Hockey's Future Mid-season Organizational Rankings (1-10) posted

[Enoch]

The Devils add Parise, and lose their blueline prospects......suddenly they are no. 4 overall?

Give me a break

I like who they have, but 4th????

 

[FacelessButcher]

They seriously have to rename 'organizational rankings' since it can be misleading. Organizational rankings is a misnomer, it should be Prospect rankings.

How about Organizational Prospect Rankings. Prospect Rankings sounds to individualistic, if I didn't have priar knowledge of it I would assume it to be the same as HF top 100 prospects just without the list of 1-100. Full name unnabreviated would be uber long though "Hockey's Future Mid-season Organizational Prospect Rankings" might hurt as a selling point.

 

[4:20]

You have to draw the line somewhere man!

Unbiased Canadian

Exactly right!

Everyone is complaining and complaining that Staal, or Brown, or so-and-so... were not considered - but if you altered the criteria to include them, then other people would be upset that their favorite young player just missed the cut-off. There has to be some sort of arbitrary line and there will always be players that are near that line.

I also think that the poster who made the point that he/she knows enough about Staal and the other guys in the NHL already had a good point too.

 

[Big McLargehuge]

when the article was written Fleury was still in the league I believe
there's no way that we could of predicted his demotion

I know and I agree, but here's an idea...wait until he actually crosses the barrier before counting him as graduated

He's been listed as "graduated" since before he played his 10th game on the Pens section of the site.

Just as how you couldn't predict you would have been demoted you shouldn't have assumed he wouldn't.

 

[Slats432]

I know and I agree, but here's an idea...wait until he actually crosses the barrier before counting him as graduated

He's been listed as "graduated" since before he played his 10th game on the Pens section of the site.

Just as how you couldn't predict you would have been demoted you shouldn't have assumed he wouldn't.

Oh come on, you are just splitting hairs. Haven't you ever seen anywhere something along the lines of "At press time."

The writers put the article to the best of their knowledge and ability at the time and you are degradating their work by nitpicking a detail that over the big scheme of things is rather small.

So if you really want to do yourself a favour, tell yourself that if Fleury was included they would be up X places. I am sure most would agree with you. Let the work stand on it's own merit.

 

[Evilo]

Even without Fleury, seeing Pittsburgh 9th and Wahington 2nd and New Jersey 4th...

LOL!

But thanks for the effort, I think I'll completely disagree with this one, probably the weirdest of any org. rankings I've seen on this site.
And I'll second (or hundred) that the criteria needs to be different.

 

[Teemu]

i think the problem with this ranking system is that it is based on what prospects people have heard about and/or have seen. Therefore, only the top few prospects listen on each teams HF page are taken into consideration, which pretty much means the data is out of date.

On that note, its hard to come up with an accurate list without having seen every one of these prospects, which is neigh-impossible. Good work on the list.

 

[Mack]

Habs have so many talented forward prospects its unreal. As a Devils fan I am extreamly pleased with the rankings and if there are any devils fans who arn't they are insane.

you said that already

 

[Chimaera]

I'm not going to complain, but I'm not so sure the Caps are that high. Even with my being a Caps fan.


Hope they're really as good as thought to be.

 

[Hockeycrazed07]

Great job again, HF! The old saying goes that you can't please all of the people all of the time, and it's sad that the majority of those posting here are critical of the work done, but if you take a look at the number of people that have looked, you'll note that there are many that like the work being done here. I speak for them when I thank you.

Thanks a lot!

~Crazed.

PS. For those of you that are critical of the work, do it yourselves...you've got an entire board dedicated to just that, so let's see you're opinions, instead of hearing you whine and complain about what others think. Are you man (or woman, to appease those so inclined) enough to do it, or will you just run your mouth at others' attempts?

 

[DutchLeafsfan]

A young player who is still develop and has yet to hit his full potential....If i were to agree with your definition of prospect that would make in my mind Lecavelier, the Sedins, Zetterberg, Chistov even Mathieu Garon would all still be considered prospects because they are young players who haven't reached there full potential and the positions they are in, they are STILL DEVELOPING. You have to draw the line somewhere man!

