2017 THN future watch

[Sens of Anarchy]

Where is Chlapik? 6'1 200lb C
best pts per game in the Q tied for 3rd in pts
Chlapik, Filip Cha 49 32 53 85

 

[L3G1ON]

Where is Chlapik? 6'1 200lb C
best pts per game in the Q tied for 3rd in pts
Chlapik, Filip Cha 49 32 53 85

Not in the top 100.
He is 6th in OTT, well 5 now that Dahlen is traded.

 

[WpgBuffan]

I loved Keller as a prospect prior to the draft. Glad to see how high regard he is held now.

I still don't get the Alex Nylander love, but my guess is that scouts aren't heavily watching the AHL (as there is no reason for amateur scouts to really watch that league except for very rare exceptions) and are heavily weighing his WJC.

I have no idea how Arizona's under 21 guys are held in higher regard than the Leafs though. I mean, they have great depth, but Leafs have two guys who are on pace for around 70 points and another around a 55 point pace.

Why are you questioning Nylander? Button, Pronman, and now The Future Watch all have him in the top 5.

 

[93LEAFS]

Why are you questioning Nylander? Button, Pronman, and now The Future Watch all have him in the top 5.

His sub-par production in the AHL, especially at 5v5. I was never sold on him when he played for Sauga. I like his shot and skill, but I question his ability to get separation at the next level (he's not as good a skater as his brother) and he needs to add significant strength to compensate for it. He belongs in the top 10, I don't see him as a top 5 guy. I'd have Keller, Puljujarvi, Sergachev, Strome, and Sergachev ahead of him. Possibly also Juolevi, PLD, Connor, McAvoy and Barzal. At this time last year Strome was 1 on two lists, and 2nd on the other. I think it is fair to question their rankings.

 

[WpgBuffan]

His sub-par production in the AHL, especially at 5v5. I was never sold on him when he played for Sauga. I like his shot and skill, but I question his ability to get separation at the next level (he's not as good a skater as his brother) and he needs to add significant strength to compensate for it. He belongs in the top 10, I don't see him as a top 5 guy. I'd have Keller, Puljujarvi, Sergachev, Strome, and Sergachev ahead of him. Possibly also Juolevi, PLD, Connor, McAvoy and Barzal. At this time last year Strome was 1 on two lists, and 2nd on the other. I think it is fair to question their rankings.

Pronman just put something out about there only being 5 guys who have a higher ppg in their 18year old AHL season. So his production is just fine.

 

[93LEAFS]

Pronman just put something out about there only being 5 guys who have a higher ppg in their 18year old AHL season. So his production is just fine.

Do you realize how limited a pool that there is for that statement? Here, eliminate anyone who didn't play outside of a small stint at the end of the year. Let's say the cut-off is 30 games. It is an extremely small pool. His numbers are notably behind other high-end prospects to play in the AHL at 18 in recent years such as his brother, Pastrnak, Filatov, Fiala and currently Puljujarvi. His numbers aren't better than any forward who has made an impact at the next level. I'm not saying he will bust, I just disagree with one his numbers being fine (there are a ton of factors at play), I just don't think he's a top 5 guy unless you are heavily weighting the WJC. The only player of note he is outproducing is Girgenson's.

http://www.eliteprospects.com/leagu...amname=&nation=&nationname=&age=u19&order=PPG

 

[NetflixandPhil]

Last year I thought they forgot alot of players but this year I'm pretty impressed. Nobody notable was left off each teams list. Certain rankings I disagree with but not by too much. Really good job this year.

 

[Sens of Anarchy]

Not in the top 100.
He is 6th in OTT, well 5 now that Dahlen is traded.

Thanks, Button has Chlapik as Ottawa's 4th best prospect and has him in his top 50
link

 

[tigervixxxen]

His sub-par production in the AHL, especially at 5v5. I was never sold on him when he played for Sauga. I like his shot and skill, but I question his ability to get separation at the next level (he's not as good a skater as his brother) and he needs to add significant strength to compensate for it. He belongs in the top 10, I don't see him as a top 5 guy. I'd have Keller, Puljujarvi, Sergachev, Strome, and Sergachev ahead of him. Possibly also Juolevi, PLD, Connor, McAvoy and Barzal. At this time last year Strome was 1 on two lists, and 2nd on the other. I think it is fair to question their rankings.

