Hockey’s Future Top 50 NHL Prospects, 1-10

Status
Not open for further replies.

Mr.Brownov*

Guest
HABS456 said:
No Timo Shishkanov on the entire list
:shakehead
Best post here.WTF?No Timofei?Nik Zherdev @ no.2 and no Alex Semin!Hmmm.Sorry for repeating from the previous posts,but this is just wrong.IMO,Nik shouldn't of even made the list.He's considered a NHL regular.No Kirill and Anton also? :shakehead
 

stardog

Been on HF so long my Myspace link is part of my p
Oct 31, 2003
5,318
309
www.myspace.com
Leafaholix said:
Josh Harding is definately a top 10 goalie prospect, top 50 prospect? I don't know about that... most likely.

As for the "love child of Ed Belfour and Olaf Kozig", I'd give that nod to Ray Emery.

You forgot the lack of control and temper of a young Tie Domi. ;)

I have said it before and I'll say it again.
He has loads of natural talent with a pea brain. If he can't learn to control his temper then he is going to get nowhere, and in a hurry.

The latest incident is just another example. His team in a game with playoff consequences, and he blows his cool, resulting in an ejection, opposing team power play (where they took control of the game and eventually won) and a suspension.
IMO that was just pure stupidity.
And all because a player bumped him accidentaly. The guy needs to invest in some anger managment courses, and fast.

Wonder what Jack Nicholson is up to this summer???
 

Enoch

This is my boomstick
Jul 2, 2003
14,239
872
Cookeville TN
Leafaholix said:
So you're basically saying he's overhyped ("god-like") because he's Canadian... ?

You can tell this from watching one game?

Yes, I believe he is overhyped because he is Canadien. I think it is their natural tendency to boat about their youngsters.

As for the one game comment, no, I watched each game of the WJC's. I admit that I do not have acces to his other games, but from what I saw he was clearly a great prospect. However, I just do not see the hype laid on him. Yes he can hit, is big, looked good definsively, and solid offensively, but I just was not sold on everything that was being spewed about him. I think he will be a no. 2/1 dman, but I do not think he is the best defenisive prospect in recent memory. We will see though :). I'm not the best analyst, and he certainly has the potential to prove me wrong.
 

Enoch

This is my boomstick
Jul 2, 2003
14,239
872
Cookeville TN
JasonMacIsaac said:
Thats why McGuire is from New Jersey, you know he loves hyping up canadian players for that reason. Phaneuf is just the real damn deal. In terms of defensmen it doesn't get any better. Suter had a nice tourneu but Phaneuf was dominant.

What does this have to do with my post. I could care less where McGuire is from. The fact is, he is and has been a fixture on TSN. Therefore, he works for a company that is giving exposure to the Canadian players and team. I do not think Phaneuf was dominant in the WJCs. No where did I see him single-handedly take control of a game. Heck, the Canadians barely had to play any sort of defense in the entire tournament.....Before I get blasted, I am not saying Phaneuf didn't have a good WJCs, but he was a far cry from "dominating the WJCs". His forward lines did all the dominating that needed to be done for the Canadiens to win. The one time Team Canada needed their defense to come up big for them, though......

They didn't. :dunno:
 

darth5

No!
Mar 28, 2002
2,584
74
Smashville, TN
HollyG said:
I appreciate that it takes a lot of effort to put this kind of list together. All involved are to be commended in that regard.

Question is, how can the writers involved make a completely balanced and unbiased and fully informed ranking? Do they all honestly follow EVERY team's prospects to the same extent they follow their own team? No offense, I just don't see how that could not be a factor.
 

Holly Gunning

Registered User
Mar 9, 2002
3,484
0
out and about
Visit site
You are imagining the group incorrectly. Remember that there are writers who cover each junior league, the NCAA, foreign countries, etc., not just the NHL team writers. There are also folks who do both.
 

