Hockey's Future Mid-season Organizational Rankings (1-10) posted

[MontrealSF]

The recent graduations of defenseman Ryan Malone and wingers Konstantin Koltsov, Ramzi Abid and Brooks Orpik have weakened the farm system

Anything wrong with that sentence?

I find it baffling that Fleury, who has 22 games in the NHL and now playing in junior isn't considered a prospect. I mean, he wasn't even on pace for 40 games.

A goalie prospect that has played 20+ NHL games in one season or 30+ NHL games in two or more seasons is not a prospect anymore and is considered graduated.

But yeah, this criteria doesn't match with Fleury. He's graduated when we look at the criteria but he's now in juniors. Anyway, the loss of 4 players is hurting more than Fleury's addition ?

 

[MontrealSF]

You havn't a clue what your talking about, they have 3 top talent players in Kastitsyn, Higgins and Perezhogin, add that to their Juiniors that are ripping up in PEI and their AHL prospects there isn't on team who could compete.

The most amazing is the fact that 2 3rd rounders are tearing up the AHL at 20 years old (Balej and Plekanec). Imagine when Perezhogin and Higgins will finally explode..

 

[DutchLeafsfan]

Prospects not good enough to make the NHL? A strange sentence indeed! Aside from perhaps two or three players in each draft year, that moniker would fit on pretty much every prospect (completely disregards a players age, where they are currently playing etc...)

Besides why are you so sure that every prospect not currently playing in the NHL is not good enough for the NHL? Completely disregards organizational depth, contract predicaments even roster limits.

The criterion may not be perfect (and some of the ranking might be off - it's a matter of opinion) - but arguing the graduation criteria taints the result is weak.

Edit: Typos

Hmm, I may not have been clear enough, probably because I somehow managed to omit the keyword yet here, my excuses for that. To me, a prospect is a young player who is still developing and has yet to hit his full potential; some of these guys may have made the NHL. The idea to call somebody like Eric Staal etc. not a prospect anymore just because they are already good enough to play in the NHL is just ridiculous to me. Right now I find it puzzling that ofr instance the Canes would probably have been higher had Staal not yet been good enough to make the NHL, and there is a host of similar situations. Moreover, when calling something "organisational rankings", there is IMO a lot more involved than just rating the groups of players who are still considered prospects according to some very narrow criteria. IMO this should also involve how well the teams have developped their draft picks over the past few years etc. rather than just looking at it in the way being done right now. Because of this, IMO at least to a certain extent either the supposedly graduated players should be included in this, or the graduation standards should be set very differently. As an example: 2 years ago, Ilya Kovalchuk was still considered a prospect when he entered the NHL, only to be graduated after completing his first full NHL season. Right now every prospect who as a (somewhat) regular role on his team is immediately considered graduated.

 

[habfan4]

Hmm, I may not have been clear enough, probably because I somehow managed to omit the keyword yet here, my excuses for that. To me, a prospect is a young player who is still developing and has yet to hit his full potential; some of these guys may have made the NHL. The idea to call somebody like Eric Staal etc. not a prospect anymore just because they are already good enough to play in the NHL is just ridiculous to me. Right now I find it puzzling that ofr instance the Canes would probably have been higher had Staal not yet been good enough to make the NHL, and there is a host of similar situations. Moreover, when calling something "organisational rankings", there is IMO a lot more involved than just rating the groups of players who are still considered prospects according to some very narrow criteria. IMO this should also involve how well the teams have developped their draft picks over the past few years etc. rather than just looking at it in the way being done right now. Because of this, IMO at least to a certain extent either the supposedly graduated players should be included in this, or the graduation standards should be set very differently. As an example: 2 years ago, Ilya Kovalchuk was still considered a prospect when he entered the NHL, only to be graduated after completing his first full NHL season. Right now every prospect who as a (somewhat) regular role on his team is immediately considered graduated.

Fair enough, your comments read differently with the "yet" qualifier inserted.

The points you make about graduated players and organizational development history are valid, but the trouble with including them (IMO) is that it would broaden the scope of the ranking exercise and make the entire process that much more subjective.

 

[Kevin Forbes]

I think the same person should do the write-up for each team.

you realise how much work that would be for one person right?

 

[Guy Flaming]

To me, a prospect is a young player who is still developing and has yet to hit his full potential; some of these guys may have made the NHL. The idea to call somebody like Eric Staal etc. not a prospect anymore just because they are already good enough to play in the NHL is just ridiculous to me.

