[CP Story] CP Prospect Rankings 2017 Summary

[Yrebmi]

I just want to really thank Bingo and FDW for making that little debate public to the rest of us. It was awesome to read the back and forth.

[Finger Cookin]

Look at those goalies rocketing up the charts. We desperately want a goalie to prospect to break through to go along with the rest of the core, don't we?

[Yrebmi]

A question for some of you long time fans.
IIRC, Trevor Kidd was thought to be a can't miss prospect. How does the hype around him compare to Parsons?

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Yrebmi

A question for some of you long time fans.
IIRC, Trevor Kidd was thought to be a can't miss prospect. How does the hype around him compare to Parsons?

I'm not sure how educational the comparison would be as goalie coaching and goalie scouting has changed quite a bit since then. That was what, about 25 years ago? A quarter of a century. The game and goalkeeping has changed.

[Yrebmi]

True. Kidd may have even been a stack the pads style keeper.
Probably has no real comparison to today.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Why do you feel that though? I feel like Nieuwendyk is a closer comparable in terms of style. I dunno every time I've seen Jankowski his skill is obvious. The skating, the skill, the face-offs. He just needed time to mature and fill out. His AHL year was tremendous and certainly showed him to be a skill centre. Otto wasn't really a super skilled guy from what I remember of him. More of a grinding, defensive centre. That isn't really Jankowski from what I've seen of him. He's a skilled, playmaking, offensive centre.

I think the good teams in the NHL don't have a top 6/bottom 6 differentiation. I think the best teams in the league roll their top 3 lines fairly equally at even strength and basically have two 1st lines and a 2nd line, or two 2nd lines and a 1st line. So I don't think Bennett and Jankowski have a huge roadblock with Monahan/Backlund in front of them because I see us being able to construct 3 scoring lines to make a tremendous top 9.

I hate being on the wet blanket side but you've sort of forced my hand.

Jankowski has developed to the point where I think he has a long NHL career ahead of him, and that makes me happy as hell, but he's not Joe Nieuwendyk.

Nieuwendyk put up similar ECAC numbers as Gaudreau, not Jankowski. Jankowski is a solid player that has progressed well but his NHLe has topped out at 35 last year in the AHL, up from 32 the previous season in college. Solid projection.

Nieuwendyk's three year college career (one before being drafted) was 29, 38 and 43 to Jankowski's last three college years of 19, 22, 32.

I see Jankowski as maybe a Backlund as someone suggested, Otto works if he's solid two ways as he was big and didn't really fight.

Either way I'm happy as hell!

But he's not an elite center or a clone of Joe.

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

I have a tight definition for it as well. I just think you may be putting a bit too much stock in his draft position and perhaps underrating the depth from last year. This is a kid that the Flames had top 11, in a pretty good draft year in terms of depth. So basically a borderline top 10 pick. Flames were crossing their fingers hoping he would fall. Are you suggesting only top 5ish guys can be blue-chippers? Tod Button said he has top two defenseman upside. He seems to be pretty comparable to Juolevi who went top 5 the year before. It all adds up to bluechip to me. Not even debatable for me. The scouts and GM have gushed about him. People were impressed by him at development camp, at the WJC summer camps.

In the end I think he's underhyped because we're asset rich. People don't need to be pinning hopes and dreams on him because he was drafted right as we're leaving the rebuild. Seems like he's been underrated in our prospect poll and by you IMO. I'd say he's our most hyped defense prospect since Phaneuf. Total blue-chipper. He can defend, rush the puck, join the attack, shows leadership, eats minutes. What more does he have to do to be considered bluechip? He put up over a point per game in his draft year. I couldn't believe Andersson was voted ahead of him in our prospect poll, to me that shows a shocking underrating of Valimaki's upside. I see Valimaki as having top pairing upside and I don't think Andersson has that upside.

I have less debate on Valimaki as I think he's done nothing but great things since his draft day.

But if he was a blue chipper I still don't see him going 16th overall. People have suggested the reason he fell to Calgary is the "good at all, not great at anything" monicker which I think is unfair and will be proven wrong.

Honestly I just see Valimaki needed to prove it this year and then yeah I could see him and others as blue chip players.

Valimaki started higher and only needs to prove it one year after draft. Lower picks like Andersson, Kylington and Fox need a bit more runway in my mind.

