Calgarypuck Prospect Ranking 2016 - Round 1

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

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.

1) That particular hip surgery has become pretty routine for goaltenders now and some have even had it done as an elective surgery IIRC as it actually improves their flexibility.

2) Sure it is a small sample size, no doubt. But his 4 years dominating the NCAA was not, I was pretty convinced then and his brief AHL stint just solidified my views.

3) In general, yes they do. But there has been a wave of goaltenders over the past several years that are emerging much younger as scouting and development of that position improves. Vasilevsky, Murray, Korpisalo, Gibson and Hellebyuck are within a year of Gillies' age. Mrazek, Pickard, Domingue, Grubauer, Lehner and Berube are all 25 or younger. While they all have varying degrees of success in the NHL it is becoming more apparent that the development of goaltenders has greatly improved.

You also talk about top forward prospect transitioning to the NHL better, but the same cannot be said for power forward prospects, they have a much lower success rate than other forwards because sometimes their success can be attributes to them playing against smaller players and when they go pro they just don't have the same advantage.

[Bingo]

I hear the argument about the big line and it was a concern of mine too ... but then Gillies played on a top notch defensive team in Providence, and Gillies replacement came in and dominated too.

I trust the scouts.

When you get that many voices all saying can't miss ... you trust it.

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I hear the argument about the big line and it was a concern of mine too ... but then Gillies played on a top notch defensive team in Providence, and Gillies replacement came in and dominated too.

I trust the scouts.

When you get that many voices all saying can't miss ... you trust it.

Just to be 100% clear on what I was arguing, it isn't that Tkachuk is a poor choice as top prospect, it's in response to those arguing he's the only possible choice and that anyone picking someone else is out to lunch.

[1qqaaz]

Originally Posted by Plaedo

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...)

One of the best introductory posts I've seen. Welcome to CP, glad to have ya.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by Plaedo

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...)

That's a helluva first post. Welcome!

[Enoch Root]

Yup, great post (and I completely agree with what you said). Welcome.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

Just to be 100% clear on what I was arguing, it isn't that Tkachuk is a poor choice as top prospect, it's in response to those arguing he's the only possible choice and that anyone picking someone else is out to lunch.

And totally agree ...

I'm pretty laid back on these things, I find it interesting how we all value things differently, make choices differently, place weight on different issues.

I'm on the trade value band wagon as a choice, as I think it does a great job of bringing all the factors together.

I don't see any prospect fetching a better return that Tkachuk

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by Bingo

And totally agree ...

I'm pretty laid back on these things, I find it interesting how we all value things differently, make choices differently, place weight on different issues.

I'm on the trade value band wagon as a choice, as I think it does a great job of bringing all the factors together.

I don't see any prospect fetching a better return that Tkachuk

For me it's too close. I wouldn't trade Tkachuk for Gillies, but I also wouldn't move Gillies for Tkachuk.

[GranteedEV]

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?

Okay, then to play that game, first strip the team roster of:

Johnny Gaudreau
Sam Bennett
Sean Monahan
TJ Brodie
Mark Giordano
Dougie Hamilton
Brian Elliott
Mikael Backlund

Now, which individual player has the most potential to help impact a stripped-bare team? Is it really Tkachuk? I mean, it's fair if it is, but maybe the potential star goalie Gillies has the most ability to help that remaining roster float a la Cory Schneider in New Jersey. Maybe the two-way centreman with offensive upside Jankowski has the most potential to help that team akin to what Ryan O'Reilly rapidly improved in Buffalo. Or maybe the two-way defenseman Andersson has the most potential to help the team like Ekblad did in Florida. Or maybe the shut down defenseman Hickey hasthe most potential to help the team, as Hanifin did in Carolina.

I don't know, and I'm absolutely not making direct talent comparisions because if we had those three NHLers in our prospect pools we'd have a better prospect pool than Winnipeg or Toronto - and maybe it really is Tkachuk who most helps a team. But I do think you have to look at the players' value from the perspective of a team with absolutely no "starting point" rather than the perspective of whether "we" would trade Tkachuk for anyone else. It's hard to slot anybody else onto the roster, it's easy to slot Tkachuk. But does that mean he has the highest ceiling impact-wise + likelyhood of coming close to that ceiling? I don't think it's blatantly obvious at all. So, no, for me it's not obvious Tkachuk is our best prospect. Now I respect that the vast majority feels he does and I could see him panning out the best, no doubt. But obvious, it is not.

