Leafs ranked 20th. by Hockey's Future (Not the Kessel Trade)

[charliolemieux]

Considering where the Wings normally draft they look to be doing something right.

They always do it right. They allow their prospects to simmer in the AHL while they develop, then bring them up into sheltered minutes.

They give their prospects a chance to succeed. UNlike a certain franchise that likes to call every 18yr old the saviour of the franchise and proceeds to throw them to the wolves.

Now it's been a long while since DET hit a homerun like they did with Datsyuk and Zetterberg. But they did leave Hudler in the AHL long enough to be in the top 3 in scoring if I remember right. I thought he might be the next big success but where is he now? My newfy Wings fan buddy never really liked him from day one, but he has issues with Europeans all together so take his oppinion for what it is.

We'll see with Smith and Nyquist. They are the next in line.

 

[Bleed Blue and White]

Teams that succeed in the ahl are generally well rounded with a lot of depth. Just look at JFJ's last marlies team. It was better than any Marlies team under Burke.

The problem is that very very very few of the "depth" players will see any nhl time whatsoever. So a successful ahl team doesn't translate into an improved nhl team down the road (again, just look at JFJ's spectacular Marlies team).

In regards to improving the nhl team, I would MUCH prefer an ahl team with three elite stars and no depth that does terrible in the standings than an ahl team with few stars at all, great depth, and does very well in the standings.

I don't disagree with you on your premise necessarily but I would argue that last year's Marlies were better than anything under JFJ. Obviously the 07-08 Marlies had more regular season wins but they didn't make the Calder Cup final like last year's squad. On the whole though I would say you're right. I guess you could make a comparison between the quality of the prospects in 07-08 and the ones we have now, saying that there isn't much difference between the two. For some reason my gut tells me that the current crop has more potential NHL future. I can't offer a logical explanation for it so take it with a grain of salt but it is a feeling I've got. Time will tell.

 

[zeke]

They always do it right. They allow their prospects to simmer in the AHL while they develop, then bring them up into sheltered minutes.

they allow them to simmer in the AHL because for the last 10yrs none of them have been good enough to come up earlier than that.

 

[charliolemieux]

they allow them to simmer in the AHL because for the last 10yrs none of them have been good enough to come up earlier than that.

Datsyuk was 23 before his first NHL game.
Zetterberg was 22 at he start of his first NHL season.

They simply don't rush prospects. Kadri just turned 22 and he's a sure fire bust for us.

Fillpula was 28yrs old before his "breakout year" of over 20g and 60pts. He was not given up on. He was given sheltered minutes for several years before being put into a top 6 role.

 

[charliolemieux]

http://www.thehockeynews.com/articl...rdiner-no-longer-of-first-round-pedigree.html

Nikita Filatov, LW, Columbus, drafted 6th overall.
Mikkel Boedker, RW, Phoenix, drafted 8th overall.
Cody Hodgson, C, Vancouver, drafted 10th overall.
Kyle Beach, LW, Chicago, drafted 11th overall.
Joe Colborne, C, Boston, drafted 16th overall.
Greg Nemisz, C, Calgary, drafted 25th overall.
Jacob Markstrom, G, Florida, drafted 31st overall.
Vyacheslav Voynov, D, Los Angeles, drafted 32nd overall.
Jake Allen, G, St. Louis, drafted 34th overall.
Patrick Wiercioch, D, Ottawa, drafted 42nd overall.
Justin Schultz, D, Anaheim, drafted 43rd overall.
Luke Adam, C, Buffalo, drafted 44th overall.
Zac Dalpe, C, Carolina, drafted 45th overall.
Patrice Cormier, C, Atlanta, drafted 54th overall.
Marco Scandella, D, Minnesota, drafted 55th overall.
Danny Kristo, RW, Montreal, drafted 56th overall.
Adam Henrique, C, New Jersey, drafted 82nd overall.
Braden Holtby, G, Washington, drafted 93rd overall.
T.J. Brodie, D, Calgary, drafted 114th overall.
Andrei Loktionov, C, Los Angeles, drafted 123rd overall."

Yeah, it says a lot...just not what you think.

What a list!

I count 5 maybe 6 on there I might put in the same category as Gards and 2 of them are goalies and another two still need to prove themselves in the NHL.

