Hockey's Future Top 50 prospects Spring 2007: 11-25

[Aaron Vickers]

Agreed. Hype, reputation, and an HF contributor's arguing skills is all it took to create this top 50 list.

You make it sound as though HF writers don't have networking skills and have never talked to a scout before. I know for a fact this is not true.

And I'll let you in on a little secret of the hockey world. Not all scouts have seen all players, either.

 

[wedge]

you have to admit that THN has really sucked with their list in the past. For those who have the magazine, look at the last page. They do a recap of 5 and 10 years ago. Too choices: hte prospects from these periods were all crap or 2- their list totally sucked.

from the last years, I've always prefered the lists made by HF. But for the first time, this list doesn't look right. Many prospects are just forgotten while others are soooooooo high.

I don't care about the difference between Price and Montoya. That's just a few ranks and IMO it means that they are equal and I'm fine with that. What I care about is seeing Nilsson still there, Schremp disappearing, Franson being so high and Parent being so high or so low, depending if he's included on the list or not.

Usully, HF is a lot better than that.

just my two cents.

 

[Madness]

Goaltender is a part of the team and Montoya>>>>Fleury in that tournament, so the US team was better. Simple as that.

I honestly feel Finland deserved to advance over Sweden in the 06 WJC even though Sweden dominated the game 64 minutes and outshot us 53-25.

Of course they did, as you mentioned, goaltender is part of the team, probably the most important part.

 

[stazza18]

That may be but I'll take the scout's view over the HF list (which is terrible!) any day of the week. I bet most of the people on the HF panel (whatever that is) haven't seen most of these players in person and are going by reputation and hype more then anything.

If the only way to be qualified to judge prospects is to see them all, who really is qualified? And who gets to criticize?

You would think by some of the opinions here that we have scouts who have seen all the players as posters. I doubt that is true, so I think its pretty hard to trash the list that bad because you feel slighted in some way. In the end isn't it all a projection anyway?

 

[MojoJojo]

So Parent fell outta the top 50?

Yeah, not even mentioned as someone who missed the cut. behind Lashoff, letang, Welch, Kindl and Mitera. I strongly doubt he is top ten, but not even top 60?

 

[Roy G Biv*]

There are, at the time of this post, 146 posts in this thread. Jon has made 29 of them. That's roughly 1 in 5.

With that in mind, could we maybe try to focus a little more on the list, and a little less on WJCs from 4 years ago and rehashing old arguments from other threads?

Thank you.

Unfortunately I opened this thread, and looked for some insight. Instead I get a couple of Rangers and Habs fan pinching each other in a playpen.

Seriously, shut up.

 

[stazza18]

Yeah, not even mentioned as someone who missed the cut. behind Lashoff, letang, Welch, Kindl and Mitera. I strongly doubt he is top ten, but not even top 60?

From what I'm learning he was never in top 50, so guess I was wrong about him falling out of.

 

[God Bless Canada]

-I don't know if Montoya is too high or not, but I wouldn't have him ahead of Harding. I think Harding is the best "prospect" goalie (my definition of prospect is still eligible for the Calder) in the world. Now, I'll freely admit that I am a little biased when it comes to Harding - I was a Harding fan before he joined the Regina Pats - but I think the guy is a star, and he has exceeded every expectation I ever had on the kid. As for Montoya, it's been a nice bounce-back season for the kid, as he hasn't always met expectations the last two seasons.
-I'm definitely not sold on Marek Schwarz. I think he should be a lot lower, like in the 40s. He has the potential for brilliance, but he can also be a very frustrating player.
-There are five goalies in the 11-25 range. Will there be one in the top 10? While goaltending is the most important position on the ice, it's also the most difficult to predict. You'll pick a goalie high in the first round, and watch him become a star. The next five goalies picked high in the first round will flop. Then a couple goalies picked in the sixth round develop into good No. 1 goalies. It's the reality of the position. I believe that most players in the 11-25 range will fulfill their potential. I'm not certain about any of the goalies, even Harding.
-Marc Staal is right about where he should be. A solid, solid defenceman. Remember how good Scott Hannan was in 2003-04? Staal will be that good, but with a better offensive dimension.
-Cody Franson is higher than he should be. He's had a great year, and has a shot at the Memorial Cup. But I would have him in the 26-35 range. He's in the class with guys like Kris Russel, not guys like Marc Staal.
-I think Steve Downie could have still been higher. I think he's definitely top 15, maybe even top 10. He's in the top five for prospects I'd want on my team in a Game 7 situation.
-Has a prospect improved his status more in the last year-and-a-half than Dustin Boyd? 18 months ago, he was a blip on Calgary's radar. Now he's No. 19. He has an excellent work ethic, and has worked very hard to become a quality offensive forward. I think No. 19 is a little high, but nobody would have ever thought this guy would ever be on HF's top 50 list. He is proving that his last year in the Dub wasn't a fluke.
-I think Giroux is a litttle high, but not much. I wouldn't rate him ahead of Drew Stafford. I think Giroux is in that Brassard/Little class: a smallish but extremely talented and extremely smart playmaking centre. I don't think there's much to choose between the three.
-Bourdon had a rough start in Vancouver, and he didn't dominate this year's WJC like last year's WJC, but I think he's a little low. I'd still take him ahead of Franson, even though Franson is having the better year. Bourdon still has the potential to be a No. 1 defenceman. The Canucks just have to be patient with him. He's still very raw.
-Either Ryan Parent is a little overrated on this list, or he's really, really underrated. He has the potential to one day develop into the best defensive defenceman in the game. But I wouldn't take him ahead of Staal, and I wouldn't put him in the top 10.
-Either Bryan Little is really overrated, or he's really underrated. He doesn't belong in the top 10, and he'd be on the borderline for the top 25. But he belongs in that 25-30 class with Giroux and Brassard. He definitely belongs in the top 50. Little didn't dominate the WJC, but he's not a terrific skater, and I don't think he's cut out for international ice. All he has ever done on North American ice is put up points. And he will do that in the NHL. He is a Marc Savard type - an offensive dynamo who will be one of the top playmakers in the game. Smallish and not a great skater, but he will find a way to get points thanks to his world class hockey sense.

