ESPN+ Article on Prospects

[PerreaultForever]

On 4/11/2024 at 8:43 AM, xzy89c1 said:

Sabres rated number one. Boston last. Would love to see specifics around sabres prospects. I can share Athletic specifics later tonight

So what you're saying is there's basically an inverse correlation between how good your prospect pool is and how well you do in the NHL, that correct? 

Really, Boston is always ranked last and yet they have 3 new roster players that came from their pool (Beecher, Lauko and Brazzeau), a promising kid who looked NHL ready at 19 until he got injured (Poitras) and a top D prospect i(Lohrei) who can't quite crack the roster, and they top the division again but ya, they have the worst prospect pool. 

If you don't count players who played in the NHL last year, Sabres had 1 prospect make the roster in Benson. Three if you want to count Rousek and Johnson. Four if you don't count Levi's games last year and add him in and we didn't make the playoffs. So even if we do have a great prospect pool, until they make the NHL it means NOTHING. 

I wonder if you took all the teams and their rankings in terms of prospect pools and correlated it with their position in the standings I'd bet it's pretty much the same inverse correlation. 

Also, if our prospect pool is so fantastic, Rochester should win the AHL championship right? Right? They're the dominant AHL team aren't they? Aren't they? Hmmm.

[Thorner]

13 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

So what you're saying is there's basically an inverse correlation between how good your prospect pool is and how well you do in the NHL, that correct? 

Really, Boston is always ranked last and yet they have 3 new roster players that came from their pool (Beecher, Lauko and Brazzeau), a promising kid who looked NHL ready at 19 until he got injured (Poitras) and a top D prospect i(Lohrei) who can't quite crack the roster, and they top the division again but ya, they have the worst prospect pool. 

If you don't count players who played in the NHL last year, Sabres had 1 prospect make the roster in Benson. Three if you want to count Rousek and Johnson. Four if you don't count Levi's games last year and add him in and we didn't make the playoffs. So even if we do have a great prospect pool, until they make the NHL it means NOTHING. 

I wonder if you took all the teams and their rankings in terms of prospect pools and correlated it with their position in the standings I'd bet it's pretty much the same inverse correlation. 

Also, if our prospect pool is so fantastic, Rochester should win the AHL championship right? Right? They're the dominant AHL team aren't they? Aren't they? Hmmm.

That’s what I was mentioning before. There’s probably as strong or stronger a correlation be strong prospect pool and nhl failure going forward than success. It’s provably predictive, just not in the way we like

[Mango]

On 4/11/2024 at 12:34 PM, JoeSchmoe said:

I didn't see the article itself, but the thread title says we're number 1 in "prospects".

So they have to be talking about the pipeline, not players with multiple years of NHL experience.

Forget experience. Power and Dahlin signed MASSIVE extensions. How can you be a prospect when you sign an 8x8 second contract?

[#freejame]

9 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

So what you're saying is there's basically an inverse correlation between how good your prospect pool is and how well you do in the NHL, that correct? 

Really, Boston is always ranked last and yet they have 3 new roster players that came from their pool (Beecher, Lauko and Brazzeau), a promising kid who looked NHL ready at 19 until he got injured (Poitras) and a top D prospect i(Lohrei) who can't quite crack the roster, and they top the division again but ya, they have the worst prospect pool. 

If you don't count players who played in the NHL last year, Sabres had 1 prospect make the roster in Benson. Three if you want to count Rousek and Johnson. Four if you don't count Levi's games last year and add him in and we didn't make the playoffs. So even if we do have a great prospect pool, until they make the NHL it means NOTHING. 

I wonder if you took all the teams and their rankings in terms of prospect pools and correlated it with their position in the standings I'd bet it's pretty much the same inverse correlation. 

Also, if our prospect pool is so fantastic, Rochester should win the AHL championship right? Right? They're the dominant AHL team aren't they? Aren't they? Hmmm.

It’s almost as if structure and support allows organizations to seamlessly plug holes with young players. Another way of saying this would be asking less of young players leads to more from young players. Crazy. 

[shrader]

7 hours ago, Mango said:

Forget experience. Power and Dahlin signed MASSIVE extensions. How can you be a prospect when you sign an 8x8 second contract?

At least when it comes to Power, I have no problem with the word prospect being thrown around. A 21 year old is nowhere close to being a final product. 

[Pimlach]

Boston has an arena full of banners and a winning culture that is well preserved.  
 

They have a constant flow of NHL ready players wanting to play there.  Some play for less to be there.  That is the best pipeline.  They don’t need our long list of prospects.   Prospects are hit and miss, mostly miss. 
 

