HF's Spring 2005 Organizational Rankings 1-15

[Barnaby]

I have to agree with Enoch, they have a nice group of prospects... but they should be in that 8-10 area IMHO

 

[mercury]

Ryan Potulny? You mean Flyers prospect extraordinaire and facebook friend of mercury? Awesome guy. . .

 

[Sam]

I like the Kings slighty over Edmonton on Forward and Defense, just slightly, but having JDD and DD is a huge advantage over anything the Kings have in the Nets IMO, they seem about equal.

I greatly prefer the Kings forward prospects to that of the Oilers. Compare Brown, Cammalleri, Tambellini, Tukonen, Lehoux, Boyle, Kanko, Pushkarev vs Schremp, Pouliot, Winchester, Jacques, McDonald, Rita, Jacques, Niinimaki. No real contest, IMO.

Valuewise, comparing the Kings top 10 to the Oilers top 10 (while matching them up as best as possible), I'd (roughly and IMO somewhat generously in a couple cases) rank them as
Brown >/>> Schremp
Cammalleri = Pouliot
Gleason >/>> Greene
Grebeshkov >/>> Woywitka
Tukonen = Dubnyk
Tambellini = Deslauriers
Lehoux = Lynch
Boyle = Winchester
Kanko = McDonald
Pushkarev = Jacques

The only real argument I see is balance, with goaltending being the Kings' Achilles heel.

 

[King'sPawn]

The only real argument I see is balance, with goaltending being the Kings' Achilles heel.

That's fair. I'm pleasantly surprised the Kings are ranked that high. They don't have a "safe" Center prospect, and almost no goaltending worth talking about. I hope the Kings use their depth on the wings to address their need with goaltending.

 

[Patty Ice]

I still not sure how the Sharks go down one spot from last year after looking at a few of the teams ranked ahead of them.

Anyone have an explanation?

 

[Douggy]

I think the Panthers are too low and the Wild are too high.

 

[DARKSIDE]

Pittsburgh and Washington, boy, those troubled franchises can really use Sid.

 

[Roger's Pancreas*]

I'd like to hear that. You rank a team by its depth at every position. The only need the Canadiens have is an offensive defenseman. Everything else is set. Skilled forwards, defensive defensemen, defensive forwards, goaltenders, leadership, gritty players...

I guess that's what did in the Flyers because they have some very quality prospects but don't have alot of depth. When David Print is in your top twenty you know there's a problem.

 

[Roger's Pancreas*]

Pittsburgh and Washington, boy, those troubled franchises can really use Sid.

Yea no kidding. There's no telling how well they could have played this year but I can guarantee you they wouldn't be in the bottom three.

 

[tom_servo]

Yea no kidding. There's no telling how well they could have played this year but I can guarantee you they wouldn't be in the bottom three.

Oh, yeah right. Washington, if not Pittsburgh, would've placed around there for sure. Have you seen their NHL roster? Prospects don't make a difference that quickly.

 

[tom_servo]

Pittsburgh and Washington, boy, those troubled franchises can really use Sid.

Yeah, they're both just overflowing with proven talent.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

I guess that's what did in the Flyers because they have some very quality prospects but don't have alot of depth. When David Print is in your top twenty you know there's a problem.

Depth among prospects is a bit overrated. They key is the top 3-5 players.

Flyers have very good depth in goal, great depth at center. Lack depth on the wing (some centers will be moved there), have more on defense than omst realize.

 

[Kirk- NEHJ]

You guys really should put some thought into trying to get the NHL or at least the AHL teams' GMs or Assistant GMs to weigh in on your lists.

You might be surprised what the teams think...

 

[The Maltais Falcon]

I'll take the Flyers grouping over Atlanta ...

I wouldn't - and definitely not when you take Pitkanen out of the equation as the writers here seemed to have done. I'd take Kari Lehtonen alone over Carter and Richards together. Once you get past that, I think Coburn, Slater, Valabik and the rest of Atlanta's prospects trump Umberger, Ruzicka, Seidenberg, and the rest of Philly's. If you include Pitkanen in the mix, then things maybe tilt back in Philly's favor.

 

[ktownhockey]

Yeah right...

Vanek=Kostitsyn(down the road)
Roy<Higgins(Higgins will be the best player of these two but Roy will be good)
Paille<Chipchura(Paille offense in the NHL will not be very good)
Stafford<=Perezhogin(hard to say with these two...different type of player but right now, Perezhogin is the best player)

Bottom line, Montreal's foward are better...But I have to admit that you have the edge in front of the net...

