Hockey's Future Top 50 prospects: 1-10

Status
Not open for further replies.

Hellström

Registered User
Sep 22, 2002
2,898
0
Okay, that was a bad example with Schwarz, but the overall point isn´t a bad point.
I think the list is okay and i respect the choices, but this argument has a big point IMO.
The angles are different for guys shooting as it it for guys catching, although it´s often said, that catching is the bigger difference.
 

SmokeyClause

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
9,999
0
Miami, FL
Visit site
Vlad The Impaler said:
Well, there's not much difference. That's usually the problem with all hard numbers, even on much more important issues like becoming a legal adult. I don't like this cutoff date particularly either, to tell you the truth. But it's a quick and dirty system.

One way to fix this might be to drop players from prospect status if they don't play enough games due to injuries but you open up a can of worms because at one point, you risk encountering prospects where it isn't clear whether they would have stayed with the team or not without the injury. And it adds more work.

So I guess we're back to a fixed cutoff date. Now, you have to look at a number that is satisfying. Nobody is going to agree on the hard number. Would 11 games be it? That would filter prospects who get the 10 game tryout (without the contract kicking in) but never had a chance to stay up. Or we could go the other way and say a full NHL season of 82 games? Less? More?

I don't know, but whatever number you choose, there will always be a guy who *barely* played too much or too little and it will always make no sense. Just like it makes no sense that you can't drink alcohol one day and the next you can get ****faced for your 18th (or 21st) birthday.

I agree with you that the system is flawed but I don't think you can really fix it to make total sense in all situations. Or rather you could with a page of rules and guidelines that overcomplicate the process.



Because of the champagne and the ring, of course ;)

Maybe a more complicated formula to determine eligibility might be in order. Adam Smith once said, with regards to tax law, that you can have simple or you can have fair, but you can't have both.

And maybe HF can step it up and start stamping out some rings. I hear Ovechkin is a size 8.
 

Bacchus

Registered User
Nov 11, 2002
2,444
0
Dickes B
Visit site
Voodoo said:
Marek Schwarz is not playing in Asia.
I know it's easy to get that one mixed up, but Vancouver is indeed in North America.

As was said a dozen of times, this season was not taken into account for the list.
And last season he played indeed in europe - for Sparta Praha.
 

Vagrant

The Czech Condor
Feb 27, 2002
23,660
8,273
North Carolina
Visit site
Vlad The Impaler said:
Well, there's not much difference. That's usually the problem with all hard numbers, even on much more important issues like becoming a legal adult. I don't like this cutoff date particularly either, to tell you the truth. But it's a quick and dirty system.

One way to fix this might be to drop players from prospect status if they don't play enough games due to injuries but you open up a can of worms because at one point, you risk encountering prospects where it isn't clear whether they would have stayed with the team or not without the injury. And it adds more work.

That issue is exactly the reason why a lot of these rankings don't make a whole great deal of sense. There is no real way to judge if a player is still a prospect or not based on cut and dry numbers, which is the system that is in use now. There is also not one singular league that all the prospects play in, and that makes it difficult in comparison purposes as well. Lundquist played in Europe, and that made him less accessable to the public eye in general here in North America. It can either work for or against a prospect, as we've seen here. Lundquist was the omission that everybody is concerned about, and Malkin is the player that benefits from this. Due to the fact that his game hasn't been really put under scrutiny like we're allowed to do with North American prospects. I'd take Zherdev over Malkin every day of the week and twice on Sunday from what i've seen of him. That's just my personal preference. Malkin isn't a bad prospect or player at all, but from the limited amount that i've seen of him he's not the second coming and he's certainly not worthy of being ranked above the likes of Zherdev and a few of the others on this list. It's just that his mystery and his high draft position fascinates quite a few people, and that's understandable. There are innumerable instances of this type of thing happening with prospects that don't play in North America. Before the Malkin supporters are calling for my head, he's certainly a top 10 prospect. Perhaps even high as 5th or 6th, but he's not in the area of a lot of the other prospects i've seen.


