Hockey's Future Top 50 Prospects Fall 2005: 1-10

[John Flyers Fan]

Higher potential. Carter is not a potential franchise player (at least it's not a big chance), while Fleury has most of the tools to be a franchise goalie one day (if he works on his mental game).

and Fleury also has the better chance to be a complete non-factor in the NHL.

 

[Liquidrage*]

Oh....
Still stats are very comparable.
Very strange now that anyone that would think that comparable stats mean everything is a moron...
Very interesting.

BTW, I was among the first to say Lehtonen was a better prospect than Fleury when everyone was raving about MAF.
Then he put up his show in the NHL's first month, and I wasn't so sure.

Still while you and others were bandwagonning left and right, I'd stood firm, either in negative or positive periods.

No, the stats are not very comparable.

He had a .921 for the Baby Pens. .008 is a big difference as Lehtonen has a .929. It would seperate them about 30 spots on the list. And he had a .904 for Lowell last year, a higher GAA. Combined his GAA was worse then Lehtonen. He's also been in the league before and posted worst numbers for the Baby Pens. He's also several years older. So actually, his wins were less, his save % was less, and his GAA was less. Amazingly, when he left the Pens his goalie stats even went down. Shocking, since your whole arguement, every bit of it, is Fleury's stats suck because the team infront of him sucks.


No matter how hard you wish it were so, the stats alone show Lehtonen has a much better year.

That you stand firm isn't something you get credit for. MAF has not lived up to his expectations or his hype. In two years he has not been great. And I'll easily count how he looked in two years of AHL/NHL much more then what he did between 16-18 in the Q.

 

[Evilo]

No, the stats are not very comparable.

He had a .921 for the Baby Pens. .008 is a big difference as Lehtonen has a .929. It would seperate them about 30 spots on the list. And he had a .904 for Lowell last year, a higher GAA. Combined his GAA was worse then Lehtonen. He's also been in the league before and posted worst numbers for the Baby Pens. He's also several years older. So actually, his wins were less, his save % was less, and his GAA was less. Amazingly, when he left the Pens his goalie stats even went down.

You know, some people believe GAA is the most important stat.
Some consider it's wins, and some consider it's SV%.
You seem to consider that the most important part is the one that favors your argument.
.008 is not a big difference since Sabourin played in 20 games.
You can argue a 0.05 GAA difference is big as well.
You consider other years in your stat analysis, even though it has no relevence.
I'm showing you that goalie stats don't mean anything, and you bring up more of the same stats.
Again, take a look at the thread about Khabibulin and Osgood.
Nobody in their right mind would take Osgood right? Well goalie numbers prove just the contrary.

Buy some rows if you want to prove a goalie's value on pure stats.

 

[Liquidrage*]

Possible.
But would you take a franchise goalie or a very good supporting forward?

Some people need to consider that goalie need more time than forwards. Carter may have made more impact this year, but the fact remains nobody would trade Fleury for him right now.

I'm sure some would. And some wouldn't.Not shocking that you would write that as "nobody".

Some people would consider the potential of Fleury. Some people would consider that he hasn't looked great outside of the Q in a few years as a sign he was over rated.

 

[Liquidrage*]

I'm showing you that goalie stats don't mean anything, and you bring up more of the same stats.

No, you aren't showing that. You just keep saying it.

Stats can't paint the entire picture. But they can help paint it.

Futhermore, I've shown you articles written by one of their beat writers that said he hasn't played up to expectations. I've given you a quote from his own coach that called him out.

And other years clearly have relevance since without them, you're not even comparing similar ages. Yeah, last year Lehtonen was better then some guy 4 years older then him. Comparing like seasons in regards to age, Lehtonen was on a totally different planet. I've extended the same exact criteria to my discussions about Fleury as well.

 

[flambers]

Because he is:

http://www.hockeysfuture.com/whatmakesaprospect.php

This makes no sense................... So a prospect can be on Hockey Future List but not be eligible for the Calder trophy. Go figure.

 

[Evilo]

I'm sure some would. And some wouldn't.Not shocking that you would write that as "nobody".

