HF's Spring 2005 Organizational Rankings 1-15

[Sam]

A couple of those I don't agree with...

Gleason >/>> Greene. Only offensively. Defensively Greene has a lot on Gleason. I have them about even, with Gleason putting up better offensive numbers, but Greene seeing a lot more PK time, and crucial time.

You're going off of Gleason's OHL scouting report and not what he has done as a professional. Gleason made the Kings as a defensive defenseman and has excelled in that role as a professional. I take the sure thing with a higher potential over a maybe anyday. FYI, Gleason's generally viewed as the Kings second best prospect, behind Brown, by Kings fans.

Tukonen = Dubnyk. I don't see how. Dubnyk had a great season on a bad team that gave up alot of power plays. Tukonen fell behind his pace from last year (granted, the NHLers played a role in that). Goaltending is also the most important position on the ice.

Uh, you might want to check your stats again. Tukonen's pace has risen, just not as fast as expected (5 goals and 5 assists in 43 games in 2004-05 compared with 3 goals and 3 assists in 35 games in 2003-04, an increase of 35.66%). Not that the poll board is the end-all-be-all, but this poll lists Tukonen as the 38th best player from the 2001-2004 drafts. Dubnyk is nowhere to be found (the poll is currently at #43, lists 12 options, and then another 20 options to consider adding).

Lehoux = Lynch. Lehoux projects to be a 3rd/4th liner (based on his AHL scoring). Lynch was an AHL allstar his rookie year when he was healthy, and struggled this past season with a wrist injury. Potential wise, Lynch still looks to be a #4 defencemen, which puts him ahead of Lehoux.

Huh? Lehoux had 54 points in 38 games, good for the second-best PPG in the AHL. If Lehoux makes it to the NHL, he makes it as a high scoring top six forward. Potential wise, Lehoux would be graded much higher than Lynch. When McKeens did their top 100 skaters list, Lehoux was #76 while Lynch was #92.

Pushkarev = Jacques. Jacques game is tailor-made for the NHL. Big guy who loves to hit and can skate incredibly well. Pushkarev struggled a bit as an older player in the WHL. Jacques looks to be anywhere from a 2nd liner to a 4th liner, whereas Pushkarev doesn't have that same diversity to his game. He's either got to be a top 6 player, or he won't be in the NHL at all. Jacques gets the nod.

I'm not very high on Pushkarev so I'd agree here. But other people seem to like Pushkarev. Again, not that I think too highly of polls, but Pushkarev was seen as the 41st best player while re-doing the 2003 draft, and Jacques has not yet been mentioned as an option, which is at pick 55 (though, generally, these polls tend to favor more skilled players).

 

[MontrealSF]

Seems hard for people to understand that this isn't a Top 5 Org Ranking but rather an Overall Org ranking...

 

[KingPurpleDinosaur]

Pushkarev struggled a bit as an older player in the WHL.

i wasn't aware pushkarev was ever labelled as "struggling" in the WHL. always thought 52 points for 69 games was fairly decent for a 1st year russian rookie.

http://www.whl.ca/stats/player.php?id=24195

http://www.whl.ca/thisweek/?id=2950&showToc=1

WHL KEY PLAYOFF PERFORMERS
Konstantin Pushkarev, Calgary Hitmen - Pushkarev has tallied one goal and five points in his last four outings, helping the Hitmen take a 3-1 lead over the Wheat Kings in their second-round match-up. He currently ranks second among WHL rookies in playoff scoring. Click here for rookie scoring leaders.

 

[Kings16]

The Oilers have a little bit more balance throughout, plus the goaltending edge, which is the most important position on the ice.

Goaltending IS the most important position ... but as things tend to work out in the NHL ... not the most important position to have as prospects.

Since '94 almost every 1st round goalie picked has been a bust for whatever reason (Storr, Blackburn, Finley, Chouinard, Desraussier, JF Damphous, Hillier, Fichaud, Ryabchikov). Really only Luongo & Denis (debatable Biron & Noronen) have proven themselves as successful 1st round picks. Not a great track record 10 years of drafting.