It's pretty interesting how it seems very few pay attention to guys once they hit the AHL. There's some very interesting numbers going on there that seems to get glossed over. I wouldn't say Connor has lit it up down there either, I know he's been hot lately but I watched him get quite possibly the easiest hat trick of all time last weekend. I know Pronman is obsessed with the age factor but I think it's fair to compare Nylander to other teenage rookies in the AHL and he hasn't been great.

But getting back to this publication, I noticed there are no quotes in the Avs section and the rankings feel very much more like a staff selected order than org based. So I'm questioning the level of "insider" input this edition has, at least on the team level.

 

[DangleSprong]

Sprong?

 

[Brodeur]

Digital version now available: https://www.zinio.com/www/browse/product.jsp?rf=sch&productId=114152385#/

 

[Joel Ward]

Sprong?

Ranked as the Pens top prospect and 62nd in the NHL.

 

[93LEAFS]

It's pretty interesting how it seems very few pay attention to guys once they hit the AHL. There's some very interesting numbers going on there that seems to get glossed over. I wouldn't say Connor has lit it up down there either, I know he's been hot lately but I watched him get quite possibly the easiest hat trick of all time last weekend. I know Pronman is obsessed with the age factor but I think it's fair to compare Nylander to other teenage rookies in the AHL and he hasn't been great.

But getting back to this publication, I noticed there are no quotes in the Avs section and the rankings feel very much more like a staff selected order than org based. So I'm questioning the level of "insider" input this edition has, at least on the team level.

Yeah, when the sample size is like 5 (W. Nylander, Fiala, Filatov, Bergfors, and Pastrnak). I think you have to use other teenagers in the AHL, especially guys who were still only in their D+1 like Rantanen or even Julius Honka.

 

[Fantomas]

Where are Steel and Jost ranked? If not exactly then approximately?

 

[Viqsi]

Someone please explain this particular two-page spread to me:

Toronto: Two top-100 prospects (Kapanen, #33; Grundstrom, #65). #3 overall team.
Vancouver: Four top-100 prospects (Juolevi, #15; Boeser, #19; Demko, #64; Virtanen, #86). #16 overall team.

How does that even work? I mean, they say they're explicitly not counting guys like Matthews and Marner...

 

[tigervixxxen]

where are steel and jost ranked? If not exactly then approximately?

40, 11

Toronto: Two top-100 prospects (Kapanen, #33; Grundstrom, #65). #3 overall team.
Vancouver: Four top-100 prospects (Juolevi, #15; Boeser, #19; Demko, #64; Virtanen, #86). #16 overall team.

How does that even work?

That little print at the bottom of the page, under 21 NHL players are taken into account. So Toronto is getting credit for Matthews, Marner, Nylander while the Nucks only extra is Horvat.

 

[Viqsi]

That little print at the bottom of the page, under 21 NHL players are taken into account. So Toronto is getting credit for Matthews, Marner, Nylander while the Nucks only extra is Horvat.

Ah. Mea culpa; I thought they said they were excluding them, but I actually got that backwards.

 

[McKappa]

Rankings of Oilers?

 

[93LEAFS]

Looking through it, and reading how the voting is done, I'm really starting to question the individual team lists outside of the players who are ranked in the top 100 (which you would assume is figured out by the scouts and their top 60). As a close follower of the Leafs, their ranking of the team's prospects seems really out of wack for me.

Are the team rankings outside of what is already established up to the individual writer? I'd be a bit surprised if the actual scouting community believes that Adam Brooks is a better prospect than Dermott, Nielsen, and Korshkov.

 

[Fantomas]

Looking through it, and reading how the voting is done, I'm really starting to question the individual team lists outside of the players who are ranked in the top 100 (which you would assume is figured out by the scouts and their top 60). As a close follower of the Leafs, their ranking of the team's prospects seems really out of wack for me.

Are the team rankings outside of what is already established up to the individual writer? I'd be a bit surprised if the actual scouting community believes that Adam Brooks is a better prospect than Dermott, Nielsen, and Korshkov.

I'm trying to remember if these lists are tabulated based on the opinions of a random sampling of scouts, or if it's based on the writer talking about to the specific team's scouts. Because if it's the latter then we are seeing results based on business considerations as opposed to scouting.