Some people would consider the potential of Fleury. Some people would consider that he hasn't looked great outside of the Q in a few years as a sign he was over rated.

So you come up with name calling now?
OK, I'm done with this.

 

[Bruinster*]

It's ridiculous how this thread go all over Fleury, Hmmm this is a top prospect list ! Prospect by definition mean a young player who have some work to do before he come the player his team expect.

And right now Fleury still a very good propect for the Pens and the NHL. At this point no doubt the Pens will never trade him for any others prospect goalie, you can't pick a GOALIE 1st overall and throw the towel after only 2 years ??? And at 20Y i think he put some decent stats too !

 

[Gags1288]

So you come up with name calling now?
OK, I'm done with this.

I didn't see any name calling in his post. All he did was note that you said "nobody" would trade Fleury for Carter when in fact, that probably isn't the caes. Why can't you just admit that thus far, Fleury hasn't lived up to the hype. That doesn't mean he still doesn't have great potential, it just means that thus far he hasn't lived up to it. When waying a prospect you have to consider their potential, but also how likely they are to reach it. At this point, I think it would be very hard to argue that Fleury is more likely to reach his potential then Carter (or for that matter, Vanek, Suter, and even a guy like Parise).

 

[Evilo]

I didn't see any name calling in his post.

Learn to read.

 

[Bill McNeal]

Learn to read.

Considering this is more offensive than anything LR posted in what you quoted... Maybe you should take your own advice?

edit: LR has pted out that he said something that could be taken the wrong way in a post that you didn't quote. So, ignore this

 

[Levitate]

. At this point no doubt the Pens will never trade him for any others prospect goalie, you can't pick a GOALIE 1st overall and throw the towel after only 2 years ???

no one is saying the towl should be thrown in on fleury...we just think it's ridiculous that he's still rated in the top 10 when he hasn't progressed since being drafted and many other prospects have. he should still be in the top 25 I think, but top 10...no. as much as evilo keeps saying "he should be there no doubt" he hasn't truly given a decent reason IMO. I don't think you can rate a prospect purely based on potential...you have to take into consideration their play as well and many prospects have outplayed fleury thus far

 

[Liquidrage*]

Considering this is more offensive than anything LR posted in what you quoted... Maybe you should take your own advice?

No, I called him Fleury's mom, in his defense. It just wasn't part of his quote. Though realistically, I don't think it was *that* bad.

 

[Bill McNeal]

No, I called him Fleury's mom, in his defense. It just wasn't part of his quote. Though realistically, I don't think it was *that* bad.

I'm sure she's a nice woman.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

Question. I pointed this out before but perhaps not clearly enough. Is your ranking solely based on sv. percentages, won loss, or even if while still pretty damn young you have a bad game or three? Or is it based on the same things that got you picked highly in the first place, a projection of what you should turn into 3 or 4 years down the road? Sure, Fleury can bust, as I said before Crosby could bust. But I am also pretty sure that most hockey people, GM's, scouts, etc. still have MAF pretty much where HF does. Not because he had a good or bad game last year but because he still has the tools and they still project him developing into something. Isn't the argument over this stat or that stat, while interesting and yes relevant to a small degree, pretty insignificant at this point? Or do you disagree that most GM's/scouts would still project Fleury pretty far up there?

 

[Gags1288]

Question. I pointed this out before but perhaps not clearly enough. Is your ranking solely based on sv. percentages, won loss, or even if while still pretty damn young you have a bad game or three? Or is it based on the same things that got you picked highly in the first place, a projection of what you should turn into 3 or 4 years down the road? Sure, Fleury can bust, as I said before Crosby could bust. But I am also pretty sure that most hockey people, GM's, scouts, etc. still have MAF pretty much where HF does. Not because he had a good or bad game last year but because he still has the tools and they still project him developing into something. Isn't the argument over this stat or that stat, while interesting and yes relevant to a small degree, pretty insignificant at this point? Or do you disagree that most GM's/scouts would still project Fleury pretty far up there?