Pachoo

Registered User
Feb 6, 2003
139
0
Visit site
I am surprised that Jim Slater didn't make it into the top 50. Is he really not one of the 50 best prospects in Hockey? He was one of the ten finalists for the Hobey this year.

You have Jeff Tambellini as the 48th best prospect and I think Jim Slater is definitely more impressive of a prospect than he is. Slater had a much better year than Tambellini in NCAA this season. I know Slater is a Junior while Tambellini is a sophomore, but Slater's year last season, as a Sophomore, was more impressive than Tambellini's year this year too.

IMO, Slater was one of the 8 best players in the NCAA this year and warrants a selection as a top 50 prospect.
 
Last edited:

MN_Gopher

Registered User
May 2, 2002
3,628
21
Mpls
Visit site
I like the fact that there are 5 college players in the top 20. Granted this is not a total concensus list. And two Minnesotians, and one gopher. Great list.
 

Big McLargehuge

Fragile Traveler
May 9, 2002
72,188
7,741
S. Pasadena, CA
Pachoo said:
I am surprised that Jim Slater didn't make it into the top 50. Is he really not one of the 50 best prospects in Hockey? He was one of the ten finalists for the Hobey this year.

You have Jeff Tambellini as the 48th best prospect and I think Jim Slater is definitely more impressive of a prospect than he is. Slater had a much better year than Tambellini in NCAA this season. I know Slater is a Junior while Tambellini is a sophomore, but Slater's year last season, as a Sophomore, was more impressive than Tambellini's year this year too.

IMO, Slater was one of the 8 best players in the NCAA this year and warrants a selection as a top 50 prospect.

And the Hobey Baker has anything to do with a player actually being a good prospect?

Go ask our friend Brian Bonin what he's up to nowadays...

Slater would have shocked me if he had been in the top 50.
 

leafaholix*

Guest
Handsome B. Wonderful said:
And the Hobey Baker has anything to do with a player actually being a good prospect?

Go ask our friend Brian Bonin what he's up to nowadays...

Slater would have shocked me if he had been in the top 50.
Slater's a talented player... he's actually a good prospect, that's why he was selected in the first round (2002)... Bonin was selected in the 9th round.

No comparison... at all.
 

Big McLargehuge

Fragile Traveler
May 9, 2002
72,188
7,741
S. Pasadena, CA
I was using the Hobey Baker thing, not overall.

The Hobey has essentially ended up meaning nothing in terms of potential.

I'm not saying Slater is a bad prospect, but he's still a reach to put in the top 50.
 

X-SHARKIE

Registered User
Handsome B. Wonderful said:
I was using the Hobey Baker thing, not overall.

The Hobey has essentially ended up meaning nothing in terms of potential.

I'm not saying Slater is a bad prospect, but he's still a reach to put in the top 50.

IMO your underestimating Slater quite a bit...He is a pain in the Ass to play against and he has some skill. He also is a great leader. Jarko Ruutu?
 

Felix

Registered User
May 16, 2003
264
0
Lviv/Ukraine
Visit site
Being the Blues fan I just want to say that I'm surprized that there is not a single Blues prospect in the entire Top-50... although they do have a couple of them that could be qualified as top-50 in NHL.
But that does not care me too much because that are prospects who actually play hockey, not his position in the list...
 

MacDaddy TLC*

Guest
Ken McKenna said:
Before the catcalls over Zherdev's inclusion begin, I did try to make a substitution, but could not find a credible candidate for the top 10. Since we'll most likely be changing the prospect criteria, anyway, I figured I would leave him on the list.
Is there a link for the criteria somewhere? (sorry if it turns out I'm just blind)


RE: Phaneuf-- The Hockey News Future Watch had him at #2, so it isn't very farfetched for him to be #3.

RE: Grigorenko -- THN FW had him at #13.