I see lots of hope and excitement, but just see it as premature this summer.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I have less debate on Valimaki as I think he's done nothing but great things since his draft day.

But if he was a blue chipper I still don't see him going 16th overall. People have suggested the reason he fell to Calgary is the "good at all, not great at anything" monicker which I think is unfair and will be proven wrong

Still too much reliance on draft position in your argument IMO. Would you have used that argument against Erik Karlsson? He went 15th. Would you have used that argument against Brent Burns? He went after 16. I'm not saying Valimaki is those guys but I'm using those examples to show that draft position is fairly irrelevant to blue chip status or not. Endless all stars and top pairing dmen went after 15. Shea Weber and Duncan Keith went in the 2nd. So I don't see why Valimaki going 16th means he cannot be a blue chipper. Especially when the Flames said they had him higher. IMO his draft position argues FOR blue chip status not against it. Flames had him top 11 in a decent draft year. Are you trying to suggest only defencemen taken top 5 are blue chip? Cause that is silly and we both know it. I dunno I really don't understand your argument that him going 16th means he isn't a bluechipper. I think most defencemen taken top 20 in decent draft years are blue chippers until they show bust trends.

Why can't a guy who went 16th be a blue chip prospect? What does it even mean then? Was Dylan Larkin not a blue chip prospect after being drafted? How about Kyle Connor? Matt Barzal?

[Tinordi]

To me a blue chip prospect is a can't miss impact player.

Flames have none of those. Valimaki and Parsons are close but while they project to impact players, they aren't "can't miss."

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Still too much reliance on draft position in your argument IMO. Would you have used that argument against Erik Karlsson? He went 15th. Would you have used that argument against Brent Burns? He went after 16. I'm not saying Valimaki is those guys but I'm using those examples to show that draft position is fairly irrelevant to blue chip status or not. Endless all stars and top pairing dmen went after 15. Shea Weber and Duncan Keith went in the 2nd. So I don't see why Valimaki going 16th means he cannot be a blue chipper. Especially when the Flames said they had him higher. IMO his draft position argues FOR blue chip status not against it. Flames had him top 11 in a decent draft year. Are you trying to suggest only defencemen taken top 5 are blue chip? Cause that is silly and we both know it. I dunno I really don't understand your argument that him going 16th means he isn't a bluechipper. I think most defencemen taken top 20 in decent draft years are blue chippers until they show bust trends.

I think you're missing my point ...

I doubt I would have had Burns or Karlsson as a blue chip prospect three months after they were drafted either ... as I don't with Valimaki.

However Karlsson progressed and progressed and became a complete stud. Ottawa fans would know better but a year after the draft they probably started getting pretty excited, two years after he had a NHL season under his belt and all bets were off.

I'm not eliminating Valimaki from EVER being a blue chip prospect, I'm just saying he's isn't one 90 days after his draft day as not enough has happened to help or hurt his stature. He went 16th for a reason, the Flames have him higher as you say, which is a great sign for the scouting staff, but they didn't move assets to move up and get him at 10 or 11 or 12.

If he was a blue chip prospect now he would have gone higher in this year's draft.

I hope he's a blue chip prospect by next summer though!

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

To me a blue chip prospect is a can't miss impact player.

Flames have none of those. Valimaki and Parsons are close but while they project to impact players, they aren't "can't miss."

Yes and upper roster.

Can't Miss + Impact Projection = Blue Chip

A safe pick that looks like a given to be a 9-11 forward isn't a bluechip.

A maverick pick with great upside but some serious warts to work out isn't a bluechip.

[Tinordi]

Which is why Janko isn't blue chip. He looks like he's can't miss but he's not an impact guy. Janko might find another gear, it's possible, but if you look at his body of work there's very little to suggest that he's going to be a big scorer in the NHL. He looks like a good 3rd line center. That's great. But throwing around names like Nieuwendyk is just depressingly optimistic. It sets up unreal expectations for fans for a player who'll likely have a up and down early career in the NHL.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Which is why Janko isn't blue chip. He looks like he's can't miss but he's not an impact guy. Janko might find another gear, it's possible, but if you look at his body of work there's very little to suggest that he's going to be a big scorer in the NHL. He looks like a good 3rd line center. That's great. But throwing around names like Nieuwendyk is just depressingly optimistic. It sets up unreal expectations for fans for a player who'll likely have a up and down early career in the NHL.

