Hockey's Future Top 50 prospects: 1-10

[Vic Rattlehead*]

That's a good point as to how unimportant rankings are. Example from your link:

102 Brooks Orpik3rd LineDPIT

or

88Anthony Stewart3rd LineRWFLA


Rankings mean nothing in the prospect world. Every single one is biased, and every single one is wrong to certain extents.

Also, Toivonen is not on the list, and Stuart is listed as a third pairing defenceman, when HF said that he will for sure be a top four defenceman.

 

[David A. Rainer]

Thats awe---some man! Maybe we could even do this!
Maybe HF should hire 20 professional scouts and subsidize their plane tickets, let them fly around the world, use more HF money to defray their room, board & food costs and let them watch the top 100 prospects in the world and then let them make their decision!! How fabulous!

Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!


Or
...
we can be reasonable and appreciate the HF staff's work.

Hey, I'm all for that. You sir, are a visionary! Where do I sign up?

 

[David A. Rainer]

popups to various ... Midget Porn/bestiality/necrophilia/barely legal/[insert your own] Fetish sites to make up for the rest of it.

What could be, man...

Again, where do I sign up? :lol

I always say that sex and anything is a winning marketing combination. Why not hockey?

 

[David A. Rainer]

On the whole "prospect definition" thing, I agree that something like the NHL's rookie rule should be used. A few games a year in the NHL over a period of years should graduate a prospect. Playing a full season should graduate a prospect. Fill in the desired numbers, like 10+ games in three years, or 50+ games in a single year, etc.

I hate age based limits, there should be none of that. If a guy is 28 and has never played in the NHL for whatever reason, he's still a prospect to me.

HF discussed this also when the change was made. But there were too many examples of where prospects were called up for a short time because of injuries (eg Los Angeles). Guys like Gleason and Dustin Brown who almost everyone would consider still prospects (that is, not established NHL players), logged many games the last two years because of the record number of games lost to injury the Kings suffered through. Under any other circumstance, the two would probably never had played in the NHL had the Kings been healthy. I mean Brown is only 19 and still a prospects to almost everyone. The only reason he was in LA was because they did not want to send him back to juniors. So he squeezed his way into a handful of games for the Kings (when he wasn't injured himself). But almost everyone would still consider him a prospect even though he is no longer a "rookie" (I think the NHL rookie cut-off is 30 games played and he appeared in 31).

Also, the age idea was considered. But I think it was generally accepted that 34 year old draftees toiling away in Sweden are not "prospective" NHL players anymore. Maybe the age limit is a little too low. But I have a hard time considering Magnus Wernblom a "prospect".

Maybe that's just me.

 

[Phanuthier*]

Thats awe---some man! Maybe we could even do this!
Maybe HF should hire 20 professional scouts and subsidize their plane tickets, let them fly around the world, use more HF money to defray their room, board & food costs and let them watch the top 100 prospects in the world and then let them make their decision!! How fabulous!

Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!

I think your onto something...

 

[King'sPawn]

Again, where do I sign up? :lol

I always say that sex and anything is a winning marketing combination. Why not hockey?

Because you're the main attraction of the midget porn and necrophilia, I think your membership is free

 

[soilwork2004]

...

all in all not a bad list but I really think a couple of Swedes got shafted: Niklas Kronwall and Henrik Lundqvist.

 

[PanthersRule96]

Lundqvist 4-10???

Shiskanov and Radulov should be there. I swear, if I didn't know better, I would think that Henrik Lundqvist is the best goalie prospect in the world.

QUOTE]

Have you even seen Lundquist play???

Do you not think he should be in a top 50 prospect list, especially when you look at what he's accomplished both in the Swedish Elite league where his #'s are unmatched as well as on the international stage where he emerged and was named the best goalie in the world championships while playing against NHL players.

This year his numbers are identical to that of Kipprosoffs(sp?)who happened to be the best goalie in the world from January on last year.

Do you think the goalies that made this list have a more impressive PROVEN body of work???

Top 50 Definately, Top 10, NO!

 

[Sotnos]

Is there a breakdown somewhere of how many prospects were on the list from each team? (sorry if this is repetitive, haven't been around much lately)

 

[Mothra]

Um, Malkin v Zherdev. I know its difficult, but please focus, that is what I am discussing. Not playing in the WC has dropped Malkin behind Zherdev?

maybe its you that should focus....if you cant keep up with what you yourself say I cant help you...

from you...

"Yet Ovechkin ranks #1 on every list without a second thought, without ever playing in the NHL"

"So, applying that logic, if NHL performance is that important, shouldn't Zherdev be ahead of Ovechkin as well?"

"I have difficulty with the logic in:"

"Zherdev > Malkin, b/c Malkin (you meant Zherdev) 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."




AO is clearly part of the point you are trying to make....all I said was maybe his World Cup showing was a factor

You assume incorrctly that that is what I want.

thats very possible....but looking at your posts..and even some of the above quotes you are looking for some sort of "logic" to the rankings....you even say that the logic "is weak if you don't use it consistently"

I dont think its a stretch to say it looks like you are looking for a black and white set of rules that apply across the board....and I dont think thats possible

If you think there is something funny about someone posting an opinion on a discussion board, that's your problem, not mine.

Its not that...its how can you have such a strong opinion of a guy you have never seen play......thats whats funny.....

 

[X-SHARKIE]

Why can't you just accept that Zherdev is an elite talent with huge upside and already proven what he can do at the NHL level as a 19 year old. So he is the better prospect then Malkin?

There is really no science to it or reasoning needed beyond that Zherdev is the better prospect.

