Castagna and Walsh - The Worry Zone

[fastforward]

If I was a hockey player hoping to make it to the show, and I had a chance to play at a college that was known for having players make it AND get an Ivy degree, I'd seriously want to come to Cornell.

To me, I'd take a great player for 3 good years over none at all.

Just my opinion

Of course.  But I think college hockey is fundamentally very different right now than it was even 5 years ago.

Five years ago:  You're an American or Canadian Kid growing up playing hockey.  You're a great player.  You want to go as far as hockey can take you. And let's be clear:  Hockey is the priority.  Getting an education is nice, but this isn't 1987 where you are using your hockey skills to get yourself into Cornell.  Your goal is to play as much hockey for as long as you can.  Your choices are: 1. Go play junior hockey as a teenager in Canada and hope to be drafted into the NHL, BUT you then are not allowed to play college hockey.  All or nothing. 2. Go play at a prep school in the Northeast (or live in Minnesota and play public HS there) and then, while you are less likely to be drafted into the NHL, you can be recruited and committed to play in college (with a stop at junior hockey along the way). From there, you might hope to go to the NHL.  As you might expect, you are much more likely to have been drafted if you cut your teeth in the major Canadian junior leagues.  Many of those kids get drafted but it doesn't pan out and they just forget hockey and go on with their lives. And many of them are probably much better players than the kids who went to prep school and then college. If you choose the prep school>USHL>college path, you are much less likely to wind up in the NHL. College really was generally NOT seen as a path to the NHL. So kids valued the education much more and understood.  And like you said, if you had a Moulson on the team you did significantly better.

The biggest change - more than the transfer portal and the NIL stuff - is the change last fall to allow all of those major Canadian junior players to go to college.  I will tell you because I know this for a fact -since that change, 95%+ of all college commitments are coming from junior hockey.  So many coaches are actually waiting to see how kids develop and what they develop into before committing them.  It minimizes the chances of them signing a prep school kid who doesn't work out in juniors. That is the new pathway.  All the best college recruits now skip prep school and go straight to the OHL or the Q or the WHL.  So they are ready by the time they finish high school, AND the next logical step for them between juniors and the NHL is now college hockey for a year or two. And the college teams that can grab onto the Celebrinis and McKennas are going to have the best chances of winning THAT YEAR.  Once those guys are developed enough, they go to the NHL. Presumably by that time, they are significantly better players than the fourth year seniors they beat on their way to the dance.  And developing players at the NCAA level for four years does not provide them with the kind of development they generally need to jump to the NHL.  Like Castagna - he's as developed as he can be playing ECAC hockey, he needs the next step.  Walsh may or may not be in a similar position.

Totally agree on your points!
My main point, which I probably didn't convey properly, is that people are griping about these guys leaving after junior year and basically "bailing" on the team. I can't begrudge them the opportunity and would be happy having them for 3 years before they go.

[ugarte]

Yes, we are certainly in agreement that Castagna leaving, on the one hand, and Bancroft/Stanley leaving, on the other hand, are two very different things. If just Castagna signs, we aren't having this discussion. It's the Stanley departure that's truly surprising and causing me to look back and reflect on the fact that this type of departure is mostly unprecedented in Cornell history.

In what way, shape or form is that "unprecedented"? In this thread alone, numerous examples have been pointed out of similar Cornell players leaving after their junior year.

I'd argue it's "mostly unprecedented" in the sense that he is only the third Cornell player drafted in the fourth round or higher to leave early in the last 30+ years, and because he does not project as an NHL player. He's the lowest drafted early departure among defensemen in the last 30+ years as well (and probably much longer, but I didn't look back that far).  It's been extremely rare for us to not retain this type of player.

depends who is doing the projecting! you keep substituting your judgment for the people involved. ottawa was interested enough to buy him out of his senior year with $500K+ over the next three years (between bonuses and minor league salary) regardless of whether he ever makes the NHL. He's only 21 and regarded as a solid defensive defenseman who is likely to grow into his frame. He doesn't project as an NHL star but I think they see him as someone who will get to skate on the good ice.

