Hockey Prospectus 2011 NHL Organization Rankings

[avs1986]

I'll go even further and add Detroit's prospects are among the worst in the NHL. What the hell are they going for? There's no direction with these guys, just an odd combination of one dimensional skilled forwards and undersized playmakers. How is Thomas Jurco going to perform in Babcock's system. Detroit has been below pedestrian since the lockout in drafting.

This list is a disaster overall, I might add.

Actually, I think all of the Detroit prospects fit the Red Wing mold to a tee. A mix of two-way and highly skilled euros. Among the worst in the NHL? Not by a long shot.

 

[Miller Time]

-----------

I don't think Detroit has any top 10/elite prospects, but they have a lot of very good ones.

and yet you rank them ahead of several teams who have elite prospects AND several very good ones?

doesn't really make much sense... one elite prospect who pans out is far more valuable than 2-3 good ones who make it, don't you think?

likewise, in several of your team descriptions, you point out a few of their top prospects having a so-so or below expectation year, seemingly to justify the teams ranking, and yet several of the Detroit prospects you are high on had average seasons as well...


i wonder, have you personally viewed the top-10 prospects of all the teams as much as you've seen the Red Wings group?

 

[Pneuma]

A useful benchmark for success is how prospects perform in the AHL (if they go that route) but few on the Grand Rapids Griffins have exceeded expectations (except maybe B.Smith in terms of points).

In the end, what's so great about having 5-7 0.5 PPG NHL players? None in the Detroit system screams future elite. Just another bunch of Darren Helms & Justin Abdelkaders - good but again not elite.

There's only two prospects that he lists that have even played for the Griffins. Smith, who made the AHL all-star team as a rookie, and Tatar, who, at the age of 20, is the leading offensive player for the Griffins. I would say they're hardly Darren Helms and Justin Abdelkaders.

I'll go even further and add Detroit's prospects are among the worst in the NHL. What the hell are they going for? There's no direction with these guys, just an odd combination of one dimensional skilled forwards and undersized playmakers. How is Thomas Jurco going to perform in Babcock's system. Detroit has been below pedestrian since the lockout in drafting.

This list is a disaster overall, I might add.

What? This might be the worst analysis of Detroit's system I've ever seen. Almost all of their prospects fit Detroit's mold. The majority of our wingers are highly skilled with great hockey sense and they excel at the puck possession game. The majority of our centers fit the same mold but then they're also excellent two-way players. Most of our defenseman have strong hockey sense and are great puck movers. Seriously, go down the list, and almost every prospect outside of Nedomlel and Callahan fits the Detroit mold. Undersized? Sure. Soft? Sure. Weak? Sure. Average? Sure. Doesn't fit our system?

Sort of off topic, but what happened with Landon Ferraro? Is it safe to claim he's a borderline bust?

Pretty much. He's so far down the depth chart at this point that it would take a miraculous season to be back on the radar.

 

[CloneHakanPlease*]

I'll go even further and add Detroit's prospects are among the worst in the NHL. What the hell are they going for? There's no direction with these guys, just an odd combination of one dimensional skilled forwards and undersized playmakers. How is Thomas Jurco going to perform in Babcock's system. Detroit has been below pedestrian since the lockout in drafting.

This list is a disaster overall, I might add.

No, just no. I'll agree they aren't close to number one, but they are the very least in the the top 10. Anyone who says otherwise really isn't following just how dominant a lot of our euro guys are playing in their respective leagues compared to much higher drafted peers.

And for the record, Detroit actually has a much better track record the past few years then people are indicating. People seem to be forgetting about Jiri Fischer and Igor Grigorenko, both who were lost to some freak injury/accident and who would be solid top 6/top pairing players at the very least right now. Factor in guys traded away like Fleishman and Quincy and the wings have had anything but a bunch of busts. I'd like to see your team get a Franzen or Filppula caliber player pretty much every other 3rd round pick. The Wings may not have many "sexy" names, but a lot of their low risk/high reward players seem to be doing better then a lot of their more highly touted peers.

 

[Sevanston]

Except it isn't a matter of preference. This isn't liking chocolate over vanilla where there is no demonstrable answer.