Oh and just for clarification, THN has the LEafs at 20 and DO NOT have Kadri included as a prospect. And our most NHL ready prospect is our #10 Korbinian Holzer.

 

[zeke]

Datsyuk and Zetterberg were 10+ years ago. Ancient history.

Filppula has been getting 16-18mpg since he was 23. He happened to finally have one big year at age 27.

 

[Morbo]

What a list!

I count 5 maybe 6 on there I might put in the same category as Gards and 2 of them are goalies and another two still need to prove themselves in the NHL.

I don't think it's even that many.

 

[Artemis]

http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=646835

Here's a link to the WJC selection camps.

Players getting selected are likely a consideration for prospects at the under 20 age group.

Detroit has 3 on Team Canada.
Toronto has 3 between TC and the USofA., 1 Sweden.
Calgary 5 betweeen TC and USofA., 1 Finland.
Boston 3 on TC, 1 Russia,
Tampa 4 on Russia.
Nashville 2 on Finland, 1 Sweden, 1 Canada, 1 USofA.

I might have missed some ...

You can check out the selection camps at the link.

Just to update, Boston also has a USofA player, defenseman Matt Grzelcyk (Boston University freshman).

 

[Disgruntled Observer*]

http://www.thehockeynews.com/articl...rdiner-no-longer-of-first-round-pedigree.html



Yeah, it says a lot...just not what you think.

There are far too many intangibles regarding a prospects success for a rankings list to be 100% accurate. Even 75% accurate. Far too many intangibles.

Nobody is trying to say that these ranking lists are gospel.

We're just saying they are a very good bench mark.


Let me ask you... what do you think would count as a good way to grade our prospects to the rest of the league?

If consensus from professional nhl scouts doesn't mean anything to you (unless they agree with you of course), then what does count?
The vast majority of leaf fans haven't seen any of these other teams prospects play at all. So why are they so adamant that Burke has done a good job developing our prospects compared to other teams in the league? What are they basing that one?

Wouldn't consensus from professional nhl scouts be the best benchmark available to assess our prospects compared to the rest of the league?

 

[Morbo]

There are far too many intangibles regarding a prospects success for a rankings list to be 100% accurate. Even 75% accurate. Far too many intangibles.

Nobody is trying to say that these ranking lists are gospel.

We're just saying they are a very good bench mark.


Let me ask you... what do you think would count as a good way to grade our prospects to the rest of the league?

If consensus from professional nhl scouts doesn't mean anything to you (unless they agree with you of course), then what does count?
The vast majority of leaf fans haven't seen any of these other teams prospects play at all. So why are they so adamant that Burke has done a good job developing our prospects compared to other teams in the league? What are they basing that one?

Wouldn't consensus from professional nhl scouts be the best benchmark available to assess our prospects compared to the rest of the league?

Who says the hockey news or Hfboards represents the totality of "consensus from professional nhl scouts"? They talked to every scout in the game? Or even most of them?

I don't know who you're talking to with the development comment, but it is assuredly not me. I am referring to your constant rhetoric on how the Leaf prospects suck and are no different that what they had in the Ferguson era because HFboards and the hockey news say so.

Maybe you need to reexamine your opinions on professional scouts? It is by nature an inexact science, yet you think that their rankings are some kind of talisman of triumphant negativity you can wave about around here.

I don't even think the Leaf prospects are great by any means, but your constant litany about the damning testimony of the godlike scouts at the Hockey News does not hold up to reality, as the Gardiner article handily illustrates. That was my point.

And again, the Leafs have been rated a lot higher by HFBoards, I believe 8th or something like that if memory serves, and it made not one iota of difference.

 

[charliolemieux]

Datsyuk and Zetterberg were 10+ years ago. Ancient history.

Filppula has been getting 16-18mpg since he was 23. He happened to finally have one big year at age 27.

The lesson is it is better he had that year with DET than with NAS isn't it.

Yes Dats and Zetts are ancient history. Which is why it pisses me off that DET is getting the benefit of the doubt with their prospects. Around HF it's like if the guy was drafted by DET then he is a future HoF.

That is seperate from giving their picks the proper development time. And then giving them sheltered minutes when they get to the NHL.

Smith may very well be their best prospect in the last 10 years, but not good enought to be worth 10 spots in the prospect ranking.