Not only do I think that it is unlikely that Stanley would turn down that offer, I further assume that Jones-the-mentor (as opposed to Jones-the-guy-who-wants-to-win) would advise him to take it.

Hmm. I thought I posted this but apparently did not.

I don't think this is true at all. The higher draft pick is a higher investment...

Sounds like sunk cost fallacy. NHL teams are smart enough reevaluate and update their beliefs based on how guys perform, without leaning much at all on draft round. If we were discussing first rounders I'd agree with you, but once you're into the middle rounds that all goes out the window...

First, the sunk cost fallacy describes how people behave, not how economic models and beings of pure rationality are supposed to behave.

Second, the same attributes that make you a projectible high-round pick are probably still there 2-3 years later. Morgan Barron, for example, definitely outperformed his draft position and expectations (including at training camps) and nudged the Rangers towards yanking him out of school (regardless of COVID imo). If you take someone in a late round you're mostly only pulling them early if they develop on their own. If you take someone earlier you probably want to mold the clay.

[Pghas]

Yes, we are certainly in agreement that Castagna leaving, on the one hand, and Bancroft/Stanley leaving, on the other hand, are two very different things. If just Castagna signs, we aren't having this discussion. It's the Stanley departure that's truly surprising and causing me to look back and reflect on the fact that this type of departure is mostly unprecedented in Cornell history.

In what way, shape or form is that "unprecedented"? In this thread alone, numerous examples have been pointed out of similar Cornell players leaving after their junior year.

I'd argue it's "mostly unprecedented" in the sense that he is only the third Cornell player drafted in the fourth round or higher to leave early in the last 30+ years, and because he does not project as an NHL player. He's the lowest drafted early departure among defensemen in the last 30+ years as well (and probably much longer, but I didn't look back that far).  It's been extremely rare for us to not retain this type of player.

depends who is doing the projecting! you keep substituting your judgment for the people involved. ottawa was interested enough to buy him out of his senior year with $500K+ over the next three years (between bonuses and minor league salary) regardless of whether he ever makes the NHL. He's only 21 and regarded as a solid defensive defenseman who is likely to grow into his frame. He doesn't project as an NHL star but I think they see him as someone who will get to skate on the good ice.

Not only do I think that it is unlikely that Stanley would turn down that offer, I further assume that Jones-the-mentor (as opposed to Jones-the-guy-who-wants-to-win) would advise him to take it.

Yeah - Castagna got over $1 million a year for 3 years so chances are Calgary has him slotted into a middle 6 position at worst.  500k over 3 years is nice cheddar too and he can easily go back and finish his degree with $ in the bank.  So yeah he is just getting paid to walk away from a fourth year of Cornell hockey.

[BearLover]

Yes, we are certainly in agreement that Castagna leaving, on the one hand, and Bancroft/Stanley leaving, on the other hand, are two very different things. If just Castagna signs, we aren't having this discussion. It's the Stanley departure that's truly surprising and causing me to look back and reflect on the fact that this type of departure is mostly unprecedented in Cornell history.

In what way, shape or form is that "unprecedented"? In this thread alone, numerous examples have been pointed out of similar Cornell players leaving after their junior year.

I'd argue it's "mostly unprecedented" in the sense that he is only the third Cornell player drafted in the fourth round or higher to leave early in the last 30+ years, and because he does not project as an NHL player. He's the lowest drafted early departure among defensemen in the last 30+ years as well (and probably much longer, but I didn't look back that far).  It's been extremely rare for us to not retain this type of player.

depends who is doing the projecting! you keep substituting your judgment for the people involved. ottawa was interested enough to buy him out of his senior year with $500K+ over the next three years (between bonuses and minor league salary) regardless of whether he ever makes the NHL. He's only 21 and regarded as a solid defensive defenseman who is likely to grow into his frame. He doesn't project as an NHL star but I think they see him as someone who will get to skate on the good ice.

