Hockey's Future Top 50 Prospects Fall 2006: 1-10

[PecaFan]

Why would you want to introduce MORE subjectivity into these lists?

Oh I don't know, perhaps because when you put thought into the process *before* making the list, it improves the end result?

By definition, having a starting list of candidates that includes non-prospects means that the list will be more inaccurate than it need be.

"We use the NHL's standard for games-played. If the NHL changes their standard, we probably would also."

The NHL standard for the Calder is:

""To be eligible for the award, a player cannot have played more than 25 games in any single preceding season nor in six or more games in each of any two preceding seasons in any major professional league. The player must not be older than 26 years before September 15 of the season in which he is eligible.

Which is a hell of a lot more accurate than yours.

I just don't understand the reticence to develop a standard which eliminates young NHL regulars.

 

[usiel]

So who gets the biggest whiner award on this thread is what I am really curious about, heh .

 

[Beukeboom Fan]

Overall question, how can a player HF lists as the teams best prospect not make the top 50 list when 2 other guys ranked below him make the list?

Top 50 List: Compiled by a group of people all of whom see different prospects play. IMO, this list is less likely to be influenced by personal bias but more likely to be influenced by draft position and "hype" as not all members see the same propsects.

Team's Top 20 List: Compiled by 1 person that specializes in a teams prospects. More likley influenced by a personal bias, but might have more in-depth knowledge about individual prospects.

I don't think that the "inconsistencies" (if you want to call them that) are a bad thing - it's just based on different opinions between individuals.

 

[David A. Rainer]

The NHL standard for the Calder is:

""To be eligible for the award, a player cannot have played more than 25 games in any single preceding season nor in six or more games in each of any two preceding seasons in any major professional league. The player must not be older than 26 years before September 15 of the season in which he is eligible.

Which is a hell of a lot more accurate than yours.

I just don't understand the reticence to develop a standard which eliminates young NHL regulars.

Please see the discussion about this in the 11-25 Top Prospects thread. No point in having the same discussion in two threads.

http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=291742

 

[kimzey59]

Team's Top 20 List: Compiled by 1 person that specializes in a teams prospects. More likley influenced by a personal bias, but might have more in-depth knowledge about individual prospects.

NOT true.

Hi everybody. As you can I see, I am Kyle McMahon, the writer of the article, which I see has come under some criticism. To set the record straight, I did NOT determine the prospect rankings (1-20). I drafted a prliminary/suggested list, but the HF staff provided me with a final list, with which there were several differences. I as well felt there were a couple of questionable decisions, but it is not my place change anything around. In terms of the number and letter grades for prospects, those are also provided by HF, they are not my personal choices.

http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=280083

I think we, the fans that visit this site, deserve some answers.

 

[Kevin Forbes]

In my experience with Top 20s, usually team writers post a proposed Top 20 list on the staff board. Other HF writers who may cover other NHL teams, or other leagues then offer some commentary on that list and from that debate a final list is formed.

If a team writer is a little slow in posting a proposed Top 20, or if they're new and unsure of the process, at times the staff works together to come up with a list based on their own knowledge of the players. This is simply to try to meet deadlines on time and provide the articles in a timely fashion. As you all probably realise from reading the bylines, our staff is constantly changing as some writers don't work out or disappear and new ones are hired on.

Although I did not contribute to the St. Louis Blues list, I am saddened that the writer didn't feel it was his place to provide feedback on the suggestions that the staff put forth. I would say the problem is less the fault of the system and more just a failure to encourage new writers on the staff to contribute and not be afraid to offer opinions.

As mentioned, the Top 20s have more in-depth knowledge on the individual prospects, but we have tried to bring some collaboration into the mix in an attempt to also prevent personal bias as well as fill in gaps of knowledge. For example, I know to listen to whatever Pekka Lampinen has to say about Janne Pesonen, because he is much more familiar with the player then I am. If Pekka told me that Pesonen should be in my Top 20, you'd probably see him there.