And when THN has DET ranked 21st, one spot behind TOR, it makes me question the HF ranking even more.

 

[Magic Man]

http://www.thehockeynews.com/articl...rdiner-no-longer-of-first-round-pedigree.html



Yeah, it says a lot...just not what you think.

J.Schultz, Henrique, Holtby, Voynov, Hodgson, Markstrom are the only ones out of the group on Gardiner's level.

 

[charliolemieux]

There are far too many intangibles regarding a prospects success for a rankings list to be 100% accurate. Even 75% accurate. Far too many intangibles.

Nobody is trying to say that these ranking lists are gospel.

We're just saying they are a very good bench mark.


Let me ask you... what do you think would count as a good way to grade our prospects to the rest of the league?

If consensus from professional nhl scouts doesn't mean anything to you (unless they agree with you of course), then what does count?
The vast majority of leaf fans haven't seen any of these other teams prospects play at all. So why are they so adamant that Burke has done a good job developing our prospects compared to other teams in the league? What are they basing that one?

Wouldn't consensus from professional nhl scouts be the best benchmark available to assess our prospects compared to the rest of the league?

1. The concensus of NHL scouts does not include Kadri when ranking TOR 20th.
2. The Concensus of NHL scouts ranks DET 11 spots lower than the HF rankings.
3. The HF ranking actually ranked TOR prospects individually higher, but gave the other team the better ranking.
4. Frattin, Gardiner, Kessel, Kadri are all 25yrs or younger. Just because they aren't on a prospect list anymore doesn't take away from the fact the LEafs have a lot of good young talent.
5. HOw is it that you continue to hang on to the LEafs being rnked 20th and then say "There are far too many intangibles regarding a prospects success for a rankings list to be 100% accurate. Even 75% accurate. Far too many intangibles.

Nobody is trying to say that these ranking lists are gospel." If the rankings are garbage then so is the Leafs being ranked at 20th.

You either stick by the rankings and bring up how the Leafs are 20th, or you agree that they are a garbage and never bring these rankings up as "FACT" in any future argument.

 

[FlareKnight]

Whew I thought time travel had happened and I had to take those exams again .

Well it's certainly not a great ranking. You'd figure with how bad we've been would have a higher ranked prospect pool. Not much to say other than it says something about this group with the team lacking as well as what is supposed to come up and bolster them down the road.

 

[charliolemieux]

J.Schultz, Henrique, Holtby, Voynov, Hodgson, Markstrom are the only ones out of the group on Gardiner's level.

Those are exactly the same guys I had. With Hodgson being one of the guys who still has to prove he belongs there.

 

[charliolemieux]

Who says the hockey news or Hfboards represents the totality of "consensus from professional nhl scouts"? They talked to every scout in the game? Or even most of them?

I don't know who you're talking to with the development comment, but it is assuredly not me. I am referring to your constant rhetoric on how the Leaf prospects suck and are no different that what they had in the Ferguson era because HFboards and the hockey news say so.

Maybe you need to reexamine your opinions on professional scouts? It is by nature an inexact science, yet you think that their rankings are some kind of talisman of triumphant negativity you can wave about around here.

I don't even think the Leaf prospects are great by any means, but your constant litany about the damning testimony of the godlike scouts at the Hockey News does not hold up to reality, as the Gardiner article handily illustrates. That was my point.

And again, the Leafs have been rated a lot higher by HFBoards, I believe 8th or something like that if memory serves, and it made not one iota of difference.

He believes the THN rankings are the ones done by all the scouts in the universe.

 

[Disgruntled Observer*]

1. The concensus of NHL scouts does not include Kadri when ranking TOR 20th.
2. The Concensus of NHL scouts ranks DET 11 spots lower than the HF rankings.
3. The HF ranking actually ranked TOR prospects individually higher, but gave the other team the better ranking.
4. Frattin, Gardiner, Kessel, Kadri are all 25yrs or younger. Just because they aren't on a prospect list anymore doesn't take away from the fact the LEafs have a lot of good young talent.
5. HOw is it that you continue to hang on to the LEafs being rnked 20th and then say "There are far too many intangibles regarding a prospects success for a rankings list to be 100% accurate. Even 75% accurate. Far too many intangibles.

Nobody is trying to say that these ranking lists are gospel." If the rankings are garbage then so is the Leafs being ranked at 20th.

