Out of everything that Dave said, you picked out a common grammar error? Amazing.
Personally, I haven't seen THN's list. I explained a number of my reasons in the thread about that, but in short I let my subscription expire because I grew tired of the magazine and preferred my own methods of finding hockey news. That said, I think it is short-sighted to call the HF list just a knock-off of the THN list. It's not like Dave bought a copy (edit by Dave - I have never bought a copy and haven't seen one is going on 3 years now), crossed out the names he didn't agree with and posted it on the website. Did the committee use the THN list as part of their work? Probably not, in my experience with HF's committees, the way we operate promotes coming to our own conclusions independently. That said, even changing a THN list would be presenting a unique list representing the opinion of the staff at HF. Journalists don't operate in a bubble and avoid everything done in the past (previously, we've always used last year's list, both in the Top 50 and the Org Rankings, as the basis for the next year, this year was a bit different as added attention was made to ensuring this list went along with both the team Top 20s and the individual league Top 20s, but in any case we're definitely not starting from scratch each time). If you're accusing us of plagarism, I would be vehemently opposed to that charge.
That said, THN's list (from what I know of it) doesn't include the WJCs or anything that occured after the turn of the calendar due to the need to collaborate information from those giving feedback and the myriad of printing/publishing and simple magazine design deadlines and so on. (I might be wrong here on the actually timing, but I assure you their production of their list stopped long before it was presented to the public) With HF, our communication methods and publication challenges are different, so our list would be more timely.