HF's Spring 2005 Organizational Rankings 1-15

[thestonedkoala]

How did Minnesota move down two spots but a couple of their players actually broke out and had good seasons?

Mathieu Melanson had a solid season, and people have been calling into question about his character, and has flown under the radars.

Danny Irmen had an outstanding season for the U of M...

Harding was awesome in Houston...

Burns showed a lot of progress in the AHL...

 

[Chimaera]

How did Minnesota move down two spots but a couple of their players actually broke out and had good seasons?

Mathieu Melanson had a solid season, and people have been calling into question about his character, and has flown under the radars.

Danny Irmen had an outstanding season for the U of M...

Harding was awesome in Houston...

Burns showed a lot of progress in the AHL...

I don't think a team's improvement and ranking are independently based. I mean, in all likelihood, there could be other teams who imporved significantly more, either through the addition of more prospects through a good draft or a few trades. Or even as a result of more significant breakouts.


Or the system could be flawed.

 

[thestonedkoala]

I think it's more the later than the former...

 

[X-SHARKIE]

I think it's more the later than the former...

Interesting, the Sharks for example are the same way, Bernier and Goc really developed well, and Carle went from a little bleep on the radar to being a top pairing defenseman prospect in the Paul Martin mold, and Ryan Clowe showed tools to possibly be a 2nd line power forward, and a safe bet to be a 3rd line power forward, yet we went down. So it’s not just the Wild. Favoritism in teams and prospects will always play a role and lesser known and discussed teams like the Sharks & Wild always have a tough hill to climb in the media rankings like this, where as teams like the Habs ect. get the benefit of the doubt. But in the end it comes down to results and the Sharks have got great results, as are the Wild. I think the Leafs got highly shanked in these rankings as well.

 

[salty justice]

For anyone who's interested, here's HF's organizational rankings from the year 2000. These types of things are always a real interesting read in hindsight.

Link

It was dead on with the Hawks. Sucky prospects then = sucky team now. Must be depressing being an Isles fan

 

[Fozz]

Interesting, the Sharks for example are the same way, Bernier and Goc really developed well, and Carle went from a little bleep on the radar to being a top pairing defenseman prospect in the Paul Martin mold, and Ryan Clowe showed tools to possibly be a 2nd line power forward, and a safe bet to be a 3rd line power forward, yet we went down. So it’s not just the Wild. Favoritism in teams and prospects will always play a role and lesser known and discussed teams like the Sharks & Wild always have a tough hill to climb in the media rankings like this, where as teams like the Habs ect. get the benefit of the doubt. But in the end it comes down to results and the Sharks have got great results, as are the Wild. I think the Leafs got highly shanked in these rankings as well.

I don't want to sound like a homer but exactly what's wrong with the Habs prospects pool? The team was ranked 5th last year and there's a bunch of new kids that have had solid season showing continued development. Danis wasn't even considered until this year and showed to be a very good prospect. Grabovsky came out of nowhere to show great skill and speed, Perezhogin evolved in the RSL, Higgins - Plekanec - Hossa continued getting better, etc.

These rankings aren't as simple as comparing lists based on potential but are also a testament on how those prospects are doing to get to the utlimate level.

 

[417]

I don't want to sound like a homer but exactly what's wrong with the Habs prospects pool? The team was ranked 5th last year and there's a bunch of new kids that have had solid season showing continued development. Danis wasn't even considered until this year and showed to be a very good prospect. Grabovsky came out of nowhere to show great skill and speed, Perezhogin evolved in the RSL, Higgins - Plekanec - Hossa continued getting better, etc.

These rankings aren't as simple as comparing lists based on potential but are also a testament on how those prospects are doing to get to the utlimate level.

It seems as though the consensus here is that the Habs are too high We were #1 last year ( I think) we were #5 earlier this year, and now at #4, for some reason, this is the biggest injustice ever here at hockeysfuture, no one considers the possibility that maybe, the team that used to be ahead of the Habs (oilers) their prospects might have regressed a tad...

 

[Fozz]

It seems as though the consensus here is that the Habs are too high We were #1 last year ( I think) we were #5 earlier this year, and now at #4, for some reason, this is the biggest injustice ever here at hockeysfuture, no one considers the possibility that maybe, the team that used to be ahead of the Habs (oilers) their prospects might have regressed a tad...

That's what I mean. A team like Chicago has a few really good d-men but once top-forward prospects such as Radulov and Vorobiev have regressed or simply disappeared.

 

[417]

That's what I mean. A team like Chicago has a few really good d-men but once top-forward prospects such as Radulov and Vorobiev have regressed or simply disappeared.