Unbiased Canadian

I am well aware that one has to draw the line somewhere, however the prospect criteria which are used now are IMO too strict. Just because a prospect may have played himself into a roster spot means he isn''t suddenly a prospect anymore IMO. I found the criteria which were previously used in the case of Ilya Kovalchuk to be a lot more logical when drawing the line somewhere: graduate a player after the season in which he has found a full time NHL job. Right now there are guys who were drafted 6 months ago and are no longer considered prospects, something which is not right IMO.

On the topic of Kostitsyn, I still stand by opinion that he would be just below the group of which I would consider the top end talent. Just because Kyle Woodlief (who stood alone in that opinion) mentioned that he thought Kostitsyn had the highest offensive upside (note he wasn''t talking about overall player) but had his stock dropped because of diabetes. The other agencies didn't agree with this, nor did the GMs of the 9 teams picking before the Habs. Looking back at the top 10 from the draft and how they have performed, I also don't think he would see any significant upwards change in draft position would the draft be held again now.

On the topic of those teams which I find ranked too high, I feel the Devils don''t have a top 4 group of prospects and don''t consider their group to be better than the Pens (actually I''d take the Pens personally). I have the rather distict feeling that the Devils' placement was partly influenced by the great (and well deserved) reputation they have in this area. While I don't think this is necesarily a bad thing, I get the feeling this hasn''t been done very consistently.

As for the Habs, in hindsight I guess it is understandable that they are first given the group of prospects which qualified. However I do not consider them to be the best developer and drafter of prospects who has the group with the brightest NHL future, but I guess that is another issue...

For Atlanta, I feel that while having a great goaltending and Dman prospect, there is a rather significant drop in talent level after that, and I think the group as a whole is too high. Buffalo I see as having the same situation. However I guess these teams have benefited when it comes to their rankings, from their top prospect being a goaltender who take longer to develop and hence are stil considered prospects. Columbus does have a nice list of prospects, however there are several teams (Pens among others) which I would rate higher. Edmonton again is a case of good, but as good as their rankings IMO.

There is no way in which it is however possible to actually prove my point, given that judging prospects isn''t exactly rocket science (an area in which I personally feel a bit more at home btw :p); however I find my opinion to be conflicting with the conclusions of those who made the list...

 

[fredez]

Well, as stated in the previous thread the criteria used to come up with these rankings are seriously flawed. The whole graduation criteria make this a list of "teams with the best looking prospects not good enough to make the NHL" rather than what they aim to be, an ''organisational rankings''.

Even with these criteria however, I fail to see how Edmonton is #3, find the Devils at 4 rather ridiculous, am surprised by the Coyotes at 5 and feel the Habs are probably overrated as well. Buffalo, Columbus and Atlanta seem to be too high as well. Although I appreciate the effort put in, I just find it hard to take these rankings extremely seriously, contrary to last year...

Just because your team was ranked higher...

 

[DutchLeafsfan]

Just because your team was ranked higher...

It is true that I find the Leafs to be too low in these rankings. I expected them to take a hit, but no way that there are only three teams worse than the Leafs. Their placement is however just 1 of the placements about which I disagree, and I think I have been fairly clear about that...

 

[JimEIV]

Whose top 20 prospect list this year will most likey produce the most NHL regulars 20 years from now?

That is how the strength of an organization should be measured

 

[sonnytheman]

jebus, this isn't a competition, it is the opinion of those who put it together. Accept that maybe, just maybe somebody doesn't think your team's prospects are all that hot.

And on the criteria thing, everyone who comes here knows what the criteria is. Once you've played a certain number of games, you're graduated. If you go by 'potential' and by when they realise it, well then, you could say someone like Bertuzzi was still a prospect until 3 years ago, which makes no sense at all.

If you don't like it, make your own list, and then we can debate that as well

 

[#44_delivers]

i am very happy that these people took the time and energy to evaluated prospects that i dont see play too often, i like the criteria becuase ive seen the prospects who have graduated and perfer to make my own mind about them as i see them play in this league.
these people go out of there way to do this, they watch alote of games we cant (or are unableto see), they follow players that we havnt seen play, and they write it for us to, so we can be informed, obviously it takes alote of time and "effort" and im happy and gratefull for that, as are many "open minded" people. these rankings are not made for the ignorant.
so if you dont like it do something besides whinning and complaining becuase it's getting sad as hell.

btw thanks again to the writers for the time and energy you spend to inform us.