I say draft the forwards + def and spend your money on a good free agent goalie like teams did with Cujo, Hasek, Belfour. Don't bother drafting them.

 

[FlyerFire]

let me preface by saying

I am a FLYERS fanatic,but I believe we are all going a little too far with this.I think Chimerea(sp) said it best that prospect don't have much value until they "pan out".I am very happy with the FLYERS prospects, but to go and say they are better than MON,CHI, or anybody is tough to substantiate.Sure on paper, maybe they are but paper is just that.This is just my opinion though of course.

 

[King'sPawn]

A couple of those I don't agree with...

Gleason >/>> Greene. Only offensively. Defensively Greene has a lot on Gleason. I have them about even, with Gleason putting up better offensive numbers, but Greene seeing a lot more PK time, and crucial time.

As Sam said, Gleason isn't the offensive defenseman you're making him out to be. Dave Taylor and co. wanted to pull the reigns on him a bit because he would pinch in indiscriminately and then get too caught up in the play. He has excellent speed, so they're hoping to use that as an asset to improve his defensive positioning.

And Gleason, in my opinion, is fighting with Brown as the Kings best prospect.

Tukonen = Dubnyk. I don't see how. Dubnyk had a great season on a bad team that gave up alot of power plays. Tukonen fell behind his pace from last year (granted, the NHLers played a role in that). Goaltending is also the most important position on the ice.

And Tukonen had an unimpressive season on a bad team. He improved his pace a little, in spite of having more NHLers on the ice. I, too, was disappointed with his season, but it's not like Dubnyk was the only one to have things tough.

Lehoux = Lynch. Lehoux projects to be a 3rd/4th liner (based on his AHL scoring). Lynch was an AHL allstar his rookie year when he was healthy, and struggled this past season with a wrist injury. Potential wise, Lynch still looks to be a #4 defencemen, which puts him ahead of Lehoux.

Lehoux was projected as a 3rd/4th liner because of his unimpressive seasons before. I'm still not sold on him, but he was maintaining a 25% shooting percentage in 39 games, scoring 54 points in that span. His breakout season was cut short due to an injury.

Pushkarev = Jacques. Jacques game is tailor-made for the NHL. Big guy who loves to hit and can skate incredibly well. Pushkarev struggled a bit as an older player in the WHL. Jacques looks to be anywhere from a 2nd liner to a 4th liner, whereas Pushkarev doesn't have that same diversity to his game. He's either got to be a top 6 player, or he won't be in the NHL at all. Jacques gets the nod.

I was hoping more from Pushkarev as well, but the coaches saw enough skill in him to put him on the top line with Getzlaf and Ladd after his first game or two; this was when he couldn't really speak English. He's also the only one to match Ovechkin in goal scoring during the WJCs. You're right that he's either a top-6er or nothing at all, but he asserted himself on the top line of a WHL playoff team and led that team in scoring in the regular season (though in all honesty, Getzlaf would have led if he played as many games).

The Oilers have a little bit more balance throughout, plus the goaltending edge, which is the most important position on the ice.

I'm not saying you're wrong with your rankings. I was just clearing up what looked like misconceptions you had on some of the Kings prospects. And I'll say again, I was surprised at how high the Kings were ranked.

 

[Aaron Vickers]

I was hoping more from Pushkarev as well, but the coaches saw enough skill in him to put him on the top line with Getzlaf and Ladd after his first game or two; this was when he couldn't really speak English.

Pushkarev played the majority of the season on the second line. The first line for the Calgary Hitmen consisted of Getzlaf, Ladd and Shaun Landolt, a prospect for the Toronto Maple Leafs.