It would be a lot more in depth, but i'd say that a player that is a prospect would be a player in general that doesn't get a great deal of icetime. For instance, a player like Svitov only recieved very limited minutes his first year in the league. To the tune of less than 10:00 minutes per game and that needs to be taken into account. If a player gets that little icetime and plays in 65 games, does that make him any more experienced than a player who plays like 15:00+ minutes of icetime in 55 games like a Nathan Horton? It sure doesn't. Perhaps a system needs to be layed out that allows average icetime to be taken into consideration as well. Once a player reaches a grand total of minutes in a single season, he's not considered a prospect anymore. Add to that a high limit of games like 100 games and then move him to the graduated status. It would be more complicated, but it would be more accurate as well. That way, we wouldn't feel like we've seen an eyefull of a certain player like Horton and still have him not able to move into the graduated status. I haven't worked the fuzzy math, but i'm pretty sure we could think of a fair formula for this to be averaged by even if it was on a strictly experimental basis. I could go out and play 0:30 of icetime a game and it still counts just as much of a game as if I played 28:00.

EDIT: Malkin was behind Zherdev. My mistake! Ahead of Fluery and Horton though, which is my basic point.
 
Last edited:

ZombieMatt

Registered User
May 20, 2002
5,242
1
I suspect that the hard system with a set number is there for a reason. A soft system that allows for a series of different qualifications is going to be a source of even more complaint.

As well, this proposed system (or anything like it) requires an enormous more amoutn of work to further tax an already very stretched voluntary staff.
 

Vagrant

The Czech Condor
Feb 27, 2002
23,660
8,273
North Carolina
Visit site
Matt MacInnis said:
I suspect that the hard system with a set number is there for a reason. A soft system that allows for a series of different qualifications is going to be a source of even more complaint.

As well, this proposed system (or anything like it) requires an enormous more amoutn of work to further tax an already very stretched voluntary staff.

Well the intent of my proposed plan was for accuracy, not for ease. If it was for ease we could just base it on the players last name and cut out half the time of ranking a prospect. That would be even easier than checking the number of games they have played. If a staff member found this proposed method more fair and productive and was worth his or her salt, they would put the extra effort in order to make a better product in the end. If a staff member is having trouble with their rankings to the extent that plugging in an extra number would cause them so much stress that they wouldn't be able to complete their work then we're probably looking at a team editor that needs to be relieved of their duty or given an assistant that can run these numbers down. Since it is an unpaid position, i'd assume it was a labor of love and nothing more. In the endeavors that I consider my option to pursue, I don't consider myself "stretched" or "taxed". If a staff member considers a plan to reduce the margin of error in their rankings "taxing", then they probably are in the wrong area. This isn't a stab at you or anyone else in general, but it's just a reminder that there are lines of people that are willing to do rankings for this staff and are qualified to do so, but aren't always given the chance. To say that it would be a bother to make the rankings more accurate with a proposed plan, not even this one if it proves to be worthless, but with any proposed plan is to compromise the integrity of the end result.
 

ZombieMatt

Registered User
May 20, 2002
5,242
1
What this comes down to is that no matter what the cutoff for "Prospect" is, people will be unhappy and propose something different.

Personally, I think the new system is very good. The reality of HF is that we must at some point limit who constitutes a prospect. The line set by the editors is, I believe, a very good number. It enables for a number of callups and some prolonged stay in the NHL before being removed from our prospect pool. Injuries and other circumstances will always come up, and ultimately what it comes down to is "when the player is NHL ready", and that comes at all sorts of different times.

I just think that getting into minutes played to determine a guys prospect status is more than a little ridiculous. If we do that, its just going to become a debate over the quality of minutes players are receiving. Is 8 MP the same to a future scorer as it is a future checking line player? What about specialty teams? My point is, and I don't mean to be too cynical, but people will always dmand more detail, more, more more. At some point I think HF needs to accept that not everybody can be pleased and solidify the requirements.
 

Vagrant

The Czech Condor
Feb 27, 2002
23,660
8,273
North Carolina
Visit site
Matt MacInnis said:
I just think that getting into minutes played to determine a guys prospect status is more than a little ridiculous. If we do that, its just going to become a debate over the quality of minutes players are receiving. Is 8 MP the same to a future scorer as it is a future checking line player? What about specialty teams?