Until these prospects finish their careers in hockey, yes it is. There is no possible way of knowing how any of these prospects will perform in the NHL. History is littered with players who looked like awful prospects and became productive NHL players, as well as awesome prospects who never amounted to anything in the NHL.

Some of these prospects will turn out and some won't. The future will tell the tale of how accurate these rankings are, and I suspect it won't be kind to them.

Like I said, that's just like, your opinion, man. Corey clearly has his own. Nothing makes your opinion any more valid than his at this point. Which brings us to this last point:

That is why I suggested his was a bad opinion. Remember, not all opinions are not equally valid.

I see our problem now. I never got the memo that your opinion is always more valid than everyone else's.

 

[ColonialsHockey10]

Actually, I think all of the Detroit prospects fit the Red Wing mold to a tee. A mix of two-way and highly skilled euros. Among the worst in the NHL? Not by a long shot.

Players like Jurco and Pulkinnen are very one dimensional, a far cry from the Filpulla's, Franzen's Zetterberg's and Datsyuk's.

 

[Corey Pronman]

and yet you rank them ahead of several teams who have elite prospects AND several very good ones?

doesn't really make much sense... one elite prospect who pans out is far more valuable than 2-3 good ones who make it, don't you think?

I probably should have worded that better. I don't think Detroit has any truly elite/top 10 prospects, but I think they have three top 30 prospects (Nyquist, Tatar, Jarnkrok) while Brendan Smith wouldn't be far behind and a couple other Top 100 prospects.

likewise, in several of your team descriptions, you point out a few of their top prospects having a so-so or below expectation year, seemingly to justify the teams ranking, and yet several of the Detroit prospects you are high on had average seasons as well...

Those blurbs are not meant to be extremely detailed and be a true synopsis of a team's system, it says so at the top of the column. It's just a few bullet points. The Top 10 columns I'm doing regularly will be better indicators of why I have a certain system where.

In regards to Det prospects having average seasons, agree to disagree on that one although I'm not sure what you're basing that off either. If it's just G & Pts, that's not a great indicator of success as it lacks context and possession-numbers impact (note I'm aware you didn't mention stats, just in case that's what you're referencing).

i wonder, have you personally viewed the top-10 prospects of all the teams as much as you've seen the Red Wings group?

I don't have a ranking of which teams guys I've viewed more or which scouts gave me more notes on certain teams, but I wouldn't say there's an information bias at play here.

 

[s7ark]

Until these prospects finish their careers in hockey, yes it is. There is no possible way of knowing how any of these prospects will perform in the NHL. History is littered with players who looked like awful prospects and became productive NHL players, as well as awesome prospects who never amounted to anything in the NHL.

We don't know the future so all we have to go on for right now are the scouting reports and projections made by people who's job it is to do so. And those scouting reports would disagree with this ranking.

Like I said, that's just like, your opinion, man. Corey clearly has his own. Nothing makes your opinion any more valid than his at this point. Which brings us to this last point:

Cool, so all opinions are the equally valid? Alchemy = chemistry, astrology = astronomy, creation = evolution? Except, you know, when we care about actual results.

I see our problem now. I never got the memo that your opinion is always more valid than everyone else's.

Yup, I am the only one calling out this ranking. Everyone else accepts this list for the visionary statement that it is.

I'm done with this topic because I think this list was made to be controversial and get hits. I guess we'll just have to wait and see if I(and many others in this thread) am right and this list is crap or you and Corey are secret geniuses who see things that everyone else misses.

 

[8BostonRocker24]

This is laughable bad.

 

[Coco the Monkey*]

Ah Corey Pronman. Ye of the "do not pick Landeskog with a top 5 pick" fame.

I guess Colorado was dumb for picking him 2nd!

 

[Sevanston]

We don't know the future so all we have to go on for right now are the scouting reports and projections made by people who's job it is to do so. And those scouting reports would disagree with this ranking.

You mean guys like Corey Pronman?

Cool, so all opinions are the equally valid? Alchemy = chemistry, astrology = astronomy, creation = evolution? Except, you know, when we care about actual results.

Oh, how cute. A straw man! Opinions == science. Because that's exactly what I was saying.

When you come up with a formula in hard math that accurately predicts a prospect's future success, then you can call every list disagreeing with it stupid and I'll happily agree with you. Until then, you have nothing any more valid than anyone else. I know that must be heartbreaking for you.