You either stick by the rankings and bring up how the Leafs are 20th, or you agree that they are a garbage and never bring these rankings up as "FACT" in any future argument.

So my opinion is affected by a prospect list created by professional nhl scouts.
Do you really think that that's a bad thing? I'm using the word "consensus" as in a consensus among the nhl scouts involved. Not every scout ever in the world.

Both you and volcanologist ignored my question.

What is a better benchmark for assessing where our prospects rank when compared to the rest of the league than a list created by a consensus of professional nhl scouts?

 

[Morbo]

So my opinion is affected by a prospect list created by professional nhl scouts.
Do you really think that that's a bad thing? I'm using the word "consensus" as in a consensus among the nhl scouts involved. Not every scout ever in the world.

You are deliberately misusing the word "consensus".

Both you and volcanologist ignored my question.

What is a better benchmark for assessing where our prospects rank when compared to the rest of the league than a list created by a consensus of professional nhl scouts?

Neither THN nor HFBoards ARE a "consensus of professional nhl scouts". It is the opinion of whatever scouts that they talked to. If you're asking what is better than that, I would say a ranking representative of more scouts opinions. A lot more.

Your question is a strawman. If there were such a thing as a consensus available, of course that would be the best way. But we don't have that.

Speaking of ignoring things Disgruntled, when were you planning on addressing this:

http://www.hockeysfuture.com/articles/13429/hockeys_future_organization_rankings_fall2011110/

This is dated barely 1 year ago. Surely you cannot agree with this assessment, can you? The awesome assessment made by the all-seeing eye of HFBoards?

But please, do go on and regale us with more tales of the awesome scouting consensus found at hockey news and HFBoards.

 

[4evaBlue]

What is a better benchmark for assessing where our prospects rank when compared to the rest of the league than a list created by a consensus of professional nhl scouts?

Better doesn't mean good/accurate.

 

[charliolemieux]

So my opinion is affected by a prospect list created by professional nhl scouts.
Do you really think that that's a bad thing? I'm using the word "consensus" as in a consensus among the nhl scouts involved. Not every scout ever in the world.

Both you and volcanologist ignored my question.

What is a better benchmark for assessing where our prospects rank when compared to the rest of the league than a list created by a consensus of professional nhl scouts?

BUddy I have no problem with THN having Toronto at 20th with Kadri not on the list.

But how the hell does HF rank DET 10th while THN ranks them 21st and both include Smith and Nyquist.

I DON"T CARE WHERE THE LEAFS ARE RANKED.

The spot means nothing.

But when HF ranks individual players higher on the Leafs and then purt the other team ahead in the rankings, I have to go "What's going on here?"

When one team gets it's goaltending called a strength, and ours is called a weakness, and our Goalies out rank their individually. I ask "What's going on here?"

If the Leafs are really 20th then so be it. It is what it is. BUt not a chance in hell I am going to accept rankings that contradict themselves at every turn.


I can't trust either ranking system when they return such differing results.

 

[Disgruntled Observer*]

You are deliberately misusing the word "consensus".



Neither THN nor HFBoards ARE a "consensus of professional nhl scouts". It is the opinion of whatever scouts that they talked to. If you're asking what is better than that, I would say a ranking representative of more scouts opinions. A lot more.

Your question is a strawman. If there were such a thing as a consensus available, of course that would be the best way. But we don't have that.

Speaking of ignoring things Disgruntled, when were you planning on addressing this:

http://www.hockeysfuture.com/articles/13429/hockeys_future_organization_rankings_fall2011110/

This is dated barely 1 year ago. Surely you cannot agree with this assessment, can you? The awesome assessment made by the all-seeing eye of HFBoards?

But please, do go on and regale us with more tales of the awesome scouting consensus found at hockey news and HFBoards.

As stated earlier, I put a lot more stock in the Hockey News rankings because they are made by actual professional nhl scouts. (The hockey news rated the leafs 20th last year as well).


When someone says they like Burke because he's "improved our prospects", what exactly are they basing that on?
History has shown that leaf fans ALWAYS think their prospects are spectacular. Even when they're actually terrible.

Professional nhl scouts put a list together and ranked the leafs 20th in the league.
That supports my argument that the leafs still have mediocre prospects.
What exists to support the "improved prospects" argument?

