O' Byrne Signed For 2 Years

[Athlétique.Canadien]

He's 22 and still might have the potential to gain those 6 pounds in years to come.

O'Byrne taller

Komisarek heavier

DOES ANYONE KNOW WHAT TYPE OF CONTRACT IT IS? 2 WAY ETC?

Edited August 10, 2006 by ATHLÉTIQUE.CANADIEN

[House11]

He's 22 and still might have the potential to gain those 6 pounds in years to come.

O'Byrne taller

Komisarek heavier

DOES ANYONE KNOW WHAT TYPE OF CONTRACT IT IS? 2 WAY ETC?

Don't know for sure ... but I think it would be safe to assume it is a 2 way. I doubt BG would give him a one way deal to play in the AHL ... unless he's that good

[MAK]

Don't know for sure ... but I think it would be safe to assume it is a 2 way. I doubt BG would give him a one way deal to play in the AHL ... unless he's that good

I read somewhere that he would make the minimun 450K this year and 475K the year after on a 2 way contract

[montreal]

Yes, physically he's ready. But he remains a prospect until he can show the organization and eventually us fans that he's ready. Remember that O'Bryne didn't really produce much offensively in college, even in his 3rd season. Komisarek went from 16 points in 41 games as a freshman, to 30 in 39 games as a sophomore. O'Bryne had 13 points in 28 games as a junior, and a mere 12 points during the previous two seasons combined. So, I'm saying I'm not expecting much from him offensively as a pro player. If he can develop into a solid 4-6 defenceman, who can play well defensively while making good passes on transition plays, then I'll be happy.

Don't get caught up in stats though. I'm a big Cornell fan and saw OB play a lot over his 3 years. The thing you have to take into consideration is that Michigan that year went all the way to the Frozen Four finals with a great team. Cornell is a totally different team. They play a great forchecking, tight defensive style but very low scoring. Once Cornell gets the lead, the other team is in trouble, the problem for them was coming from behind cause they do not have much in the way of skilled offensive players. O'Byrne likely will never be known for his offense, although I never thought Souray would be and look at him now. With Cornell they play a hard working, high energy game, they also use the left wing lock so the RD can pinch in at times.

It's a 2 year, 2 way contract, all rookie contracst are 2 way and it's a 2 year because he signed at age 22. (he just turned 22 last month, had he signed before then, he would have had to sign a 3 year deal)

[Athlétique.Canadien]

Thanks montreal. Once again you've made everything crystal clear for us.

[shortcat1]

As always, I look forward to seeing him progress and making an impact with the team.

:king: :hlogo: :king:

[shortcat1]

HF's ratings really mean diddly squat. They're made by people like us, not professionnals.

Besides, being a "3-4 pair at best or 5-6 at worse" is kinda broad. Basically its anything but top pair. That's basically 80% of d-men in the league!

I'm not certain I agree with that. I wrote to Dan Linn a while back asking about that very same thing (how do they get their ratings) and this is what he answered.

"HF has tons of writers, as some NHL teams have more then one writer and there are also writers for each league in the CHL, plus the NCAA and Euro leagues.

Some writers do have access to information from the team, as several general mangers, scouts, players, and people in the hockey media do read HF which makes it easier to gain access."

It may be that the majority are not 'professionals' but they have access to professional input. I also asked him about the 'Top 50' list and how they get that. Again, his response:

"The Top 50 list is made up by a select group of writers and I believe pro scouts from ISS do offer a helping hand, but to be honest I really don't know all the details cause I never took part in the top 50 list or anything not habs related.

As for the rankings and where to place players, we have different things we take into consideration such as skill level, progression, weaknesses, develop program, size, work ethic, etc..."

Like any listing or ranking situation, it'll have its actual and potential weakenesses but, from what I read, it is worth considering as a good guideline.

On the other hand, I keep in mind also that Ryder was rated a 5 which made him a VERY WEAK prospect. He did turn out quite sufficiently for the team.

:king: :hlogo: :king:

Edited August 11, 2006 by shortcat1

[montreal]

I'm not certain I agree with that. I wrote to Dan Linn a while back asking about that very same thing (how do they get their ratings) and this is what he answered.

That's one smart guy. :king:

Edited August 11, 2006 by montreal

[KoZed]

I'm not certain I agree with that. I wrote to Dan Linn a while back asking about that very same thing (how do they get their ratings) and this is what he answered.

Shortcat, I dont know if HF have changed their methods with time, but back when I was writing for them, we were basically on our own and we had a lot of freedom in our ratings. Personnaly I tried to get input from pros in the field (scouts, coaches, etc), but that's hard and sometimes only add to the confusion.