I don't necessarily disagree with you but the bottom line is this: To HF (the company you and I work for), Eric Staal is no longer a prospect. If and when the prospect criteria changes, then so might these lists but until then we do what we can within the guidelines given to us.

 

[PEli*]

Wow. I can't believe the Devils jumped fifteen spots in a year's time. Like I said in the last thread, the emergence of Suglobov and Pihlman in Albany must be bigger than I thought. Kudos to Conte and Devils scouting for improving the system in a short time.

 

[jmelm]

I really don't want to sound like a homer, but the Penguin's ranking is way too low. But then again it is hard to ascribe to much significance to a ranking which has so many blatant omissions among some of the Pens' BEST prospects.

Even without Fleury included (which he should be now that he has been returned to junior), and with the graduation of Koltosov, Malone and Orpik, the Pens still boast a list of impressive prospects that were not mentioned:

Tomas Surovy: okay, you can argue that he is graduated because he has played a wopping 35 games this year, and 25 last year, but many of the other prospects mentioned from other teams have also had "some" experience at the NHL level.

Tom Kostopolous: as above, but with even fewer games played at the NHL level. A potential future captain of the Pens, Kostopolous and Surovy have been arguably the Pens best 2 forwards since their call-up's, and have already proved they can be dominant at the AHL level and are ready for the NHL.

Sergie Anshakov: seemed to be in high regard BEFORE the WJC's and finished as one of the leading scorers. At 6'3, one of the fastest skaters, and with great scoring ability, he is EASILY one of the Pens' best forward prospects. How he was omitted from this list is mind-boggling.

Ryan Stone: ranked by virtually everyone as a first rounder in last year's draft (one of the deepest in history), and fell to the Pens as the 3rd pick in the 2nd round. Stone is having a very good season, putting up more than a point per game and has an impressive +/- rating, despite an injury. Arguably one of THE BEST character/role players among all prospects and another potential future captain of the Penguins, it is another glaring omission.

Erik Christensen: He led the WHL in goals and points last year. Had a slow start to this season and missed some time due to injury. Is still averaging more than a point per game, and has been absolutely on fire since his trade to Brandon. Always considered to have "first-round talent", Christensen has done a very good job of rounding out the other aspects of his game. Is one of the leaders in the WHL in +/- and deserves at least a mention.

Paul Bissonette: Another highly-touted prospect from last year's draft, Bissonette almost made the Penguins team out of training camp, and was among the very final cuts. Making the defense on the Pens might not seem that difficult, but is still a testament the his level of play and maturity. Again, a potential captain down the road, Bissonette simply does not get enough respect because he plays on one of the worst teams in the CHL. Has no real weaknesses in his game and has very good 2-way ability and toughness. Is one of the better defensive prospects in the NHL, and IMO, one of the most under-rated.

Daniel Carcillo and Jonathon Filewich: the Pens' 2 third rounders from last year are both having solid seasons. Worth a passing mention, at least.

Patrick Bartschi: I personally have some questions about how successful he can be at the NHL level, but his performance the past few years at the WJC cannot be ignored.

Daniel Fernholm: considered to have top-10 talent (by Redline, at least), Fernholm had question marks about his knee and all the time he missed over 2 seasons. Now fully healthy, and a permanent fixture of Djurgarden's blueline in the SEL, Fernholm is putting up very good numbers. He is still a project at this point, but at 6'5 and with his skill level, has some of the best upside of any defensive prospect.

Lukas Bolf: The smooth-as-silk Czech defender is having one of the best rookie seasons in the OHL. A shoe-in for next years WJC's for the Czechs', IMO, Bolf has been probably the best defenseman on his team, leading his team in +/-, and is getting as many or more minutes than Jeremy Swanson -- as a rookie!

Alex Rouleau: surprised many and made the Canada's WJC team last year, Rouleau has struggled in his first professional season. But he still has pretty good upside and several executives and scouts from the "Q" saw his as a sure bet to make the NHL. Still worth a passing mention.

Thomas Duba and Bobby Goepfert: Ranked the best European goalie by central scouting in 2001, Duba seems to be putting up some of the best numbers in Europe, and Goepfert turned heads with his performance last year at the WJC's. I'm not saying either is the next Patrick Roy, but all is not dead when it comes to the Pens prospects in goal behind Fleury and Caron.