Well the Nieuwendyk comparison was a stylistic one. Bingo brought up Otto who was a grinding, physical defensive centre with limited skills. Nieuwendyk on the other hand is a skilled top two line centre, IMO Jankowski's style is a lot closer to Nieuwendyk than Otto. I'm not saying Jankowski will be Nieuwendyk. But I'm not the first person to make that comparison.

http://calgaryherald.com/sports/hock...dyk-comparison

“He’s a long way away,” John Weisbrod, then assistant general manager, said June 22, 2012, at the Consol Energy centre. “He’s raw, he’s young. He’s still got to cross the crocodile-infested waters and develop properly — like, it’s a long way from draft day to play in the NHL — but the physical attributes this guy has. The athleticism. The skating. The hands. The fact that he’ll likely be playing at six-four, 215.

“I’ve said it to our scouts all week long — he’s Joe Nieuwendyk.”

As for your point that he's done nothing to show he's going to be a scorer at the NHL level I'm going to disagree with that. He posted better than point per game numbers on a NCAA Championship squad as their 1st line centre. Then moved on to the AHL where he was runner up for rookie of the year posting 25+ goals, 25+ assists. I'd say those numbers as a rookie pro do indeed suggest he'll be a top two line player. Not to mention when you watch the kid he has quite obviously a higher skill level than a lot of 3rd liners.

I understand why some are skeptical on Jankowski. Clearly some have never bought into any hype on him and likely never will until he's proved it in the NHL. But IMO he's trending towards being an impact NHLer and a top two line player. IMO he's reached bluechip status with how he's developed, how he played his last 2 years in college and his excellent rookie pro year.

I guess we'll see who's right. We'll probably know within the next year whether he's showing top two line upside or not so the question will be answered soon.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I think you're missing my point ...

I doubt I would have had Burns or Karlsson as a blue chip prospect three months after they were drafted either ... as I don't with Valimaki.

However Karlsson progressed and progressed and became a complete stud. Ottawa fans would know better but a year after the draft they probably started getting pretty excited, two years after he had a NHL season under his belt and all bets were off.

I'm not eliminating Valimaki from EVER being a blue chip prospect, I'm just saying he's isn't one 90 days after his draft day as not enough has happened to help or hurt his stature. He went 16th for a reason, the Flames have him higher as you say, which is a great sign for the scouting staff, but they didn't move assets to move up and get him at 10 or 11 or 12.

If he was a blue chip prospect now he would have gone higher in this year's draft.

I hope he's a blue chip prospect by next summer though!

I understand where you're coming from but I still don't totally buy that train of thought. The draft has gotten deep enough in the last decade to the point where there are guys going in the 10-20 range that are bluechip prospects right away IMO unless its a really weak draft year. I think he has enough of a resume to qualify already. He's already played 2 years in NA, he's got loads of international experience. He's been scouted heavily and is a pretty known quantity. I'm pretty confident he'll be considered blue chip quite easily next summer by you. I think he qualifies already but I understand why you don't want to.

We may just have different philosophies on it though. I often consider most prospects taken in the top 15-20 to be blue chip prospects unless they lack a high upside or have a huge question mark on them. Of course they can lose this status by trending in the wrong direction. But most players these days taken in the top 15 or so are expected to be impact NHLers and are expected to have a high likelihood of achieving their potential. Yes they are some home run swings where players have question marks on them, usually size or skating where you'd want to see improvement in that area before anointing them a bluechip prospect. But Valimaki can do it all and has no big weaknesses. He can skate, he can play defense, he can go offence, he can assume a leadership role. I don't see any reason to think he doesn't have impact NHLer upside and he looks to be a very safe bet to play. So pretty much the definition of bluechip by your standards. It seems like he checks all your boxes except that you don't allow prospects taken 16th to be considered blue chippers right away.

Anyways, interesting discussion and thanks for the time and the replies.

[Flamefan1]

IMO the Flames have 3 blue chip players in Jankowski,Parsons and Valimaki. Fox could also prove to be a blue chip player in the next year. It doesn't matter what Valimaki draft number was he is a blue chip prospect as shown in the World Junior exhibition games this summer. Based on those same games and Fox's last year an argument could easily be made that he is a blue chipper. The only reason I would exclude him now is because of his size, but that may not be a factor in the end. If there is such a thing as a blue chip prospect goalie Parsons is that blue chip prospect.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Here's a bit of a look at players taken in recent drafts around pick 16 who have turned out or are currently considered bluechip.

