The Prospect Cupboard

[Day Tripper]

Originally Posted by djsFlames

Not like we even have a legitimate 2-C who can produce like one. (Backlund's progressing, but he's more arguably a 3C on a good team at best right now). If he can win battles at both ends, win the majority of faceoffs he takes, and help the team while maybe putting up 20-30 goals, 60 points, though not franchise player numbers, but doing all the little things right like a Bergeron, then that's a solid piece that we've filled through this draft.

60 points would make him a fairly average first line center offensively: http://www.nhl.com/ice/playerstats.h...=nav-sts-indiv

[kehatch]

Originally Posted by djsFlames

If Monahan ends up panning out at a solid, 2-way, 2nd line center for many years for us, what's wrong with that?

Absolutely nothing. Projecting him as a 2C isn't projecting him to be a bad player.

Who are the legitimate 1C in the league today?

Getzlaf, Bergeron, Staal, Toews, Duchene (maybe), Datsyuk, Hopkins (maybe), Kopitar, M Koivu, Tavares, Spezza, Crosby, Malkin, Thorton, Stamkos, Sedin, Seguin (maybe) and Backstrom. You might argue for a few more, but that is a quick scan of the top guys. Two thirds of them are top 3 picks. One of the guys not in the top 3 was picked 4-overall.

Even if you expand the list to 30 or so guys by bringing in the the Carter's, Richard's, Stastny's, and Lecavalier's of the world the odds are still against Monahan joining that rank. It isn't impossible for sure. But projecting a player the week after he was drafted is more about the odds than anything else.

[Calgary4LIfe]

This may just be a bit nostalgic of me, and probably overly optimistic.. but here goes

Anyone SORT OF see Jankowski + Monahan as SIMILAR to Nieuwendyk + Gilmour?

I am not saying they are EQUAL to. Just as a rough past organizational comparison. I was just thinking of that today.

Now for some even worse eye-rolling extremely rough comparisons:

Knight = Otto
Brodie = Gary Suter
Ramage =.. well.. Ramage? Ok, Ramage = Macoun/Sarge?
Baertschi = Loob.
Ferland = Roberts.
McGrattan = Hunter.
Gillies = Vernon
Wideman = Ramage I think..

I don't think there are comparisons at all for guys like Lanny or Pepper.

Anyways, just fun to compare these kids to that just perfect '89 team. *sigh*

/Useless nostalgic comparisons

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by kehatch

Absolutely nothing. Projecting him as a 2C isn't projecting him to be a bad player.

Who are the legitimate 1C in the league today?

Getzlaf, Bergeron, Staal, Toews, Duchene (maybe), Datsyuk, Hopkins (maybe), Kopitar, M Koivu, Tavares, Spezza, Crosby, Malkin, Thorton, Stamkos, Sedin, and Backstrom. You might argue for a few more, but that is a quick scan of the top guys. Two thirds of them are top 3 picks. One of the guys not in the top 3 was picked 4-overall.

Even if you expand the list to 30 or so guys by bringing in the Carter's and Richard's the odds are still against Monahan joining that rank.

I'm not so sure that's true. You named 17 players (including two maybes). You'd have to name the next 13, and tally up their draft positions, before you got a real idea where #1 centres get drafted on average.

And don't anybody get started on 'real' or 'true' or 'bona fide' #1 centres. Either you're good enough to play on the top line of an NHL team, or you're not. Since there are 30 teams, there are 30 centres good enough to be #1 (not necessarily distributed one to a team). If you only look at the top 17, or top 15, or top 10, you're cherry-picking and distorting the stats.

If Monahan turns out to be a below-average #1 C (a step below the 17 guys listed above), he will still be better than anything the Flames have had since Langkow was in his prime. If he's no more than a good #2, well, Sunday was not the last draft in the world. It was only the first draft in the rebuild. Either way, he's worth the #6 overall pick.

Based on everything I've read and seen, Monahan's ceiling seems to be a good (not elite) #1 C. His floor (barring injuries) seems to be a strong #3. It's far too early to tell where he will fall within that range.

[kehatch]

Originally Posted by Day Tripper

60 points would make him a fairly average first line center offensively: http://www.nhl.com/ice/playerstats.h...=nav-sts-indiv

Do you consider Filppula a first line C? How about Stempniak a first line RW? Hitting the top 30 in scoring once in a while doesn't make you a top line player IMO.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by kehatch

Do you consider Filppula a first line C? How about Stempniak a first line RW? Hitting the top 30 in scoring once in a while doesn't make you a top line player IMO.

If that's true, then logically it is also true that you can be a top-line player even if you sometimes finish out of the top 30 in scoring. Whatever criteria you wind up using, if you don't end up with roughly 30 first-line centres in a 30-team league, you are doing something wrong.

[kehatch]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

I'm not so sure that's true. You named 17 players (including two maybes). You'd have to name the next 13, and tally up their draft positions, before you got a real idea where #1 centres get drafted on average.