Shane Endicott: Has been one of the best players down in Wilkes-Barre for the baby Pens, Endicott is a two way centre who projects as a 3rd line centre in the NHL. Very good on face-offs, Endicott's numbers do not tell the whole story. At 6'4 and very tough, Endicott has what it takes to be an effective centre in the eastern conference. Will probably see some time in Pittsburgh this season.

Last but not least: Kris Beech. Yes, he played a whole year in Pittsburgh a few years ago, which was pre-mature as he was not ready. Kris Beech is having a very solid season in the AHL, is the team's captain and has improved his consistency. A favourite of coach Michel Therien, it is way too early for people to write Kris Beech off just yet. He still has the potential to be a top quality 2nd line centre in the NHL.

 

[Big McLargehuge]

Seriously, the criteria is ****ed but Marc-Andre Fleury doesn't even fit the criteria to be graduated.

Penguins ratings get ****ed. Once again, I don't want to be a homer but that's pathetic.

 

[Gumby]

Again, the detailed criteria are here:
http://www.hockeysfuture.com/whatmakesaprospect.php

We know what the criteria is, what we're saying is that it's totally flawed and makes no sense.....that's all

 

[Gumby]

People just shutup about the criteria, you wrecked 2 threads by complaining over it. If there needs to be a change I think they got enough bad pub to decide. Just talk about the prospects for once.

Kinda hard when most teams real prospects aren't even included in thiese rankings.

And this is coming from a Caps fan whose team is somehow ranked 2nd. I love the Caps but that's ridiculous using their current criteria.

 

[ceber]

you realise how much work that would be for one person right?

I didn't mean just one person should do all the work. Just one editor to handle the write-ups. I think it would be worth the effort. It is a serious ranking published on one of the best hockey sites on the internet, after all. (Isn't it?)
I think some of the write-ups make higher ranked teams sound worse off than lower ranked teams, that's all.

 

[Gumby]

After seeing how much gripping I've been doing on these threads I do want everyone who was involved to know that I do appreciate all their work, just next time PLEASE consider changing the criteria used in these rankings (hopefully you guys can have one out after the draft)

 

[Big McLargehuge]

After seeing how much gripping I've been doing on these threads I do want everyone who was involved to know that I do appreciate all their work, just next time PLEASE consider changing the criteria used in these rankings (hopefully you guys can have one out after the draft)

I'm with you 100%, but that criteria has got to change.

FLEURY ISN'T GRADUATED DAMMIT!

 

[oil slick]

I think that the criteria for inclusion into a prospects list is great.
I'm an Oilers fan, and frankly I could care less what anyone thinks about Torres, Hemsky, Semenov etc. I know about these players because I follow them, and I've made up my own mind about them. Similarly, I know about Fleury, Staal, Lecavalier. I can make up my own mind about all of these guys because I see them play all the time, and I can follow there progress in the papers. Whats more, if I want to learn more about them there are tonnes of resources out there to find out about these guys, and I know all about the league they play in.

What I don't know about are prospective players, and I think these ranking provide a great service. To see how the players not in the NHL compare is great.I have neither the time, nor the ability to follow the many (QMJL,OHL, ECHL, WHL, AHL, Russian elite etc) leagues... I have no idea whether a D-mans +- is bad because he sucks defensively, or his team is crap.

What I don't want to see is a ranking where Tampa is in the top five
because they have Lecavalier, Richards, St. Louis, and Fedotenko. I know about them, and I know that Tampa has a great young team. What I'd like to know about is the players that I don't know about in the Tampa system, and I'd like to see how these guys compare to other teams.

To me, these rankings are not an inditment of a teams youth, or is an indication of how a team will look in five years time. It is a resource for people who are into hockey (which we all are) to find out about people not in the NHL. And too all those people who are saying, why is fleury/staal/etc etc. not included, anyone reading these lists knows that the Pens have possibly a great goalie, but know all about the guy.

So maybe if you want another list, start up a thread... "Best young team"or whatever, or make your on list, but I think the prospect list is a great idea, and I'd be really dissapointed if kovalchuk and staal were included on these things.

 

[Lard_Lad]

About the Fleury situation, ther's a line at the end of the criteria that reads "These are general guidelines and should be followed the majority of the time but certain players may still be listed as prospects if circumstances warrant." I'd say circumstances warranted it in this case.

