Hockey's Future Organizational Rankings, Spring 2011 21-30

[Hello Johnny]

???? Luongo, Schneider, Lack, Cannata

Luongo: 38-15-7, 2.11 GAA, .928 save %
Schneider: 16-4-2, 2.23 GAA, .929 save %
Lack: 28-21-4, 2.26 GAA, .926 save %
Cannata: 25-10-4, 2.48 GAA, .911 save %

Luongo and Schneider aren't prospects....

 

[JiriHrdina]

Would anyone, including Philly fans take the Flyers prospects over the Flames? The presence of Erixon alone gives the Flames an edge.

Calgary is definately in the bottom third but I would put them at about 25.

 

[R S]

Brutal rankings.

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

Surprised Pens are above the Caps, I guess the Caps had a lot of there top guys graduating to the NHL. Bit unfair really as Dustin Jeffrey would have graduated if it hadn't been for injury. Pens are probably benefiting from the fact that they've got a lot of guys close to the NHL.

Perreault is still on the Caps' list too.

Washington should be higher -- ahead of Pittsburg. Their top 5 is better then the Pens.

Is this a ranking of the "best top 5"?

 

[S E P H]

I think the Avs prospect core they have now is much better than the HF staff believe. We did lose a ton to graduations the last few years, but Avs will definitely be in the top 17 after this year's draft.

 

[AwesomePanthers]

Philly has easily the worst prospect-pool in the league. Washington should be higher, but a fairly decent list.

 

[thestonedkoala]

Weren't you the guy that was in love with Matt Foy?

Dupuis > Kovalchuk.

LOL.

This is dating back to 2002.

Nope, but I knew the guy. Thought he was a bit of a nutter.

I did think highly of Foy but he never really put the pieces together.

 

[sa cyred]

Other than really Ranford and Eriksson we dont really have prospects. Most of our prospects are in the AHL. With spots opening up, Read, Gustafsson, Wellwood, Holmstrom and maybe even Testwuide will all fight for spots for the big team. We have no blue chippers but we have a decent amount of players who are buttom line guys (Holmstrom, Kalinski, etc) or guys who, if they get their stuff together could be pretty good NHLers (Eriksson (goalie), Gustafsson (defense), Read (who are some are saying next season he is already set for a spot) and maybe in the future Ranford (7th round pick last year who lead the WHL in points for 1/2-3/4 of the season as an 18 yr old)

 

[Dread Clawz]

Minnesota is a bit too low, imo. They have some interesting prospects, liek Granlund or Zucker.

Yeah, but a few good prospects doesn't justify being that high. Their prospect pool is pretty shallow. I do agree that HF's writeup was a bit harsh on them though.

 

[Intoewsables]

Not sure if I agree with the Nucks rank.

I'd probably put them around where they were last year at 22.

No mention anywhere of Darren Archibald who was on a tear in the OHL playoffs or Sebastian Erixon who led Timra in D scoring.

Also

???? Luongo, Schneider, Lack, Cannata

Luongo: 38-15-7, 2.11 GAA, .928 save %
Schneider: 16-4-2, 2.23 GAA, .929 save %
Lack: 28-21-4, 2.26 GAA, .926 save %
Cannata: 25-10-4, 2.48 GAA, .911 save %

Don't forget Chris Tanev is apparently our 6th best prospect on D. Behind Connauton, McNally, Sauve, Polasek, and Ellington. Taylor ****ing Ellington.

 

[haelwho]

Zucker? Haula?

If you're comparing those two to the Wild prospects of recent years, then they could be considered high-end talent, but if you compare them to the Kings, for example, who have guys like Linden Vey, Jordan Weal, and Maxim Kitsyn outside of their top 10, then yes, the Wild are definitely lacking in high-end talent.

Little depth in goal?

Hackett, Kuemper, Gustafsson, Endras....that's little depth in goal? Really? So what is a lot of depth? Five first round goaltenders? 10 goaltenders?

There's one potential starter, a WHL overager, a platoon goaltender in the Swedish equivalent of the AHL, and a 25-year old. Even you have to admit, that doesn't exactly spark excitement. Khudobin was playing major minutes for Houston this year and they had to bring in Theodore when Harding went down because no one in the system was prepared to play backup. Beyond Backstrom and Hackett, the goaltending situation in Minnesota is not great.

As for age:

Not really. Scandy, Cuma are fairly 'old' for prospects. But Haula, Hackett, Kuemper, Larsson, Granlund, Bulmer are fairly young...we have a good mix.

Once you get past the top 10, most of the Wild's prospects are aging:
Gillies, Almond, Spurgeon are '89s
Falk is an '88
Wellman, Noreau, Rau are '87s
Prosser, Genoway are '86s

The Wild's prospect group is fairly old because they have not graduated a quality NHL talent since their 2006 draft class. A lot of guys, especially depth players, are having trouble cracking the NHL full-time.

 

[member 30781]

HF Staff got this one wrong. I am a Flyers fan and I KNOW that the Flyers should be last on the list. I'd take Calgary's and Atlanta's prospects over ours anyday of the week and twice on Sundays.

