I might say more about this later, but I want to point out (1) you have to spend time on a guy to know if its a guy worth spending more time on; (2) a lot of time spent on a player is with other players and multitasking (there's a russian scout, no?); and most importantly, (3) when it comes to post-prospect players (or expanding a bit -- passed over juniors), the odds are always really long. You are looking for the guys that not only know-everything-but-nothing-really posters know is a waste of time, but also most teams think is a waste of time (or have given up on) which is why that player is there to begin with.donlever wrote: ↑Tue Nov 04, 2025 12:45 pmLet me go at this from another off the cuff, shits and giggles direction
NHL Managment is a 24/7/365 endeavor.
Guys have to eat, sleep and diddle the old lady (ok maybe not JR) so let's presume, for sake of argument, they are on task 100 hours a week.
If JR, PA, the contracts team, coaches, trainers spent, again let's throw a number out there for fun, 300 hours on this guy and we base that on 100 hour work weeks the Canucks wasted potentially 3 weeks of time as well as cash money on an employee EVERY FAN on this board could have told them was a waste of time.
Giving Kravsoft a chance is lazy, but its lazy because the likelihood of these players turning out is extremely low and you hit the median of possible success simply by marrying a high degree of skill (which got him drafted so high) with recent success in what has been one of the best men's leagues in the world. How many NHL drafted burn outs or never wases turn it around at that age after success in the KHL? It is non-zero -- see Kuzzy, but it isn't all that high (see a guy like Gusev). Whether its claiming guys off waivers or getting them back from overseas, the odds are always long, and the they are always players who most people in the know don't think have a chance. Every team wants to find the next Brian Rafalski (from European pro league not by choice) or Martin St. Louis (waiver claim); but very few teams have that guy in their history. Most are thrilled as punch if they get a Marty Gelinas (waiver claim). But these guys, by definition, have long odds, and those who take a shot with them will by "good" pro scouts but whether they are the geniuses who see what others cannot or simply the guy whose watch stopped at the right time is hard to say.
Now I think there is a somewhat better chance of finding players who are draft eligible or never drafted (but 20/21) who weren't passed by the NHL after having a shot but were passed over by the minor/junior development system. Late bloomers, or guys not tapped in. This is where amateur scouts can find Alex Edlers and Colton Paraykos. But most of them turn out to be Danila Klimoviches. Still -- you get one of these guys (largely off the radar picks) every 5 years and it goes a long way.
In terms of those that got through their junior years without being drafted, here's another area where having a good eye (and keeping open spots on a 50 man) really can make a difference. Chris Tanev. But usually, these things also fail (Rafferty, Teves, Hirose, McWard, etc.). But if you get one of these guys + one of the groups above every 5 years? That's a couple of roster spots a cycle that supplements what you are doing with your 1st and 2d round picks.
And of course, then there is simply not dropping the ball in the amateur draft and finding the *right* conventional pipeline kids to draft after the first 45 picks or so (when there's only a small group each year that will ever be one of the best 500 hockey players in the world).
Succeeding in each of these categories of amateur scouting is going to have a way bigger effect finding rock solid NHLers than any pro scouting of pros outside the AHL who haven't stuck in the NHL by age 24. (Pros in the AHL is another story -- still long odds if they've passed through waivers a couple times that they become anything special, but there are plenty of guys stuck on the wrong side of a tweener line in a given organization and can at least give NHL minutes without being a terrible liability -- and a pro scouting group has to be able to separate this group from Sheldon Drieses). Point is, I wouldn't spend too many resources improving my pro scouting of non-NHL, non-AHL; sure, take a look at the guys who rise to the cream of those leagues, but know that you are always betting the long shot, and the answer to "but we didn't win the long shot" is not "so I guess we should play even more of them."
