- With less then a handful of exceptions (Paul Kariya, Ryan Miller and... uh....Toni Hrkac? Tom Kurvers?), avoiding the Hobey Baker winners has been a sound strategy.
- Also be wary of any collegian who played for their whole academic career. The really good ones almost always jump ship after one season.
- It's in the genes. I don't think its an accident that there are multiples of Sutter, Nilsson, Bourque, Hextall, Miller, etc. dotting the NHL statistical landscape, so picking kids and relatives to be NHLers isn't a bad strategy (see; my selection of Paul Stastny). That said, for every Brett Hull you unearth you can dress a line of Keith Gretzky, Blake Geoffrion and Chris Bourque.
- The earlier they show up on the radar the better. Statistically speaking the younger they flash their genius, the more likely they are to maintain that gap against their peers throughout their careers (see; Gretzky Crosby, Lindros, the Bure/Fedorov/Mogilny line, etc). That said, behold Dan Cleary. A scoring prodigy at 15, he nevertheless failed to progress over the next few years and by his draft year had fallen out of contention for top five status. I hate you Dan Cleary.
- Trust the scouts. If their is a lot of positive buzz about a kid, its typically because he is pretty good.
- Never trust the scouts. They want different things than you do. They are looking for kids who will play a role in the NHL - not necessarily kids who will impose overwhelming offensive force on to the opposition. For example, Manny Malhotra. Terrific hockey player, but scoring stat black hole. Luke Schenn and Chris Phillips are also in this category.
- Teams matter. Is Jakub Kindl as sexy a pick if he is on the Bluejackets farm team? Does Janne Pesonen get selected if he is in Florida rather than Pittsburgh?
- Big guys (6'2"+) usually take longer to flash their dominance, but the earlier the better.
- Defensemen always need an extra year or two to adjust to the NHL pace.
- Goaltenders by far take the longest to get their crap together. Netminders frequently don't emerge from their mediocrity till well into their 20's (see: Ryan Miller-G Buf, Kiprusoff-G Cgy. etc.).
- Legitimate goon and +/- prospects are so rare as to be extinct. And then there is Steve Downie.
- Skating is the biggest clue to success. Prospects who have skating concerns should always be considered as a higher risk. The AHL is chock full of guys who have oodles of talent, but lack the ability to gear it up with the big boys.
- Selecting veteran players (25 or over) as prospects is in most cases a losing strategy. Why? Because everyone else is fishing for the exceptional player (say...Phaneuf, or E.Staal), and the result of targeting players who aren't likely to develop into elite players (say Stu Barnes) is to leave more of those potentially elite players for the rest of us. I call this the 'Oleg Teverdovsky Experience' in honour of a certain defenseman prospect pick of mine who I selected in the 2nd rnd. If I had kept to my lists and taken the prospect I should have I'd have a different FP.
- Injury replacement, shminjury replacement. Fear of injury is no excuse for average players selected as prospect picks.
- Scout the World Juniors, especially games that don't feature Canada. Offensive dominance at this level is typically a powerful indicator of future performance. However, don't be too seduced by every kid wearing our jersey, less than a handful of them go on to have solid pro careers.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Holy crap - I agree with Cam 100% (althought its weird that so few Hobey Baker winners succeed in the NHL). Much more fun IMO(and often more lucrative) to shoot for the moon when picking a prospect than picking someone that might be a good 2nd line player, 4th d-man etc.
Post a Comment