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.