Yup, I am the only one calling out this ranking. Everyone else accepts this list for the visionary statement that it is.

I'm done with this topic because I think this list was made to be controversial and get hits. I guess we'll just have to wait and see if I(and many others in this thread) am right and this list is crap or you and Corey are secret geniuses who see things that everyone else misses.

It's not like I picked you out of a crowd here. You came to me. I think everyone calling this a bad list because it's different from other scouting reports is equally stupid.

I never said I agreed with this list. I'm not even saying that Corey has a better chance of being right than anyone else. I just think it's ludicrous to call it a bad list just because it goes against what you or anyone else thinks.

You said yourself all you have for predicting NHL success are scouting reports, so I'll assume you haven't actually seen too many of these prospects for yourself. Corey has. Corey has formed his opinion based on time spent watching these players. He put a good amount of his own time into it, so the least you could do is use some actual first-hand evidence for disagreeing with it, rather than effectively saying "LOL, TOO DIFFERENT FROM OTHER SCOUTING REPORTS, BAD LIST"

 

[airforceones25]

I could careless where he has the Ducks ranked however his ranking of our top 10 prospects is just flat out terrible!

 

[Pentothal]

At least he bases his rankings on personal viewings and speaking to scouts and not "consensus opinion". I prefer reading original work even if I don't agree with it.

 

[madmike77]

His Flames writeup was excellent, although I thought he was a bit too harsh on Irving, who I still think could wind up as the Flames future starter.

The Flames writeup was much better than the Flames writeup on HF (although it is way out of date).

 

[Vipers31]

(...) I think everyone calling this a bad list because it's different from other (as in, not their own) scouting reports or their team is too low is equally stupid.

I never even said I agreed with this list. I'm not even saying that Corey has a better chance of being right than anyone else. I just think it's ludicrous to call it a bad list because it goes against what you or anyone else thinks.

You said yourself all you have for predicting NHL success are scouting reports, so I'll assume you haven't actually seen too many of these prospects for yourself. Corey has. Corey has formed his opinion based on time spent watching these players. He put a good amount of his own time into it, so the least you could do is use some actual first-hand evidence for disagreeing with it, rather than effectively saying "LOL, TOO DIFFERENT FROM OTHER SCOUTING REPORTS, BAD LIST"

Basically my exact thoughts when reading through this thread. Thanks for that.

Personally, I don't get to see too many junior games outside of the WJC myself, so, as most hockey fans, I depend on second hand reports. The more you read, the more you hear, the more clear a picture becomes. But at some point, it's necessary to take a step back, and see things as they are: opinions on players by a certain number of people. There may be some sort of a consensus on certain things among a number of people - which does not make something right. If someone finds these rankings laughable because they differ from the consensus, well, that won't come as much of a surprise to the author.

 

[Miller Time]

I probably should have worded that better. I don't think Detroit has any truly elite/top 10 prospects, but I think they have three top 30 prospects (Nyquist, Tatar, Jarnkrok) while Brendan Smith wouldn't be far behind and a couple other Top 100 prospects.



Those blurbs are not meant to be extremely detailed and be a true synopsis of a team's system, it says so at the top of the column. It's just a few bullet points. The Top 10 columns I'm doing regularly will be better indicators of why I have a certain system where.

In regards to Det prospects having average seasons, agree to disagree on that one although I'm not sure what you're basing that off either. If it's just G & Pts, that's not a great indicator of success as it lacks context and possession-numbers impact (note I'm aware you didn't mention stats, just in case that's what you're referencing).



I don't have a ranking of which teams guys I've viewed more or which scouts gave me more notes on certain teams, but I wouldn't say there's an information bias at play here.

definitely have not seen much of the prospects playing in Europe, for any team, but in your brief blurbs of teams there seemed to be inconsistent justifications... i look forward to reading your more detailed reports which may clear that up, as well as what strikes me as a seemingly larger emphasis, at least for some teams (minnesota comes to mind) on their most recent draft.

i'd argue that if anything, recently drafted players (especially outside of the elite/likely NHL ready ones) should carry a bit less weight in evaluating/ranking teams prospect, because every year so many highly touted high draft picks struggle/falter in the first year/two after they get picked.

in a way, that somewhat supports the high ranking of a team like Detroit, where most of their highly regarded prospects have been in the system for over a year, thus allowing for better NHL-level projections (and allowing time to have a better handle/perspective on players drafted outside the top-2 rounds).