[oldschoolcalgary]

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

Just to be 100% clear on what I was arguing, it isn't that Tkachuk is a poor choice as top prospect, it's in response to those arguing he's the only possible choice and that anyone picking someone else is out to lunch.

i don't think people meant that with any kind of pergorative, rather just some surprise...

"Best" is a subjective terms and posters are undoubtly looking at it slightly differently from one another... but from my perspective, it was a poll about who could be a future all-star.

With prospects, most people don't have a lot to go on, other than scouting reports, highlight tapes, measurables and of course, past production and consistency of productions, and finally big wins...

As an informal poll, i am sure there are people that 'take flyers' on kids, but if the stakes were something like "IF your life depended on the pick", i wonder if people would recalibrate their selections...

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

Okay, then to play that game, first strip the team roster of:

Johnny Gaudreau
Sam Bennett
Sean Monahan
TJ Brodie
Mark Giordano
Dougie Hamilton
Brian Elliott
Mikael Backlund

Now, which individual player has the most potential to help impact a stripped-bare team? Is it really Tkachuk? I mean, it's fair if it is, but maybe the potential star goalie Gillies has the most ability to help that remaining roster float a la Cory Schneider in New Jersey. Maybe the two-way centremen with offensive upside Jankowski has the most potential to help that team akin to what Ryan O'Reilly rapidly improved in Buffalo. Or maybe the defenseman Andersson has the most potential to help the team like Ekblad did in Florida. I don't know, and I'm absolutely not making direct talent comparisions because if we had those three NHLers in our prospect pools we'd have a better prospect pool than Winnipeg or Toronto - and maybe it really is Tkachuk who most helps a team. But I do think you have to look at the players' value from the perspective of a team with absolutely no "starting point" rather than the perspective of whether "we" would trade Tkachuk for anyone else. It's hard to slot anybody else onto the roster, it's easy to slot Tkachuk. But does that mean he has the highest ceiling impact-wise + likelyhood of coming close to that ceiling? I don't think it's blatantly obvious at all.

Great post. But not sure I agree with the bold.

THe simple fact of the matter is that we do have a team. And that team does have holes. And those holes affect how much value we put on certain prospects.

I think the vote for round two is a perfect example:

If we didn't have Monahan and Bennett, Jankowski would have more value than he does.

Because we don't have a couple great young goalies on the roster, Gillies becomes more valuable.

THose factors could push Gillies to #2. But if we had goalies and no Cs, Jankowski is probably a landslide #2, if not #1.

[Fire of the Phoenix]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

Okay, then to play that game, first strip the team roster of:

Johnny Gaudreau
Sam Bennett
Sean Monahan
TJ Brodie
Mark Giordano
Dougie Hamilton
Brian Elliott
Mikael Backlund

Now, which individual player has the most potential to help impact a stripped-bare team? Is it really Tkachuk? I mean, it's fair if it is, but maybe the potential star goalie Gillies has the most ability to help that remaining roster float a la Cory Schneider in New Jersey. Maybe the two-way centremen with offensive upside Jankowski has the most potential to help that team akin to what Ryan O'Reilly rapidly improved in Buffalo. Or maybe the defenseman Andersson has the most potential to help the team like Ekblad did in Florida. I don't know, and I'm absolutely not making direct talent comparisions because if we had those three NHLers in our prospect pools we'd have a better prospect pool than Winnipeg or Toronto - and maybe it really is Tkachuk who most helps a team. But I do think you have to look at the players' value from the perspective of a team with absolutely no "starting point" rather than the perspective of whether "we" would trade Tkachuk for anyone else.

I would pick the guy that combines the highest likelihood of success with the highest ceiling. For me, Tkachuk's ceiling is slightly lower than Jankowski's but mainly due to the position Mark plays. However, I think Matt has a MUCH better chance of reaching his ceiling. I also think Tkachuk's floor is higher. I think at worst, he will be a 3rd line winger in this league, but there's a good chance he's a top 6. For Jankowski I think it's equal chance at 2nd/3rd line as he has at bust, but there is a small chance (insert Jim Carrey pic here) he could be top line quality.

It's too hard to compare a goalie but I feel unless it's a young Price or Fleury, you go with the position player... even if the high-end potential is comparable. Goalies are too much of a crap shoot to trade for a 6th overall pick unless they are established.