And don't anybody get started on 'real' or 'true' or 'bona fide' #1 centres. Either you're good enough to play on the top line of an NHL team, or you're not. Since there are 30 teams, there are 30 centres good enough to be #1 (not necessarily distributed one to a team). If you only look at the top 17, or top 15, or top 10, you're cherry-picking and distorting the stats.

If Monahan turns out to be a below-average #1 C (a step below the 17 guys listed above), he will still be better than anything the Flames have had since Langkow was in his prime. If he's no more than a good #2, well, Sunday was not the last draft in the world. It was only the first draft in the rebuild. Either way, he's worth the #6 overall pick.

Based on everything I've read and seen, Monahan's ceiling seems to be a good (not elite) #1 C. His floor (barring injuries) seems to be a strong #3. It's far too early to tell where he will fall within that range.

Stajan has played seasons on the top line. It doesn't make him a top line C any more then Malkin playing on the 2-line makes him a second line C.

It is the skill level that determines the status IMO.

But even if you look at the top 30 C in the NHL it is still a long shot for Monahan (or Lindholm, or Horvat, or Domi, etc) to join that crowd.

Regardless, I am kinda done with the debate! It was fun and all, but it is rather pointless to argue over a 1C/2C projection.

Suffice it to say that IMO no player straight out of the draft without the elite pedigree (i.e. MacKinnon) will surpass a prospect who is showing the potential to be a 60 to 80 point forward based on a +1 draft year phenomenal season plus a strong debut at the pro/NHL level. It is just my opinion of course.

[djsFlames]

Hmm, interesting.
So maybe not 60 points. Still, that would put him in the bottom third of top centers.

Weird to see how well Jokinen actually did fare amongst the top 30 Cs. Yet he wasn't really considered a legitimate one, even with that 61 point season. Poor guy, was heavily critiqued with the team being in bubble territory and in its "all in" mode.

Closer to 50 I suppose would be solid #2 center production.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by kehatch

Stajan has played seasons on the top line. It doesn't make him a top line C any more then Malkin playing on the 2-line makes him a second line C.

There's no guarantee that the top 30 centres are distributed equally.

It is the skill level that determines the status IMO.

Yup.

But even if you look at the top 30 C in the NHL it is still a long shot for Monahan (or Lindholm, or Horvat, or Domi, etc) to join that crowd.

The danger in that kind of thinking is that it makes it too easy to move goalposts in an argument. Fans have a tendency to compare their prospects' ceilings with other prospects' floors — or vice versa, if they want to nurse a grudge against someone like Feaster. I could use a dollar for every time I've heard something like, 'Of course X will never pan out, because Feaster can't draft.' Or, 'Of course Y will be a first-liner, because Holland always finds those gems in the later rounds.' Not true either way. The worst GM sometimes picks good players, and the best GM usually misses with late-round picks.

So far, I see nothing about Monahan that would make it impossible for him to be a top-30 centre in the NHL when he's matured. You may argue the semantics of whether you consider that a '#1 centre' or not; but I do, and I won't rule him out as a possible #1.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

This may just be a bit nostalgic of me, and probably overly optimistic.. but here goes

Anyone SORT OF see Jankowski + Monahan as SIMILAR to Nieuwendyk + Gilmour?

I am not saying they are EQUAL to. Just as a rough past organizational comparison. I was just thinking of that today.

Now for some even worse eye-rolling extremely rough comparisons:

Knight = Otto
Brodie = Gary Suter
Ramage =.. well.. Ramage? Ok, Ramage = Macoun/Sarge?
Baertschi = Loob.
Ferland = Roberts.
McGrattan = Hunter.
Gillies = Vernon
Wideman = Ramage I think..

I don't think there are comparisons at all for guys like Lanny or Pepper.

Anyways, just fun to compare these kids to that just perfect '89 team. *sigh*

/Useless nostalgic comparisons

Post 111 of this thread mentions the same contrast. I like your comparisons but I think Ramage is more of a Nattress player than his father. His dad had some serious offense that was not passed through the genes.

[FBI]

You forgot gaudreau = fleury

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

This may just be a bit nostalgic of me, and probably overly optimistic.. but here goes

Anyone SORT OF see Jankowski + Monahan as SIMILAR to Nieuwendyk + Gilmour?

I am not saying they are EQUAL to. Just as a rough past organizational comparison. I was just thinking of that today.

Now for some even worse eye-rolling extremely rough comparisons:

Knight = Otto
Brodie = Gary Suter
Ramage =.. well.. Ramage? Ok, Ramage = Macoun/Sarge?
Baertschi = Loob.
Ferland = Roberts.
McGrattan = Hunter.
Gillies = Vernon
Wideman = Ramage I think..

I don't think there are comparisons at all for guys like Lanny or Pepper.

Anyways, just fun to compare these kids to that just perfect '89 team. *sigh*

/Useless nostalgic comparisons

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by FBI

You forgot gaudreau = fleury

Ah...beat me to it.

[icarus]

FWIW, RLR's Woodlief also said:

We almost feel sorry for Sean Monahan, the forgotten man who would have been selected much higher if he had been eligible for last year's draft. Overlooked because of all the other marquee talents and the struggles of his woeful team in Ottawa, Monahan nonetheless is the type of big, smooth center who can anchor an NHL club's No. 1 line for the next 10 to 12 years. He's from the traditional playmaking center's mold and combines excellent size with terrific puck skills and imagination.

