Hockey's Future Spring 2007 Organizational Rankings (16-30)

Guy Flaming

Registered User
The other thing to consider with the Islanders is not just who they lost to the graduation list or who improved for them... but the teams around them. Pittsburgh is a prime example. They dropped past where NYI was last time so naturally NYI and everyone else went up a spot just because of that.
 

Ola

Registered User
Apr 10, 2004
34,597
11,595
Sweden
Mark Giordano > any D Toronto can throw at him.

I don't know about that.

Stråhlman atleast got a ton of potential.

At the end of next season, I wouldn't be shocked if the general concensus was -- Stråhlman>Bäckström.

Depends on how Stråhlman can handle the physical stuff next season.
 

Hammerwise

Registered User
Jun 13, 2002
781
0
Visit site
so a ton of potential for Strahlman, a boom or bust player, a guy who has never played in NA is > than a guy who has already played in the NHL (and played well)?

Toronto has about 3 key prospects in thirsty, strahlman and pogge, but other than that a lot of maybe borderline NHLers and 3rd/4th line, 3rd pairing guys (MAYBE). I think their ranking makes sense again, they're always in that 21-27th range.

Strange to see PHILLY who I believe was 2nd to last in last rankings vault into the top 15, without benefit of 2nd overall pick. I know they picked up parent, but he on his own wouldn't vault them that high. (I guess their prospects have really shone?)
 

Holly Gunning

Registered User
Mar 9, 2002
3,484
0
out and about
Visit site
Well, it's doesn't hurt if the HF Online Editor is a Thrasher fan. No wonder the Panthers, Lightning and Hurricanes are ranked behind them.:shakehead

http://hfboards.com/member.php?u=1357
While this doesn't really dignify a response, I'll make a factual point that there was so much initial agreement about the placement of the Thrashers that they did not even need to be discussed by the committee.

Actually, the committee was very much in agreement about virtually all of the teams. It was almost too easy this time.
 

Mike Jones

Registered User
Apr 12, 2007
12,485
2,877
Calgary
Dustin Boyd might be better than Tlusty or Kulemin or might not be, noone knows yet. And Toronto's defense depth is very nice with prospects like Anton Stralman (who some Sweden fans have even gone as far as to compare him to the legendary Niklas Lidstrom, although I tend to ignore comparisons, but that is ONE HELL of a comparison), Staffan Kronwall (could be a number 5 defenseman right now if it wasnt for Toronto D depth), and even Andy Wozniewski, Jamie Sifers etc.

I'm not going to compare any of the Toronto players to Calgary's, but atleast you can admit by saying that the talent level is close. I just dont understand why Toronto is ranked too low, when they've been drafting quality players in the first round and finding steals in the later rounds (Anton Stralman).

I, personally still believe Toronto's farm talent is a little more talented than Calgary. Nothing against Calgary at all, as the Flames are one of my favorite teams.

Two quick points (that I have mentioned elsewhere):

Omaha made the AHL playoffs with a younger roster (1) from which the parent team was able to draw players when they needed them (2). And these players played some quality minutes. That's exactly how things should work.

The Marlies, with an older roster of players, missed the playoffs and really have nobody other than Pogge who will make the parent team. Not unless there are majour changes at the top anyway. This is a clear example of what not to try at home.

So I have no idea why people are trying to compare the two organizations and say that they are really closer than they appear. They aren't. Calgary appears to be an organization who knows what a development team is for. And they use it towards those purposes. The Leafs, on the other hand, seem to have little idea what a farm team does or the importance that it can have to an organization trying to rebuild and reload.
 

Northern Dancer

The future ain't what it used to be.
Mar 2, 2002
15,199
13
5 K from the ACC
Maybe the reason the Leafs aren't higher is because people aren't buying the hype about some of their prospects, some of us remember the 'Cola' wars.

I assumed that whoever wrote these reports has actually done some research and watched these kids play. The hype should not be a factor, otherwise i could write them. Hopefully these reports have a little more creditability than a set of CliffsNotes.
 