I think if any GM was afforded the opportunity to pluck one of the guys on this list, they would universally pick Tkachuk. He is probably one of the five best prospects we've had in this century IMO.

[Textcritic]

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 line mates...

I personally think that this is not a legitimate concern, and that Tkachuk was an equal contributor to the tremendous success of that line. However, even if this was a concern, it should present no issue whatsoever since he will be stepping in and playing with better players than Dvorak and Marner on the top two lines of the Calgary Flames in Gaudreau, Monahan and Bennett.

[Vinny01]

Surprised Tkachuk only got 83% of the vote. Figured he would have almost swept the round with 95% at least

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Tkachuk is thought of as a pretty sure fire 1st line winger. You heard it from Benning, from Chiarelli, from all the scouts who had him top 5 in a draft with a strong top end. I'm not sure we have anybody else in the system who can match his upside except Gillies. And Gillies being a goalie is much more of a question mark, much less of a sure thing. Wingers are probably the easiest position to project and thus Tkachuk is almost guaranteed to be an impact NHLer. Goalies are the hardest to project, take twice as long to develop and thus are more of a wildcard.

Once we had one of the best goalie prospects Trevor Kidd. Twice we selected another couple goalies in the 1st, Krahn and Irving. A couple years ago Ortio was one of our top prospects. Goalies are just so unpredictable that I think whenever close in rankings that the tie goes to the skater. Gillies hasn't proven much of anything in pro hockey yet. Yes he has a high upside but I think his chance of achieving it is lower than Tkachuk's. I'm a huge Gillies fan too.

What do people think Tkachuk would get in trade vs Gillies? Tkachuk gets you a top 10 pick IMO, I don't think Gillies would.

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I personally think that this is not a legitimate concern, and that Tkachuk was an equal contributor to the tremendous success of that line. However, even if this was a concern, it should present no issue whatsoever since he will be stepping in and playing with better players than Dvorak and Marner on the top two lines of the Calgary Flames in Gaudreau, Monahan and Bennett.

I personally think it is a legitimate concern. Yes the Flames will have better players than Marner and Dvorak, but the competition will also be exponentially tougher, so that really doesn't say much.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

I personally think it is a legitimate concern. Yes the Flames will have better players than Marner and Dvorak, but the competition will also be exponentially tougher, so that really doesn't say much.

Even if Tkachuk's juniour numbers are inflated, he played at nearly a 2.0 points/game pace in his draft year, and he clearly does not owe all the credit for that to his linemates. That is the same level of performance as a player like Steven Stamkos, and higher than John Tavares. I think that if there was any inflation of his production it was not significant, and even with a correction he still projects to be a top-line winger.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Even if Tkachuk's juniour numbers are inflated, he played at nearly a 2.0 points/game pace in his draft year, and he clearly does not owe all the credit for that to his linemates. That is the same level of performance as a player like Steven Stamkos, and higher than John Tavares. I think that if there was any inflation of his production it was not significant, and even with a correction he still projects to be a top-line winger.

I would like to add to this about something that I had read during this past season somewhere. Apparently, Max Jones was tried on the line for a stretch with Dvorak and Marner, and failed to produce. That line didn't click well with Max Jones on it, and when Tkachuk was returned to that spot, production increased substantially. I tried searching for it, but I just can't for the life of me remember where I read it.

[N-E-B]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Even if Tkachuk's juniour numbers are inflated, he played at nearly a 2.0 points/game pace in his draft year, and he clearly does not owe all the credit for that to his linemates. That is the same level of performance as a player like Steven Stamkos, and higher than John Tavares. I think that if there was any inflation of his production it was not significant, and even with a correction he still projects to be a top-line winger.

Does anyone else think that maybe his linemates were benefiting from playing with him...? Personally I think Dvorak was the "floater" (for lack of a better term) on that line.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by N-E-B

Does anyone else think that maybe his linemates were benefiting from playing with him...? Personally I think Dvorak was the "floater" (for lack of a better term) on that line.

They all benefitted from each other because all three are tremendous players and tremendous prospects. All three contributed different and important things to that line.

The nice thing is we have our Marmer type player in Gaudreau and our Dvorak type player with Monahan so we could make a similar line in terms of playstyle by throwing Tkachuk on there.

Anybody worried Tkachuk was riding the coat tails of Marner and Dvorak need not be. He showed he's a tremendous player in his own right.