Calgarypuck Prospect Ranking 2016 - Round 4

[FBI]

Thought about Shinkaruk but went with Kylington just because if they both reach their potential, Kylington will be more important to the Flames.

First NHL Game: done
Regular NHLer: 2018/2019 season

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Bingo

First off I've never cared about the on ice success of an AHL team. Don't get me wrong, we have lots of guys that cover the team for us, and they care and with that so do I.

But prospect success and AHL standings almost never line up.

The Flames won the championship with Saint John led by Marty Murray, Dave Roche, Rico Fata and Daniel Tkaczuk. Saint John Flames 2001

Specific players can concern me though ... your questions on Poirier are good ... what happened? I think I took it from Huska that he may have thought he had that level beat and either didn't do enough in the last off season or showed up thinking it would be easy. That's an interesting cross roads for a player, so it will be interesting to see what he does this year.

Kylington? No concerns at all.

18 in a new league, in a new country ... plus he was drafted at 60 when once at 5 and needed to learn defense.

He had a great year from my standpoint.

I think the Grants and Agostino's are gone because they don't want the team lead by players that they don't project, but that's just me guessing.

Going by the St. John Flames history Grant and Agostino may be the players that make it.
St. John did graduate Steve Begin, Blair Betts, Chris Clark, and Steve Montador so maybe it isn't the big names we should be looking at.

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/l...002602001.html

[devo22]

for me, the top 3 were pretty clear ... from 4 to 7 IMO it's very close between Shinkaruk, Hickey, Kylington and Andersson. Went with Shinkaruk.

[codynw]

Still voting Andersson.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Going by the St. John Flames history Grant and Agostino may be the players that make it.
St. John did graduate Steve Begin, Blair Betts, Chris Clark, and Steve Montador so maybe it isn't the big names we should be looking at.

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/l...002602001.html

This is a good point. People often focus on the big number guys, but once you've been in the AHL a few years its highly unlikely you are going to be a top 6 NHL guy (really young European guys would be the exception here since they would be in junior if they were Canadian). Its those muckers like Hathaway who will probably end up having the longer careers in the NHL.

[ricardodw]

Originally Posted by Bingo

First off I've never cared about the on ice success of an AHL team. Don't get me wrong, we have lots of guys that cover the team for us, and they care and with that so do I.

But prospect success and AHL standings almost never line up.

The Flames won the championship with Saint John led by Marty Murray, Dave Roche, Rico Fata and Daniel Tkaczuk. Saint John Flames 2001

Specific players can concern me though ... your questions on Poirier are good ... what happened? I think I took it from Huska that he may have thought he had that level beat and either didn't do enough in the last off season or showed up thinking it would be easy. That's an interesting cross roads for a player, so it will be interesting to see what he does this year.

Kylington? No concerns at all.

18 in a new league, in a new country ... plus he was drafted at 60 when once at 5 and needed to learn defense.

He had a great year from my standpoint.

I think the Grants and Agostino's are gone because they don't want the team lead by players that they don't project, but that's just me guessing.

Good point about the 2001 ST.J. Flames ... although Chris Clark brought the winning attitude to the 2004 Flames.

The guys that have developed through the Flames system: Gio, Brodie, Bouma, Backlund, Jooris, Baertschi, Granlund , Ortio all have played on teams that while not championship level were competitive.

I think there is importance of stepping up in important games that requires important games to play in.

The Canucks were loaded with Moose players ... Grand Rapids was a successful in the standings AHL team and put forth a stream of NHL ready players for the wings.


Out of last 2 years teams that have been (AHL Lottery teams) Hathaway is the only one that seems to have gotten NHL ready.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by ricardodw

Good point about the 2001 ST.J. Flames ... although Chris Clark brought the winning attitude to the 2004 Flames.

The guys that have developed through the Flames system: Gio, Brodie, Bouma, Backlund, Jooris, Baertschi, Granlund , Ortio all have played on teams that while not championship level were competitive.

I think there is importance of stepping up in important games that requires important games to play in.