I have never participated in a Top 50 group, however I know from my experience with the Organizational Rankings committee, that the way those lists are formed are much more a statistical representation of the opinion of the committee. In the case of the Org Rankings and the Top 50, each committee member votes and then the votes are tallied and so on. Discussion ensues, different points are brought up on why Prospect X is better then Prospect Z or if Team A's depth in goaltending should give it a higher ranking then Team B. Then voting happens again and so on, until a list is formed that the committee can accept.

 

[PanthersRule96]

Those who are constantly ripping these lists are really really lame. Who cares where your prospect is? Does it mark future success for a player in being on this list? I mean come on, some guy down around #50 could end up being the #2 or 3 best player on this list but instead people complain and rip the writers of this when you all talk about your individual prospects and how terrible this list is, it's funny to read but it's sad at the same time, I just hope that none of you go out and kill yourselves if your team ends up with Vegas odds of winning the cup of 50-1 or worse.

 

[Randall Graves*]

Clearly, you haven't watched very much of Jack Johnson. Honestly, I don't consider Getzlaf a top ten prospect.

Actually I have I just don't think Johnson is all that. I don't see what puts him so far ahead of Weber, Staal, and Bourdon quite frankly either.

 

[Randall Graves*]

Maybe they felt, like others on here, that Kessel should've went #2?

Kessel will have a better career than Toews and Staal. Bank on it. Backstrom will be his only rival out of that group.

Yeah maybe individually Kessel will be better than Toews, but Toews does everything on the ice and can be a PPG player. Kessel is a one dimensional player.

 

[God Bless Canada]

I really don't take issue with any of the top 7. I do take issue with the fact that Lehtonen, Ward and Getzlaf are considered prospects, but that's another rant for another time. (I did enjoy it more when Calder eligibility was the dividing line; but the staff did a good job with the current standards).

I remember, back when Calder eligibility was the cut-off point, people complained, saying that it was too restrictive. I did not. But it goes to show you can't please everybody.

I think Getzlaf is a little bit high, I'd rate him below Brule and Ward. But there's no doubt about it: Getzlaf is a prototype in the making, the standard for the big, all-round centre with high-end offensive upside. He and Carter will be two of the game's best for years to come.

Malkin, of course, should be No. 1. Among those who I define as prospects, Brule, J. Johnson, E. Johnson and Backstrom would round out the top five. I don't view Semin as a prospect anymore, and I think he's very overrated. I think he's a really talented kid, a potential 40-goal scorer, but not top 10. Even under HF's more generous prospect cut-off, there are quite a few that are better. I'd put O'Sullivan and Backstrom ahead of Semin.

The most noticeable omission is Devon Setoguchi. If he returns to the Dub this year, he could lead the league in scoring. If the Dub enforces an obstruction crackdown, Setoguchi will produce eye-popping numbers. (Peter Kalus is another player who will post big numbers in the Dub if he returns). I think Setoguchi has the potential to be a 40-goal scorer, while providing a good, gritty game. Another omission is Mike Green. He's small, but he has plenty of talent, and isn't afraid to get involved physically. He'll impress a lot of people in Washington this year.

Brian Lee was taken much earlier than most expected in the 2005 Draft. He was largely a "project" pick. He is not in Marc Staal's class. Marc Staal is one of the best defensive prospects out there, likely No. 3 behind Erik and Zach Johnson. He's so calm and steady. Staal's going to be one of the best defensive defencemen in the league, a guy who can shut down the opposition's top line, while chipping in 35-40 points per season. (Think Scott Hannan with more offensive upside). As for Bourdon, his junior performances haven't overly impressive, but he's been spectacular for Canada in two major international tournaments. While his decision-making process is iffy at times, he skates well, he has good size and a howitzer of a shot. When he doesn't get too fancy, he makes a good first pass, and controls his own zone.