Honestly, I don't forsee that as being a problem really. Unless a person was really trying to nitpick. Minutes are minutes, plain and simple. Every minute that a player is on the ice is a minute that they could use to display their game. If they don't do that, it's nobody's fault but their own. However, if they aren't given the icetime and they play the minimum amount of games, then it's not always their fault that their numbers and such aren't as great as other players who have played the same amount of games but recieved more icetime, do you get what i'm saying? Because people who are judging prospects don't always look to the points per minute stat before they rush to judgement about a prospect, and editors here and everywhere else can be guilty of that as well. In the end, would you rather it be an argument of the quality of minutes played, which is a very trivial argument, or be an argument over the actual time that player spends on the ice in comparison to his counterparts. I don't see that as ridiculous at all.
 

Lionel Hutz

Registered User
Apr 13, 2004
13,355
33
Locking the Lounge??
Mothra said:
Sure.....in a nice way I said you were making stuff up......how about this

stop making stuff up

Making what Up? I made nothing up. I did not say most people think Malkin was better or equal, I said the gap closed. Tell me "many" people won't say that. My point was the placement of Zherdev over Malkin, unless you have something to add...

You wanna argue semantics, fine, but don't tell me I'm making stuff up.

I haven't seen you add one thing to the discussion except snide jabs at small parts of people's posts. So I ask again, do you have anything to contribute?
 
Last edited:

ZombieMatt

Registered User
May 20, 2002
5,242
1
Caniacforever said:
Honestly, I don't forsee that as being a problem really. Unless a person was really trying to nitpick. Minutes are minutes, plain and simple. Every minute that a player is on the ice is a minute that they could use to display their game. If they don't do that, it's nobody's fault but their own. However, if they aren't given the icetime and they play the minimum amount of games, then it's not always their fault that their numbers and such aren't as great as other players who have played the same amount of games but recieved more icetime, do you get what i'm saying? Because people who are judging prospects don't always look to the points per minute stat before they rush to judgement about a prospect, and editors here and everywhere else can be guilty of that as well. In the end, would you rather it be an argument of the quality of minutes played, which is a very trivial argument, or be an argument over the actual time that player spends on the ice in comparison to his counterparts. I don't see that as ridiculous at all.

But is it fair to judge by minutes really? A checking line player may only ever play 12 minutes per game vs 23 a defenceman might play on a bad team. It'll take the checker twice as many GP to lose his prospect status as that defenceman (or scoring line player, whatever). Despite the fact that both players have probably maxed out their career potentials. That seems sort of unfair. I don't actually believe this, but these are the sorts of debates that will arise. I didn't think people would nitpick the 65 games with injuries and such, but there is always a loophole. That's just what I'm saying.
 

bruins4777*

Guest
Why is lehts beneath ovechkin? Thats what i want to know. Lehts is going to be as good, if not better than ovechkin. Goalies are more important as well, so thats just another reason for me to put lehts higher.
 

hockeyfan125

Registered User
Jul 10, 2004
20,017
0
bruins4777 said:
Why is lehts beneath ovechkin? Thats what i want to know. Lehts is going to be as good, if not better than ovechkin. Goalies are more important as well, so thats just another reason for me to put lehts higher.

Contrary to popular belief, I think that a true franchise forward is harder to obtain than a franchise goalie. There have been lots of future franchise goalies go in the last few draft years, and a miniscule number of franchise forwards (Kovalchuk, Nash, Gaborik, a few from the '03 draft.)

My point is, a forward of Ovechkin's caliber is rarer than a goalie of Lehtonens caliber, I know that probably sounds crazy, but t is my opinion.
 

bruins4777*

Guest
jtuzzi21 said:
Contrary to popular belief, I think that a true franchise forward is harder to obtain than a franchise goalie. There have been lots of future franchise goalies go in the last few draft years, and a miniscule number of franchise forwards (Kovalchuk, Nash, Gaborik, a few from the '03 draft.)

My point is, a forward of Ovechkin's caliber is rarer than a goalie of Lehtonens caliber, I know that probably sounds crazy, but t is my opinion.

Why would rarity matter?
Anyways, i'm just looking over and this is what i see
2004-ovechkin, malkin
2003-fleury, zherdev, horton, phaneuf,
2002-bouwmeester, pitkanen, nash, lehtonen
2001-kovalchuk, spezza
2000-heatley, gaborik, dipietro

Dating back to 2000 there have been 3 potential franchise goalies and 12 franchise forwards or dmen. So even if rarity some how matters, i don't think ovechkin is as rare as lehts.