The way I look at it is potential of the prospect and how likely the prospect is to reach that potential. Fleury's potential surely hasn't decreased, but it's difficult to argue that one wouldn't think he's less likely be a superstar goaltender then when he was drafted. He's been a major disappointment in regular season play and especially playoff play. Is he getting better? It's hard to tell because his numbers are certainly not and their are goalies his age who are out performing him. It's not all about stats, but they do play a role. If he comes out next year and plays in the AHL (where he belongs) and posts very good numbers then he should jump up again because that will be an illustration of him evolving into a better goaltender. At this point, however, he hasn't shown that, which is why he doesn't deserve be a top 10 prospect, imo.

 

[Vic Rattlehead*]

If Toivonen was picked in the top 10, not 28th, I'm pretty sure he'd be higher than 18th on this list. That's why MAF is high on many lists. Some people rate prospects based on their draft position, not what they have done since being drafted sometimes.

 

[Liquidrage*]

Question. I pointed this out before but perhaps not clearly enough. Is your ranking solely based on sv. percentages, won loss, or even if while still pretty damn young you have a bad game or three? Or is it based on the same things that got you picked highly in the first place, a projection of what you should turn into 3 or 4 years down the road? Sure, Fleury can bust, as I said before Crosby could bust. But I am also pretty sure that most hockey people, GM's, scouts, etc. still have MAF pretty much where HF does. Not because he had a good or bad game last year but because he still has the tools and they still project him developing into something. Isn't the argument over this stat or that stat, while interesting and yes relevant to a small degree, pretty insignificant at this point? Or do you disagree that most GM's/scouts would still project Fleury pretty far up there?

Yeah I would disagree with it. The Pens beat writer I quoted ealier pretty much said as much saying people outside the organization question him, and that he needs to start living up to expectations. But that clearly the Pens shouldn't give up on him, which matters.

And no, the stats aren't that insignificant. Used wisely they basically amount to "production". And production surely does matter. And the way you describe "good game or bad game" doesn't actually fit with what I see. He has peers that are out producing him in the same league, some but quit a lot.

If Fleury's glove hand was that much quicker then everyone else's. If his reflexes were just off the chart compared to his peers. If his character and mindset were so superior to everyone elses, I'd expect that to translate into stopping the puck more then he has the last two years. I think "production" is a better way to measure potential then draft rankings a few years back.

If you want to make an arguement that he'd win some type of goalie skills competition, go ahead. I really wouldn't know. But since he was drafted, he's been outplayed/out produced by a few other goalies that are his peers over the last two years.

And yeah, I sure as heck think it would change just how much other GM's in the league think about him.

If you think about it, he was drafted where he was in large part due to his performances on the ice between the ages of 16 and 18. And now you want to say that somehow what he did between 16 and 18 is much more important then what he did between 18 - 20?

Because he's a goalie he does get some slack in development because they do take longer in general. But come on. You'd like to see some kinda sign that he's able to dominate or at least be very good in a league where some of his peers are able to do just that.

That's what I don't follow here with some people and prospects. Prospects are meant to develop. You can make cases outside of the stats/poduction. But when X is clearly playing a level or two below Y (and in this case X, Z and a few others) for a decent length of time (a full season or two for example) and there isn't clear as day justification for that (position change, broken leg, something), I'm just not buying that X is still better then Y just because a few years back X got picked ahead of Y.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

I swear to God. After reading this, Evilo has no sense of reality and is the biggest homer I have ever seen on these boards. With all these attacks on other people not supposed to have like opinions on Fleury, I can only wonder why this kook still has his "moderator" tag.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

These are not excuses.
You make fantasy ideas about where your team would be with your goalie.
It's exactly the same with Fleury.
You say Providence's defense was worst than WB, and yet they had less goals against.
What argument do you have that would enable you to say that?
None.

Fantasy is great, I know.

Maybe they had less goals against...

BECAUSE TOIVONEN WAS BETTER IN THE LEAGUE LAST YEAR?!?!?!?!?!?!??!!?!?!?! REALLY MAYBE.

 

[Bruinster*]

I swear to God. After reading this, Evilo has no sense of reality and is the biggest homer I have ever seen on these boards. With all these attacks on other people not supposed to have like opinions on Fleury, I can only wonder why this kook still has his "moderator" tag.