When it was time to make compiled lists, selected writers would send in their own ratings and somehow (I never knew who or how) the HF editors came out with their definitive rankings.

The sole difference now from back then is the ISS input. Back then HF only had ONE pro scout. And to be frank, he was horrible! He'd look over our rankings and ratings and suggest changes to the editors who would then pass them on to us.

I remember getting crazy mad about that pro scout's suggestions. He was in love with Tatcher Bell, Sebastien Laprise and Martin Vagner and wanted me to upgrade them. Except for Vagner, I didn't like the other two all that much, especially Laprise.

Anyway, the mere idea of "ratings" is almost flawed from the start, considering all the different levels of amateur leagues there is out there and the importance of development and progress. Scouting prospects is anything but as clear-cut as just smaking a number and a letter beside a guy's name.

I'm also guessing Dann Linn might agree that having to follow, evaluate and grade about 30 prospects based on tapes, all on your own when you're not getting paid a dime, is just about this (_) short of crazy and shouldn't be taken seriously. (just kidding Dann!)

[Trizzak]

So what does the defence corps look like for the Bulldogs?

[shortcat1]

Shortcat, I dont know if HF have changed their methods with time, but back when I was writing for them, we were basically on our own and we had a lot of freedom in our ratings. Personnaly I tried to get input from pros in the field (scouts, coaches, etc), but that's hard and sometimes only add to the confusion.

When it was time to make compiled lists, selected writers would send in their own ratings and somehow (I never knew who or how) the HF editors came out with their definitive rankings.

The sole difference now from back then is the ISS input. Back then HF only had ONE pro scout. And to be frank, he was horrible! He'd look over our rankings and ratings and suggest changes to the editors who would then pass them on to us.

I remember getting crazy mad about that pro scout's suggestions. He was in love with Tatcher Bell, Sebastien Laprise and Martin Vagner and wanted me to upgrade them. Except for Vagner, I didn't like the other two all that much, especially Laprise.

Anyway, the mere idea of "ratings" is almost flawed from the start, considering all the different levels of amateur leagues there is out there and the importance of development and progress. Scouting prospects is anything but as clear-cut as just smaking a number and a letter beside a guy's name.

I'm also guessing Dann Linn might agree that having to follow, evaluate and grade about 30 prospects based on tapes, all on your own when you're not getting paid a dime, is just about this (_) short of crazy and shouldn't be taken seriously. (just kidding Dann!)

Oh...

:king: :hlogo: :king:

[MAK]

So what does the defence corps look like for the Bulldogs?

something like

james sanford- jp coté (when bouillon returns)

andrew archer- james benoit

ryan obyrne-mark flood

alex dulac lemelin-mark streit

didn't the bulldogs sign jancevski??

[montreal]

something like

james sanford- jp coté (when bouillon returns)

andrew archer- james benoit

ryan obyrne-mark flood

alex dulac lemelin-mark streit

didn't the bulldogs sign jancevski??

Mark Flood is with the Jackets, Cote is a LD, Archer and O'B are RD's, It's Andre not James Benoit, Streit is likely going to be with the Habs since he's on a one way but if he were in Hamilton he'd likely be on the top pairing and the Habs signed Jancevski not the Dogs, meaning he has to go through waivers to play in Hamilton but can be recalled if we need him.

I'd guess something like

Jancevski O'Byrne

Cote Sanford

Benoit Archer

Dulac and Gleed could end up in the ECHL perhaps.

[montreal]

Shortcat, I dont know if HF have changed their methods with time, but back when I was writing for them, we were basically on our own and we had a lot of freedom in our ratings. Personnaly I tried to get input from pros in the field (scouts, coaches, etc), but that's hard and sometimes only add to the confusion.

When it was time to make compiled lists, selected writers would send in their own ratings and somehow (I never knew who or how) the HF editors came out with their definitive rankings.

The sole difference now from back then is the ISS input. Back then HF only had ONE pro scout. And to be frank, he was horrible! He'd look over our rankings and ratings and suggest changes to the editors who would then pass them on to us.

I remember getting crazy mad about that pro scout's suggestions. He was in love with Tatcher Bell, Sebastien Laprise and Martin Vagner and wanted me to upgrade them. Except for Vagner, I didn't like the other two all that much, especially Laprise.

Anyway, the mere idea of "ratings" is almost flawed from the start, considering all the different levels of amateur leagues there is out there and the importance of development and progress. Scouting prospects is anything but as clear-cut as just smaking a number and a letter beside a guy's name.

I'm also guessing Dann Linn might agree that having to follow, evaluate and grade about 30 prospects based on tapes, all on your own when you're not getting paid a dime, is just about this (_) short of crazy and shouldn't be taken seriously. (just kidding Dann!)