Not only do I think that it is unlikely that Stanley would turn down that offer, I further assume that Jones-the-mentor (as opposed to Jones-the-guy-who-wants-to-win) would advise him to take it.

Not really going off my own opinion - going mostly off buzz from scouts and publicly available reporting. For example, the Athletic's NHL prospect analyst Scott Wheeler listed Stanley as a "tier 3 prospect" and ranked him as the 10th best prospect in the Senators' 26th ranked farm system. Here's what Wheeler wrote a couple weeks ago:

10. Hoyt Stanley, RHD, 21, Cornell (No. 108, 2023)

Stanley was the best under-18 defenseman in the BCHL three seasons ago and earned a spot on the league's All-Rookie team after missing most of the prior season with a concussion. Then, as an 18-year-old freshman at Cornell, he looked like he belonged without standing out, which is kind of all you can hope for out of a player who has taken that path to playing college hockey (especially given his age at the time). He's now a junior, though, and his production hasn't taken a step despite expanded minutes — he averaged 20 per game last year and is up to 22 this year — and positive two-way results generally.

He's a long, mobile, pro-sized (6-3, 207 pounds) right-shot defenseman with impressive skating technique, enough ability to handle and maneuver with the puck on his stick, and a decent shot that I'd like to see him use more. He's still a little raw in some areas, but I expect him to blossom into a standout college defenseman as an upperclassman. He projects as an efficient, effective two-way D with some secondary puck-transporting elements, and I saw enough NHL potential to rank him No. 98 pre-draft (10 spots in front of where the Sens picked him) ahead of the draft. I'm not sure he has done enough to warrant an entry-level contract to this point, though, and while he's still young for a junior, the clock is now ticking.

[BearLover]

Yes, we are certainly in agreement that Castagna leaving, on the one hand, and Bancroft/Stanley leaving, on the other hand, are two very different things. If just Castagna signs, we aren't having this discussion. It's the Stanley departure that's truly surprising and causing me to look back and reflect on the fact that this type of departure is mostly unprecedented in Cornell history.

In what way, shape or form is that "unprecedented"? In this thread alone, numerous examples have been pointed out of similar Cornell players leaving after their junior year.

I'd argue it's "mostly unprecedented" in the sense that he is only the third Cornell player drafted in the fourth round or higher to leave early in the last 30+ years, and because he does not project as an NHL player. He's the lowest drafted early departure among defensemen in the last 30+ years as well (and probably much longer, but I didn't look back that far).  It's been extremely rare for us to not retain this type of player.

depends who is doing the projecting! you keep substituting your judgment for the people involved. ottawa was interested enough to buy him out of his senior year with $500K+ over the next three years (between bonuses and minor league salary) regardless of whether he ever makes the NHL. He's only 21 and regarded as a solid defensive defenseman who is likely to grow into his frame. He doesn't project as an NHL star but I think they see him as someone who will get to skate on the good ice.

Not only do I think that it is unlikely that Stanley would turn down that offer, I further assume that Jones-the-mentor (as opposed to Jones-the-guy-who-wants-to-win) would advise him to take it.

Yeah - Castagna got over $1 million a year for 3 years so chances are Calgary has him slotted into a middle 6 position at worst.  500k over 3 years is nice cheddar too and he can easily go back and finish his degree with $ in the bank.  So yeah he is just getting paid to walk away from a fourth year of Cornell hockey.

That assumes Castagna sticks in the NHL. If he ends up in the AHL, he makes a small fraction of that.

[stereax]

Yes, we are certainly in agreement that Castagna leaving, on the one hand, and Bancroft/Stanley leaving, on the other hand, are two very different things. If just Castagna signs, we aren't having this discussion. It's the Stanley departure that's truly surprising and causing me to look back and reflect on the fact that this type of departure is mostly unprecedented in Cornell history.

In what way, shape or form is that "unprecedented"? In this thread alone, numerous examples have been pointed out of similar Cornell players leaving after their junior year.

