henrik0080
Registered User
- Sep 23, 2004
- 84
- 0
MaDdY said:Better HAVE RASK OR POGGEMON in it
MaDdY said:Better HAVE RASK OR POGGEMON in it
Kevin Forbes said:I'm pretty sure between all the different legions of fans here on HFBoards, there are about 150 players who "BETTER BE ON IT "
jtuzzi said:Bourdon should crack the top 20 or 30. Not a chance for Kesler.
I find it funny (I realize it is still very early on) that we were having Richards vs. Kesler debates earlier this year.
"BETTER BE ON IT "
I'm not on the committee, but I assure you I will shed a tear and play a violin for every single prospect who "should" be on the list and isn't.Platapie said:Yes, but us Leaf fans can be very persuasive see.. wouldn't want to be sleeping with the fishies over a silly little list
Jaded-Fan said:Thugh I would expect him to be first on the list with the banner' best not in NHL' attached to his name pretty much everywhere.
Platapie said:I'm too lazy to check the guidelines, but wouldn't Mez/Emery be considered graduated and therefore not qualify for the new top 50?
King'sPawn said:I just want to thank the committee ahead of time for doing this. It's amazing how much work gets put into these articles that are just never appreciated enough.
Kevin Forbes said:OooOooOo
nice tactic, butter up the committee and hope for the best.
too bad, like all major projects at HF, the committee has all been flown to a top secret location in Sioux Lookout, Ontario where they will not have any outside influence, except for a daily bowl of Lucky Charms. They're magically delicious.
Platapie said:I'm too lazy to check the guidelines, but wouldn't Mez/Emery be considered graduated and therefore not qualify for the new top 50?
Epsilon said:They really ought to tighten up the eligibility requirements because there's noway guys like Ovechkin, Crosby, Vanek, Phaneuf, Meszaros, etc. that are clearly full-time NHLers should be eligible. Otherwise it will look stupid: a prospect list full of current NHL stars.
Kevin Forbes said:Everytime someone brings this up, I am forced to ask the same thing.
How would you change it?
We've changed the policy before, and we're more then willing to change it again, but it's a tightrope walk. We want to be inclusive and not ignoring players who spend time between the NHL and the minors. At the same time, we want to keep it somewhat restrictiv to not hold onto players who are NHLers or way too old to be considered prospects. It would take too much time to do "judgement calls" on each player on whether or not he is graduated. The picking of the number was important, because we figured that after the majority of a seasons worth on play, a player could be considered an NHLer.
For every guy you mentioned, there's guys like Sjostrom, Roy, Vermette, Kesler and Tyutin, all of whom saw some time in 2003-04, but probably wouldn't be fair to be classified as graduated until this year.
We're still searching for that magic number that works across the board, because that's really the only way to judge the players equally.
Any ideas would be greatly appreciated.