2012:
Forsberg - 11th
Ceci - 15th
Hertl - 17th
Vasilevskiy - 19th

2013:
Domi - 12th
Morrisey - 13th
Wennberg - 14th

2014:
Honka - 14th
Larkin - 15th
Sanheim - 17th

2015:
Barzal - 16th
Connor - 17th
Chabot - 18th
Eriksson-Ek - 20th
White - 21st
Boeser - 23rd
Konecny - 24th

2016
McAvoy - 14th (probably makes the NHL this year, arguably should have been considered a blue chipper immediately after being drafted)
Chychrun - 16th (I would've considered him a blue-chipper immediately after being drafted much like Valimaki)

Anyways doesn't necessarily prove anything but I think it goes to show that the depth in drafting has improved a lot in the last 5-10 years. Future impact NHLers are regularly picked in the 10-20 range these days. Maybe goes to show you can consider the most surefire of the prospects taken who have excellent upside to be considered bluechip immediately upon being drafted. Valimaki's combination of high upside and certainty to make it combine to make him a blue-chipper immediately IMO but we can agree to disagree there. I think there are certain guys each year that fit that combination. 2013 was a deep draft and based on upside and certainty I would've had Wennberg as a blue-chipper immediately as I feel he would've gone top 10 in weaker years. 2015 I think both Connor and Barzal dropped a bit and should have been immediately considered blue-chippers. Several guys around there have blossomed into blue-chippers as well. 2016 another deep draft, Chychrun dropped, at least one scout had McAvoy as his top defender and I felt pretty good about declaring both blue chippers immediately after the draft. 2017 I think was unfairly painted as a weaker draft when I think the depth in the 10-20 range was excellent. I dunno the more I read about Valimaki the more convinced I was that he was both a safe pick and a very high upside pick. So I'd have him as a blue chipper whereas if we picked Brannstrom or Liljegren I wouldn't have called them blue chippers because I think those are riskier, boom or bust type picks.

Should be interesting to see. I wonder if the press/viewings on Valimaki in Penticton and main camp will change anybody's mind.

[bubbsy]

Not sure what folks think about this publication, but they rank the flames prospects quite high in their team rankings (flames 5th, jets 4th, leafs 3rd, yotes 2nd, flyers 1st, oh and nucks 12th, oilers 10th)
http://www.dobberprospects.com/2017-...ects-rankings/

[JFK]

Originally Posted by Finger Cookin

Look at those goalies rocketing up the charts. We desperately want a goalie to prospect to break through to go along with the rest of the core, don't we?

Like Gillies dropping from 2nd to 6th?

[Bingo]

Just so I'm clear I loved the Valimaki pick and I think they may have found a steal at that point.

I'm certainly not arguing that you need to have a top five pick to land a blue chip prospect ... all comes down to timing for me. If teams picking 6-15 didn't take the guy he's just not a blue chip prospect yet. The Flames were intrigued and had him higher, but they didn't move up to get him so that to me again says not a blue chip on draft day or draft summer.

But I'll be happy to bump his status next summer!

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Yes and upper roster.

Can't Miss + Impact Projection = Blue Chip

A safe pick that looks like a given to be a 9-11 forward isn't a bluechip.

A maverick pick with great upside but some serious warts to work out isn't a bluechip.

The only thing potentially stopping Jankowski from being "upper roster" is the same thing stopping Sam Bennett - the position he plays on the team he plays on. I very much see both these guys as similar tiers of "prospect" in terms of floor and ceiling.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

The only thing potentially stopping Jankowski from being "upper roster" is the same thinv stopping Sam Bennett - the position he plays on the team he plays on. I very much see both these guys as similar tiers of "prospect" in terms of floor and ceiling.

That's interesting ...

Not sure I'd agree, but if you're that high on Jankowski I'd love to be wrong. I see Bennett as taking the typical route to his eventual draft day value by learning and finding himself; I think he's a top six clearly and as early as this year.

Jankowski has never dominated any level like Bennett did in his draft year and then that abbreviated spin after shoulder surgery.

Jankowski I see more of that safe two way guy that ideally centers the third line.

Both have high floors though.