The year in Adirondack the missed on the Ortio injury. Last year they at least played to the final weekend with Jankowski on board trying to nail down that last playoff spot.

But I agree ... you can't have prospects developing in a wasteland.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Going by the St. John Flames history Grant and Agostino may be the players that make it.
St. John did graduate Steve Begin, Blair Betts, Chris Clark, and Steve Montador so maybe it isn't the big names we should be looking at.

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/l...002602001.html

I wouldn't use that team as a model to for anything, let alone projecting future Flames. The Flames development system was in a mess back then. I would think the Flames are more likely to following the Red Wings or the Coyotes model, given the comments and connections in the system. The Coyotes still managed to promote players like Boedker, Ekman-Larsson, Stone, Rieder, etc. The Flames system has come a long way, and with the management philosophy of "over cooking" the prospects, we can likely expect to see some of our prospects take a little more time than the fans desire, and experience some more statistical ups and downs as they work on the weaknesses their coaches identify.

[TheScorpion]

Kylington
Hickey
Andersson
Shinkaruk
Tuulola
Mangiapane

[Monahan For Mayor]

Went with the combination of NHL Ready/ High Potential. Shinkaruk

[puckedoff]

I still like Poirier over Shinkaruk as far as potential impact on the NHL roster. Hopefully he has a good training camp.
Went with Hickey for the 4th spot though.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by New Era

I wouldn't use that team as a model to for anything, let alone projecting future Flames. The Flames development system was in a mess back then. I would think the Flames are more likely to following the Red Wings or the Coyotes model, given the comments and connections in the system. The Coyotes still managed to promote players like Boedker, Ekman-Larsson, Stone, Rieder, etc. The Flames system has come a long way, and with the management philosophy of "over cooking" the prospects, we can likely expect to see some of our prospects take a little more time than the fans desire, and experience some more statistical ups and downs as they work on the weaknesses their coaches identify.

I wouldn't call being Calder Cup champions a mess and yeah things have changed. I think we're getting a higher calibre of players in all leagues these days which means there is smaller difference between the NHL and the AHL. What this does is make skilled players stay longer in the minors to fix their weaknesses and isn't the black mark it once was. I think we still have the role players as the biggest number of players coming out of the AHL though, such as Ferland and Bouma. Future stars don't often spend much time there.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Kylington has the highest upside I would say left in the pool, and also (IMO) a fairly high floor as well. He was playing top-pairing with Nakladal for a while in Stockton, and that is really something as an 18 year old.

He does have near "Erik Karlsson upside" - we will see if he gets there. He has a very impressive array of tools - skating is elite (and that word is thrown around a lot, but it is elite here), he has a bomb of a shot which I didn't expect someone of his stature to have, he is a REALLY good distributor of the puck and can make some impressive passes right on the tape, and he can not only skate extremely well while carrying the puck, but also can dangle like a forward.

I think all he needs is to continue bulking up a bit, and gain some experience in knowing when to 'turn it on' offensively with his skating, and when to stay back. I think this is something that is rather easily learned, as he does seem to have some pretty good IQ. He has already turned into a fairly reliable defencemen, defensively speaking, and that was the really big knock on him.

You simply can not teach what he has. You can only help nurture it and help him mature.

I like Andersson too, and think that he will end up becoming a good defencemen. I think Andersson is a 'safer' bet to make the NHL with top 4 upside - conditioning issues be damned as I really believe it will be corrected once he turns pro and a closer eye can be kept on him - but Kylington has a much higher upside in my eye, and closed the gap considerably with regards to his floor, if not surpassed Andersson already. Kylington has a year of pro experience under his belt in which I thought he answered a lot of questions with regards to him being able to become a reliable defencemen - something that any defencemen HAS to have.

I don't think that his offensive acumen was ever in question (and I expect him to start putting up more points in the AHL this year), but big question marks as to him being able to play defence reliably. With offensive defencemen like him, it means the difference between making the NHL at all, or being used sparingly as a PP threat, or becoming a 1st pairing-type of impact defencemen.