BTW, good work HF staff. I'm going to enjoy disecting this and comparing against Hockey News (who i posted you killed on the draft preview last year in the magazine).
 

btn

Gone Hollywood
Feb 27, 2002
15,685
2
ATL
Visit site
Pachoo said:
I am surprised that Jim Slater didn't make it into the top 50. Is he really not one of the 50 best prospects in Hockey? He was one of the ten finalists for the Hobey this year.

Slater could easily have been in the 41-50 range, but I wouldn't put him much higher than that. The difference in talent from the #50 to the say #100 prospect isn't all that great, it just comes down to personal preference at that point.
 

David A. Rainer

Registered User
Jun 10, 2002
7,287
1
Huntington Beach
profile.myspace.com
MacDaddy Version 1.3 said:
Is there a link for the criteria somewhere? (sorry if it turns out I'm just blind)

Here's a link. It's at the bottom of the front page and on every team page.

Note that this is the criteria, but any prospect that was projected to no longer qualify as a prospect by the end of the season was made ineligibile for this list.
 

punchy1

Registered User
Nov 11, 2003
2,444
0
Kiwiville.
DeathFromAbove said:
Here's a link. It's at the bottom of the front page and on every team page.

Note that this is the criteria, but any prospect that was projected to no longer qualify as a prospect by the end of the season was made ineligibile for this list.


DFA, did you read my post in this thread? If not I think it is on the first page. It basically says that since the rankings are done by those of us on this board who aren't professional pundits that they are more of an opinion then what the actual scouts and NHL folks might say so being critical of the actual selections isn't really much of anything.

The key point though were that some of the statements made under the actual players were very questionable and I found one in particular to be completely wrong.

It says that the Kings don't have much depth (short version) on defence were our youth goes. That is dead wrong.

Rome/Petiot/Grebeshkov/Gleason/Corvo/Visnovsky/Zizka are all grand young NHL defencemen and prospects. I would ask you to read it as I am not explaining it well but it made it sound like we were only with Grebeshkov and that is daft.

If anything, after this last season, I would say that if Vis were on ANY team in the east or in Canada that he would be an All Star and that Gleason looks like he might be the very real deal. Place Grebeshkov in the mix and that is three All Star NHL defencemen with Rome in the wings and Corvo having a solid year as well.

Visnovsky gets overlooked because of where he plays and the fact that he is 5'11". He were the leading scoring rookie on defence and has always been a plus (well so) in the NHL. Dead steady.

I just think that if you were given the job at writting what goes underneath the ranked prospect that you might have said "this Gem in the crown of a Kings defence that is loaded with talent looks to be ready to take his place in the Kings line up next season" or something like that.
 

MacDaddy TLC*

Guest
DeathFromAbove said:
Here's a link. It's at the bottom of the front page and on every team page.

Note that this is the criteria, but any prospect that was projected to no longer qualify as a prospect by the end of the season was made ineligibile for this list.
Thanks DFA. Usually when i go to team prospect pages, I'm on a mission. :)
 

craig1

Registered User
Nov 1, 2002
4,207
0
Pittsburgh, PA
Visit site
The Dion Phaneuf over-hype machine continues to roll!

...........I'm not saying he's not good.....I'm just saying he is, as others have been in the past, way over-hyped.
 

David A. Rainer

Registered User
Jun 10, 2002
7,287
1
Huntington Beach
profile.myspace.com
punchy1 said:
DFA, did you read my post in this thread? If not I think it is on the first page. It basically says that since the rankings are done by those of us on this board who aren't professional pundits that they are more of an opinion then what the actual scouts and NHL folks might say so being critical of the actual selections isn't really much of anything.

Ya, I read it. But there were only about 10 of us in the committee that did the Top 50, and even fewer who were willing to write the statements for each prospect. If after a list of 50 prospects, replete with 50 statements, all anyone disagrees with is the position of a couple of prospects and a couple of phrases, then the list is a success. I don't think it's that big of a deal. If there's a problem with it, just make note of it and move on. I can't begin to tell you how often I've disagreed with some things Baseball America has said. ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->