 

[God Bless Canada]

I don't agree with everything that Jon Prescription has said in this thread, but I will agree with him on one thing: Nigel Dawes is criminally underrated. People write him off because of his size. But all he ever does is score. And he was magnificent in the AHL last year. He has everything you could ever want in a goal scorer, he's a very, very smart player, and he's a tenacious worker, which makes him a great penalty killer. He is one of the top 50 prospects in the world. Watch him score 30-35 goals and upwards of 70 points one day.

Ryan Parent could one day prove to be the best defensive defenceman in the world. Pop in a video of him during the WJC gold medal game, and you'll see one of the best defensive efforts, ever, by a junior defenceman. Malkin was lost out there against the rock-solid tandem of Parent and M. Staal. I can see why HF might be a little leery about putting him in the top-50 (defensive defencemen can be very hard to project, and we've seen a lot of projected top defensive defencemen flounder in the NHL, simply because they never make a successful transition). But an HM would have been appropriate.

This is going to sound bizarre, but if there's one 19-year-old rookie on Boston who will make a big impact on the NHL this year, it's Peter Kalus. I think he's more NHL-ready than Kessel (although that's not to say Kessel won't be the better player in four or five years). Skill-wise, Kessel is NHL ready. Mentally, he is not. Kalus is my darkhorse to win the Calder. He's that talented. I think Kalus should have been in the top 50.

 

[Dr_Hook]

Price is too low ..

I disagree. I think with the year he had last year, nothing would justify him being higher than that. He's having a nice camp but let's see if he can shine at the U-20, and then we'll talk (if he can manage to crack the team )

From a Habs prospects perspective, I thought the top20 recently updated was more accurate than that top50: Andrei Kostitsyn doesn't belong there anymore; I'd put Latendresse around 35-45, Price stays where he is and Kostitsyn is booted out of there. As another guy said, if Lats is a future 40 goal scorer (which he might just be) , then he sure belongs on that list

 

[Abyss]

Voloshenko was low last rankings (like 50 maybe), did he get knocked off just because of players getting added on?

I mean, for a rookie he had a damn fine AHL season...

 

[Chrisd]

voloshenko was ranked 42nd this year.

He wasn't knocked off the list.

 

[Abyss]

voloshenko was ranked 42nd this year.

He wasn't knocked off the list.

ah ok whoops

 

[Phanuthier*]

I won't argue whether Cam Ward should be on the list or not, but kind of odd to put him No 7 on the list (if he should be on the list) after JUST WINNING the Conn Smyth Trophy.

 

[jurtur]

No Kopitar , and he is having a better camp than O˙sully ?

 

[Sotnos]

Because clearly the current criteria allows players that are not prospects to be included in these lists.

The introduction of some common sense would not cause any more significant disagreement. Really, I would think most posters would agree that fellers like Getzlaf, Ward and Perry are no longer prospects.

Then it's more a case of the criteria needing to be changed than exceptions needing to be made. Otherwise it's like that guy last year who was crying because his team didn't get a trade in before the trade deadline, and he felt there should be some leeway. There's either criteria or there isn't, there's either a deadline or there isn't.

I agree there are some guys who are NHL regulars who shouldn't be on there, but it'd be better to rethink the criteria than to allow more subjectivity on the part of the staff.

 

[GKJ]

I won't argue whether Cam Ward should be on the list or not, but kind of odd to put him No 7 on the list (if he should be on the list) after JUST WINNING the Conn Smyth Trophy.

It's not odd if you base it on criteria, which you need some sort of to draw a line, but I think if you're a regular contributor you shouldn't be on the list. If the Ducks get to have Perry and Getzlaf on the list then the Flyers should be able to have Carter and Richards, and further, any other who played enough games to have been considered a rookie (Crosby, Phaneuf and Ovechkin). That was the main reason the Ducks were ranked #1 on HF's organizational rankings - they had 2 NHL regulars still on their prospect list, because their top 2 prospects played 30 less NHL games than everyone else.

I agree there are some guys who are NHL regulars who shouldn't be on there, but it'd be better to rethink the criteria than to allow more subjectivity on the part of the staff.