When they have to rely on the draft they always manage to find players - Pastrnak and McAvoy for example.  

[Pimlach]

16 minutes ago, shrader said:

At least when it comes to Power, I have no problem with the word prospect being thrown around. A 21 year old is nowhere close to being a final product. 

But the fact that he was given $8m for 8 years literally means he is not a prospect.  He will be expected to play big minutes and be a difference maker too. 
 

Power is a young player, but not a prospect.  On defense, Novikov is a prospect and so is Ryan Johnson. 

[Archie Lee]

11 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

So what you're saying is there's basically an inverse correlation between how good your prospect pool is and how well you do in the NHL, that correct? 

Really, Boston is always ranked last and yet they have 3 new roster players that came from their pool (Beecher, Lauko and Brazzeau), a promising kid who looked NHL ready at 19 until he got injured (Poitras) and a top D prospect i(Lohrei) who can't quite crack the roster, and they top the division again but ya, they have the worst prospect pool. 

If you don't count players who played in the NHL last year, Sabres had 1 prospect make the roster in Benson. Three if you want to count Rousek and Johnson. Four if you don't count Levi's games last year and add him in and we didn't make the playoffs. So even if we do have a great prospect pool, until they make the NHL it means NOTHING. 

I wonder if you took all the teams and their rankings in terms of prospect pools and correlated it with their position in the standings I'd bet it's pretty much the same inverse correlation. 

Also, if our prospect pool is so fantastic, Rochester should win the AHL championship right? Right? They're the dominant AHL team aren't they? Aren't they? Hmmm.

The Bruins would trade their prospects, including all those kids you mention, for Buffalo’s in a second. If the Bruins had our pool there would be 4-5 of our prospects who would have made their debut this year as the Bruins are in greater need of inserting a few players on ELCs.  

Now, there is no guarantee that a team can turn its top ranked prospect pool into a contending NHL team. That is clear. It is also clear that having a low ranked prospect pool does not mean you have to accept that you are just going to eventually be a loser. 

Make no mistake though, no NHL GM would take the Bruin’s prospect pool over the Sabres’ pool, and there wouldn’t be anything that resembles a debate. Of course, you know this. 
 

Edited April 15 by Archie Lee

[#freejame]

Just now, Archie Lee said:

The Bruins would trade their prospects, including all those kids you mention, for Buffalo’s in a second. If the Bruins had our pool there would be 4-5 of our prospects who would have made their debut this year as the Bruins are in greater need of inserting a few players in ELCs.  

Now, there is no guarantee that a team can turn its top ranked prospect pool into a contending NHL team. That is clear. It is also clear that having a low ranked prospect pool does not mean you have to accept that your just going to eventually be a loser. 

Make no mistake though, no NHL GM would take the Bruin’s prospect pool over the Sabres’ pool, and there wouldn’t be anything that resembles a debate. Of course, you know this. 
 

The difference between Buffalo and Boston is both teams could switch prospect pools and neither team would have a change of mindset. Boston would continue to put their young prospects in positions to succeed and Buffalo would continue to promote prospects to get them experience so we can win multiple cups…like Boston. 

[shrader]

20 minutes ago, Pimlach said:

But the fact that he was given $8m for 8 years literally means he is not a prospect.  He will be expected to play big minutes and be a difference maker too. 
 

Power is a young player, but not a prospect.  On defense, Novikov is a prospect and so is Ryan Johnson. 

You know how people like to use the word literally too much…

[Pimlach]

37 minutes ago, shrader said:

You know how people like to use the word literally too much…

True.  And some people like to believe in prospects more than real NHL players.  I could see paying Dahlin and Thompson.  The rest ... 

 

They gave a then 22 year old prospect a 7 year contract after 54 NHL games and he can't play more than half a season without getting hurt. 

They gave another then 22 year old prospect $7M for 7 years after about 200 games. 

Not to be outdone, they gave a then 20 year old $8M for 8 years after just one full season.

This season each and everyone of these players struggled at times under the weight of expectations and the big contracts.  None of them are prospects either.  The are now high plaid players that carry high expectations.  

These may all look like genius deals in 3 or 4 years, or some of them might not work out.    It is even possible that these players eventually get moved once the inevitable next regime comes in.  Then we get to watch them play in their prime years somewhere else, we are used to that in the Pegula era. 

Meanwhile Adams faces his biggest off-season.   He has a goalie now, but all of a sudden is his thin at center.  

He just traded a solid and skilled two-way center, just hitting prime years at 25 years old,  for a 22 year old defenseman who was still a prospect.  I cannot wait to see what he is willing to pay this guy.   