 

[avs1986]

Players like Jurco and Pulkinnen are very one dimensional, a far cry from the Filpulla's, Franzen's Zetterberg's and Datsyuk's.

Hence,why I said a mix of both two-way and high end skill guys. Nyquist and Jarnkrok are supposed to be very solid defensively. As for Jurco, you can already picture his name on the back of a Wings sweater.

 

[JLo217]

Ryan Murphy, Justin Faulk, and Brian Dumoulin are one of the best trios of defensive prospects in the whole NHL.

Dalpe is a stud, Boychuk still has a lot of potential, Bowman is developing slowly, but still will probably be a solid NHLer. Rask is, as mentioned, a project but if he pans out he should be a really good player.

It's a pretty solid pipeline we've got at the moment.

Elliot, Barrie and Siemens..... and there team is at 22.

 

[JLo217]

If you read the intro he really is more or less grading prospect pools, it's an article about the prospects themselves, not about about the scouts, coaches etc.

It's also totally laughable. Detroit 1st? That's insane. Especially with teams like Colorado down at 22nd, the Avs have Landeskog, Hishon, Siemens, Elliott, Barrie, Pickard, etc., their prospects absolute **** on Detroit's. If the Avs came to Detroit and said "we'll trade all of our prospects for all of your prospects," Detroit would pull the trigger IN A SECOND, yet somehow Detroit are 1st, and the Avs 22nd? These rankings make zero sense.

While I don't think the Avs is the best on the block, it is better than Detroit's. If you want to look at the deep round success...Jones and Liles are good examples of recent players, Svatos before his fall off as well. I'm pretty sure the Avs also hold the most drafted players currently active in the NHL as well (meaning even if they're with other teams they were originally drafted by Colorado).

Don't really mind it to much as I'm not to familiar with anyone outside the NW's prospect pool. I just find Edmonton and Colorado particularly low on this list.

 

[JLo217]

my last thought on this...no offense Corey, you may want to consider a new profession. Your entitled to your opinion, but when most of the thread isn't even arguing with each other, but rather making points and correcting you, and rival fan bases are agreeing...You are definitely wrong.

Your entitled to your opinion but wow...hockey doesn't seem to be your strong suit. I hope Landeskog has a dynamite season and it forces you to re-consider your work, or at least your vision of it.

 

[obey86]

I think you guys are underestimating the Wing's farm system at this point in time. No, they aren't #1 but they have some really good talent 1-3 years away from the NHL. Even if only half of their top end prospects make it in the NHL I will be happy. Tatar played as an 18 year old in the AHL and greatly improved on his rookie year last season. Smith is NHL ready (probably was last year too). Jarnkrok and Pulkkinen are looking more and more like huge steals with huge talent. Their system has not been this strong in 10 years.

 

[Galchenioretty]

Most lists are basically just a regurgitation of other lists/common thought so it's nice to see someone who puts in the work and comes up with original thoughts. Hard to really judge his work when he's so new and fresh, in 3-5 years we'll see where it goes. So far though, I love the work behind most of Pronman's stuff, especially the top 100.

 

[DetBigWangs]

We don't know the future so all we have to go on for right now are the scouting reports and projections made by people who's job it is to do so. And those scouting reports would disagree with this ranking.



Cool, so all opinions are the equally valid? Alchemy = chemistry, astrology = astronomy, creation = evolution? Except, you know, when we care about actual results.



Yup, I am the only one calling out this ranking. Everyone else accepts this list for the visionary statement that it is.

I'm done with this topic because I think this list was made to be controversial and get hits. I guess we'll just have to wait and see if I(and many others in this thread) am right and this list is crap or you and Corey are secret geniuses who see things that everyone else misses.

Wow. You took obvious fallacies and presented it as an opinion. Facts=/=opinions.

 

[Harry Kakalovich]

Pronman's fun to read, and I appreciate the insights, but I don't see much in the way of systematic analysis here.

 

[nobuddy]

Elliot, Barrie and Siemens..... and there team is at 22.

I'd take Murphy, Dumoulin, and Faulk over those three without thinking twice.