There's one ranking that I thought was undeserved, Chicago at #3, but which team do you think gets all the flak here?

It's all "I'd put Philly ahead of Montreal" or "What the heck is Montreal doing ahead of the the Flyers, Carter, Richards, Ruzicka, i'd take them all before any of the Habs prospects."

Oh well, that's just how it goes round' hurr...

 

[Kaizer]

For anyone who's interested, here's HF's organizational rankings from the year 2000. These types of things are always a real interesting read in hindsight.

Novoseltsev is drawing comparisons to teammate Pavel Bure, and they're not unwarranted. He's a bluechip prospect, and along with Denis Shvidki, they may add some much needed depth to the finesse wingers in Florida. Shvidki passing to Bure. A goaltender's worst nightmare.

 

[triggrman]

I think it's more the later than the former...

Depends on if your team moved down or up......

 

[X-SHARKIE]

I don't want to sound like a homer but exactly what's wrong with the Habs prospects pool? The team was ranked 5th last year and there's a bunch of new kids that have had solid season showing continued development. Danis wasn't even considered until this year and showed to be a very good prospect. Grabovsky came out of nowhere to show great skill and speed, Perezhogin evolved in the RSL, Higgins - Plekanec - Hossa continued getting better, etc.

These rankings aren't as simple as comparing lists based on potential but are also a testament on how those prospects are doing to get to the utlimate level.

Nothing, aboslutely nothing is wrong with the Habs prospects, but teams like them get more pub because they have better media around the hockey in Montreal, so their kids get the pub.

 

[ZombieMatt]

How does Toronto fit into this theory? Them having the biggest hockey media on the planet and all, shouldn't their prospect be "articially jacked" more than anyone else?

This whole "big team, big ratings" conspiracy theory is a joke.

 

[SmokeyClause]

This whole "big team, big ratings" conspiracy theory is a joke.

It's not a joke, but it is misleading. I don't think big teams, big ratings. I think big teams, big exposure. I think writers are always going to be biased, if only slightly. It's human nature. If they weren't, I'd be worried. And I think this helps/hurts big name teams. A team like Toronto can inspire hatred with many fans unlike a relatively benign team like Florida. It wouldn't shock me in the least to see a Montreal writer grade Toronto unknowingly less than they normally would simple because of their relationships with each other. On the flip side, it wouldn't suprise me in the least to see a Montreal writer upgrade Toronto in an accidently bit of overcompensation because they didn't want their bias to be involved.

Because of this big teams equal big exposure, familiarity plays a role. And this can be a good thing if you have good prospects (Montreal) and it can be a bad thing if you don't (Toronto). I think that fans on here can easily fall into pushing either of these teams towards opposite ends of the spectrum based on their familiarity with their prospect core. And while I hold writers to a higher regard, I think they are vulnerable to similar, albeit much less drastic, follies. They are fans, after all.

 

[thestonedkoala]

Depends on if your team moved down or up......

Moved down and yet our prospects continued to progress well.

 

[SmokeyClause]

Moved down and yet our prospects continued to progress well.

He knows which direction your team went. He was merely stating that ones opinion of the rankings is often directly tied to the movement of your team.

 

[David A. Rainer]

Moved down and yet our prospects continued to progress well.

Many organizations can make that claim. However, some organizations out-progress other organizations in a given year. You're only talking about a drop of two spots.

Spots 10-15 are usually extremely close during any given year that an organization can have some nice development out of a couple of their prospects and still drop.

The Kings leap-frogged Minn because, well, look at what Manchester did (during the regular season at least) and while numerous of their prospects had not just solid development but career years (Cammalleri, Brown, Tambellini, etc).

Buffalo probably leap-frogged due the improvement in their top-end talent (the overwhelming season Vanek had as well as the bounce-back season of Miller and great seasons from Roy and Pominville).

 

[NYRGoalieGlut*]

Lets not get carried away...Rangers with there 2 first round picks and 5 2nd round picks had the best 2004 draft.

I know that with 12 pages the topic might've changed and this might've been commented on, but I'll add my 2 cents. I'm as big of a Rangers fan as anyone but, c'mon that's VERY flawed logic. If the Rangers drafted 7 busts with those picks and the rest suck too, but a team that has half those picks hits on all of them then who had the better draft?

 

[God Bless Canada]

We won't know who had the best 2004 draft for another four to five years. And judging by the derth of talent in 2004, having the top draft isn't going to be as important as 2003, 1998 or 1995.

