Hockey's Future Mid-season Organizational Rankings (11-20) posted

[Gumby]

HF definition of prospect:
Hockey's Future: What Makes a Prospect?
Both Max's, Stana, Semin, Gordon, Yonkman, Johansson are all still prospects. Eminger graduated as of yesterday.

Well in making this list they said they're not including anyone they think will wind up playing in 30 or so games this year.......which takes out Semin and Gordon too. IOW, they're not using their usual prospect criteria.

 

[GodZillaAteMyZamboni]

Well in making this list they said they're not including anyone they think will wind up playing in 30 or so games this year.......which takes out Semin and Gordon too. IOW, they're not using their usual prospect criteria.

Going to the list:Hockey's Future Mid-season Organizational Rankings (11-20)
They say "players who were projected to appear in 41 or more NHL games in 2003-04 during the production of this list were excluded from the final draft of the rankings."
It still leaves some guesswork in there. With Semin sitting, Eminger in the AHL until 2 games ago, and Gordon still in the AHL, how many games will they really end up playing? I do agree with your statement about following the NHL's rookie qualification though. It would make it much easier.

 

[Jacob]

sour grapes...?

Off the top of my head.......they seem to have 4 guys with top end talent

Ouellet
Semin
Eminger
Fehr

and then guys like Werner (played great in WJC), Stana (AHL All-Star), Yonkman, Johansson, the other Max, etc.....

The only thing they are missing is a potential #1 center...and they have decent center prospects...just no real stud

Sour grapes? Why would that be the case?

Semin and Eminger should be graduated. The same could go with Boyd Gordon.
I'm not saying they don't have good prospects, but some of their best ones are already in the NHL. Their drafting is atrocious, and the Pirates are absolutely barren.

 

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Besides, when guys like Semin (one of a ton of examples) isn't considered a prospect anymore just because he gets 9 mins a game when he even plays just isn't right.

Agreed. Using a hometown example to illustrate we have Saprykin.

2000-01 Calgary Flames NHL 59 9 14 23 43
2001-02 Saint John Flames AHL 52 5 19 24 53
2001-02 Calgary Flames NHL 3 0 0 0 0
2002-03 Saint John Flames AHL 21 12 9 21 22
2002-03 Calgary Flames NHL 52 8 15 23 46
2003-04 Calgary Flames NHL 46 9 12 21 29

Plays 59 games as a 19 year old. I'd say he was still a prospect at that point. He only played in the NHL because he couldn't go the AHL and they thought he had learned all he could from the WHL. Next year he spends pretty much the entire season in the AHL thus confirming that he was still a prospect at 19 and his 20 year old rookie AHL season as well.

So according to this wacky criteria Saprykin wouldn't have been included in his 19 year old year because he was "graduated" but then would have become a prospect again the following season?


What HF should do is something similar to how THN modified their criteria. Include guys under 21 that are in the NHL as counting towards their prospect depth. That makes the most logical sense to me and is something the people who compiled this list should look at to make it more meaningful for the next run. Otherwise you're punishing some rebuilding teams who are more likely to start their 18 and 19 year old prospects who would likely be in the minors/europe/junior on a stronger team (obviously the top tier guys like Nash wouldn't be similarly affected but a team like Colorado likely wouldn't have kept Bouchard up like Minnesota did.)

 

[degroat*]

Well the ranking does kinda make sense when you consider that the Wings were 20th last year, no one graduated, Howard was added and several players improved their game this year including Filppula and Kronvall. Of course the big question mark is Grigorenko's injury.

Their best prospect, Zetterberg, was included on the the previous rankings.

 

[Evilo]

Sour grapes? Why would that be the case?

Semin and Eminger should be graduated. The same could go with Boyd Gordon.
I'm not saying they don't have good prospects, but some of their best ones are already in the NHL. Their drafting is atrocious, and the Pirates are absolutely barren.

Yes I don't get the sour grapes reference either.. Myabe he meant over the Jagr trade, where the Caps lost millions in more losses than wins and got Carter out of it?
I don't see how WE should have sour grapes....
Anyway, Horton, Fleury and many of these guys were not counted as eligible it seems, so I don't see why Semin Eminger and co should be.
Maybe the writers didn't have the same criteria?

 

[Fantasywonder]

Pretty crummy list if you ask me. Nashville and Chicago are too low; Vancouver, Dallas and Ottawa are too high.

Agreed about Nashville, Vancouver and possibly Ottawa as well.

But I'd be interested as why you think the Hawks are too low and the Stars too high?

 

[X-SHARKIE]

HF's needs new criteria. Fleury,Horton,Staal were all just drafted a few months ago but there not prospects? What? How? So they hit there full potential.

LOL.

 

[Mothra]

Sour grapes? Why would that be the case?

Semin and Eminger should be graduated. The same could go with Boyd Gordon.
I'm not saying they don't have good prospects, but some of their best ones are already in the NHL. Their drafting is atrocious, and the Pirates are absolutely barren.

If you want to argue whether Semin/Eminger are still "prospects" in the world of HF...thats fine....