[#-3]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

This may just be a bit nostalgic of me, and probably overly optimistic.. but here goes

Anyone SORT OF see Jankowski + Monahan as SIMILAR to Nieuwendyk + Gilmour?

I am not saying they are EQUAL to. Just as a rough past organizational comparison. I was just thinking of that today.

Now for some even worse eye-rolling extremely rough comparisons:

Knight = Otto
Brodie = Gary Suter
Ramage =.. well.. Ramage? Ok, Ramage = Macoun/Sarge?
Baertschi = Loob.
Ferland = Roberts.
McGrattan = Hunter.
Gillies = Vernon
Wideman = Ramage I think..

I don't think there are comparisons at all for guys like Lanny or Pepper.

Anyways, just fun to compare these kids to that just perfect '89 team. *sigh*

/Useless nostalgic comparisons

You better start praying for even two of the five i bolded to get close to that level in the next 3 years.

I don't mind the other ones to much. Although I have always remembered Loob as more of a Scorer and less of a Playmaker then I hope Sven can be. But I was vary young, so I don't know if that is correct.

[IamNotKenKing]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

If that's true, then logically it is also true that you can be a top-line player even if you sometimes finish out of the top 30 in scoring. Whatever criteria you wind up using, if you don't end up with roughly 30 first-line centres in a 30-team league, you are doing something wrong.

I said this for years, too, but apparently that's not the right way to do the comparison, and I may have been convinced. That is, there are not 30 "first-line" centres in the league, and only the truly "elite" are first-line centres, despite there being, by definition, 30 first-line centres...
I.e. Just because Langkow was in the top 30 in centre scoring does not make him a top-line centre. I still waffle, but understand where the argument comes from.

[Enoch Root]

I agree that in theory, there should be roughly 30 1st line Cs in any analysis.

Doesn't mean it has to be the top 30 scorers, as there are other criteria.

It also doesn't mean that there has to be one from each team (for instance, if Stajan is playing top line, that doesn't make him a #1). Also, some teams can have more than 1 top line C (Crosby, Malkin)

But any top line C conversation has to include the top 30 or so Cs (however you want to define them), not the top 12-15

[PlayfulGenius]

I don't buy into the 30 C Must Rule...the league has ebbs and flows...at certain points the league seems to be deeper at different positions... For example, over the last number of years, LW has been much deeper league wide than RW... Prior to that, the opposite was true... G has been a deep position in recent past as well... It's possible there are more than 30 Gs that are Started calibre...it's also entirely possible there's LESS than 30 #1C calibre players in the NHL at the moment.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by PlayfulGenius

I don't buy into the 30 C Must Rule...the league has ebbs and flows...at certain points the league seems to be deeper at different positions... For example, over the last number of years, LW has been much deeper league wide than RW... Prior to that, the opposite was true... G has been a deep position in recent past as well... It's possible there are more than 30 Gs that are Started calibre...it's also entirely possible there's LESS than 30 #1C calibre players in the NHL at the moment.

I also think the best 30 criteria is also flawed. You don't want the 30th best center on your team. You want a number 1 center who is capable of being on a cup winning team. So I think there really are only 10 to 20 number one centers in the league.

Same with starting goalies there might be 30 of them but maybe 15 you would be comfortable with going into the playoffs.

So when you say you want a number 1 center you don't want a top 30 center you want a top 15 center because the rest are just filling space on bad teams.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by djsFlames

If Monahan ends up panning out at a solid, 2-way, 2nd line center for many years for us, what's wrong with that?

Not like we even have a legitimate 2-C who can produce like one. (Backlund's progressing, but he's more arguably a 3C on a good team at best right now). If he can win battles at both ends, win the majority of faceoffs he takes, and help the team while maybe putting up 20-30 goals, 60 points, though not franchise player numbers, but doing all the little things right like a Bergeron, then that's a solid piece that we've filled through this draft.

I don't see why people think this HAS to be our future #1, when we don't even have a consensus #2 yet, either. That number one guy may very well come next year, if Sean doesn't become that, and I believe there is still a very good chance of him doing so anyways.

I have a strong hunch that his surroundings hampered his ranking. When he was 16-17, by many opinions he was probably the second most highly regarded in that age group after MacKinnon to project to a top 2-3 pick. And despite a huge dropoff in talent and quality on his team between last year and this year, he still managed to rack up the same points in less games played, which says a lot.

Maybe after his 17 year old season he was highly regarded (i.e. coming into this year), but he was a late first rounder pick in the OHL... he wasn't an uber prospect as a 16 year old. (http://www.ontariohockeyleague.com/draft/fullDraft/2010)

[Phil Russell]

Wouldn't it make sense to tally the stats of the top 30 centers league wide, whatever the teams, over say the last three years (a statistically significant N=90) and take the mean/median for points. That would seem a reasonable benchmark for defining, statistically, expectations for a 1C.