 

[God Bless Canada]

BTW, for those of you who keep yapping and b*tching about this list, do us a favour: submit a list of your own. Putting together a top 50 list isn't easy. Trust me, I've been doing it for the last 12 years. I prefer to keep mine private, sharing it with a close network of confidants. But I also try to offer insight and constructive criticism, instead of numbskulled blanket statements with very little substance behind them.

Many posters in this thread are the clanging of a gong.

 

[David A. Rainer]

You make it sound as though HF writers don't have networking skills and have never talked to a scout before. I know for a fact this is not true.

And I'll let you in on a little secret of the hockey world. Not all scouts have seen all players, either.

Let me just build upon what Vickers has to say.

The team writers for this site are in constant contact with scouts and organizations. I for one am in constant contact with three scouts of the team I cover. They're feedback is definitely important.

With that said, scouts are not all that they are being made out to be by some of these posters. But whether scouts were involved in the work product is something that is easy to identify and impossible to prove one way or the other, so a poster latches onto it, wraps it around themselves like a warm little blanket to protect their own views that were not supported by this list or any other list. The psychology of an HF poster is actually very interestng and very predictable. Poster A has spent the last 6 months of his life wasting his time arguing on these boards that player X is better than player Y. If the list comes out and player Y is ahead of player X, the list is crap because it didn't support his view. If it comes out player X is ahead of player Y, the list is golden because it did support his view. The list is what it is.

I have known probably about 30 (edit - I actually started naming off names in my head and only could come up with 21) professional scouts in my life. Some in baseball and some in hockey. I used to do scouting work for baseball at one point in my life. They are just as fallible as anyone else. In fact, I often kid with some of the scouts I work with that they are less qualified to perform their job because they were either former players or have been in their industry too long and their judgment is clouded with too much subjectivity of what a prospect should or shouldn't look like. Yes, the Billy Beane affect does exist in hockey.

And no - not a single one of them have seen every prospect. And further no - not a single one of them have seen every single prospect even in their region of coverage. It's impossible. But, again, posters add that to their warm little blanket. But they, just like writers, have a network of trusted people in the right spots, to provide them information as needed.

As for THN being a professional site and HF being a bunch of message board hounds. I don't know about THN, but HF does have an identifiable income and a payroll for its staff writers. Many of the HF staff write as a profession. That is usally what makes something professional - if it is staffed by those that make a profession out of it. BTW - I hate to break the news to some but there are some THN staff that "hound" this very message board. We are just a little easier to identify on here because we have that cool puke-green color to our names.

And THN's list - it's a quality list. I know some of the guys at THN and know what they go through to compile their list. They are solid. And I have corresponded with some of the guys at BaseballAmerica.com and know what they go through to compile their lists. They are solid also. And you now what? We all go through the same processes to create these lists. This might come as a surprise to some, but if you speak with five scouts, you will likely get 5 different answers. Its called a difference in opinion. If there wasn't a difference in opinion, the draft would unfold exactly how CSS orders the draft eligibles. Wheeler at #4 would never have happened. Even within organizations I have personally experienced wild swings in opinion.