Lehtonen is the best goaltending prospect i think i've ever seen. Personally i think fleury is overhyped, he doesn't have puckhandling. which is why i rate lehts higher, he has the full package, fleury doesn't.
 

Mothra

The Groovy Guru
Jul 16, 2002
7,717
2
Parts Unknown
Visit site
Lionel Hutz said:
Making what Up? I made nothing up. I did not say most people think Malkin was better or equal, I said the gap closed. Tell me "many" people won't say that. My point was the placement of Zherdev over Malkin, unless you have something to add...

You wanna argue semantics, fine, but don't tell me I'm making stuff up.

I haven't seen you add one thing to the discussion except snide jabs at small parts of people's posts. So I ask again, do you have anything to contribute?

The basis of your point was that...according to you...."many" people say the gap has closed.......this was brought up many times as the draft neared....there were some articles that said this....but in just about every case those articles used the same couple sources...(David Conte being one).....even in the list it was said as "some".....now you may think its just a matter of semantics....and others may agree.....I however dont feel that way and think there is a pretty big difference.........so where did you get that from? It is of course the basis of your arguement....

I dont know what you are getting all worked up over....as I said the first time..."many" is bit of an overstatement.....that all.....if you want to prove me wrong post some link support that shows many different people that are NHL scouts/GMs who are saying that.....Its possible I missed all these people....I did see a few...but thats about it

maybe "making it up" is a bit too strong.....but you certainly put your own spin on it to prove your point

As for who should be ranked higher between Malkin and Zherdev...seeing how I have never seen Malkin play a game I cant answer that....how many full games have you seen Malkin play? What are you basing your opinion on?
 

Mothra

The Groovy Guru
Jul 16, 2002
7,717
2
Parts Unknown
Visit site
jtuzzi21 said:
Contrary to popular belief, I think that a true franchise forward is harder to obtain than a franchise goalie. There have been lots of future franchise goalies go in the last few draft years, and a miniscule number of franchise forwards (Kovalchuk, Nash, Gaborik, a few from the '03 draft.)

My point is, a forward of Ovechkin's caliber is rarer than a goalie of Lehtonens caliber, I know that probably sounds crazy, but t is my opinion.

I think the number of goalies on this list....and add to that 2 or 3 of the most controversial omissions being goalies only supports your views

Its amazing the amount of teams that have potential franchise goalies in their systems....and in some cases more than one
 

Chimaera

same ol' Caps
Feb 4, 2004
30,888
1,713
La Plata, Maryland
bruins4777 said:
Why is lehts beneath ovechkin? Thats what i want to know. Lehts is going to be as good, if not better than ovechkin. Goalies are more important as well, so thats just another reason for me to put lehts higher.


I'm not going to go fully into the Goalie versus Franchise forward deal.... but surmise to say that my opinion is this. A player of an Iginla, Modano (in his prime), Sakic, Lemieux, etc... is worth more to a team than a premier goalie. I think a team is harder pressed to find that superstar forward then a solid goalie. I mean, what's the dropoff from Luongo to say, Kolzig (who could be had for pretty cheap prospect wise) versus, Iginla to Halpern. That's what you're looking at.

I do think that a goalie is important in the scheme of things, just that I don't think they're as hard to come by as some people/teams believe. I'd take the Best Forward in Hockey over the Best Goalie any day of the week. Largely based on the opinion that you can obtain servicable to decent goalies on the cheap, while getting premier players is extremely hard to manage. Last one that's been legitimately traded at the top of his game was Jagr, and we all see how that turned out.
 

Captain Conservative

Registered User
Apr 1, 2004
3,842
1
My Blue Heaven
Mothra said:
The basis of your point was that...according to you...."many" people say the gap has closed.......this was brought up many times as the draft neared....there were some articles that said this....but in just about every case those articles used the same couple sources...(David Conte being one).....even in the list it was said as "some".....now you may think its just a matter of semantics....and others may agree.....I however dont feel that way and think there is a pretty big difference.........so where did you get that from? It is of course the basis of your arguement....