I think Roy will be more of an impact player than Higgins, however they both have a chance to be stars in the NHL... I just feel people are lower on Roy because of his size.. but at every level he's brought it.. I think alot of people will disagree but he's a Peter Forsberg type player... maybe not as good defensively and 10 points behind him as his cieling. Higgins is very good.. but an ordinary safer prospect....

I also think Stafford will be much better than Perezhogin

 

[Seph]

Yeah, they're both just overflowing with proven talent.

Sid will change that?

 

[Chimaera]

As a Caps fan, I'll once again say what I said last year. It's nice to read, but I'm not sure I will ever buy it.

The Caps have a lot of quality prospects, but until they pan out, that ranking really means squat.


I guess the Caps would still be close to the top without Semin/Morrisonn/Eminger all three who shouldn't really be still considered prospects.

However, I think I buy into the 3-4 blue chippers > a bunch of 3rd-4th liners who'll get a cup of coffee but have no real impact theory.

Under that standing, I'm not so sure the Caps are the clear number 1.

Though they still have a clear deficiency in two areas. One, is a top of the line centerman down the middle. Klepis is a good number two down the road, but need a number one. (Crosby/Brule *drool*) And two, more physicality in general, though more so on the defensive end. They do have a lot of young defensemen way down in the system, but adding some large bodies would be an idea. However, I'm worried that McPhee is building talent in the pipes for a more open hockey, whenever it does return. For what it's worth, he's added a lot of puck moving, mobile defensemen, and not a lot of the old school stay at home defensemen.

 

[Jeffrey]

I think Roy will be more of an impact player than Higgins, however they both have a chance to be stars in the NHL... I just feel people are lower on Roy because of his size.. but at every level he's brought it.. I think alot of people will disagree but he's a Peter Forsberg type player... maybe not as good defensively and 10 points behind him as his cieling. Higgins is very good.. but an ordinary safer prospect....

I also think Stafford will be much better than Perezhogin

Perezhogin is clearly IMO the best habs prospect and I see no reason why he should not play with the habs next year.. IMO people underrate him because he did not play in the AHL this year ...

as for Higgins vs Roy .. It's a wash ...

 

[417]

I can understand, and actually expected, people disagreeing with the Habs at #4...but if you look at it carefully, it's very pheasable...

I myself, wouldn't put the Habs any higher than 4th and I wouldn't put them any lower than 8th...also, I wouldn't disagree with the Habs swapping positions with Nashville, with those 2 teams it comes down to, depth among forwards for Montreal vs. depth among defensmen for Nashville, it's pretty even if you look at it that way, but Montreal gets the edge because of better depth among their goalies...

Anyways, like I said, I could understand the Habs and Preds swapping postitions, but I don't think the Oilers (#6), Rangers (#7) or the Kings (#8) have a better group of prospects than Montreal...

Another reason for Montreal's high ranking IMO, must also be because they have a group of 5 forwards who could rival any other teams top 5 forwards among prospects, Perezhogin, Kostitsyn, Higgins, Plekanec and Chipchura...say what you want about them, but are 5 quality prospects who have high potentials for their roles, it's a good blend of scoring, passing, 2 way play, size, speed, leadership...and I don't think anyone can say the contrary...

Anyways, good list and good work, you can't please everyone in these kinds of lists, but I think everyone's going overboard talking about Montreal's ranking, I personally feel teams like Columbus, Philly, Kings were all dealt short straws, when teams such as Rangers and Oilers, might have been ranked too high...nevertheless, good list again

 

[tom_servo]

Sid will change that?

Not necessarily.

 

[MePutPuckInNet]

I have a question regarding the listing of each team's "Top Prospects" on the rankings - Are they listed in order? As in....number 1 - whatever? And if so, then I have to assume it's a collective decision, but a collective decision by whom?

I'm just asking....not a complaint

 

[Seph]

Not necessarily.

I think his original point remains then.

 

[tom_servo]

I think his original point remains then.

If his point was that a strong prospect pool automatically offsets a feeble NHL roster, then I strongly disagree.

 

[Guy Flaming]

I have a question regarding the listing of each team's "Top Prospects" on the rankings - Are they listed in order? As in....number 1 - whatever? And if so, then I have to assume it's a collective decision, but a collective decision by whom?

I'm just asking....not a complaint

from the last and most recent top 20 on each team page.

 

[Seph]

If his point was that a strong prospect pool automatically offsets a feeble NHL roster, then I strongly disagree.

If all you're saying is that a strong prospect pool doesn't automatically equate future success, I agree with you.

But I do think it is somewhat contradictory to on one hand say "we deserve the best prospect because we're the weakest team and need help to get better," but on the other hand say, "though we have the best prospects, that won't necessarily help because they're not proven players."