Anyways, I know I'm a little late, but some quick thoughts on this list:
*Washington and Pittsburgh definitely have the best prospects. However, word of caution to Caps fans: you were consistently in the top 3 of the THN rankings for much of the 1990s, and look what it got you. A sweep in the 1998 Cup finals. Not much to crow about. Love Pittsburgh's talent, but with the exception of Malkin, there isn't a bona-fide future No. 1 forward or defenceman in the system. Lots of good, future top-four d-men and second and third line forwards, but Malkin's the only one who screams first liner.
*Chicago is too high. I love the future top three defencemen with Barker, Seabrook and Babchuk, but they lack that future elite forward. They belong in the top 10, but I can name several teams that I like more.
*I don't know if Edmonton or the Rangers deserve their lofty rankings. Borderline top 10, but I like Buffalo and LA more.
*Anaheim, Columbus, Minnesota and Atlanta are right about where they belong.
*Teams I would have had higher: Nashville, LA, Buffalo, Florida and Philly.
*Is there a bigger drop-off in talent than Atlanta? Lehtonen and Coburn to Vlabik. Yikes.
*I don't think the Habs are too high. I think they're deserving of top 5 consideration. Kostitsyn is a future star. Chipchura's solid. Perezhogin is highly skilled.

 

[SmokeyClause]

*Is there a bigger drop-off in talent than Atlanta? Lehtonen and Coburn to Vlabik. Yikes.

What's scary (HF prospects wise) is that both Lehtonen and Coburn will likely be graduated by the time this ranking rolls around again next May/June. Without Lehtonen or Coburn, Atlanta's prospect core is like around 25th-30th, though I'm sure they'll add a nice prospect or two in the upcoming draft.

Not that Atlanta's fans will complain. I'm sure they'll take their Heatley's, Kovalchuks, Coburn's, and Lehtonen's and smile quietly.

 

[SwOOsh*]

I personally would like to see HF change their system to allow players under a certain age be eligible (so young players like Columbus Bluejackets Rick Nash would still be included) that way you could get a better idea of teams futures and how they really rate with other teams.

 

[ZombieMatt]

I personally would like to see HF change their system to allow players under a certain age be eligible (so young players like Columbus Bluejackets Rick Nash would still be included) that way you could get a better idea of teams futures and how they really rate with other teams.

The problem is that there will always need to be a hard line drawn somewhere...and where that line is drawn will never appease everyone. It's an unfortunate reality.

 

[thestonedkoala]

The Kings leap-frogged Minn because, well, look at what Manchester did (during the regular season at least) and while numerous of their prospects had not just solid development but career years (Cammalleri, Brown, Tambellini, etc).

Buffalo probably leap-frogged due the improvement in their top-end talent (the overwhelming season Vanek had as well as the bounce-back season of Miller and great seasons from Roy and Pominville).

Coming into the season, Minnesota had a lot of questions on either prospects or young players. Not counted is Koivu, who progressed a lot this year and Bouchard.

One of the huge factors this year was Minnesota's defense. Minnesota coming into this year had a shakey defense and many applauded them for taking Thelen. He nose-dived this year. Burns on the otherhand exceeded expectations as a rookie defenseman, a position he hasn't played in for a couple of years. Stoner had a phenominal season and looked like he took the next step. Reitz had a great season but ended on a sour note when he was injured.

Volo is still a question mark but Irmen again had a great season for the Gophers. Melanson and Courchaine are a wash since no one expects them to do very much in the AHL.

Harding though, Harding I think surprised some people.

I understand everything and I agree with Minnesota's placement to some degree.

 

[Safir*]

What's scary (HF prospects wise) is that both Lehtonen and Coburn will likely be graduated by the time this ranking rolls around again next May/June. Without Lehtonen or Coburn, Atlanta's prospect core is like around 25th-30th, though I'm sure they'll add a nice prospect or two in the upcoming draft.

I hope, I pray that we do draft a few goodies and also players that are actually needed not like last year, when three D-man were drafted with the first three picks. What really scary is the fact that we don't have a legit Top6 RW in the system. After Heater there a black hole.:. McEachern and Kozlov aren't getting any younger and also on LW we don't have one prospect that could replace them in the future.

Slater is a good prospect, but I still think that the Thrashers need other quality centers with Top6 potential.

 

[SmokeyClause]

The problem is that there will always need to be a hard line drawn somewhere...and where that line is drawn will never appease everyone. It's an unfortunate reality.

You can't always please everyone, but you can make an attempt to make the rules a little less arbitrary. I've mentioned several times, but no one seems to care either way, that the NHL waiver rules should be HF's guide to prospects. If a player can pass through waivers, then he should be considered a prospect (under most circumstances).

Just because you can't please everyone doesn't mean you should fail to attempt to make the system better. Right now, major prospects, like Chistov, are lost because of the system. While it will never be perfect, it can certainly be improved.