I dont know what you are getting all worked up over....as I said the first time..."many" is bit of an overstatement.....that all.....if you want to prove me wrong post some link support that shows many different people that are NHL scouts/GMs who are saying that.....Its possible I missed all these people....I did see a few...but thats about it


Unsuprisingly, I agree with you. I realize that this list is based on last season, but to me, Ovy has signifigantly widened the gap between Malkin and himself with what he has done so far, which is to really start to validate the hype. From what i've read Malkin has looked awesome so far this season, but Ovy has been one of the dominate players in the league. With all the nitpicking of his game before the draft last year I was feeling a bit less excited about picking him, but that excitement has risen with each report i've read on his play.
 

Ola

Registered User
Apr 10, 2004
34,597
11,595
Sweden
George Bachul said:
There is other comparative things that have to happen too. People on the committee have to judge players based on where they are in time. Trevor Daley who is a very similar player to Bergeron and a better overall skater in my opinion is three years younger than Bergeron and in my opinion will project to be a better player at 24 than Bergeron is right now. He is not on the list. Age is also a factor because you have to take the difference into account when making the projection.

Same with the much maligned 25 year old Peter Sejna. I would say that at the age of 24 that Christopher Higgins will be a solid NHLer. Peter Sejna was not. Tough to compare, but that is how it has to be done.

You say that "that is how it has to be done." and that is probably what my biggest problem with this ranking is... There is so much more then what stats at what age in a specific league that makes out who is going to be a good player down the line in the NHL. When a team drafts a player at the age of 18 they don´t have much to go on other then raw tools and skills. If you make a prospect ranking on the same criterias when they are 19-22 you are basically gooing to get a ranking on how these players would have been drafted at the age of 18 and born in the same year. I love HF as a insitute because I can come here and read a reflection from fans all over the world who see these players play after they have been drafted.

I can only speak for my self but I would like it allot more if you made a ranking of prospects based on how they play the game and how the people on the commité belives they would turn out in the NHL. Now its more like you take the results from the entery draft and use as a frame and move players a couple of spots up and down based on what stats they´ve had the last couple of years. I belive that most people who visit this place are into hockey a great deal and can do that them selfs. However more important a ranking like that don´t in any way reflects what the HF is about!

dawgbone said:
B). Lundqvist is very undersized... he's what 5-9 and about 160 lbs?

H. Lundqvist is 185 cm tall. I belive that makes him 6´2´´?(or 6´1.5 or something) If you look TSN or any other place you are often getting the size a player had when he was drafted. His size and presence around the net is one of the reasons I like him so much. The way the game is today its defenitly a advantage to have a big body in the net and at 200 lbs Lundqvist won´t get pushed around. I also loves the fact that he is a precense on the ice. His teammates loves to play for him, he is calm and if his team has a hard time on the ice he will step up. Obviously he also has very good genes since his identical twin brother, checker Joel Lundqvist, is a 3rd round pick by the Dallas Stars.
 

King'sPawn

Enjoy the chaos
Jul 1, 2003
21,811
20,599
SmokeyClause said:
Maybe a more complicated formula to determine eligibility might be in order. Adam Smith once said, with regards to tax law, that you can have simple or you can have fair, but you can't have both.

And maybe HF can step it up and start stamping out some rings. I hear Ovechkin is a size 8.

Well, considering these people are volunteering their time, I'd rather them keep it simple :) I can't even imagine how much work these guys put into it to make this list.

It's cool and all if you disagree with the cutoff number of games, but they had to cut it off somewhere. If it's not between Staal and Horton, it would be between Horton and Brown... or Bergeron and Staal.

And quit stalking Ovechkin ;)
 

kimzey59

Registered User
Aug 16, 2003
5,658
1,914
Chimaera said:
I'm not going to go fully into the Goalie versus Franchise forward deal.... but surmise to say that my opinion is this. A player of an Iginla, Modano (in his prime), Sakic, Lemieux, etc... is worth more to a team than a premier goalie. I think a team is harder pressed to find that superstar forward then a solid goalie. I mean, what's the dropoff from Luongo to say, Kolzig (who could be had for pretty cheap prospect wise) versus, Iginla to Halpern. That's what you're looking at.

Poor anology.

Kolzig was, at one point, considered to be a premier goalie in this league(top 5-10 overall). In essence you are comparing 2 upper tier goalies against an upper tier forward and a mid-level forward. You need to make your player comparissons more accurate. IF you want to compare Iginla to Halpern, then compare Luongo to an Osgood, Biron or Weekes caliber goalie. By that same token, if you want to compare Luongo to Kolzig then compare Iginla to Tkachuk, Shannahan or Guerin(older PF types that were considered premier players in their prime).