 

[Shaun_W_W]

Looking forward to the Leafs hopefully moving up into the top 10 since we added our 2nd and 3rd best prospects at the deadline. We also have two first so at least by September we should get into that top 10.


p.s. Flyers better hope they hit some homeruns because their prospects suck and they have no picks either

 

[Hunter Gathers]

Little depth in goal?

Hackett, Kuemper, Gustafsson, Endras....that's little depth in goal? Really? So what is a lot of depth? Five first round goaltenders? 10 goaltenders?.

If by depth you mean a lot of depth in terms of crappy goaltenders and one maybe decent one.

 

[periferal]

These rankings are about as accurate as Scott Burnside's round 2 playoff predictions.

Scott Burnside is a f____g sage compared to the completely unresearched drivel that HF.com puts out a weekly basis.

 

[thestonedkoala]

If by depth you mean a lot of depth in terms of crappy goaltenders and one maybe decent one.

We traded Khudobin because Hackett was doing good in the minors as a rookie. Kuemper did extremely well in the OHL and Gustafsson is trucking along well. Endras, while older, played extremely well in Germany.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

We traded Khudobin because Hackett was doing good in the minors as a rookie. Kuemper did extremely well in the OHL and Gustafsson is trucking along well. Endras, while older, played extremely well in Germany.

Every single team has goaltenders like that.

What the Wild have is a bunch of crap and one "eh" prospect in Hackett.

 

[WarriorOfGandhi]

Scott Burnside is a f____g sage compared to the completely unresearched drivel that HF.com puts out a weekly basis.

And yet here we are

 

[Lonewolfe2015]

Looks like you're focusing too highly on where a player's natural position is, at least for the Avs. Olver, Malone, Mercier are all guys that would crack our lineup as a winger, and thus improve our overall depth at wing. Olver with top 6 potential, Malone/Mercier with bottom 6 potential. So "The club's wingers all fit the mold of fourth line/fringe players at this point and there isn't really a player who projects as a high-scorer at the NHL level." would be fairly inaccurate in that regards.

Feels like we're underrated again, but I'll refrain from saying more until I see the next batch of rankings.

 

[Mcnotloilersfan]

The Oilers will be in the 11-20 area.
Hall and Eberle are graduated, no?

Possibly, still, I think with the seasons that Hamilton, Marincin, Martindale, Pitlick, Hartikainen, Bunz and Lander had, that they'll crack the top ten. 7 recent draft picks who have all exceeded early expectations.

I agree with the idea that this list shouldn't come out until after the draft. Right now I imagine Oilers are in the 7-12 range with the recent graduations, but after they draft 1st, 19th and 31st, it will put them back in the top 5, likely even top 3.

 

[KingLB]

I love when people come in here and whine about how great their depth is, then list a bunch of obscure prospects that EVERY team has as evidence. Zomg how is our 2010 6th rounder not considered high end talent!?!?!?!

 

[BHD]

Outside of Despres, and MAYBE Tangradi, the Pens do not have as much high-end talent that could contribute soon. Solid depth, but nothing special.

Beau Bennett is still a few years away.

 

[Chimaera]

Perreault is still on the Caps' list too.



Is this a ranking of the "best top 5"?

You could make an easy argument that their 5-10 is better as well.

I don't think the Caps have a deep pool by any means. They're plagued with a ton of graduations. But they do have some prospects that other teams would love to have.


it is what it is. these rankings aren't exactly the greatest, but they should be compared with retrospective views.

Pull up the rankings from 2001. Or 02. See what they ranked there and then who developed players. That's the only way to establish credibility.

 

[Pulkkinen]

Surprised to see the Avalanche that low. It's true that maybe lack some top-end prospects at the Forward, because, Hishon apart, there's nothing special, and the a lack of offensive touch at the wings is evident. But the defensive pool is one of the deepests at NHL, combining offensive and defensive players, and Goaltending looks pretty solid right now. Also, there are some good projects, specially some workers like Walker and Malone. It seems, in my opinion, that the College prospects are a bit underrated. Players like Millan, Carey, Moffatt and Condon maybe are not future stars, but they can be useful players in the future.

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

You could make an easy argument that their 5-10 is better as well.

I don't think the Caps have a deep pool by any means. They're plagued with a ton of graduations. But they do have some prospects that other teams would love to have.

I definitely disagree. Proven play at a professional NA level is a factor in assessing prospects, and the Pens' pool has the distinct advantage there on account of the Caps' graduations. Guys like Jeffrey, Tangradi, Thiessen, Strait, and Bortuzzo have all acquitted themsleves very well in the AHL.

No doubt the top of the Caps' pool has a higher upside, but that isn't the only factor.

it is what it is. these rankings aren't exactly the greatest, but they should be compared with retrospective views.

Pull up the rankings from 2001. Or 02. See what they ranked there and then who developed players. That's the only way to establish credibility.

I don't know where you're going with this.