 

[Seph]

That is essentially all I'm saying. He sarcastically refers to the Pens and Caps as troubled, as if they're not troubled. Existing prospect pools aside, if the worst teams in the league don't deserve the top picks in the draft, then who does? [hypothetically, in this year's case]

If I understand you correctly, you're saying it's contradictory to reappraise the value of unproven prospects as it would suit the argument. I would agree. But for the sake of argument, I don't think those two assertions are necessarily contradictory. In fact, aren't they both true?

"Weak teams deserve the best prospects, even though those prospects won't necessarily help because they're not proven players." It makes perfect sense, really. Weak teams only ask for a chance at future success, and that's what they get in the draft.

As the general basis of the draft, I think it works well. However, without a season and no way to accurately gauge which teams are still the worst and best, I don't think it can be so readily applied. Personally, I don't like the idea of teams being rewarded on top of what they already have been for their bad seasons, but that's opinion.

Mostly though, I just don't like hearing fans of previously bad teams talk about how they need the top pick more than other teams. If getting a prospect is going to help teams so much, wouldn't it mean then that the teams with the worst prospects should get first shot? And if a strong prospect pool doesn't insure future success, why would they be opposed to just having a crapshoot with the draft?

Of course, I know all this begins and ends with one word (crosby). I just think a lot of the reasoning some people are bandying about is faulty.

 

[DARKSIDE]

As the general basis of the draft, I think it works well. However, without a season and no way to accurately gauge which teams are still the worst and best, I don't think it can be so readily applied. Personally, I don't like the idea of teams being rewarded on top of what they already have been for their bad seasons, but that's opinion.

Mostly though, I just don't like hearing fans of previously bad teams talk about how they need the top pick more than other teams. If getting a prospect is going to help teams so much, wouldn't it mean then that the teams with the worst prospects should get first shot? And if a strong prospect pool doesn't insure future success, why would they be opposed to just having a crapshoot with the draft?

Of course, I know all this begins and ends with one word (crosby). I just think a lot of the reasoning some people are bandying about is faulty.

To determine the next draft, it has been suggested using prior records from 4 years ago, prior number one picks, team salary, and cup winners, why not the ratings of each teams organization prospect pool. I think it would be as fair as any of the other ideas. At the very least, include it as one of the aspects to determine draft positioning.

 

[Kevin Forbes]

another thing you all have to realise is how close these teams are.
Just like last season, a change in one committee members voting by two or three places could of resulted in a widely different list.
Also comparing last year to this year straight up isn't apples to apples. Like Atlanta was 14th and last year they were 8th, does that mean Atlanta's prospect pool regressed? Possibly, but at the same time, it's also a reflection of the six other teams that are ahead of Atlanta and weren't before. The whole landscape is very fluid and so an improvement of one team could mean a drop of another without that second team doing anything wrong so to speak.

 

[Barnaby]

To determine the next draft, it has been suggested using prior records from 4 years ago, prior number one picks, team salary, and cup winners, why not the ratings of each teams organization prospect pool. I think it would be as fair as any of the other ideas. At the very least, include it as one of the aspects to determine draft positioning.

LoL, thats the most ridiculous idea I've heard yet...

1. Detroit
2. Colorado
3. Dallas
4. TB

This will be GREAT for competative balance!!

 

[ObeySteve]

I'm far from an expert on anything prospect-related, but...

Why is such an emphasis placed on "depth"? Depth implies that they are players at their position who are less-than-spectacular with less promise than top, key prospects.

While depth is important at the top level itself, why should it be for talking about prospect depth? The number of players who can be included under the "depth" label who will ever have ANY impact on the pro level is extremely minimal.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

Goaltending IS the most important position ... but as things tend to work out in the NHL ... not the most important position to have as prospects.

Since '94 almost every 1st round goalie picked has been a bust for whatever reason (Storr, Blackburn, Finley, Chouinard, Desraussier, JF Damphous, Hillier, Fichaud, Ryabchikov). Really only Luongo & Denis (debatable Biron & Noronen) have proven themselves as successful 1st round picks. Not a great track record 10 years of drafting.