I'd argue it's "mostly unprecedented" in the sense that he is only the third Cornell player drafted in the fourth round or higher to leave early in the last 30+ years, and because he does not project as an NHL player. He's the lowest drafted early departure among defensemen in the last 30+ years as well (and probably much longer, but I didn't look back that far).  It's been extremely rare for us to not retain this type of player.

depends who is doing the projecting! you keep substituting your judgment for the people involved. ottawa was interested enough to buy him out of his senior year with $500K+ over the next three years (between bonuses and minor league salary) regardless of whether he ever makes the NHL. He's only 21 and regarded as a solid defensive defenseman who is likely to grow into his frame. He doesn't project as an NHL star but I think they see him as someone who will get to skate on the good ice.

Not only do I think that it is unlikely that Stanley would turn down that offer, I further assume that Jones-the-mentor (as opposed to Jones-the-guy-who-wants-to-win) would advise him to take it.

Yeah - Castagna got over $1 million a year for 3 years so chances are Calgary has him slotted into a middle 6 position at worst.  500k over 3 years is nice cheddar too and he can easily go back and finish his degree with $ in the bank.  So yeah he is just getting paid to walk away from a fourth year of Cornell hockey.

Those numbers are standard ELC money and don't necessarily mean Calgary has him slotted anywhere, but yeah - very possible he's going to be a middle-six C with the Flames to start next year, if only for Calgary to see what they have.

[stereax]

Yes, we are certainly in agreement that Castagna leaving, on the one hand, and Bancroft/Stanley leaving, on the other hand, are two very different things. If just Castagna signs, we aren't having this discussion. It's the Stanley departure that's truly surprising and causing me to look back and reflect on the fact that this type of departure is mostly unprecedented in Cornell history.

In what way, shape or form is that "unprecedented"? In this thread alone, numerous examples have been pointed out of similar Cornell players leaving after their junior year.

I'd argue it's "mostly unprecedented" in the sense that he is only the third Cornell player drafted in the fourth round or higher to leave early in the last 30+ years, and because he does not project as an NHL player. He's the lowest drafted early departure among defensemen in the last 30+ years as well (and probably much longer, but I didn't look back that far).  It's been extremely rare for us to not retain this type of player.

depends who is doing the projecting! you keep substituting your judgment for the people involved. ottawa was interested enough to buy him out of his senior year with $500K+ over the next three years (between bonuses and minor league salary) regardless of whether he ever makes the NHL. He's only 21 and regarded as a solid defensive defenseman who is likely to grow into his frame. He doesn't project as an NHL star but I think they see him as someone who will get to skate on the good ice.

Not only do I think that it is unlikely that Stanley would turn down that offer, I further assume that Jones-the-mentor (as opposed to Jones-the-guy-who-wants-to-win) would advise him to take it.

Not really going off my own opinion - going mostly off buzz from scouts and publicly available reporting. For example, the Athletic's NHL prospect analyst Scott Wheeler listed Stanley as a "tier 3 prospect" ranked as the 10th best prospect in the Senators' 26th ranked farm system. Here's what Wheeler wrote a couple weeks ago:

10. Hoyt Stanley, RHD, 21, Cornell (No. 108, 2023)

Stanley was the best under-18 defenseman in the BCHL three seasons ago and earned a spot on the league's All-Rookie team after missing most of the prior season with a concussion. Then, as an 18-year-old freshman at Cornell, he looked like he belonged without standing out, which is kind of all you can hope for out of a player who has taken that path to playing college hockey (especially given his age at the time). He's now a junior, though, and his production hasn't taken a step despite expanded minutes — he averaged 20 per game last year and is up to 22 this year — and positive two-way results generally.

He's a long, mobile, pro-sized (6-3, 207 pounds) right-shot defenseman with impressive skating technique, enough ability to handle and maneuver with the puck on his stick, and a decent shot that I'd like to see him use more. He's still a little raw in some areas, but I expect him to blossom into a standout college defenseman as an upperclassman. He projects as an efficient, effective two-way D with some secondary puck-transporting elements, and I saw enough NHL potential to rank him No. 98 pre-draft (10 spots in front of where the Sens picked him) ahead of the draft. I'm not sure he has done enough to warrant an entry-level contract to this point, though, and while he's still young for a junior, the clock is now ticking.

every draft prospect guy fucking sucks at evaluation lmao, from my experience. a BUNCH of them mostly just go "points good".

anyway if they want Stanley as an upside bottom four minute muncher with a sneaky shot, I mean, that's what he is rn.