Zherdev > Malkin. Ovechkin is a better prospect then both of them. It's sooo simple.


BTW HF...Great list, Good job! You can't make everyone happy and good job sticking by your list

 

[Mothra]

Why can't you just accept that Zherdev is an elite talent with huge upside and already proven what he can do at the NHL level as a 19 year old. So he is the better prospect then Malkin?

There is really no science to it or reasoning needed beyond that Zherdev is the better prospect.

Zherdev > Malkin. Ovechkin is a better prospect then both of them. It's sooo simple.


BTW HF...Great list, Good job! You can't make everyone happy and good job sticking by your list

I could not agree more.....it seems like some people are looking for that exact science or reasoning...and worse trying to apply it to other comparisons.....

 

[Til the End of Time]

I could not agree more.....it seems like some people are looking for that exact science or reasoning...and worse trying to apply it to other comparisons.....

Stop making stuff up.

 

[Flames Draft Watcher]

I thought you were done?

As I said before.....I have seen these...... Before the draft when this was brought up.....the "many" turned out to be just a couple...and then re-hashed by reporters over and over. What I was asking you for was quotes from NHL scouts/GMs that are saying that....the only one I have ever seen was from David Conte (which is impressive...if you are only going to have 1 guy...he's a good one to have no doubt)....but still.....he is the only NHL man that I have seen that come from

I believe both Redline and ISS said that gap has closed as well.

 

[Chimaera]

I believe both Redline and ISS said that gap has closed as well.

Has?

Come now. Ovechkin is still better then Malkin.


Here's the reason. If the NHL was to start tomorrow, Ovechkin could come over and have an impact from the start. He'd fit right in. the World Championships showed that. Yes, he is still young, and will make mistakes, but offensively, and with his energy and a little physicality, he definitely won't be overmatched.

I can't say Malkin would do the same. He needs to add at least 20 pounds before he could make the potential impact his frame and size says he should. I'm not saying he wouldn't score points, because a skating mule would score points on Mario's line... but he'll be pushed off the puck in the North American game.

I'm also not suggesting Malkin can't be as good down the road, maybe he can. I'm not a scout, I'm not a GM. But... at least at the present, he won't have the impact.

Call it what you want, but, hey, I'd take for a little more certainty that someone could adjust to the NHL anyday. Malkin's still gotta get tougher and stronger before that potential comes.

 

[craig1]

Has?

Come now. Ovechkin is still better then Malkin.

I don't beleive that he said Malkin was better than AO. He said that 2 seperate scouting bureaus stated that the difference was not that great. Admittedly, AO is the overall better prospect. Malkin is right behind him. The gap is more of a crack than a canyon. That's the point he was making.

 

[PecaFan]

HF discussed this also when the change was made. But there were too many examples of where prospects were called up for a short time because of injuries (eg Los Angeles). Guys like Gleason and Dustin Brown who almost everyone would consider still prospects (that is, not established NHL players), logged many games the last two years because of the record number of games lost to injury the Kings suffered through.

Also, the age idea was considered. But I think it was generally accepted that 34 year old draftees toiling away in Sweden are not "prospective" NHL players anymore. Maybe the age limit is a little too low. But I have a hard time considering Magnus Wernblom a "prospect".

I'm not sure what you're arguing. Both Brown and Gleason would still be prospects under the system I chose, since they don't have enough games in one year to graduate, and they haven't appeared in multiple years. And if you don't like who's in the list or who's not, simply adjust the GP or season numbers.

As for Wernblom, of course he's still a prospect. It's just that his prospects are nil. So he's a 0F, and the 492nd overall prospect on LA.

Do they even hold his rights anymore? That would seem an obvious standard by which to graduate someone as well. Any player who's no longer the property of an NHL team is considered graduated.

 

[David A. Rainer]

I'm not sure what you're arguing. Both Brown and Gleason would still be prospects under the system I chose, since they don't have enough games in one year to graduate, and they haven't appeared in multiple years. And if you don't like who's in the list or who's not, simply adjust the GP or season numbers.

I think you had stated that the NHL's rookie threshhold should be used to determine prospect status. Neither Gleason, Brown or Cammalleri qualify as rookies anymore in the NHL because both have played more than 30 NHL games (which I believe is the NHL threshhold, it might be 40 in which case Brown would still qualify but not Cammalleri or Gleason). But I think almost everyone still would consider them a prospect.

As for Wernblom, of course he's still a prospect. It's just that his prospects are nil. So he's a 0F, and the 492nd overall prospect on LA.

Lol! I think this is just a matter of definition. If someone has a 0% chance of being in the NHL, is he still a prospective player? I think most would say no. But, it does not really matter much. For server space's sake, I think it would be safe to drop 34 year old Swedes off the coverage and no one would blink an eye.

Do they even hold his rights anymore? That would seem an obvious standard by which to graduate someone as well. Any player who's no longer the property of an NHL team is considered graduated.

I think they do. I think NHL teams hold the rights of european players indefinitely. But I am not entirely sure on that one. Team's might lose their rights at the age of 31 when free agency typically kicks in.

The problem with graduating a player when he is no longer property of an NHL team is that prospects would be moved to "graduated" when they become free agents (eg Umberger) and then moved back to active when they sign. That might become a little confusing to some, so it might be best for clarity if we stay away from a standard like that.

 

[Lionel Hutz]

I don't beleive that he said Malkin was better than AO. He said that 2 seperate scouting bureaus stated that the difference was not that great. Admittedly, AO is the overall better prospect. Malkin is right behind him. The gap is more of a crack than a canyon. That's the point he was making.

That's the point I was making.