He's not alone, Philly fan think Carter and Richard are sure bet and they can't fail, for them both are ahead of P.Bergeron in their developement ? maybe they're right but we can call them homer like most of us, Boston fan (Like me) are big on Toivonen, Fan of all team are high about their Rookie. Montreal Fan for exemple was very very high on Balei but since he's trade to NY they call him a bust.

Evilo is not worst or better than any fans on this board. You can call him Homer but the fact is Fleury is the #7 like it or not ! Is #7 his real rank ? maybe yes maybe no, but he's not far for sure !

 

[Hunter Gathers]

He's not alone, Philly fan think Carter and Richard are sure bet and they can't fail, for them both are ahead of P.Bergeron in their developement ? maybe they're right but we can call them homer like most of us, Boston fan (Like me) are big on Toivonen, Fan of all team are high about their Rookie. Montreal Fan for exemple was very very high on Balei but since he's trade to NY they call him a bust.

Evilo is not worst or better than any fans on this board. You can call him Homer but the fact is Fleury is the #7 like it or not ! Is #7 his real rank ? maybe yes maybe no, but he's not far for sure !

Did you read any of the other posts in this thread at all? I don't think people say that other people shouldn't have opinions, etc etc that often around here..

 

[zeke]

Am I the only one that thinks Carter is a wee bit overrated at this point?

Solid player, but he hasn't exactly posted jaw-dropping scoring numbers so far.

And while he's got a nice frame, he's got some serious filling out to do. He's somewhere in the 190s right now, which isn't small, but is far from big in the NHL. If he doesn't put on a good chunk of weight soon, his biggest asset (size) won't be the advantage in the NHL that it was in junior....and he could easily struggle without this crucial advantage.

 

[The Mighty Duck Man]

Expected top10, Fleury bit highish and Suter shouldn't be in top 10. Otherwise solid list.

Yes, he should be.

 

[Gags1288]

He's not alone, Philly fan think Carter and Richard are sure bet and they can't fail, for them both are ahead of P.Bergeron in their developement ? maybe they're right but we can call them homer like most of us, Boston fan (Like me) are big on Toivonen, Fan of all team are high about their Rookie. Montreal Fan for exemple was very very high on Balei but since he's trade to NY they call him a bust.

Evilo is not worst or better than any fans on this board. You can call him Homer but the fact is Fleury is the #7 like it or not ! Is #7 his real rank ? maybe yes maybe no, but he's not far for sure !

Please show me where anyone said Mike Richards is ahead of Patrice Bergeron? I'd really like to see it because I think you're referring to what I wrote on the B's board and I said nothing of the sort. You make Patrice Bergeron out to be this superstar. If you ask me, he's the overrated one in B's fans minds. Yea he had a very nice rookie season posting 39 points and showing some very solid intangibles. He had a decent season in the AHL posting 61 points in 66 games (I believe). None of those numbers are jaw dropping, but he projects to be a very solid top 6 player, maybe even a 1st line winger.

As for Carter, he has shined on the highest of stages. He's been a two time all WJC player (this is not a comparison to Bergeron, it is a response to the Carter doesn't put up great numbers thread). He's the leading goal scorer all time for Canada in WJC history. He dominated the AHL playoffs, scoring 23 points (including 12 goals ) in 21 games. He was on the first penalty killing unit for team Canada. He was #1 or #2 in faceoffs in the OHL (Richards being the other top guy). He's got NHL size, NHL speed, and an NHL arsenal of shots. The top 10 has two groupings. It has the superstar group, which is the top 6, imo (Malkin, Lehtonen, Crosby, Ovechkin, Zherdev, and to a bit of a lesser extent, imo, Phaneuf). Then it has the guys just outside that who I see as being star players, maybe sneaking in to that superstar zone (like Mats Sundin upside). That runs probably 7-20, with guys like Carter,Vanek, Suter, Parise, etc..

As for Richards, he might be the safest prospect in the entire NHL. He will have a job in the NHL no matter how he produces offensively. He's a stellar penalty killer, great faceoff man, and has a never say die attitude. There are a lot of people out there who really like Mike Richards, not just flyers fans.