[ugarte]

Not really going off my own opinion - going mostly off buzz from scouts and publicly available reporting. For example, the Athletic's NHL prospect analyst Scott Wheeler listed Stanley as a "tier 3 prospect" ranked as the 10th best prospect in the Senators' 26th ranked farm system. Here's what Wheeler wrote a couple weeks ago:...

appreciate this. but that makes it even more likely (imo) that if the Senators offer him the entry-level contract that Wheeler doesn't think he's quite earned, he takes it. You can finish your degree whenever but you're only 21 for a year.

fyi, i edited my post to add a response to something else while you were responding, in case you missed that.

[tretiak]

Yeah - Castagna got over $1 million a year for 3 years so chances are Calgary has him slotted into a middle 6 position at worst.  500k over 3 years is nice cheddar too and he can easily go back and finish his degree with $ in the bank.  So yeah he is just getting paid to walk away from a fourth year of Cornell hockey.
[/quote]
That assumes Castagna sticks in the NHL. If he ends up in the AHL, he makes a small fraction of that.
[/quote]

Pghas meant the total 3 year contract not a single year. At a minimum, they both average $190k a year for three years. That's $570k over the 3 years of the contract if they don't play in the NHL.

[tretiak]

Yes, we are certainly in agreement that Castagna leaving, on the one hand, and Bancroft/Stanley leaving, on the other hand, are two very different things. If just Castagna signs, we aren't having this discussion. It's the Stanley departure that's truly surprising and causing me to look back and reflect on the fact that this type of departure is mostly unprecedented in Cornell history.

In what way, shape or form is that "unprecedented"? In this thread alone, numerous examples have been pointed out of similar Cornell players leaving after their junior year.

I'd argue it's "mostly unprecedented" in the sense that he is only the third Cornell player drafted in the fourth round or higher to leave early in the last 30+ years, and because he does not project as an NHL player. He's the lowest drafted early departure among defensemen in the last 30+ years as well (and probably much longer, but I didn't look back that far).  It's been extremely rare for us to not retain this type of player.

depends who is doing the projecting! you keep substituting your judgment for the people involved. ottawa was interested enough to buy him out of his senior year with $500K+ over the next three years (between bonuses and minor league salary) regardless of whether he ever makes the NHL. He's only 21 and regarded as a solid defensive defenseman who is likely to grow into his frame. He doesn't project as an NHL star but I think they see him as someone who will get to skate on the good ice.

Not only do I think that it is unlikely that Stanley would turn down that offer, I further assume that Jones-the-mentor (as opposed to Jones-the-guy-who-wants-to-win) would advise him to take it.

Not really going off my own opinion - going mostly off buzz from scouts and publicly available reporting. For example, the Athletic's NHL prospect analyst Scott Wheeler listed Stanley as a "tier 3 prospect" ranked as the 10th best prospect in the Senators' 26th ranked farm system. Here's what Wheeler wrote a couple weeks ago:

10. Hoyt Stanley, RHD, 21, Cornell (No. 108, 2023)

Stanley was the best under-18 defenseman in the BCHL three seasons ago and earned a spot on the league's All-Rookie team after missing most of the prior season with a concussion. Then, as an 18-year-old freshman at Cornell, he looked like he belonged without standing out, which is kind of all you can hope for out of a player who has taken that path to playing college hockey (especially given his age at the time). He's now a junior, though, and his production hasn't taken a step despite expanded minutes — he averaged 20 per game last year and is up to 22 this year — and positive two-way results generally.

