News Article: Corey Pronmans: "Farm system rankings" Habs at 6. -The Athletic

[Captain Mountain]

Corey ''Drouin 1st overall'' Pronman.

Didn't he also have Kotkaniemi higher than almost everybody else?

 

[Yoshidas Island]

It's all about how he translates. I think Pronman is talking about how he will translate - what he will become. If he's right - that would be pretty great.

Fair, might have just been my interpretation of it. Still doesn't seem to be keen on him. But like Captain Mountain said, usually scouts don't change too much year in year out on a prospect.

 

[Harry Kakalovich]

Fair, might have just been my interpretation of it. Still doesn't seem to be keen on him. But like Captain Mountain said, usually scouts don't change too much year in year out on a prospect.

I'm definitely excited by Brook's success - no matter what Pronman thinks

 

[WeThreeKings]

Pronman is no different than any one of us on here. So I don't really value his input all that much.

 

[G0bias]

Didn't he also have Kotkaniemi higher than almost everybody else?

Majority of the more credible sources had him top 5 from April-on.

 

[Captain Mountain]

Majority of the more credible sources had him top 5 from April-on.

I'm pretty sure Button and McKenzie were the only others to have him in the top-5.

2018 NHL Draft Rankings

https://www.tsn.ca/kotkaniemi-surges-into-top-five-of-tsn-draft-ranking-1.1115400

If you can point out other sources, I'd appreciate it.

 

[NotProkofievian]

Didn't he also have Kotkaniemi higher than almost everybody else?

I think he was 4th IIRC.

 

[Habs Halifax]

Pronman is no different than any one of us on here. So I don't really value his input all that much.

Agreed. I have seen many prospect rankings where there is bias (one way or another) time and time again. The one that I laughed at last year was the hockey writers one (guy who reports for the Leafs) had the Leafs ranked 9th still and the Habs and Sens near dead last. What a joke.

Poehling was ranked very bad 12 months ago by several people (including our own fan base). A kid who has played in the NCAA since he was 17 and had pt/game stats as a 18 year old. Come on man, give us a break. He's not McCarron

 

[G0bias]

I'm pretty sure Button and McKenzie were the only others to have him in the top-5.

2018 NHL Draft Rankings

https://www.tsn.ca/kotkaniemi-surges-into-top-five-of-tsn-draft-ranking-1.1115400

If you can point out other sources, I'd appreciate it.

Keep in mind McKenzie's is an aggregate of 10 NHL scouts and head scouts. So thats as good as it gets.

For some reason I thought Mark Edwards over at HP had him top 5, they had him 8th, still. These are really the only publications that are worth paying attention, imo. Then there's a few other teams scouts (AZ, Dallas) mentioned in the draft thread who shared the same opinion.

 

[HockeyDBspecialist]

Sam Cosentino

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

putting Kotka at 19th hahahahahha, Jesus dude what are you smoking

 

[Chili]

Future Watch usually comes out in the next two weeks.

I`ll add some détails to the thread below once I get my copy.

Taking a look back at 25 years worth of Habs prospect top 10 lists

 

[NotProkofievian]

Keep in mind McKenzie's is an aggregate of 10 NHL scouts and head scouts. So thats as good as it gets.

For some reason I thought Mark Edwards over at HP had him top 5, they had him 8th, still. These are really the only publications that really matter imo. Then there's a handful of other scouts mentioned in the draft thread who shared the same opinion.

I really like Mark Edwards' stuff, although his list is a little bit funny. MacKenzie's list is really an aggregate, so all names are present. There are no no drafts and the top 31 is meant to be almost like a first round (even though he says he's not predicting where the guys are going to go). Whereas Mark's is more like a team list. He has his guys and his NDs and the top 31 is meant to be more like a wishlist for the first two rounds.

Mac's list has one big problem, from an analytical point of view: no NDs. Half the guys are doomed but they are certainly listed. The list has almost no chance of being correct, therefore, outside of a draft like 2003.