If you want to point out inaccuracies in the past, show me a list that has ever gotten it completely correct. I will put our track record up against anyone elses. Even THN. The same THN that once had Tomas Zizka ranked as the Kings 3rd (I don't remember exactly but it was somewhere between 3-5) best prospect. Yes, that Tomas Zizka. But nothing against THN because I have tremendous respect for their staff and their work product.

Ok. Flame away. Keep it clean though.

 

[David A. Rainer]

BTW, for those of you who keep yapping and b*tching about this list, do us a favour: submit a list of your own. Putting together a top 50 list isn't easy. Trust me, I've been doing it for the last 12 years. I prefer to keep mine private, sharing it with a close network of confidants. But I also try to offer insight and constructive criticism, instead of numbskulled blanket statements with very little substance behind them.

Many posters in this thread are the clanging of a gong.

Very very well said. But we both know that this is going to go in one ear and out the other with some of these guys.

 

[8BostonRocker24]

-There are five goalies in the 11-25 range. Will there be one in the top 10? While goaltending is the most important position on the ice, it's also the most difficult to predict.

Get point about the goalie... But Rask hasn't been listed yet, and it's hard for me to believe he's not in the top-50.


IMO, the following 10 players have to be listed... EJ, JJ, Toews, O'Sullivan, Backstrom, Kessel, Rask, Schremp, Barker, and Mueller.

One of the above listed are not in the top-50 if Alexander Radulov, is still considered a prospect.

 

[Dumpster Flyers]

Yeah, not even mentioned as someone who missed the cut. behind Lashoff, letang, Welch, Kindl and Mitera. I strongly doubt he is top ten, but not even top 60?

I don't think he should be top ten, but to not put him in the top 60 is beyond ridiculous. That is why I think he is in the top 10.

 

[stazza18]

Get point about the goalie... But Rask hasn't been listed yet, and it's hard for me to believe he's not in the top-50.


IMO, the following 10 players have to be listed... EJ, JJ, Toews, O'Sullivan, Backstrom, Kessel, Rask, Schremp, Barker, and Mueller.

One of the above listed are not in the top-50 if Alexander Radulov, is still considered a prospect.

I wouldn't be surprised if Kessel isn't there just because he would have made the cut off if not for his medical problem. Not saying he won't, just wouldn't be surprised.

 

[8BostonRocker24]

I wouldn't be surprised if Kessel isn't there just because he would have made the cut off if not for his medical problem. Not saying he won't, just wouldn't be surprised.

Yea, I was just looking at his stats, He's played 58 games thus far. I didn't realized he had played in so many games....

Maybe Parent is in the top-10.

 

[stazza18]

Yea, I was just looking at his stats, He's played 58 games thus far. I didn't realized he had played in so many games....

Maybe Parent is in the top-10.

Is it wrong to be more excited about the top ten list and seeing if it causes someone to wig out big time than the actual list itself?

 

[helicecopter]

If you want to point out inaccuracies in the past, show me a list that has ever gotten it completely correct.

Obviously no one ever got it completely correct (speaking of top 50 at least), the point is how incorrect those lists were to determine how good they were.

I will put our track record up against anyone elses.

That would be very interesting.

To compare top 50 prospects lists from the different main sources available (THN, ?, ?..) along the last 6, 7 years and see who got the less-wrong lists (and if there is any consistency at that along the examinated period). Even if lists are not released exactly at the same time and are not build exactly upon the same 'rules', that would let people realize how good your work was along the years comparing to others' ones.

 

[xander]

Is it wrong to be more excited about the top ten list and seeing if it causes someone to wig out big time than the actual list itself?

I think it's more or less garunteed that someone will flip out. The suprise would be if this is limited to only one poster.

 

[8BostonRocker24]

Is it wrong to be more excited about the top ten list and seeing if it causes someone to wig out big time than the actual list itself?

I can't wait to see Rask ahead of Price...

I can also use a lot when I talk about Rask then.

 

[Thirty One]

As for Montoya, it's been a nice bounce-back season for the kid, as he hasn't always met expectations the last two seasons.

yeah, luckily for Montoya he was able to put his AHL All-Star Rookie campaign behind him and bounce back this season.

 

[shortcat1]

(This is a repeat of the same post in the other 'Top' string.)

Bottom line, guys and gals, who gives a poop?

It's obvious that many do but should they? Good grief! Whether someone should be behind or ahead of someone else or should be on the top whatever or not is, in the final analysis of no great consequence even to the players themselves, nevermind to us except as a tool of 'discussion', argument, name-calling, etc...

My favourite team has two players on the list (that should be a hint as to who it is...) and that's fine. If it were more then that would be fine. If it were less then... (and I repeat myself.)

I would suggest that this would be mainly an interesting read but that it not be given a really heavy emphasis.

Oh... by the way, like most of us in this community, I also believe that my team's prospect pool is the best (as a whole) and that my team's prospects should all be in the top 50 (or at least my top 20 prospects).



