and media outlets. Anyone who has been around for a while knows that ceilings are broken all the time.

But this is why I tend to look past the projected ceiling and favour players with qualities that will at least help them get a foot in the door, because a ceiling is useless if they don't possess qualities that keep them in the line-up full time (something that I am worried about with Baertschi). Once they are in, the sky is the limit.

[wingmaker]

Didn't mean it to be harsh. I understand that there are projections for players and that that is a huge part of scouting. But a ceiling assumes that there is already a limit to what a player will become. It's one thing to say that a player projects a certain way, it is another to assume that they will not become more than a certain type of player when they are still young and capable of evolving.

[FeyWest]

Originally Posted by wingmaker

Didn't mean it to be harsh. I understand that there are projections for players and that that is a huge part of scouting. But a ceiling assumes that there is already a limit to what a player will become. It's one thing to say that a player projects a certain way, it is another to assume that they will not become more than a certain type of player when they are still young and capable of evolving.

I don't really try to project ceiling, players can only be as good as the environment they are brought up in, Baertschi has been mishandled (debateable for some) but I think Poirier and Granlund have done well and deserve to be top prospects for us (Which they are). I also believe Baertschi does too, he may have had a proverbial "Step-back" but I think it's a good opportunity of growth for Baertschi it's usually when you falter that the most growth can be made and that is the only reason I still put him as #3.

Does Granlund deserve #3 sure, and so does Poirier, arguments can be made for each player. Baertschi has had so much fluctation that it's unfair to compare stats at least as he's not able to be as consistent as he might be, I still believe he will prove himself and be just as productive or more than Poirier and Granlund, but I also think it can tip the other way for the other guys. but I do agree a "Ceiling" projection is not very empirical and is more opinionated than anything so I get why it can be frustrating, this is why I'm at least giving an argument for my choice

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by wingmaker

...a ceiling assumes that there is already a limit to what a player will become. It's one thing to say that a player projects a certain way, it is another to assume that they will not become more than a certain type of player when they are still young and capable of evolving.

So, what would be the point then of even ranking prospects?

As I see it, the idea of a "ceiling" helps us as fans to process each players potential contribution to the team. I'm pretty sure no one here is guilty of believing that every player will realise their perceived potential, and furthermore, that every player is limited by it. It's an educated guess. Nothing more.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by wingmaker

Didn't mean it to be harsh. I understand that there are projections for players and that that is a huge part of scouting. But a ceiling assumes that there is already a limit to what a player will become. It's one thing to say that a player projects a certain way, it is another to assume that they will not become more than a certain type of player when they are still young and capable of evolving.

Completely agree. There is certainly a projected path for most players, that does not mean that they can't deviate from that path, positively or negatively. That is exactly how later round picks end up as good players. Once drafted, it is completely up to the player what their ceiling will be. Where they were drafted makes no difference, what they did at lower levels makes no difference, and any percieved ceiling is constantly in flux.

It is a good thing for the Flames that some are considering players drafted much later than Baertschi to possibly have better outcomes. Our top prospect was pretty much unanimously voted to be a 4th round pick which many thought was a waste at the time due to his diminutive size. Things change.

[wingmaker]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

So, what would be the point then of even ranking prospects?

As I see it, the idea of a "ceiling" helps us as fans to process each players potential contribution to the team. I'm pretty sure no one here is guilty of believing that every player will realise their perceived potential, and furthermore, that every player is limited by it. It's an educated guess. Nothing more.

Perhaps it's just a semantics thing. I understand that Baertschi, for example, was projected to be a first line winger and still carries that as his perceived potential, where as Granlund and Poirier were probably projected to be second line players when they were drafted, thus they were drafted later. However, since then, both Granlund and Poirier have improved their games and have put up better numbers and shown more than they did in their draft year. Will they become more than what was projected of them? Maybe maybe-not, but they certainly have changed the conversation and if they continue to evolve could exceed the original projections, therefor making the concept of a "ceiling" irrelevant. These are young players. Of course we all look at them and project what they will become. That is the fun of these polls. All I am saying is that they still have the ability to evolve and exceed expectations. Capping their potential with a concept like "ceiling" does nor reflect the reality that player development is fluid and not a set progression towards an already determined potential.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

So, what would be the point then of even ranking prospects?

As I see it, the idea of a "ceiling" helps us as fans to process each players potential contribution to the team. I'm pretty sure no one here is guilty of believing that every player will realise their perceived potential, and furthermore, that every player is limited by it. It's an educated guess. Nothing more.

There are definitely people here that think players are limited by it. There's a lot of it being thrown around in here. People saying Granlund projects as nothing more than a 3rd line C or whatever and thus shouldn't be considered with top-line potential Baertschi. It's just incorrect. In almost any thread about prospects you'll have an array of posts with absolute opinions on players purely based on their perceived skill set, what media outlets say, and where they were drafted. Which are fine for forming guesses, but there are no absolutes. You may not speak in absolutes, but many here do.

[sempuki]

Originally Posted by GGG

Would I trade Sven for Pourier?

How hard is it to look up how to spell someone's name? It's written multiple times throughout this very thread. Just scroll up!

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by MattyC

There are definitely people here that think players are limited by it. There's a lot of it being thrown around in here. People saying Granlund projects as nothing more than a 3rd line C or whatever and thus shouldn't be considered with top-line potential Baertschi. It's just incorrect. In almost any thread about prospects you'll have an array of posts with absolute opinions on players purely based on their perceived skill set, what media outlets say, and where they were drafted. Which are fine for forming guesses, but there are no absolutes. You may not speak in absolutes, but many here do.

There is a chance that players peak past their projected ceiling, but on the flipside, most prospects will never live up to their projected "ceiling" at all. The ceiling tends to be optimistic if anything.

I suspect most of the people that voted for Gaudreau in the first round were going exclusively on projected ceiling as there are still some serious question marks about how he will fit into the NHL.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by wingmaker

Perhaps it's just a semantics thing. I understand that Baertschi, for example, was projected to be a first line winger and still carries that as his perceived potential, where as Granlund and Poirier were probably projected to be second line players when they were drafted, thus they were drafted later. However, since then, both Granlund and Poirier have improved their games and have put up better numbers and shown more than they did in their draft year. Will they become more than what was projected of them? Maybe maybe-not, but they certainly have changed the conversation...

Of course they have, and this is reflected in how they have shot up the rankings.

Originally Posted by wingmaker

...and if they continue to evolve could exceed the original projections, therefor making the concept of a "ceiling" irrelevant...

Or, it is a mere acknowledgement of what one's "ceiling" actually is. It should not be considered permanently fixed, but fixed relative to everything we know about each player at any given time. With added information, the ceiling is liable to change.

Originally Posted by wingmaker

These are young players. Of course we all look at them and project what they will become. That is the fun of these polls. All I am saying is that they still have the ability to evolve and exceed expectations. Capping their potential with a concept like "ceiling" does nor reflect the reality that player development is fluid and not a set progression towards an already determined potential.

I would recommend that you not interpret the word as a hard cap, then. Its a projection, and one that is not inflexible. It's just a measure based on what we know, and for each player, it fluctuates with time.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Went with Poirier, just love his game. Everytime I see him I like him more. Good size, plays mean, great scoring touch and blazing speed.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Why would we demote Sven because he had a bad season but then promote Gillies for having an arguably worse season as a prospect?

I'm not the world's most prolific NCAA watcher, but didn't Gillies have a rough WJC followed by a refocus and a solid playoff showing?

That's certainly different than Baertschi's season.