 

[Disgruntled Observer*]

BUddy I have no problem with THN having Toronto at 20th with Kadri not on the list.

But how the hell does HF rank DET 10th while THN ranks them 21st and both include Smith and Nyquist.

I DON"T CARE WHERE THE LEAFS ARE RANKED.

The spot means nothing.

But when HF ranks individual players higher on the Leafs and then purt the other team ahead in the rankings, I have to go "What's going on here?"

When one team gets it's goaltending called a strength, and ours is called a weakness, and our Goalies out rank their individually. I ask "What's going on here?"

If the Leafs are really 20th then so be it. It is what it is. BUt not a chance in hell I am going to accept rankings that contradict themselves at every turn.


I can't trust either ranking system when they return such differing results.

Common sense would dictate that you should trust the list created by professional nhl scouts more than the other.

Do you really think that you know better than all those professional nhl scouts that worked on this together? Professional nhl scouts that have seen all of these players actually play? Professional nhl scouts that are paid very high salaries based on the fact that they are skilled at assessing hockey talent?

Without having even watched the vast majority of these players play... you still think you know better?
This is megalomania. Unacceptable behaviour.

 

[Morbo]

As stated earlier, I put a lot more stock in the Hockey News rankings because they are made by actual professional nhl scouts. (The hockey news rated the leafs 20th last year as well).


When someone says they like Burke because he's "improved our prospects", what exactly are they basing that on?
History has shown that leaf fans ALWAYS think their prospects are spectacular. Even when they're actually terrible.

Professional nhl scouts put a list together and ranked the leafs 20th in the league.
That supports my argument that the leafs still have mediocre prospects.
What exists to support the "improved prospects" argument?

Opinion, just like the ones you cite. Your problem is you are conflating opinion with fact due to your biases and falling victim to the appealing to authority argumentative fallacy.

I have shown you hard proof that your sources are not even close to reliable. If you'd like, I'm sure I can find more. THN and their professional scouts have published a lot of clownshoes crap over the years, like ranking Vesa Toskala (a guy who never proved he was a real NHL starter) a top 10 goalie in hockey for instance. How'd that turn out?

You believe those rankings because you want to believe them, simple as that. Accordingly, you also discard other rankings because they don't suit your argument -- let's not forget you were the one who brought up HFBoards as "saying a lot" by the way...I guess that doesn't apply if the ranking is good?

 

[charliolemieux]

Common sense would dictate that you should trust the list created by professional nhl scouts more than the other.

Do you really think that you know better than all those professional nhl scouts that worked on this together? Professional nhl scouts that have seen all of these players actually play? Professional nhl scouts that are paid very high salaries based on the fact that they are skilled at assessing hockey talent?

Without having even watched the vast majority of these players play... you still think you know better?
This is megalomania. Unacceptable behaviour.

So our prospects are really better than Detroits?

THN says they are.

I dare you to go post a thread on the Main boards that the HF ratings are BS and the Leafs have better prospects than Detroit.

I dare you.

 

[Disgruntled Observer*]

Opinion, just like the ones you cite. Your problem is you are conflating opinion with fact due to your biases and falling victim to the appealing to authority argumentative fallacy.

I have shown you hard proof that your sources are not even close to reliable. If you'd like, I'm sure I can find more. THN and their professional scouts have published a lot of clownshoes crap over the years, like ranking Vesa Toskala (a guy who never proved he was a real NHL starter) a top 10 goalie in hockey for instance. How'd that turn out?

You believe those rankings because you want to believe them, simple as that. Accordingly, you also discard other rankings because they don't suit your argument -- let's not forget you were the one who brought up HFBoards as "saying a lot" by the way...I guess that doesn't apply if the ranking is good?

My choice is to believe random leaf fans on an internet message board who haven't even seen most of the players play, or professional nhl scouts who are very well paid based on their skills at assessing nhl talent.
Professional nhl scouts are MUCH more reliable than random hockey fans on a message board.
Go ahead and look back to four years ago and read what leaf fans here were saying about our prospects. Those same fans that raved about our prospects then, now claim that it was an "empty cupboard" team and blame it for Burke's current troubles.
WAY more unreliable than professional nhl scouts.

You're quick to criticize professional nhl scouts (because they aren't telling you what you want to hear) yet you are unable to come up with even one better benchmark for how to assess our prospects.