He's a long, mobile, pro-sized (6-3, 207 pounds) right-shot defenseman with impressive skating technique, enough ability to handle and maneuver with the puck on his stick, and a decent shot that I'd like to see him use more. He's still a little raw in some areas, but I expect him to blossom into a standout college defenseman as an upperclassman. He projects as an efficient, effective two-way D with some secondary puck-transporting elements, and I saw enough NHL potential to rank him No. 98 pre-draft (10 spots in front of where the Sens picked him) ahead of the draft. I'm not sure he has done enough to warrant an entry-level contract to this point, though, and while he's still young for a junior, the clock is now ticking.

every draft prospect guy fucking sucks at evaluation lmao, from my experience. a BUNCH of them mostly just go "points good".

anyway if they want Stanley as an upside bottom four minute muncher with a sneaky shot, I mean, that's what he is rn.

Tom Fitzgerald (thanks for catching that BL) goes "BIG good" and he's a (worthless) GM.

[BearLover]

Yes, we are certainly in agreement that Castagna leaving, on the one hand, and Bancroft/Stanley leaving, on the other hand, are two very different things. If just Castagna signs, we aren't having this discussion. It's the Stanley departure that's truly surprising and causing me to look back and reflect on the fact that this type of departure is mostly unprecedented in Cornell history.

In what way, shape or form is that "unprecedented"? In this thread alone, numerous examples have been pointed out of similar Cornell players leaving after their junior year.

I'd argue it's "mostly unprecedented" in the sense that he is only the third Cornell player drafted in the fourth round or higher to leave early in the last 30+ years, and because he does not project as an NHL player. He's the lowest drafted early departure among defensemen in the last 30+ years as well (and probably much longer, but I didn't look back that far).  It's been extremely rare for us to not retain this type of player.

depends who is doing the projecting! you keep substituting your judgment for the people involved. ottawa was interested enough to buy him out of his senior year with $500K+ over the next three years (between bonuses and minor league salary) regardless of whether he ever makes the NHL. He's only 21 and regarded as a solid defensive defenseman who is likely to grow into his frame. He doesn't project as an NHL star but I think they see him as someone who will get to skate on the good ice.

Not only do I think that it is unlikely that Stanley would turn down that offer, I further assume that Jones-the-mentor (as opposed to Jones-the-guy-who-wants-to-win) would advise him to take it.

Not really going off my own opinion - going mostly off buzz from scouts and publicly available reporting. For example, the Athletic's NHL prospect analyst Scott Wheeler listed Stanley as a "tier 3 prospect" ranked as the 10th best prospect in the Senators' 26th ranked farm system. Here's what Wheeler wrote a couple weeks ago:

10. Hoyt Stanley, RHD, 21, Cornell (No. 108, 2023)

Stanley was the best under-18 defenseman in the BCHL three seasons ago and earned a spot on the league's All-Rookie team after missing most of the prior season with a concussion. Then, as an 18-year-old freshman at Cornell, he looked like he belonged without standing out, which is kind of all you can hope for out of a player who has taken that path to playing college hockey (especially given his age at the time). He's now a junior, though, and his production hasn't taken a step despite expanded minutes — he averaged 20 per game last year and is up to 22 this year — and positive two-way results generally.

He's a long, mobile, pro-sized (6-3, 207 pounds) right-shot defenseman with impressive skating technique, enough ability to handle and maneuver with the puck on his stick, and a decent shot that I'd like to see him use more. He's still a little raw in some areas, but I expect him to blossom into a standout college defenseman as an upperclassman. He projects as an efficient, effective two-way D with some secondary puck-transporting elements, and I saw enough NHL potential to rank him No. 98 pre-draft (10 spots in front of where the Sens picked him) ahead of the draft. I'm not sure he has done enough to warrant an entry-level contract to this point, though, and while he's still young for a junior, the clock is now ticking.

every draft prospect guy fucking sucks at evaluation lmao, from my experience. a BUNCH of them mostly just go "points good".

anyway if they want Stanley as an upside bottom four minute muncher with a sneaky shot, I mean, that's what he is rn.

Ray Shero goes "BIG good" and he's a (worthless) GM.