I do think that a goalie is important in the scheme of things, just that I don't think they're as hard to come by as some people/teams believe. I'd take the Best Forward in Hockey over the Best Goalie any day of the week. Largely based on the opinion that you can obtain servicable to decent goalies on the cheap, while getting premier players is extremely hard to manage. Last one that's been legitimately traded at the top of his game was Jagr, and we all see how that turned out.

I've never seen an Elite Forward steal games.
Players like Forsberg, Lemieux, Modano, and Jagr could put up a lot of points(assuming 1 other person on their team showed up) but they have never stolen a game like Patrick Roy or Martin Broduer has. Elite goalies can totally shut down an opponent. Elite forwards, no matter how good, are not able to "single handedly" carry a team, they need a little help from at LEAST another player(Lemieux had Jagr(and vica versa), Forsberg had Sakic, Modano had Hull, Lehtonen, Hatcher and Niewendyke). IF they could then the Avalanche would be hands down the best team in the League(they have 4 "Elite" level Forwards). An Elite goalie CAN carry a team.

An Elite level goalie can shut down an elite forward. It is as simple as that. If Lehtonen TRUELY projects as an Elite level goalie(whch many believe) then he probably should have been ranked ahead of AO(unless AO is expected to be the next Gretzky(which IMO is a stretch)).
 

Mothra

The Groovy Guru
Jul 16, 2002
7,717
2
Parts Unknown
Visit site
kimzey59 said:
An Elite level goalie can shut down an elite forward. It is as simple as that. If Lehtonen TRUELY projects as an Elite level goalie(whch many believe) then he probably should have been ranked ahead of AO(unless AO is expected to be the next Gretzky(which IMO is a stretch)).

But there are also only 30 openings for starting goalies in the NHL.....and most teams have a legit #1 in place.....and many have young guy(s) with that "franchise" tag on them waiting in the wings

Its great to have the best goalie....but I dont think its a must to win.....what you need is a top level guy.....who can get you in the playoffs and then be on his game once they start. After you go a round or two each team has topshelf goalies....and the difference between them is usually consistency and nerves...

I guess the same could be said about forwards....but IMO you need to have bigtime offensive players that can and will create offense regardless of who is out checking them....there are not a ton of those guys. I am not saying AO is one......
 

Lionel Hutz

Registered User
Apr 13, 2004
13,355
33
Locking the Lounge??
Mothra said:
The basis of your point was that...according to you...."many" people say the gap has closed.......this was brought up many times as the draft neared....there were some articles that said this....but in just about every case those articles used the same couple sources...(David Conte being one).....even in the list it was said as "some".....now you may think its just a matter of semantics....and others may agree.....I however dont feel that way and think there is a pretty big difference.........so where did you get that from? It is of course the basis of your arguement....

I dont know what you are getting all worked up over....as I said the first time..."many" is bit of an overstatement.....that all.....if you want to prove me wrong post some link support that shows many different people that are NHL scouts/GMs who are saying that.....Its possible I missed all these people....I did see a few...but thats about it

maybe "making it up" is a bit too strong.....but you certainly put your own spin on it to prove your point

As for who should be ranked higher between Malkin and Zherdev...seeing how I have never seen Malkin play a game I cant answer that....how many full games have you seen Malkin play? What are you basing your opinion on?

I took exception to your last statement, which was unneccesary.

If I had said "most","all", or "everyone", I would see your point. But, I said "many". Yes, many people feel this way. Many is pretty ambiguous, it doesn't mean most, or that it is a consensus.

My opinion is laid out in my first post on the topic. I have seen only clips of both Ovechkin and Malkin. I have difficulty with the logic in:

Zherdev > Malkin, b/c Malkin has played well in the NHL;

If you accept NHL experience as that important; how can:

Ovechkin > Zherdev, when Ovechkin has never played in the NHL?

IMO using NHL success to put Zherdev over Malkin is weak if you don't use it consistently. If Ovechkin is just that much better than Zherdev that lack of NHL play doesn't slip him to #2, than I think Malkin is a notch above Zherdev as well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->