And now another hint about my favourite team...

 

[helicecopter]

BTW, for those of you who keep yapping and b*tching about this list, do us a favour: submit a list of your own. Putting together a top 50 list isn't easy. Trust me, I've been doing it for the last 12 years. I prefer to keep mine private, sharing it with a close network of confidants. But I also try to offer insight and constructive criticism, instead of numbskulled blanket statements with very little substance behind them.

Very very well said. But we both know that this is going to go in one ear and out the other with some of these guys.

Instead of letting this complain go through my ears without leaving track, let me simply disagree.

Why should an HF poster/reader not feel free to criticize and to say his opinion without posting his own list?

Requiring reasoning behind statements or bashing a list is one thing, and it's right, but this 'submit a list of your own' thing is a weak requirement/suggestion.

If i have informed opinions about SOME THINGS of the list but i have never seen play some of the players involved, why should i have to post a complete list to feel entitled to criticize upon THE things i think to know about?

I expect HF staff to have an educated guess about each player on the list, and about the main ones left out as well.. i don't see how i could myself on the other hand..
i would welcome the day i will have the opportunity and time to watch all the consensus top 60 prospects and someone will be so kind to pay me something to release my top 50 prospects.. that day i would gladly feel engaged to compile a worthy one, not now.
I could do that none the less for pure fun and with a disclaimer specifying it's just a crapshot.. but actually.. you know what? i think a thread full of crapshots lists would be less interesting than a thread full of criticizing posts, especially if reasoned.

Now, feeling free to criticize and to ask for further explanations, i'm wondering if HF staff shouldn't do better releasing a list relating only prospects playing in North America.. honestly, that's the thought that came to my mind after seeing Kulemin, Varlamov, Lindgren are not even inserted in the top 50..
so, if instead HF staff does cover well players in Europe too, i need to ask the reasoning for these 3 players to be left out of the list.

the reasoning behind my criticism and questions being:

-I've seen Kulemin play several times (at least 10 i would say) and he consistently looked to me a promising player with a good shot to become a second liner at the NHL level. Pretty good finisher, has been scoring with consistency in a top league (someting that can be said of few other prospects), is a good hitter to go along with sound overall technique..

-Varlamov has outplayed the senior #1 goalkeeper of his team and has looked great in several games this season in the Russian Super League. And i mean great. Consistently playing at a good level ,something very rare for such a young goaltender in the RSL, and keeping the #1 spot. His talent is evident, his current flaws (i've noticed a couple of goals allowed where he didn't challenge enough a shooter coming off a sharp angle, playing too deep on close range sharp angle shots) seem correctable..

-Lindgren, i don't know him as well as the other two, but all the things i've read from people who know him well would suggest he was worthy of a spot somewhere in the top 50.

 

[xander]

-I've seen Kulemin play several times (at least 10 i would say) and he consistently looked to me a promising player with a good shot to become a second liner at the NHL level. Pretty good finisher, has been scoring with consistency in a top league (someting that can be said of few other prospects), is a good hitter to go along with sound overall technique..
.

the thing is that alot of teams have prospects like this. By this logic I could be complaining that Dubinsky isn't on the list, a rangers prospect who also has a shot to be a good second line player. But should a prospect with a reasonable shot at being a second line on this list? If they where included then the list would have to be 100 to 150 players long, there are so many guys who could be second liners.

What your going to find on this list are guys with genuine first line/first pairing/starting goalie talent, or guys who project very safely to second line/second pairing players.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

Let me just build upon what Vickers has to say.

The team writers for this site are in constant contact with scouts and organizations. I for one am in constant contact with three scouts of the team I cover. They're feedback is definitely important.

With that said, scouts are not all that they are being made out to be by some of these posters.

...

If you want to point out inaccuracies in the past, show me a list that has ever gotten it completely correct. I will put our track record up against anyone elses. Even THN. The same THN that once had Tomas Zizka ranked as the Kings 3rd (I don't remember exactly but it was somewhere between 3-5) best prospect. Yes, that Tomas Zizka. But nothing against THN because I have tremendous respect for their staff and their work product.

Ok. Flame away. Keep it clean though.

Excellent post. Everyone here should read this and take it to heart - because every year we see rankings of guys going into the draft, and if you look back 5 years later and look at where some of these kids were ranked you'll say to yourself . Just because I or anyone else here has a different view on a prospect or prospects than a professional scout (yes, even an NHL scout) doesn't make us automatically wrong or them automatically correct. (gasp!) Even the pro scouts make mistakes. Need I rattle off a list of guys taken in the top 10 in the last 12-15 years who went on to become complete, utter busts to illustrate my point?

 

[crazedcanuck]

Where are numbers 1-10?