Based on how his first season went, I will bet his trajectory is working towards option C - top pairing potential is becoming more realistic than it was 1 year ago, but definitely not guaranteed yet of course.

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Now it's getting interesting.

Went with Kylington. I watched quite a few Stockton games last year and my impression is that Kylington made positive adjustments and focused on learning to think the game rather than just reacting based on his elite skating / offensive bent. I'm a trajectory guy so this type of advancement in an 18/19 year old is development porn for me.

He edged out Poirier and Shinkaruk for me.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Red Menace

I think a lot of fans have spent years convincing themselves that Jankowksi and Poirier are going to be good, and also spent years thinking Canuck prospect Shinkaruk must be bad.
I think there is some bias there for sure, whether conscious or not.
I like all 3, but I don't think any one of them is clearly ahead of the other 2...
I have them in order as Shinkaruk, Jankowski, Poirier, numbers 5,6,8 on my list.
I think there's a decent chance Shinkaruk will be a top 6 forward for us next season.

That is not it for me at all. I think Shinkaruk and Poirer are very comparable in terms of their track for development, albeit they have different "ebbs and flows" on that track. I simply see Jankowski as fundamentally a better player. His combination of skating, skill, vision and size set him ahead of the other two, and his performance in Adirondack at the end of the season also demonstrated that potential. (I recognise—as as been mentioned—that the small sample size and the fact that his play occurred at the end of the season detract from the reliability of this evaluation. However, I am looking past production here and at how he carried himself in game-play. He looked REALLY good.)

I agree that Shinkaruk looks like a possible bet to play in the top-six this season, but I also think that Jankowski long term projects to be a better, more valuable player overall, as do all three of the defensemen.

[Calgary4LIfe]

I still much prefer Poirier over Shinkaruk. That hasn't changed.

I think Poirier's exceptional speed and bigger frame, coupled with his feistiness, just makes me believe he is still the superior prospect. He just had a disappointing year (which shouldn't be disregarded), but I do expect him to rebound. Now, if Shinkaruk has another good year and Poirier another bad one, then I will probably be swayed.

As for their respective offensive acumen, I still go with Poirier. Shinkaruk is definitely 'flashier' - always has been. Poirier is more north/south, but occasionally very flashy as well (remember his 4 goal game in his last season in the Q? That one goal.. just jaw-dropping). I think Poirier's offensive game is more translatable than Shinkaruk's offensive game.

My money is still very much on Poirier.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

His combination of skating, skill, vision and size set him ahead of the other two, and his performance in Adirondack at the end of the season also demonstrated that potential.

*ahem* Stockton.

[Iniggywetrust]

It always seems we put so much emphasis on players who succeed in Junior or lesser leagues. Guys like Hickey, Magiapane and others.

While players who've sniffed the NHL but aren't producing at high levels get beat up a bit, simply because they've actually been to a high level and had to adjust.

I think Poirier is still a good prospect and should be considered in the secondary group.

However, I went with Shinkaruk. He was a top prospect, succeeded in the AHL and showed flashes of producing in the NHL. High ceiling and an NHL capable player already.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I don't get the attraction of Shinkaruk. Don't get me wrong, I think he is a good prospect, and easily in the top end of Calgary's system, but I don't see enough in his game that suggests he will project to be a top-six forward, or in the top-five of this list. Shinkaruk does not have anything like the tool set possessed by Jankowski, which I think sets him fairly entrenched in the top-three.



Shinkaruk is a wildcard. It's great to have a few of these players in the system.

The most common question about Jankowski, deserved or not, has been whether he has sufficient drive. That's one area Shinkaruk has an apparent advantage. Otherwise Jankowski is better in most categories

[GreenLantern2814]

I've made my Hickey thoughts well known. As a classic defenseman, he's the best D prospect in the system.

But Kylington can be remarkable. I'm more inclined after this camp to believe he's going to make it at the next level, so after much deliberation, I take Kylington over Hickey. Next round my vote goes to Brandon.