Teams have very limited incentive to give out truthful information about prospects. I think there is much more value in the opinion of writers/analysts/scouts who are not in any way affiliated with the NHL's business model.

When it comes time for Tampa's contract discussions with Nikita Gusev, I bet that they will take out their copy of the THN Future Watch and tell his agent that they don't see his client near the top of the list as part of their negotiation strategy. I almost never see surprising/interesting/gutsy ranking decisions in THN issues and I think it's because of these reasons.

 

[tigervixxxen]

Looking through it, and reading how the voting is done, I'm really starting to question the individual team lists outside of the players who are ranked in the top 100 (which you would assume is figured out by the scouts and their top 60). As a close follower of the Leafs, their ranking of the team's prospects seems really out of wack for me.

Are the team rankings outside of what is already established up to the individual writer? I'd be a bit surprised if the actual scouting community believes that Adam Brooks is a better prospect than Dermott, Nielsen, and Korshkov.

When you say writer do you mean the person who wrote the foreword on top of the lists, usually by a team beat writer? For the Avs, there's no way Mike Chambers wrote anything other than that paragraph up top. He's completely clueless, he'd struggle to name more than 3 Avs prospects and he would have ranked the college guys much higher. He even contradicts himself in the opening paragraph saying the Avs have no A list prospects yet Jost is ranked 11th overall.

This gets back to my question that I think it's just the THN staff, whoever fills out the rest of the lists. Wasn't the big thing about future watch that it was a list from the org and a bit of a glimpse into how they saw the prospect depth chart? I don't feel there's inside info at all, at least on the Avs list. There's no quotes from the org either and the ranking seems heavily skewed to pro experience, which sure is a factor but it seems that would be an easy angle to take for a staff writer just aiming to complete the list. A guy like Meloche is not their 10th best prospect, certainly not under Will Butcher who for some reason outsiders seem to think is a much more important prospect in the Avs system than he is.

 

[Coaches Coroner]

Someone please explain this particular two-page spread to me:

Toronto: Two top-100 prospects (Kapanen, #33; Grundstrom, #65). #3 overall team.
Vancouver: Four top-100 prospects (Juolevi, #15; Boeser, #19; Demko, #64; Virtanen, #86). #16 overall team.

How does that even work? I mean, they say they're explicitly not counting guys like Matthews and Marner...

Weird rankings. I prefer Dermott and Nielsen as prospects to Brooks.

Ah. Mea culpa; I thought they said they were excluding them, but I actually got that backwards.

That makes the rankings make more sense, but it feels a bit wonky.

 

[93LEAFS]

When you say writer do you mean the person who wrote the foreword on top of the lists, usually by a team beat writer? For the Avs, there's no way Mike Chambers wrote anything other than that paragraph up top. He's completely clueless, he'd struggle to name more than 3 Avs prospects and he would have ranked the college guys much higher. He even contradicts himself in the opening paragraph saying the Avs have no A list prospects yet Jost is ranked 11th overall.

This gets back to my question that I think it's just the THN staff, whoever fills out the rest of the lists. Wasn't the big thing about future watch that it was a list from the org and a bit of a glimpse into how they saw the prospect depth chart? I don't feel there's inside info at all, at least on the Avs list. There's no quotes from the org either and the ranking seems heavily skewed to pro experience, which sure is a factor but it seems that would be an easy angle to take for a staff writer just aiming to complete the list. A guy like Meloche is not their 10th best prospect, certainly not under Will Butcher who for some reason outsiders seem to think is a much more important prospect in the Avs system than he is.

I have no idea, I'm just curious how they arrive at each team's list past the order set by the voting.

I think the big appeal is that the top 100 is supposedly formed by voting by actual NHL scouts.

 

[GetThePuckOuttaHere*]

I'm subscribed, and don't know why my favourite issue hasn't been delivered to me yet. Anyways, can someone who does have the magazine post the top 100?

 

[truthbluth]

Deleted. I see someone beat me to the punch.

I can think of at least 10 prospects I like better than Alex Nylander, as a Sabres fan. But that's just me.
Also, not sure where Asplund ranks, but I cannot think of 30 I like better than him. So, I'm sure it's a mixed bag.