 

[DJ Spinoza]

I also think that Chicago is way too low. If Radulov, Vorobiev, Yakuobov, Seabrook, Barinka, Babchuk, don't get you to crack the top ten, then I am not sure what will.

A tremendous effort by the HF Staff. Congratulations.

Agreed.

Not going to go into what others have about the criteria, because it's over obvious now what most everyone's opinion on it is.

Thanks for all the work, though, writers!

 

[Deleted member 3032]

About the Fleury situation, ther's a line at the end of the criteria that reads "These are general guidelines and should be followed the majority of the time but certain players may still be listed as prospects if circumstances warrant." I'd say circumstances warranted it in this case.

People are missing a very big point here. These lists weren't thrown together in 2 days. They took a while to make. Fleury got sent down to juniors very recently. They can't keep editing the list along the way as things change. They stuck with what was going on in the beginning, and viewed their list based on projections from there. If they started a list now, they would probably make Fleury a prospect, but they aren't going to change it at the very end. Too much work to make minor changes.

Also, if your certain prospects are missing -- who cares? Look at this list as a comparison of the REST of your prospects vs other teams. Stick in that other guy they missed and I'm sure you can make a decent guess where your team would end up. No reason to get so upset over something so minor.

Btw, this isn't all directed at Lard_Lad -- you just happened to be the last person that mentioned a player missing.

 

[Nielson81]

Well, as stated in the previous thread the criteria used to come up with these rankings are seriously flawed. The whole graduation criteria make this a list of "teams with the best looking prospects not good enough to make the NHL" rather than what they aim to be, an ''organisational rankings''.

Even with these criteria however, I fail to see how Edmonton is #3, find the Devils at 4 rather ridiculous, am surprised by the Coyotes at 5 and feel the Habs are probably overrated as well. Buffalo, Columbus and Atlanta seem to be too high as well. Although I appreciate the effort put in, I just find it hard to take these rankings extremely seriously, contrary to last year...

I would like to hear your reasoning behind the Oilers to high at 3, the Devils ridiculous at 4, BUffalo, Columbus, Altanta to high...Habs over-rated. Anyone can say it but to prove it is more of a task.

Unbiased Canadian

 

[Nielson81]

Actually I do have a clue what I am talking about. Despite Kyle Woodlief's words, I''d rate Andrei Kostitsyn one notch below the real top prospects (the Nashes, Staals, Spezzas etc.). Similar for Higgins and Perezhogin. Very good prospects without a doubt, but not top end when using my definition...

How is Kostitsyn not a top end prospect. Talk to anyone who knew anything about last year's draft and they would agree with the comment that he has the highest offensive upside!!

Unbiased Canadian

 

[Kevin Forbes]

when the article was written Fleury was still in the league I believe
there's no way that we could of predicted his demotion

 

[Nielson81]

Hmm, I may not have been clear enough, probably because I somehow managed to omit the keyword yet here, my excuses for that. To me, a prospect is a young player who is still developing and has yet to hit his full potential; some of these guys may have made the NHL.

A young player who is still develop and has yet to hit his full potential....If i were to agree with your definition of prospect that would make in my mind Lecavelier, the Sedins, Zetterberg, Chistov even Mathieu Garon would all still be considered prospects because they are young players who haven't reached there full potential and the positions they are in, they are STILL DEVELOPING. You have to draw the line somewhere man!

Unbiased Canadian

 

[spence___]

when the article was written Fleury was still in the league I believe
there's no way that we could of predicted his demotion

Maybe but why omit Bartschi, Anshakov, Christensen or any of the prospects drafted in 2003 from 'Top prospects'.

How much effort really went into preparing this. I know the Penguins portion on this site is really outdated and the writers are mostly inactive and I'm wondering how much that influenced the rank you gave them.


Edit: Posted this before I read the comments made by other penguins fans.

 

[zeppelin97]

Its still hard to swallow the fact that Fleury, Horton, Brown, Stall are 'graduated'. None of these players are given credit to their organization for the overall rankings. And Montreal on the other end of the spectrum are given more credit for pool of prospects cause their players are slower to develop (Hossa, Hainsey, Higgins). While non-prospect Cammalleri isn't exactly a step above in development compared to Hossa or Higgins.

They seriously have to rename 'organizational rankings' since it can be misleading. Organizational rankings is a misnomer, it should be Prospect rankings.

 

[thestonedkoala]

You forgot Burns too, who for the Wild, hasn't played a lot and is going to be years away.

I agree that these rankings are pretty bad.