Ray Shero passed away last year, so I would say your post is in bad taste.

[ugarte]

Pghas meant the total 3 year contract not a single year. At a minimum, they both average $190k a year for three years. That's $570k over the 3 years of the contract if they don't play in the NHL.

depends whicih part of the pghas post you mean. he mentioned both $1MM/yr (same as Stanley, based on NHL rostering) and the $570K bonus/AHL guarantees. BL was responding to the first part.

[ugarte]

Ray Shero passed away last year, so I would say your post is in bad taste.

come on man

[tretiak]

Ray Shero passed away last year, so I would say your post is in bad taste.

Got the wrong GM. Corrected.

[stereax]

Yes, we are certainly in agreement that Castagna leaving, on the one hand, and Bancroft/Stanley leaving, on the other hand, are two very different things. If just Castagna signs, we aren't having this discussion. It's the Stanley departure that's truly surprising and causing me to look back and reflect on the fact that this type of departure is mostly unprecedented in Cornell history.

In what way, shape or form is that "unprecedented"? In this thread alone, numerous examples have been pointed out of similar Cornell players leaving after their junior year.

I'd argue it's "mostly unprecedented" in the sense that he is only the third Cornell player drafted in the fourth round or higher to leave early in the last 30+ years, and because he does not project as an NHL player. He's the lowest drafted early departure among defensemen in the last 30+ years as well (and probably much longer, but I didn't look back that far).  It's been extremely rare for us to not retain this type of player.

depends who is doing the projecting! you keep substituting your judgment for the people involved. ottawa was interested enough to buy him out of his senior year with $500K+ over the next three years (between bonuses and minor league salary) regardless of whether he ever makes the NHL. He's only 21 and regarded as a solid defensive defenseman who is likely to grow into his frame. He doesn't project as an NHL star but I think they see him as someone who will get to skate on the good ice.

Not only do I think that it is unlikely that Stanley would turn down that offer, I further assume that Jones-the-mentor (as opposed to Jones-the-guy-who-wants-to-win) would advise him to take it.

Not really going off my own opinion - going mostly off buzz from scouts and publicly available reporting. For example, the Athletic's NHL prospect analyst Scott Wheeler listed Stanley as a "tier 3 prospect" ranked as the 10th best prospect in the Senators' 26th ranked farm system. Here's what Wheeler wrote a couple weeks ago:

10. Hoyt Stanley, RHD, 21, Cornell (No. 108, 2023)

Stanley was the best under-18 defenseman in the BCHL three seasons ago and earned a spot on the league's All-Rookie team after missing most of the prior season with a concussion. Then, as an 18-year-old freshman at Cornell, he looked like he belonged without standing out, which is kind of all you can hope for out of a player who has taken that path to playing college hockey (especially given his age at the time). He's now a junior, though, and his production hasn't taken a step despite expanded minutes — he averaged 20 per game last year and is up to 22 this year — and positive two-way results generally.

He's a long, mobile, pro-sized (6-3, 207 pounds) right-shot defenseman with impressive skating technique, enough ability to handle and maneuver with the puck on his stick, and a decent shot that I'd like to see him use more. He's still a little raw in some areas, but I expect him to blossom into a standout college defenseman as an upperclassman. He projects as an efficient, effective two-way D with some secondary puck-transporting elements, and I saw enough NHL potential to rank him No. 98 pre-draft (10 spots in front of where the Sens picked him) ahead of the draft. I'm not sure he has done enough to warrant an entry-level contract to this point, though, and while he's still young for a junior, the clock is now ticking.

every draft prospect guy fucking sucks at evaluation lmao, from my experience. a BUNCH of them mostly just go "points good".

anyway if they want Stanley as an upside bottom four minute muncher with a sneaky shot, I mean, that's what he is rn.

Tom Fitzgerald (thanks for catching that BL) goes "BIG good" and he's a (worthless) GM.

Absolutely fucking worthless. We could've had fucking Buium or Dickenson but noooo Silayev big.

Fml. I need to stop letting the Devils ruin my life.