 

[shrader]

1 hour ago, Pimlach said:

True.  And some people like to believe in prospects more than real NHL players.  I could see paying Dahlin and Thompson.  The rest ... 

 

They gave a then 22 year old prospect a 7 year contract after 54 NHL games and he can't play more than half a season without getting hurt. 

They gave another then 22 year old prospect $7M for 7 years after about 200 games. 

Not to be outdone, they gave a then 20 year old $8M for 8 years after just one full season.

This season each and everyone of these players struggled at times under the weight of expectations and the big contracts.  None of them are prospects either.  The are now high plaid players that carry high expectations.  

These may all look like genius deals in 3 or 4 years, or some of them might not work out.    It is even possible that these players eventually get moved once the inevitable next regime comes in.  Then we get to watch them play in their prime years somewhere else, we are used to that in the Pegula era. 

Meanwhile Adams faces his biggest off-season.   He has a goalie now, but all of a sudden is his thin at center.  

He just traded a solid and skilled two-way center, just hitting prime years at 25 years old,  for a 22 year old defenseman who was still a prospect.  I cannot wait to see what he is willing to pay this guy.   

 

Are you arguing with yourself right now? I’m not really sure how a quick two sentences about a 21 year old having plenty of room to grow leads to all of this. 
 

Maybe I jumped into a different conversation that I didn’t read. I don’t know. 

[Mango]

3 hours ago, shrader said:

At least when it comes to Power, I have no problem with the word prospect being thrown around. A 21 year old is nowhere close to being a final product. 

There are more than two buckets. It isn't "final product" or "prospect". 

[Mango]

3 hours ago, #freejame said:

The difference between Buffalo and Boston is both teams could switch prospect pools and neither team would have a change of mindset. Boston would continue to put their young prospects in positions to succeed and Buffalo would continue to promote prospects to get them experience so we can win multiple cups…like Boston. 

It is weird to me that you separated these two things, but attributed "winning multiple cups" to the path of the Sabres and not the Bruins. 

Boston puts their young prospects in a position to succeed and win multiple cups. 

Buffalo promotes prospects for "experience", putting them in a position to fail, and have struggled to finish a season 16th ot better let alone win Stanley Cup. 

[shrader]

11 minutes ago, Mango said:

There are more than two buckets. It isn't "final product" or "prospect". 

of course, but he much closer the the latter. 
 

I haven’t read the article since I’m not a subscriber. I’d imagine they outlined the definition of exactly what players they were ranking. All this prospect definition talk ignores that and just becomes a matter of semantics instead. Whatever their definition is (if the word prospect was even used), they think Buffalo has the best. Let’s not move the goal posts in order to debate that stance. 
 

edit: And wait a second. I know they weren’t originally your words, but multiple cups? No current NHL player has been alive long enough to see two cups in Boston. Theirs is not a legacy of winning the cup. 

Edited April 15 by shrader

[Mango]

1 minute ago, shrader said:

of course, but he much closer the the latter. 
 

I haven’t read the article since I’m not a subscriber. I’d imagine they outlined the definition of exactly what players they were ranking. All this prospect definition talk ignores that and just becomes a matter of semantics instead. Whatever their definition is (if the word prospect was even used), they think Buffalo has the best. Let’s not move the goal posts in order to debate that stance. 

Fair. 

I am sick of getting excited about prospects mainly because when you are a bad hockey team for a really long time the system is set up to so that you have a great prospect pool. 

Buffalo has been historically bad, their prospects are supposed to be great. 
Boston has been historically good, their prospects are supposed to be bad. 

The interesting stuff to look at are when a young team like NJ is on the rise with a good looking prospect pool or a bad team like Ottawa's suck. But the worst team and the best team over the last 10 years having the best/worst prospect pools is the way the system is designed. 
 

[shrader]

2 minutes ago, Mango said:

Fair. 

I am sick of getting excited about prospects mainly because when you are a bad hockey team for a really long time the system is set up to so that you have a great prospect pool. 

Buffalo has been historically bad, their prospects are supposed to be great. 
Boston has been historically good, their prospects are supposed to be bad. 

The interesting stuff to look at are when a young team like NJ is on the rise with a good looking prospect pool or a bad team like Ottawa's suck. But the worst team and the best team over the last 10 years having the best/worst prospect pools is the way the system is designed. 
 

And it does go a long way to supporting the piece of team building that people seem to miss all the time: player development. There are always going to be those can’t miss guys out there. For the vast majority of the rest, I do think that winding up in the right situation is probably the most important factor. 

