View Single Post
07-07-2012, 04:50 PM
Registered User
Xspyrit's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Monterrey, Mexico
Country: Italy
Posts: 13,565
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by CanadianHockey View Post
You keep saying this without qualifying it.

WHY is potential impact the most important factor by far? I'll just use your example of Da Costa. Please tell me how this 'potential' top-6 player should be ranked higher than O'Brien? O'Brien is in the NHL, he's making an impact - but you try and knock him for being physically developed? Physicality and strength are SKILLS just as much as skating or puckhandling, albeit perhaps they are more closely tied to age than other skills like puckhandling.

Just to stay relevant to your arguments, I'll explain why Da Costa should NOT be factored into the prospect ranking as highly as you have him. Da Costa is an undersized skilled center who lacks strength. He's in his early twenties and hasn't made a significant impact in the NHL yet. He likely will never develop the skills required of a checking role, so he's your prototypical 'boom-bust' 2nd line center type of player. Why is that problematic? Because he's currently FOURTH on the Sens depth chart at center, at best. Spezza is a lock for the 1st line center position for the duration of his tenure here, ditto for Turris in the 2C slot. Zibanejad is arguably third on the depth chart at C, albeit he's likely to move to a wing unless management is comfortable with him as our 3C or if we move Turris to wing and Zibby goes C. Point being, there's no room on our NHL roster in the present nor in the near future to warrant much ice time for Da Costa. So where do you see space for Da Costa to develop? How do you figure he'll turn himself into an NHL caliber player on this team given its present situation? Our center depth has changed, so to must our evaluations of the relevance of our prospects at center. It's unfortunate for Da Costa, but he's lost quite a bit of relevance since the Turris acquisition.

I'm going to assume the natural counter-argument would be that he can convert to wing in the NHL. Again, you run into the problem of depth - Silfverberg, Michalek, Stone, Latendresse, and potentially one of Zibby or Turris will be competing for those top-6 roles in the near future. Add Noesen to that list if his development continues to excel. Again, you run into the problem of a lot of depth, a lot of competition, and a lot of players who are arguably more talented (higher upside) and more NHL ready (more developed) than Da Costa.

I don't see how you can legitimately argue that Da Costa is a 'better' prospect on this team than Jim O'Brien, who is much more NHL ready and much more likely to have a role on this team and get developmental minutes in the NHL with this club.
Sorry for the delay, hard for me to find the time for HF

I can certainly "qualify" it

First, I don't think O'Brien makes an "impact". He's a decent player and should be able to replace Winchester but a 4th line center has a limited upside. A few years ago, before Winchester turned into an NHLer, he was ranked like 9-12th on those polls... when our prospect pool was below average, and now it is top-3

It's not guys like O'Brien and Borowiecki that make it top-3, because every team has bunch loads of prospects like that. No, it's more having Da Costa, Wiercioch, Maidens and Petersson in your 9th-12th positions...

I agree that strenght is an asset, not a "skill" but certainly an advantage. Every prospect knows they have to get bigger and stronger for the NHL, when we vote in these polls, we assume that they will take it seriously and do everything they can to prepare themselves for the NHL. It's about potential "down the road", potential for Da Costa and Wiercioch if they add a few pounds/strenght

On-ice skills and vision are not as easily acquirable... Boro and O'Brien won't ever get close to Da Costa's and Petersson's level in terms of poise, skills, skating (in Petersson's case), shot, hockey IQ, etc.

Da Costa is 22 y/o
O'Brien is 23 y/o
Borowiecki is 22 y/o

Da Costa played 26 NHL games while O'Brien played 34 and Borowiecki only played 2

The difference between O'Brien and Da Costa is the road to the NHL... O'Brien has 3 pro-seasons under his belt while Da Costa has only 1...

Borowiecki only has 1 as well but he plays a different position and might not have a high ceiling (better prospect than O'Brien but not yet)

I don't care that Da Costa is 4th or 10th on the depht chart, because I have a BPA approach... The thing is to develop the prospect the best you can and then use him as an asset (like Rundblad) or wait until a spot opens to promote him

I have followed the NHL closely for 20 years now and how many times have we seen players get out of the dark and beat players that were "supposed to be better" for a spot... If Da Costa becomes very good, he will play for this team or another, that's for sure. He will force hands of NHL teams. And I really think Da Costa has a special talent and he could end up being real good, like Petersson. I actually believe more (for now) in them than guys like Prince and Puempel (but I recognize that they should be ranked higher based on hype and draft position lol)

I'm not saying that Da Costa has bigger chances to be a fixture on THIS team than O'Brien but that's the problem we have in those polls and we never reached concensus about it... I have the BPA approach, just like the draft. I'd rather have guys like Da Costa and Petersson in my prospect pool than O'Brien and Borowiecki because I want to hit an homerun, and I know that I will be able to fil the other 2 spots easily (4th line Center and 6th D-man). Petersson's and Da Costa's chance for the NHL are not as good as the other 2, but at the same time they aren't that low has well. They already played and showed that they weren't that far away

The question I have is who would you take NOW if we were making a draft from all the Sens prospects?

Simple as that. Personally, I'd go with the guy with the highest potential instead of the guy that will play 8-10 mins on my 4th line. Those are a dime a dozen. They can be developped with late round picks, easily acquired with the UFA market or via a minor trade or as part of a package

Prospects like Da Costa and Petersson are not traded everyday because GMs don't want to risk that it blows in their face until they know what they really have.

Would you trade Da Costa or Petersson for another team's O'Brien or Borowiecki???

Personnally, I certainly wouldn't

Last edited by Xspyrit: 07-07-2012 at 05:00 PM.
Xspyrit is online now   Reply With Quote