I don't know when you worked for them, but since Holly took over as the sole editor, things really improved. She made things very strict, setting deadlines, getting sources etc.. Most team writers now get a lot of input from their NHL teams. I know that the editor covers the thrashers and she gets direct input from GM Don Waddell. I actually had a very small helping hand in getting ISS and HF together. They worked together back when Shane was running the show, back when the famed HF mag was out (I wrote the Habs article, my pick was Kostitsyn!, although we submitted 2 names and I had Getzlaf first, Kostitsyn was the one that ended up in the article, still have my free copy) Anyways after all that went down and the former owners of HF came back, I had some contact with ISS and brought up the idea of working with HF but they were already considering it since Shane was removed.

I think that HF has come a long way and a lot of their articles are much better now. I like the work that the Habs writers do, I could never get Timmins to call me back or get anything set up with him and had a heck of a time with the PR guy for the Dogs, but they seem to have much better contacts.

Overall I agree, ratings in a way are pointless. This is what got me in trouble with HF when I wrote for them. I think it's almost silly to try and rank the top 50 prospects or top organizations, just as it's also very hard to rank your top 20 prospects. But the point they made was that it's for the fans that don't follow things as much, this way they can get some opinions or a different way of looking at things. I continue to rank the top 20 prospects cause it's fun and always gets a lot of discussion either good or bad not matter what site I'm writing them for.

[MAK]

Mark Flood is with the Jackets, Cote is a LD, Archer and O'B are RD's, It's Andre not James Benoit, Streit is likely going to be with the Habs since he's on a one way but if he were in Hamilton he'd likely be on the top pairing and the Habs signed Jancevski not the Dogs, meaning he has to go through waivers to play in Hamilton but can be recalled if we need him.

I'd guess something like

Jancevski O'Byrne

Cote Sanford

Benoit Archer

Dulac and Gleed could end up in the ECHL perhaps.

thanx a bunch

I've mistaken flood with gleed..and james benoit lol...I need some sleep

[KoZed]

I don't know when you worked for them, but since Holly took over as the sole editor, things really improved. She made things very strict, setting deadlines, getting sources etc.. Most team writers now get a lot of input from their NHL teams. I know that the editor covers the thrashers and she gets direct input from GM Don Waddell. I actually had a very small helping hand in getting ISS and HF together. They worked together back when Shane was running the show, back when the famed HF mag was out (I wrote the Habs article, my pick was Kostitsyn!, although we submitted 2 names and I had Getzlaf first, Kostitsyn was the one that ended up in the article, still have my free copy) Anyways after all that went down and the former owners of HF came back, I had some contact with ISS and brought up the idea of working with HF but they were already considering it since Shane was removed.

I was with them from 99 to 01. I wrote them complaining about stuff they wrote and they asked me to join so I did. It was a startup so things were kinda messy. They were supposed to get me press creds but they got all confused and ended up giving it to a girl that was supposed to cover the Quebec Citadelles but hardly ever did anything.

Then they got a deal with Fox Sports and I was supposed to contribute to that as well, but they were so messy they changed their deal with Fox about 20 times before finally setting with something juste a few days before my deadline for an article was up.

Anyway. You get the picture how it was.

I think that HF has come a long way and a lot of their articles are much better now. I like the work that the Habs writers do, I could never get Timmins to call me back or get anything set up with him and had a heck of a time with the PR guy for the Dogs, but they seem to have much better contacts.

Which I had that back in the days. Nobody was taking the internet seriously. Zero respect. I had better contacts when I used to write for my Cégep's newspaper!

Overall I agree, ratings in a way are pointless. This is what got me in trouble with HF when I wrote for them. I think it's almost silly to try and rank the top 50 prospects or top organizations, just as it's also very hard to rank your top 20 prospects. But the point they made was that it's for the fans that don't follow things as much, this way they can get some opinions or a different way of looking at things. I continue to rank the top 20 prospects cause it's fun and always gets a lot of discussion either good or bad not matter what site I'm writing them for.

Sure it makes for quick looks and good discussions. My main problem with rankings is that things change so quickly, its like making powerankings: unless you update often it'll get skewed fast. 4 months in a prospect's life is huge.

Take O'Byrne for example. Give him a good couple of first months in the AHL and his stock could skyrocket from "wildcard/darkhorse depth defenseman" to "sure-fire shutdown monster"...

[habscout]

I found this follow up article about the O'Byrne signing, and thought I'd post it here and on the front page since it has more direct comments from Ryan than other articles I've read.

http://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2006/08/14_cornell.php