Fozz

Registered User
Aug 1, 2002
7,730
210
Ottawa
Visit site
Can anyone tell me how any self-respecting hockey website can't even keep their player profiles up to date? I mean, you can't even get stats on these guys for crying out loud!! I think it's just shameful and unprofessional.
:shakehead
 

Hammerwise

Registered User
Jun 13, 2002
781
0
Visit site
to me its simple: CALG has 4 big prospects, who are quite steady in their projection/ growth 2 of which played well in the NHL this yr, TOR has 3 big prospects who are quite steady in their projection/growth, none of which played in the NHL yet.

Why would TOR rank above CALG?
 

JaymzB

Registered User
Apr 8, 2003
2,858
127
Toronto
Although I am far from a Leafs fan, I have to say the Leafs are too low on this list. With 4 very good prospects in Stralman, Kulemin, Pogge and Tlusty they should be higher than 25th IMO. I can understand if the HF writers feel depth is an issue with the Leafs farm, but with the players listed above all having a very good shot at playing for a while in the NHL, I would personally put them around 15.
 

Kevin Forbes

Registered User
Jul 29, 2002
9,199
10
Nova Scotia
www.kforbesy.ca
Can anyone tell me how any self-respecting hockey website can't even keep their player profiles up to date? I mean, you can't even get stats on these guys for crying out loud!! I think it's just shameful and unprofessional.
:shakehead

Honestly?
Hockey's Future considers itself a online hockey magazine. Our primary focus is writing articles, giving updates and so on, providing coverage of the future NHL players in that form. Yes, we do also feature player profiles, but we don't consider ourselves a scouting website like some of the others available on the Internet.

Yes, there are many profiles that are grievously out of date (god help the Ducks page), but we are working toward addressing those issues while continuing to provide fresh new articles on a daily basis. We're aware that there are some things out of date, this isn't news. We're not TSN, we're not the Globe and Mail and we're not full time HF writers. Our resources simply aren't as vast and far-reaching as some larger media counterparts. Are we stretched thin? Perhaps. We don't have the largest base of writers and all of our writers do this in their spare time. Just looking through the site, there's plenty of team pages with "Apply Today" listed as the team writer. When our staffing numbers are low, the rest of the staff picks up the slack. So we have our Phoenix writer maybe also cover an LA article and so on. This redistribution of time and work often means some things get put to the side. Profiles and stats are the easiest thing to set aside, because, again, we're in the business of writing articles on hockey prospects.

Now onto the good news, over the past three months, there has been work going on behind the scenes at Hockey's Future, installing a new back-end to streamline the article submission process, organizing staff tasks and so on. Janine Pilkington and myself have been hired on as Conference Coordinators (Eastern and Western, respectively) to try to pool the resources we do have to make sure we have up-to-date coverage of all 30 teams, as well as the various leagues and countries. This does include profiles and stats. We've also have a very exciting and interesting thread going on at the staff board discussing things we want to add to the site, different articles and stories we want to cover and how to continue to grow and stay fresh. Hopefully, we'll get a few more writers who can help fill our gaps, can contribute and can dedicate the time and commitment to stick around for more than an article or two. Not everyone can. I don't blame them. Hell, I have a hard time meeting most of my deadlines.

But quite frankly, keeping up to date stats aren't the top priority. If you want to know how many goals Jonathan Toews scored last season, there are numerous places to read about it. If you want to hear what Patrick Thoresen thought of his first year in the NHL with the pressure of his home country on his back, come to Hockey's Future. That's what we cover. The prospects, not the numbers.
 
Last edited:

Redwingsfan

Global Moderator
Jul 15, 2006
20,370
187
is robbie earl really a better prospect then nikolai kulemin??

and why is detroit in the top 15??? our top 5 prospects are howard, kindl, ryno, mursak and abdelkader!!!
 