I will call you out on the "drafting is atrocious" though....please show me what makes their drafting exceptionally bad......who were the major mistakes?.....who were the great players passed over?

 

[FacelessButcher]

HF's needs new criteria. Fleury,Horton,Staal were all just drafted a few months ago but there not prospects? What? How? So they hit there full potential.

LOL.

They have to have a criteria as a cut-off which is clearly defined in the link Hockey Futures: What makes a prospect?(at the top of the page courtesy b-mad) if you don't like it as they say... tough! I am perfectly fine with saying after 41+ games in one season that player is no longer a prospect he's a rookie as he is playing in the NHL. "So they hit their full potential." Lol it takes many people a long time to hit their full potential you want defense men who have played 5 full seasons in the NHL to still be considered prospects? or how about goalies with 7 full seasons?

 

[X-SHARKIE]

They have to have a criteria as a cut-off which is clearly defined in the link Hockey Futures: What makes a prospect?(at the top of the page courtesy b-mad) if you don't like it as they say... tough! I am perfectly fine with saying after 41+ games in one season that player is no longer a prospect he's a rookie as he is playing in the NHL. "So they hit their full potential." Lol it takes many people a long time to hit their full potential you want defense men who have played 5 full seasons in the NHL to still be considered prospects? or how about goalies with 7 full seasons?

I'm not saying I didnt know about the criteria. I was saying there criteria is a joke.

 

[Jacob]

I will call you out on the "drafting is atrocious" though....please show me what makes their drafting exceptionally bad......who were the major mistakes?.....who were the great players passed over?

Uhh, seriously? Look at their drafting over the last 6 years. Just look at it.

 

[Gwyddbwyll]

Didnt they have to decide on the likely graduates / non-graduates at the start of the season? At that stage Sejna was most people's hot favorite around here for the Calder Trophy and Ryder was a bum. I dont see the point in moaning because your stud prospects are considered graduated. Just be glad you have a prospect who has done so well...

 

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Uhh, seriously? Look at their drafting over the last 6 years. Just look at it.

Impartial fan here (Calgary.)

We've got Beech, Sivek, Lupaschek, Yonkman, Sutherby, Cutta, Eminger, Semin, Gordon, Fehr and others.

Looks decent enough to me. Not fantastic but neither is it "atrocious" as you would describe it. Obviously you haven't seen some of the runs that Calgary, Edmonton or Vancouver had.

Atrocious is definitely hyperbole in this case. Sounds more like you have something against the Caps.

 

[FacelessButcher]

I'm not saying I didnt know about the criteria. I was saying there criteria is a joke.

How long do you actually want?

 

[X-SHARKIE]

Actually, the more I think of it I dont know. I guess there system is fair, but I still think 40 some games is still to short. Mabey a complete season? There still young talent, I guess I just missed the point of the topic. It's prospects only, not young studs. It's a great read, but like everything else I have many objections lol.

 

[SmokeyClause]

You're the journalism student, Smokey, get it done.

Well, technically, I'm in broadcasting though I do write. Unfortunately, I think they are looking for someone a less of a heartfelt connection to the team.

 

[Mothra]

Uhh, seriously? Look at their drafting over the last 6 years. Just look at it.

so in other words....you have no idea

 

[Jacob]

Impartial fan here (Calgary.)

We've got Beech, Sivek, Lupaschek, Yonkman, Sutherby, Cutta, Eminger, Semin, Gordon, Fehr and others.

Looks decent enough to me. Not fantastic but neither is it "atrocious" as you would describe it. Obviously you haven't seen some of the runs that Calgary, Edmonton or Vancouver had.

Atrocious is definitely hyperbole in this case.

All but 4 of those players you listed are first round picks. And Sivek, Lupaschuk and Yonkman were very early 2nds.

Every organization has those high draft picks that still have upside, but after that there's nothing. Look at the 2002 draft, about half of their 10 non-first rounders can already be written off, and it's only been a year and a half.

And a few times they did pick a kid that seemed to have upside, they let him go. Boynton, Stephens, Paetsch.

And even some of their high draft picks haven't panned out yet. Sutherby, the Jagr players, etc. But this is really just about players still deemed "prospects".

In my opinion, all signs should point to the Caps being bottom 25, not top 10.

Sounds more like you have something against the Caps

Not at all. I just think the differential in my opinion of Washington's prospects (bottom 25) with HF's (top 10) is so large that I want to let my points be heard.

 

[triggrman]

Doesn't broadcasting fall under the journalism umbrella?

 

[Mothra]

Impartial fan here (Calgary.)

We've got Beech, Sivek, Lupaschek, Yonkman, Sutherby, Cutta, Eminger, Semin, Gordon, Fehr and others.

Looks decent enough to me. Not fantastic but neither is it "atrocious" as you would describe it. Obviously you haven't seen some of the runs that Calgary, Edmonton or Vancouver had.

Atrocious is definitely hyperbole in this case. Sounds more like you have something against the Caps.

Thats exactly right......I'm not saying they are some sort of gods at the draft table.....but "atrocious"? No way...not even close

 

[Mothra]

All but 4 of those players you listed are first round picks. And Sivek, Lupaschuk and Yonkman were very early 2nds.