[#freejame]

17 minutes ago, Mango said:

It is weird to me that you separated these two things, but attributed "winning multiple cups" to the path of the Sabres and not the Bruins. 

Boston puts their young prospects in a position to succeed and win multiple cups. 

Buffalo promotes prospects for "experience", putting them in a position to fail, and have struggled to finish a season 16th ot better let alone win Stanley Cup. 

Perhaps I should have used italics or an /s.

I don’t think the way we are developing prospects and talent will lead to multiple cups. I was just being facetious while using a common FO cliche. 

[Pimlach]

3 hours ago, shrader said:

Are you arguing with yourself right now? I’m not really sure how a quick two sentences about a 21 year old having plenty of room to grow leads to all of this. 
 

Maybe I jumped into a different conversation that I didn’t read. I don’t know. 

Nope.  Just talking about whether you can consider a guy making big money on long term contract a prospect.  I do not.  When an GM offers 8 years he must think he is sure thing.  Right?  
 

Then I pointed out we have a bunch of 21, 22, and 23 year olds on big long term contracts.  Could be a great move, or a bad one. 

[PerreaultForever]

9 hours ago, Archie Lee said:

The Bruins would trade their prospects, including all those kids you mention, for Buffalo’s in a second. If the Bruins had our pool there would be 4-5 of our prospects who would have made their debut this year as the Bruins are in greater need of inserting a few players on ELCs.  

Now, there is no guarantee that a team can turn its top ranked prospect pool into a contending NHL team. That is clear. It is also clear that having a low ranked prospect pool does not mean you have to accept that you are just going to eventually be a loser. 

Make no mistake though, no NHL GM would take the Bruin’s prospect pool over the Sabres’ pool, and there wouldn’t be anything that resembles a debate. Of course, you know this. 
 

The mistake is in separating the prospect pool from the roster. The only thing that matters is what you put on the ice in the NHL. 

[Archie Lee]

36 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

The mistake is in separating the prospect pool from the roster. The only thing that matters is what you put on the ice in the NHL. 

The mistake is in equating a ranking of the talent and depth of prospect pools as relevant to how those pools are managed. That the Bruins are really good at managing the assets they have does not mean that their assets (in this case their prospects) are better. If you are saying you have more faith in what Boston will do with their limited prospect pool than what Buffalo will do with an objectively better pool, then you won’t get an argument from me. Buffalo’s prospect depth and talent is better though. 

[PerreaultForever]

3 hours ago, Archie Lee said:

The mistake is in equating a ranking of the talent and depth of prospect pools as relevant to how those pools are managed. That the Bruins are really good at managing the assets they have does not mean that their assets (in this case their prospects) are better. If you are saying you have more faith in what Boston will do with their limited prospect pool than what Buffalo will do with an objectively better pool, then you won’t get an argument from me. Buffalo’s prospect depth and talent is better though. 

Of course it's better, but my point is that is meaningless. Yes, Boston has a better development program through the AHL team imo but the main point is that it doesn't matter how many prospects you have, it matters how you fill the holes/needs on your roster and thus what you ice for an NHL game. 

Sabres have had a top prospect pool many times. Remember when we were supposedly in possession of a "full cupboard" and then all those guys like Bailey amounted to nothing and suddenly we had to fill the cupboard again? Not that long ago. Boston has the excuse of trading away prospects for cup runs. Sabres? They've just failed to ice a playoff team for 13 years. 

[PromoTheRobot]

On 4/11/2024 at 12:02 PM, JoeSchmoe said:

Love these annual articles. 

Unfortunately, I can't think of a prospect in the pipeline with a realistic ceiling better than a 2nd liner. And we're worse on defense.

Kulich and Levi? How many Amerks have have you watched this year?

[PromoTheRobot]

On 4/11/2024 at 2:18 PM, SwampD said:

We have had the brightest future for thirteen years.

We had the #1 rated prospect pool when Tim Murray was GM. He promptly traded most of them away for magic beans. Now that Adams has restored that pipeline people want him to act like Tim Murray again.

[dudacek]

31 minutes ago, PromoTheRobot said:

We had the #1 rated prospect pool when Tim Murray was GM. He promptly traded most of them away for magic beans. Now that Adams has restored that pipeline people want him to act like Tim Murray again.

For those keeping track (sorry to the majority who won't)

From that "#1 rated prospect pool" Tim Murray traded away Girgorenko, Zadorov, McNabb, Armia, Lemieux and Luke Adam.

Personally, I would still give up that entire group for Ryan O'Reilly alone.

But hey, that's just me.

Edit: Missed JT Compher. Doesn't change my opinion.

Edited April 16 by dudacek