 

[MXD]

My guess is youre not as educated on prospects overall. Its fine, its all doom and gloom in habs land, we get it.

He Doesn't sound like someone educated in general.

 

[WinterLion]

Brook becoming a top 4 D would be a great thing, let's be real. Of course we want him to become more than that... but I think him settling at a #4 is a pretty good guess at this point... and I am really high on him! I hope he does better, but that would be spectacular!

 

[Habs Halifax]

Kotka may become a good player. But a great one? Doubt it. Also I don't value pronman at all. He was awful with his takes on ESPN and I dont think anything has changed since coming to the athletic.

I definitely think corey adjusted his rankings to sell to the Montreal audience. One draft doesnt sky rocket a bottom quarter teams system into the top 6 (also consider only one pick in the first round). Especially one that has been absolutely brutal at drafting an developing top players in the nhl for over a decade. The only players the habs drafted that have been worth a darn are Gallagher and galchenyuk and we all know how chuckys development was destroyed. So yah we need to see much more development from this draft class to see where the habs actually fit. Our past work has been abysmal.

Bottom quarter last year is the problem I have. We were middle of the pack, not bottom quarter. But hey... isn't this a wild guess and the answers vary depending on who you ask? I think it's easy to come up with the top 10 rankings vs the 10-31 rankings. Once you get past the top 10, it's watered down so much that nobody can predict it accurately.

I have the same problem with last years rankings (provided by the hockey writers and a research done by a guy who reports for the Leafs typically) as you do with this latest ranking provided by Pronman who has us ranked 6th. Why do you believe last years rankings by some reporter and you don't believe this years rankings by some reporter? Seems very weird to me why you believe one ranking but not the other?

If you disagree with the 6th best ranking, put your money where your mouth is. Show us how you are never wrong and provide us teams that have better prospects vs Kotkaniemi, Poehling, Brook, Romanov, Suzuki, Primeau, Fleury, Ylonen, Ikonen, Olofsson, Evans, etc? Rules are any prospect who has no played a full season yet.

Show us 10 teams that have better players than I mentioned to you above? Bet you can't

 

[G0bias]

I really like Mark Edwards' stuff, although his list is a little bit funny. MacKenzie's list is really an aggregate, so all names are present. There are no no drafts and the top 31 is meant to be almost like a first round (even though he says he's not predicting where the guys are going to go). Whereas Mark's is more like a team list. He has his guys and his NDs and the top 31 is meant to be more like a wishlist for the first two rounds.

Mac's list has one big problem, from an analytical point of view: no NDs. Half the guys are doomed but they are certainly listed. The list has almost no chance of being correct, therefore, outside of a draft like 2003.

You're definitely getting more of an opinion piece behind Edwards rankings, a big reason I enjoyed last year's Black Book. BMac's lists are worth keeping an eye out in that as far as getting a general sense of what the league is looking at, regardless if they're correct or not, it's as close as you'll get.

 

[cphabs]

Huge progress in this pool. Habs taking top 6 has moved them up 20-something spots year-on-year. Taking a look at the top players under 23 for the Habs is also quite encouraging.

One thing I think we should note as Habs fans is how much we seem to underrate Ikonen compared to guys like Pronman and Mitch Brown, who actually scout these guys and both think he is among the best prospects on the Habs. Really looking forward to seeing how he does this year.

I think Ikonen is injured again.

 

[cphabs]

Yeah it is your last 3-4 drafts, Im not saying I didnt expect improvement but they were like late 20's last year werent they? I just dont see how 1 draft moves the needle that far when outside of the high end prospect most other teams added similar prospects.

What teams? Our prospects destroyed this year in the WJC and home clubs. Our 18 year old rookie is already playing an extremely well ballenced game and tied an nhl record for consecutive goals by an 18 year old. Looks good!

 

[BehindTheTimes]

Juulsen is intriguing because his skills are evident and he can be quite assertive once he passes the blue line, he's even showed some good offense in the NHL, but ultimately, he didn't produce. I just can't see how Juulsen doesn't produce, he's got literally every thing you want in a defender to produce offense, his ability to walk the line offensively and his shot alone should be good to make him a 30ish points D, kinda like Petry is.

