Zibanejad and Lehner are potential impact players, Ceci looks like he will be a solid 2nd pairing defenceman, and Chiasson had a promising rookie season... but Cowen and Wiercioch both took a step back last year, and everyone else on that list are unproven prospects, two of which haven't even played a game in the NHL.

In general, I'd suggest that the Senators have an exceptionally deep prospect system, but have few exceptional prospects. The former can help an average team become good, but the latter is what makes a good team great. Also, there's no way to develop all of those prospects concurrently, so for every player that makes it they may bleed one or two others with little to show for it.
- khawk

Exactly. A team needs to make a decision on a development curve that enables players the opportunity for accelerated progression when warranted. For example, Puemple would be getting tons of ink if he were in another talent pool. In his rookie AHL year in he scores 7 goals in the first half and 23 goals in the second half. Mind blowing progression.

Every coach who has had Lazar drools over his game, you here them say he plays a pro game already (code for he plays a full 200' game). He shuts down the other team's best player or best line, he scores the big goals in overtime, he is the guy on the ice when his team is two men short.

At some point Ottawa is going to have to make a move and give several of the young guys a shot. I believe they can move out as many as four players (Smith, Greening, Condra and Neil) and allow young guys to move up. A fourth line of Grant, Lazar and Puemple will not hurt you. Spot play them for 10 minutes a game, give them some special teams play.

Note: I love Smith's game but Legwand will take over that third line role and is an upgrade over Smith.

My question is what makes you think that the team cares this much about where Mark Stone would be most effective? Do you really think that this would override their interest in where guys like Bobby Ryan, Kyle Turris, or Milan Michalek would be most effective? The team's top line is more than just a development opportunity for a rookie who might not even make the roster - it's where you typically find the team's best players, and the ones you're going to rely on to win you hockey games all year long. Plus, even if Stone did find himself in a scoring line role out of training camp, he's absolutely going to have to produce to hold on to it - because regardless of what impresses you, if a scoring line player isn't producing then you have to make whatever changes are necessary to improve on that. Playing a "real good overall game" is for 3rd and 4th line players, which is why I don't think it's even remotely clear-cut which of Stone or Lazar has an advantage in terms of such a role.
- khawk

i obviously think that turris and ryan are much more important players than stone moving forward.......however, to your point, i feel confident that the development of stone is a bigger priority for this team (both short and long term) then making sure michalek gets top six ice time.

i could be wrong, and maybe michalek has a big bounce back year....but in his 25 or so games played last year, stone was a better player then michalek was.

I think the posts here are getting a little off the mark. We still have to wait and see if guys like Stone, Hoffman, Puemple, Lazar, etc are even going to make the team before they start eating up big minutes. That's where the debate should be right now. Which of these players actually make the team, then you can start discussing who gets ice time over who. Would be silly to suggest Stone should be getting top 6 minutes over Michalek then watch him be sent down to the AHL after a terrible training camp and preseason.

I think the posts here are getting a little off the mark. We still have to wait and see if guys like Stone, Hoffman, Puemple, Lazar, etc are even going to make the team before they start eating up big minutes. That's where the debate should be right now. Which of these players actually make the team, then you can start discussing who gets ice time over who. Would be silly to suggest Stone should be getting top 6 minutes over Michalek then watch him be sent down to the AHL after a terrible training camp and preseason.
- Gord_Wilson_2.0

I think that is correct.

But, it is an issue today that some of those guys will likely not have a shot of making the team because of guaranteed contracts of other players (Greening, Neil and Condra).

I think that is correct.

But, it is an issue today that some of those guys will likely not have a shot of making the team because of guaranteed contracts of other players (Greening, Neil and Condra).
- spatso

This is true. To me, the 3 big roster wastes are Greening, Neil, and Phillips. It would not be hard to replace those players internally and use their money elsewhere.

Great post by Meltzer today in his Flyers blog on Hextall's perspective on analytics as a hockey tool. Essentially he is saying it is something that can be used to help the astute hockey observer (GM, coach, scout) explain a finer detail of performance. Last year, for example, Randy Carlyle kept saying the Leafs might be getting points in every game but they were not playing well. Analytics provided some statistical evidence for what Carlyle was saying.

But Hextall does not see analytics ever becoming a front line tool for use in player evaluation and I would assume selection. We should have known. The high water mark for analytics is the same month as the Leafs hire a specialist. It will soon fade and be remembered as a minor fad, a replacement for shots on goal or plus/minus or blocked shots or save percentage. At least for a short while, analytics is more problematic than those other proxy performance measures.

Great post by Meltzer today in his Flyers blog on Hextall's perspective on analytics as a hockey tool. Essentially he is saying it is something that can be used to help the astute hockey observer (GM, coach, scout) explain a finer detail of performance. Last year, for example, Randy Carlyle kept saying the Leafs might be getting points in every game but they were not playing well. Analytics provided some statistical evidence for what Carlyle was saying.

But Hextall does not see analytics ever becoming a front line tool for use in player evaluation and I would assume selection. We should have known. The high water mark for analytics is the same month as the Leafs hire a specialist. It will soon fade and be remembered as a minor fad, a replacement for shots on goal or plus/minus or blocked shots or save percentage. At least for a short while, analytics is more problematic than those other proxy performance measures.
- spatso

So do you think Dubas was a good hire?

So do you think Dubas was a good hire?
- ClarksonDavid

Yes!

In business we use numbers everyday to help in making choices towards an improved cash flow and lower expenses on both short and long term plans.

Hockey performance gets better, coaching is better and there is a need to better understand why something is working or not working. The Hextall interview was really good. You need the better data to confirm, explain or verify what your senses tell you. I have no doubt Dubas would have been a great asset to explain why the Leafs were in trouble when the were doing so well in the standings in the first half of last year. Carlyle warned everyone. Only a few believed him.

Yes!

In business we use numbers everyday to help in making choices towards an improved cash flow and lower expenses on both short and long term plans.

Hockey performance gets better, coaching is better and there is a need to better understand why something is working or not working. The Hextall interview was really good. You need the better data to confirm, explain or verify what your senses tell you. I have no doubt Dubas would have been a great asset to explain why the Leafs were in trouble when the were doing so well in the standings in the first half of last year. Carlyle warned everyone. Only a few believed him.
- spatso

Carlyle is an idiot though. Seems like no players like him really, he favours some terrible players like McClement, Orr, McClaren. Hopefully he changes his mindset. I really like the Dubas hire and am so far liking what Shanahan has done. I like the new assistant coaches, Dubas hire, I like the Nylander pick, also happy with how free agency went. Just wish he would of fired Carlye. Looks like they might finally be turning a corner...

Carlyle is an idiot though. Seems like no players like him really, he favours some terrible players like McClement, Orr, McClaren. Hopefully he changes his mindset. I really like the Dubas hire and am so far liking what Shanahan has done. I like the new assistant coaches, Dubas hire, I like the Nylander pick, also happy with how free agency went. Just wish he would of fired Carlye. Looks like they might finally be turning a corner...
- ClarksonDavid

I have never thought Carlyle was the problem. I did not think Wilson was a problem or Pat Quinn or Punch Imlach after 1967 or any of the other guys over the last 47 years. Problem is a toxic mix of wealth, media hyper activity and a loyal fan base that tolerates never ending abuse.

I do think Shanahan is a good step in the right direction. Somebody needs to stand up to the ever present media and say patience. We will not take the softer easier way. We will build through the draft developing home grown talent. The media will squeal, they love the big deal. But, I think Shanahan has the confidence to stare them down and say, no.