 

[Randall Graves*]

Why are teams being penalized rankings wise for graduating top end prospects to the NHL? or not even graduating just guys having their first crack at the NHL,I don't understand how some of these teams who seem to produce top end prospects to the NHL teams are dropped down,while teams with guys not in the NHL go up?

I dunno this should be changed slightly.

 

[Kevin Forbes]

PS. For those of you that are critical of the work, do it yourselves...you've got an entire board dedicated to just that, so let's see you're opinions, instead of hearing you whine and complain about what others think. Are you man (or woman, to appease those so inclined) enough to do it, or will you just run your mouth at others' attempts?

that ain't a bad idea,
you all seem nice and opinionated and knowledgeable, start churning out your own lists, show us how it's done

 

[EroCaps]

No reason the Caps can't be #1 next season with the addition of a top 4 pick.

 

[V for Voodoo]

I''d rate Andrei Kostitsyn one notch below the real top prospects (the Nashes, Staals, Spezzas etc.).

Wow. How many teams have prospects like that in their system? You're talking about a very rare breed here.
Off the top of my head, I'd say maybe 2-3 teams have prospects of the calibre of Spezza's or Nash', if that, and even if they did, they'd be in the NHL just like the three you named. This argument has little to no merit.

 

[Hockeycrazed07]

that ain't a bad idea,
you all seem nice and opinionated and knowledgeable, start churning out your own lists, show us how it's done

I don't know enough about all of the players listed to even attempt such an undertaking. This is also why you don't find me yapping when I think I know something about it. I thank people for their time and I move on.
It's called growing up. Something a lot of people here (not you, F) need to do, apparently.

~Crazed.

EDIT: Further, complaining about this site rather odd, if I do say so myself. What, are people not getting their money's worth? Let them complain about Redline or Hockey Forecaster, but for HF, which is run for free to the public? Please. There are other soapboxes to stand on, if I may.

 

[Legionnaire]

By HF's criteria, if you are going to assume that Dustin Brown is going to play enough games to graduate, and exclude him from the rankings, you must also exclude Fredrik Sjostrom and Jeff Taffe from the Coyotes. If those two are excluded the Yotes fall to the middle of the pack IMO

Edit: Mike Cammalleri should also be included for the Kings if Taffe is for the Yotes.

Sorry to ***** and moan, I do appreciate the work, but the fact is, your adherence to the criteria is inconsistant and seems somewhat selective.

 

[Evilo]

I don't know enough about all of the players listed to even attempt such an undertaking. This is also why you don't find me yapping when I think I know something about it. I thank people for their time and I move on.
It's called growing up. Something a lot of people here (not you, F) need to do, apparently.

~Crazed.

EDIT: Further, complaining about this site rather odd, if I do say so myself. What, are people not getting their money's worth? Let them complain about Redline or Hockey Forecaster, but for HF, which is run for free to the public? Please. There are other soapboxes to stand on, if I may.

I think you need to stop licking some shoes here. Nobody insulted them for the work!
I appreciate the effort, like anyone here.
That doesn't exclude our rights to disagree.
If we couldn't disagree, we might as well not read them at all.
If they are here, it's not as a definite ranking but as some food for thought and highly arguable.
And IMO, these rankings are the weirdest and most out of base since I visit the site (and it's been a looooong time).
But hey it's MO, and I might be wrong and these rankings right.
But it's my right to offer my opinion.
Maybe it's because it's a mid-season ranking that it's weird.
And I agree with Legionnaire that it seems not all prospects were treated the same way regarding the criteria.
Not even mentionning that the top prospects were not always taken into account (I mean Pittsburgh lacks a scoring talent, and they exclude Bartschi and Anshakov?).

 

[triggrman]

My only complaint is your resource as hockeys future's team pages when those or Nashville's anyway, isn't even up to date.

 

[Psycho Papa Joe]

Guess us Habs fans can't complain....... :p

I'm complaining. The list should look like this:

1) Habs













2) Washington
3) Edmonton
4) New Jersey