I guess rushing him around doesn't help, and him being more focused on the defensive side too.

IMO, he's the toolsiest defender in our pool, Mete included, with Tyszka, but the two seem to lack a certain something, maybe its just mindset, maybe its IQ.

To me Juulsen is and has always been a fringe prospect. Can play in the top 6, but he's nothing special, if he's in your top 4 it's because your D sucks. Always preferred Mete.

 

[HABitual Fan]

Bottom quarter last year is the problem I have. We were middle of the pack, not bottom quarter. But hey... isn't this a wild guess and the answers vary depending on who you ask? I think it's easy to come up with the top 10 rankings vs the 10-31 rankings. Once you get past the top 10, it's watered down so much that nobody can predict it accurately.

I have the same problem with last years rankings (provided by the hockey writers and a research done by a guy who reports for the Leafs typically) as you do with this latest ranking provided by Pronman who has us ranked 6th. Why do you believe last years rankings by some reporter and you don't believe this years rankings by some reporter? Seems very weird to me why you believe one ranking but not the other?

If you disagree with the 6th best ranking, put your money where your mouth is. Show us how you are never wrong and provide us teams that have better prospects vs Kotkaniemi, Poehling, Brook, Romanov, Suzuki, Primeau, Fleury, Ylonen, Ikonen, Olofsson, Evans, etc? Rules are any prospect who has no played a full season yet.

Show us 10 teams that have better players than I mentioned to you above? Bet you can't

The nice part of the situation is that with the exception of KK almost none of the prospects will graduate, so we will have the guys that were 6th in his ranking plus the 2019 draft class. Teams ranked higher graduated their top guys and should drop in the rankings accordingly.

 

[TT1]

To me Juulsen is and has always been a fringe prospect. Can play in the top 6, but he's nothing special, if he's in your top 4 it's because your D sucks. Always preferred Mete.

Yea I never got the fascination our board has w/ Juulsen.

 

[Perrah]

What teams? Our prospects destroyed this year in the WJC and home clubs. Our 18 year old rookie is already playing an extremely well ballenced game and tied an nhl record for consecutive goals by an 18 year old. Looks good!

Did you know all of that in August when I made that post?

 

[ZUKI]

To me Juulsen is and has always been a fringe prospect. Can play in the top 6, but he's nothing special, if he's in your top 4 it's because your D sucks. Always preferred Mete.

If you are comparing Juulsen with Mete , it shows me that you don't understand that a team needs different kind of d-men to be effective and good .
Juulsen isn't flashy or good offensively but that doesn't mean that he isn't a good player

 

[BehindTheTimes]

If you are comparing Juulsen with Mete , it shows me that you don't understand that a team needs different kind of d-men to be effective and good .
Juulsen isn't flashy or good offensively but that doesn't mean that he isn't a good player

I am pretty sure I understand everything just fine. Juulsen will struggle to have an impact at the NHL level and mete won't. Nowhere did I compare their skillsets.

Juulsen doesn't have enough offensive skills to be in the top 4 and defensively he is full of holes too. He was getting walked once or twice every game. He may improve to be a bottom 6 guy, but that's his ceiling IMO. Mete is just has a much bigger positive outcome on the game regardless of the differences in skill sets and no team needs a dman that is an offensive black hole and poor defensively.

 

[nhlfan9191]

ah i didn't know he wrote for the bloody athletic too! lol.

I'm sure it's great and I'm sure it's worth it and it's probably not that expensive but there's just something
galling about paying for hockey journalism.

This is my take too. I don’t know how many times i’ve accidentally clicked on a link on twitter, Facebook, etc only to find out it was the Athletic asking for a subscription. It annoys me a little bit. I’m sure there are good reads and for some people it’s worth it. But with all the things you can read on the internet about sports at no cost, I wouldn’t give them a dime.