Alright.
For the sake of the argument I will use the three teams mentioned, though I couldve done much more.
To remain objective, Ill use boards lists of prospect (Most are top 25.)
You give the Habs a C+ rankings because "They lack depth" and they "only" have Kotkaniemi and Suzuki.
Bruins
https://hfboards.mandatory.com/threads/final-hf-bruins-top-25-prospect-list-for-discussion.2537497/\
Detroit
Who's our 22nd best prospect?
Montreal
Habs top prospect? #36, 37 & 38
I will also keep the comparison as close as possible, positionally and age wise.
Can we assume that:
Kotkaniemi = Zadina > Donato
Suzuki = Rasmussen > Vakanainen
I dont think its an unreasonable thing to say, minor differences aside.
This would mostly mean that:
Montreal=Detroit > Boston
Can we assume that
Poehling = Frederic = Veleno
Statistically, upside wise, positionally, etc, they're all similar players.
I dont think its an unreasonable thing to say, minor differences aside.
This would mean that
Montreal=Detroit > Boston
Can we assume that
Svechnikov=Forsbacka-Karlsson>=Ylonen
Statistically, they are all very similar, stylistically, positionaly, and stastically. I can understand that Ylonen might be further back in developement, which explains his slightly worst ranking here.
Still, I dont think it is unreasonable to say that the impact of Ylonen compared to FK and Svechnikov does not constitute a large enough gap to make a difference between the Boston and Montreal, and thus, the rankings should stay the same.
This would mean that
Detroit => Montreal > Boston.
Can we assume that
Juulsen = Cholowski > Zboril
Both Cholowski and Juulsen seem NHL ready here, and both should be top four Dmen in the future, with Juulsen being better defensively and Cholowski being better offensively. Zboril seems to be lacking behind, while being the oldest of the trio, and was most likely never as talented as the other two. You might think that statistically, its closer between Zboril and Juulsen (If you dont account for injuries and strength of teams.), but using the same logic for Ylonen above, its fair to say Juulsen is ahead.
This would mean that
Detroit => Montreal > Boston
Can we assume that Hronek => Brooks > Lauzon
Hronek is ahead of Brook because he is older, using the same logic weve used, Lauzon is the worst statistically, and in upside. Hronek and Brook both project as top four defenders, or more, while Lauzon looks to be a fringe NHL player, unless his development picks up.
I think its safe to say that this now means:
Detroit>Montreal>Boston
Can we assume that Berggren > Studnicka > Olofsson
All forwards with relatively different values and strengths, Olofsson lacks behind both in talent and development years, here.
Detroit > Montreal > Boston, but the gap between Detroit montreal, is getting bigger and Boston is catching up.
Can we assume that Senyshyn > Evans > Smith
All relatively low upside forwards, Senyshyn has a chance at being more, but less certainty attributed to him, Evans is further along in development and probably gets a few call-up after his injury has healed, Smith is the least ready and should look to match Senyshyns low, but not bad numbers in his AHL rookie season.
Detroit > Montreal >= Boston
Cehlarik > Turgeon > Ikonen
Three offensively gifted players, three higher upside players, with the prior two being closer to NHL ready than Ikonen, and safer shots at the NHL.
Id say Cehlarik moves the needle a lot more than the three others here
Detroit > Montreal = Boston
Primeau > Larsson > Swayman (Using the top 20 of goalies, and my opinion.)
Primeau is just, so far, a much better goalie, but Id say they are all pretty long shot at being NHL goaltenders, moves the needle a bit, but not much.
Detroit > Montreal > Boston
Hillis > Lauko > Kivenmaki
Id say Hillis and Lauko are significantly ahead of Kivenmaki here, one being a really low pick and the other two being top 80 players, all relatively young with Lauko and Hillis having legit top six upside here. Both MTL and BOS move closer to DET, but the distance stays the same.
Detroit > Montreal > Boston.
Fitzgerald > Holmstrom = Fonstad (In my opinion, Fonstad is far ahead, but lets play the game.)
Fitzgerald is ahead in age but also in readiness and has better stats, Fonstad has the highest upside but is also the youngest.
Detroit > Montreal > Boston
Romanov = McIsaac = Andersson
The defenders coming out of the 2nd round ! Too early to judge anyone here, theyre all similar value, with minor differences. Romanov has made the CSKA which adds some major, major props to his resume.
Lindstrom > Fleury > Johansson
Another round of defenders here, Lindstrom and Fleury both have better upside and more talent, but Johansson has more experience, wouldnt say the difference is huge between the three, but it is significant enough.
Detroit > Montreal > Boston
McShane > Steen > Pearson
Long term projects, McShane and Steen hold considerably more potential than Pearson, who doesnt seem to progress at the speed of a NHL player. The needle doesnt move much, slight difference.
Detroit > Montreal > Boston
Lindgren > Petruzzeli > Keyser
Lindgren is good enough to start in the AHL, and most likely will get starts in the NHL, hes much further along in his development, being five years older than the other two. His potential is that of a journeyman 1G, Petruzzeli has good potential. Moves the needle slightly again, but not much.
Id say that after that, were starting to reach. Theres a pretty clear disconnect between where Detroit/Montreal are and where you rank Boston.
The failure here, that I think you did, was to not recognize Juulsen and Brook's talent. Not even mentioning a guy like Brook, who was one the best player in all of the camp of the Habs, is weird.
You basically ranked the team with the 2nd most picks in the last two years as the worst of the Atlantic, while Suzuki would rank comfortably at #2 on any list of top prospects for the Atlantic, and while they'd rank #2 for top 3, and most likely number two for top five too. You underrate Brook and Juulsen, and thats the biggest problem.
You cite McIsaac as strength for Detroit, but fail to recognize Brook as a strength for Montreal, why ?
You also seem to be really, really (Read way too) high on NHL readiness. The Leafs and Lighting here. You've ranked Grundstrom and Jonsson as 1 and 2, while their upside is very limited, and you've given the Lighting a B rating while they have no one that projects as more than a third liner on offense and no one that projects as more than a 2nd pairing D.