Every organization has those high draft picks that still have upside, but after that there's nothing. Look at the 2002 draft, about half of their 10 non-first rounders can already be written off, and it's only been a year and a half.

And a few times they did pick a kid that seemed to have upside, they let him go. Boynton, Stephens, Paetsch.

And even some of their high draft picks haven't panned out yet. Sutherby, the Jagr players, etc. But this is really just about players still deemed "prospects".

In my opinion, all signs should point to the Caps being bottom 25, not top 10.


Not at all. I just think the differential in my opinion of Washington's prospects (bottom 25) with HF's (top 10) is so large that I want to let my points be heard.

what are your points? Lets see that list of players drafted after Sutherby that have "panned out"...and are now playing to their potential.....

 

[Jacob]

Pettinger maybe?

 

[Flames Draft Watcher]

All but 4 of those players you listed are first round picks. And Sivek, Lupaschuk and Yonkman were very early 2nds.

You can't discount prospects because they were high picks.

Every organization has those high draft picks that still have upside, but after that there's nothing. Look at the 2002 draft, about half of their 10 non-first rounders can already be written off, and it's only been a year and a half.

No, not every organization has those high draft picks with upside. Plenty of teams have drafted bust upon bust in the first couple rounds several years in a row. Washington hasn't.

Doesn't really matter how many busts or write-offs they grab in the later rounds if they've drafted solidly in the first few rounds now does it?

Part of the reason they've got a decent drafting record in the past few years is because they've had more high picks than a lot of teams (3 first rounders, ton of 2nd rounders that one year.)

And a few times they did pick a kid that seemed to have upside, they let him go. Boynton, Stephens, Paetsch.

Disagree. Boynton was the big loss but he also netted them a high 2nd rounder so letting him go wasn't a total loss. Stephens and Paetsch went 4 and 5 rounds lower respectively when they re-entered. Tends to indicate they didn't have a big upside and that their stock had definitely gone down and that the Caps were justified in not wanting to offer them 2nd round money. That particular argument of yours (Paetsch and Stephens) is quite weak.

And even some of their high draft picks haven't panned out yet. Sutherby, the Jagr players, etc.

Wow, and this is surprising to you? Most players take 4 or 5 years to make an impact. We can't really even judge the '99 draft yet. Look at some of the guys from '97 and '98 who are JUST NOW starting to establish themselves.

In my opinion, all signs should point to the Caps being bottom 25, not top 10.

And I wasn't arguing they were top 10, I was just arguing that their drafting wasn't atrocious. And it isn't if you look at the horrible job done by other teams in the past. Some teams didn't get a single above average player in several consecutive drafts.

One last point and that is that I've heard quotes from several players about how terrible the farm team of the Penguins was and how they didn't improve, didn't have direction, etc (Andy Ference among others.) If you don't recognize that this could have played a role in Lupaschuk, Beech's and Sivek's development then you aren't considering all the angles.

 

[Jacob]

You can't discount prospects because they were high picks.

I think you're straddling the fence now. I was making reference to their 'atrocious' drafting, not their prospects in general, simply because a few of the prospects you listed weren't with the organization any more.
I can discredit DRAFTING when they were high picks. It's much harder to screw up a first rounder than say, a 4th rounder.

No, not every organization has those high draft picks with upside. Plenty of teams have drafted bust upon bust in the first couple rounds several years in a row. Washington hasn't.
quote]
How do you know about other teams? You later on said;

Most players take 4 or 5 years to make an impact. We can't really even judge the '99 draft yet. Look at some of the guys from '97 and '98 who are JUST NOW starting to establish themselves.

It's hard to overlook that their drafting has been poor for some time now, but I'm looking at more of the present.

Doesn't really matter how many busts or write-offs they grab in the later rounds if they've drafted solidly in the first few rounds now does it?[/

But really, are the Capitals drafting that well in the first round? I think they did great in 2002, not so great in earlier years. But this all falls under the "IMO" category. We can debate each and every prospect's current status and upside forever, and not gain any ground.

Stephens and Paetsch went 4 and 5 rounds lower respectively when they re-entered.

What reentry doesn't go lower? There are exceptions, of course.

And I wasn't arguing they were top 10, I was just arguing that their drafting wasn't atrocious. And it isn't if you look at the horrible job done by other teams in the past. Some teams didn't get a single above average player in several consecutive drafts.

And the jury is still out on a number of draft years for lots of teams, including the Capitals.

One last point and that is that I've heard quotes from several players about how terrible the farm team of the Penguins was and how they didn't improve, didn't have direction, etc (Andy Ference among others.) If you don't recognize that this could have played a role in Lupaschuk, Beech's and Sivek's development then you aren't considering all the angles.

I don't consider it because I think, however bad the communication may have been, players were still gettinga ton of ice time and being coached some semblance of a system. Glenn Patrick turned out to be an awful teacher, but some prospects seem to think they need their hand held at all times. Beech, Lupaschuk, and Sivek are now under someone who stresses communication first and foremost, and has lots of experience with developing young kids, and to be honest, the three aren't exactly making up for lost time.