I say draft the forwards + def and spend your money on a good free agent goalie like teams did with Cujo, Hasek, Belfour. Don't bother drafting them.

How can you say Blackburn was a bust? He had a freak injury.

Anyone who can honestly label a player who's career was ended by an injury a bust is pretty weird or whatnot.

 

[DARKSIDE]

LoL, thats the most ridiculous idea I've heard yet...

1. Detroit
2. Colorado
3. Dallas
4. TB

This will be GREAT for competative balance!!

That's your opinion. I don't believe it's anymore ridiculous then using 4 years of prior records or any of the other lame suggestions. You got a better idea genius, well, spit it out. You know what they should do, 30 teams, 30 balls for a non played season, Crosby or no Crosby!

 

[Hunter Gathers]

That's your opinion. I don't believe it's anymore ridiculous then using 4 years of prior records or any of the other lame suggestions. You got a better idea genius, well, spit it out. You know what they should do, 30 teams, 30 balls for a non played season, Crosby or no Crosby!

Yes because a team like New Jersey or Detroit really, really is hurting for a player as good as Crosby.

 

[DARKSIDE]

Yes because a team like New Jersey or Detroit really, really is hurting for a player as good as Crosby.

This isn't about Crosby, it's about what's fair. And discussing this with a Ranger fan and Flyer fan who's respective teams are a big part of the problem that caused this mess, is pretty funny. But hey Rangers fan, at least Philly made the playoffs with a $70 million dollar payroll. As for your team, $80 million spent and no playoffs, the NHL should be taking picks away from the Rangers instead of giving them.

 

[SmokeyClause]

Under THN's methodology Pitkanen counts, becuase they go strictly on age, which IMO is the fairest way to go.

I'd like to see HF boards work with NHL/AHL/ECHL waiver rules. If you don't have to pass through waivers to be sent down to the minors, then I don't see why you can't be a prospect (with some exceptions). Chistov is one of the best examples of this. As is Martin Erat. Both were sent down after disappointing sophomore starts. I think they should still have been considered prospects during their AHL stints.

HF could work with the current/future waiver rules and make up a hybrid system. Right now players like Tootoo are not considered prospects. But they could easily be sent down to the AHL if they struggle next year. That, in my mind, makes them prospects.

I think this would also give a truer example of 'hockeys future'. Players like Patrice Bergeron are the epitome of 'hockeys future', yet they cannot be included.

 

[clefty]

How can you say Blackburn was a bust? He had a freak injury.

Anyone who can honestly label a player who's career was ended by an injury a bust is pretty weird or whatnot.

I don't see much of a problem. The 'bust' label gets tagged on any highly regarded player who doesn't live up to their billing for any reason.

I mean, people don't have a problem calling Alek Stojanov a huge bust despite most of his problems being the direct result of a car accident.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

I don't see much of a problem. The 'bust' label gets tagged on any highly regarded player who doesn't live up to their billing for any reason.

I mean, people don't have a problem calling Alek Stojanov a huge bust despite most of his problems being the direct result of a car accident.

Stojanov was awful in the NHL before that, though.

Blackburn played great. Looked like he was going to be one of the tops in the league.

 

[clefty]

So its okay to call a player a bust for having his career ended by injury in one way, but its not okay in another. Don't you think thats a bit of a double standard?

 

[NYR469]

I'm far from an expert on anything prospect-related, but...

Why is such an emphasis placed on "depth"? Depth implies that they are players at their position who are less-than-spectacular with less promise than top, key prospects.

While depth is important at the top level itself, why should it be for talking about prospect depth? The number of players who can be included under the "depth" label who will ever have ANY impact on the pro level is extremely minimal.

there is a HUGE difference between depth in the organization (which is what is being talked about here) and a depth player (which is what you are talking about)

when someone says that a team has depth on the blueline in their system. they aren't saying that they have some 6/7 guys that can be depth players on the roster. they are saying that the team has 10 legit dmen prospects who could all make the nhl.

and if a team has 10 legit future nhlers that makes them better than a team that only has 3 legit future nhlers. it isn't the only factor but it does make a difference

 

[SmokeyClause]

and if a team has 10 legit future nhlers that makes them better than a team that only has 3 legit future nhlers. it isn't the only factor but it does make a difference

Not necessarily. I think, to a great extent, that is correct. But if those three players are Jack Johnson, Ryan Suter, and Dion Phaneuf, they could easily be better than a team with 10 legit prospects at defense.