Any rookie who has played enough games to be considered a full NHL season should be the cut off. Chances are you're no longer a prospect, just a young player on the team.

 

[JiriHrdina]

Then it's more a case of the criteria needing to be changed than exceptions needing to be made. Otherwise it's like that guy last year who was crying because his team didn't get a trade in before the trade deadline, and he felt there should be some leeway. There's either criteria or there isn't, there's either a deadline or there isn't.

I agree there are some guys who are NHL regulars who shouldn't be on there, but it'd be better to rethink the criteria than to allow more subjectivity on the part of the staff.

Well either way i guess. But I don't think the comparison you provide is really relevent. That is a rule in place to govern the GMs of a league. This is criteria for a list that is already highly subjective.

I think other publications follow some guidelines but depart from it when appropriate.

But one way or the other. Whatever makes sense to make it an actual top 50 prospects list, not top 45 + 5 really great young NHLers.

 

[Roy G Biv*]

Brian Lee was taken much earlier than most expected in the 2005 Draft. He was largely a "project" pick. He is not in Marc Staal's class. Marc Staal is one of the best defensive prospects out there, likely No. 3 behind Erik and Zach Johnson. He's so calm and steady. Staal's going to be one of the best defensive defencemen in the league, a guy who can shut down the opposition's top line, while chipping in 35-40 points per season. (Think Scott Hannan with more offensive upside). As for Bourdon, his junior performances haven't overly impressive, but he's been spectacular for Canada in two major international tournaments. While his decision-making process is iffy at times, he skates well, he has good size and a howitzer of a shot. When he doesn't get too fancy, he makes a good first pass, and controls his own zone.

Ok, so scouts had him projected at #15 and he went at # 9, not as much of a reach as you'd like us to believe.

Something tells me you're underrating Lee because the only games you've seem him play were in the WJC.

Yes, Staal and Bourdon are probably more NHL-ready than Lee, but I would say that Lee has the potential to be the best of the 3.

 

[Shane]

I love how people get their panties in a bunch about this. So your favourite prospect isn't in someone else's top 50. Big deal, it's an opinion. You have yours and they have theirs, and it's not the same. What a shock. It doesn't make him any less of a player, nor does someone getting ranked 5th or whatever make them a better player (now before Ducks fans tear me apart, I have nothing against Getzlaf whatsoever, I just picked a random number). This isn't the be-all and end-all of top prospects lists. If you vehemently dislike it, write up your own. Nothing is stopping you.

 

[EJG123]

I love how people get their panties in a bunch about this. So your favourite prospect isn't in someone else's top 50. Big deal, it's an opinion. You have yours and they have theirs, and it's not the same. What a shock. It doesn't make him any less of a player, nor does someone getting ranked 5th or whatever make them a better player (now before Ducks fans tear me apart, I have nothing against Getzlaf whatsoever, I just picked a random number). This isn't the be-all and end-all of top prospects lists. If you vehemently dislike it so much, write up your own. Nothing's stopping you.

There was a thread devoted to that very thing recently and only about 6 or 7 people actually did it.......I say put your own list in and let others critique your list instead of just complaining about the people who made up this list. You can set your own criteria and do whatever you want then....eg. Ward could be arguably be the #1 prospect on your list because to date he has had the most success (& winning the Conn Smythe IS A BIG DEAL!!!) but he still falls under the HF criteria for being a prospect. Personally I think that is amazing to win that in your first full-time season.

 

[SChan*]

You gotta be smoking if you think Backstrom is too high on place 10th. The guy went 4th in the draft ffs, and Ovechkin hand picked him after playing him in the worlds.

 

[nags]

Backstrom was drafted before Kessel. If anything Jordan Staal and Toews are low, IMO.

I just don't see Getzlaf's upside.

Agreed. Staal and Toews will go higher after this year. I predict Toews will be in the top 5 by next year. Staal will be close behind.