 

[dawgbone]

You're going off of Gleason's OHL scouting report and not what he has done as a professional. Gleason made the Kings as a defensive defenseman and has excelled in that role as a professional. I take the sure thing with a higher potential over a maybe anyday. FYI, Gleason's generally viewed as the Kings second best prospect, behind Brown, by Kings fans.

Which is the sure thing with higher potential and which is the maybe? Greene is about as sure thing as there is when it comes to being a blueliner. There is that question of whether it will be as a dominating physical blueliner, or a guy who tags around as a 6th with a lot of PIMS. And I don't recall ever saying Gleason can't play defence... I just said he'd put up better numbers than Greene would, but that Greene has an edge defensively.

Uh, you might want to check your stats again. Tukonen's pace has risen, just not as fast as expected (5 goals and 5 assists in 43 games in 2004-05 compared with 3 goals and 3 assists in 35 games in 2003-04, an increase of 35.66%). Not that the poll board is the end-all-be-all, but this poll lists Tukonen as the 38th best player from the 2001-2004 drafts. Dubnyk is nowhere to be found (the poll is currently at #43, lists 12 options, and then another 20 options to consider adding).

Yeah sorry, I forgot HF puts past years above the current year... My mistake. And you are right, polls aren't the be all and end all. At one point during the season, there was a poll about who was the better goaltender, Dubnyk or Schwarz... at the time Dubnyk had a GAA about half a goal lower and a sv% 20 points higher and the poll was almost 50/50. Just for reference, those are the same types of numbers Jani Rita put up, and look at what he's done so far. Strictly based on performance, Dubnyk has played better than Tukonen.

Huh? Lehoux had 54 points in 38 games, good for the second-best PPG in the AHL. If Lehoux makes it to the NHL, he makes it as a high scoring top six forward. Potential wise, Lehoux would be graded much higher than Lynch. When McKeens did their top 100 skaters list, Lehoux was #76 while Lynch was #92.

But if you look at his point totals from his 20 and 21 year old season, it projects to a 3rd/4th liner. Look back at how many 1st liners in the NHL averaged less than 1 ppg in the AHL by 20 years old. Then look for how many 2nd liners averaged less than .75 ppg in the AHL by 20 years old. Lehoux may be that one that bucks the trend, but I wouldn't bet more than a wooden nickle on it. Lots of guys have the big numbers in their 3rd/4th year, and it simply has not translated to the NHL level. Like I said... there is the hope that he may be the another Michael Ryder, but the odds are stacked against him.

I'm not very high on Pushkarev so I'd agree here. But other people seem to like Pushkarev. Again, not that I think too highly of polls, but Pushkarev was seen as the 41st best player while re-doing the 2003 draft, and Jacques has not yet been mentioned as an option, which is at pick 55 (though, generally, these polls tend to favor more skilled players).

Another thing wrong with those polls is that people who only know their teams prospects suggest names. In one of the other 2003 mock re-do's Jacques was a very early 2nd round pick. I don't put much stock in either of these as they are very flavour of the month type of things.

 

[tom_servo]

...why not the ratings of each teams organization prospect pool. I think it would be as fair as any of the other ideas.

What ratings? At least you can quantify regular season finishes. Are they going to consult HF in rankiing the best prospect pools?

 

[DARKSIDE]

What ratings? At least you can quantify regular season finishes. Are they going to consult HF in rankiing the best prospect pools?

You don't like the idea, fine. 30 balls for 30 teams. That sounds pretty simple to me.