Titan124

Registered User
Oct 14, 2005
3,699
3
As an islander fan, nyi doesn't deserve to be in top 15. I suppose if you consider franz nielsen to be more than a third liner, than maybe they can be 15, but really the Islanders have tons of 3rd liners. Tambellini, Okposo, and Bergenheim are good, but I'm not sure they're good enough to be higher than the bottom half.
 

Seachd

Registered User
Mar 16, 2002
24,937
8,946
so a ton of potential for Strahlman, a boom or bust player, a guy who has never played in NA is > than a guy who has already played in the NHL (and played well)?

I'd say so, definitely. You can't say Stralman wouldn't have played just as well if he was given the chance.
 

Fozz

Registered User
Aug 1, 2002
7,730
210
Ottawa
Visit site
Honestly?
Hockey's Future considers itself a online hockey magazine. Our primary focus is writing articles, giving updates and so on, providing coverage of the future NHL players in that form. Yes, we do also feature player profiles, but we don't consider ourselves a scouting website like some of the others available on the Internet.

Yes, there are many profiles that are grievously out of date (god help the Ducks page), but we are working toward addressing those issues while continuing to provide fresh new articles on a daily basis. We're aware that there are some things out of date, this isn't news. We're not TSN, we're not the Globe and Mail and we're not full time HF writers. Our resources simply aren't as vast and far-reaching as some larger media counterparts. Are we stretched thin? Perhaps. We don't have the largest base of writers and all of our writers do this in their spare time. Just looking through the site, there's plenty of team pages with "Apply Today" listed as the team writer. When our staffing numbers are low, the rest of the staff picks up the slack. So we have our Phoenix writer maybe also cover an LA article and so on. This redistribution of time and work often means some things get put to the side. Profiles and stats are the easiest thing to set aside, because, again, we're in the business of writing articles on hockey prospects.

Now onto the good news, over the past three months, there has been work going on behind the scenes at Hockey's Future, installing a new back-end to streamline the article submission process, organizing staff tasks and so on. Janine Pilkington and myself have been hired on as Conference Coordinators (Eastern and Western, respectively) to try to pool the resources we do have to make sure we have up-to-date coverage of all 30 teams, as well as the various leagues and countries. This does include profiles and stats. We've also have a very exciting and interesting thread going on at the staff board discussing things we want to add to the site, different articles and stories we want to cover and how to continue to grow and stay fresh. Hopefully, we'll get a few more writers who can help fill our gaps, can contribute and can dedicate the time and commitment to stick around for more than an article or two. Not everyone can. I don't blame them. Hell, I have a hard time meeting most of my deadlines.

But quite frankly, keeping up to date stats aren't the top priority. If you want to know how many goals Jonathan Toews scored last season, there are numerous places to read about it. If you want to hear what Patrick Thoresen thought of his first year in the NHL with the pressure of his home country on his back, come to Hockey's Future. That's what we cover. The prospects, not the numbers.

Thanks for the in-depth explanation.
I appreciate what HF brings since this is my main ressource on pretty much all things hockey. You're right about there being plenty of places to get stats and such. My personal opinion on this is simple: if you don't have time or ressources to update the player profiles, then why even bother having a line about stats in there? It just doesn't look right when you have a bunch of "Future Analysis Coming Soon" and "Stats Coming Soon!" all over the place.
 

Fozz

Registered User
Aug 1, 2002
7,730
210
Ottawa
Visit site
Although I am far from a Leafs fan, I have to say the Leafs are too low on this list. With 4 very good prospects in Stralman, Kulemin, Pogge and Tlusty they should be higher than 25th IMO. I can understand if the HF writers feel depth is an issue with the Leafs farm, but with the players listed above all having a very good shot at playing for a while in the NHL, I would personally put them around 15.


People seem to be forgetting that team rankings do not only reflect the top 3 or 4 prospects of each team but also the depth at all positions and the number of players that have the potential to play in the NHL one day. That explains why the Leafs are so low, since their prospect pool just isn't very deep at all.
 

Kaktus*

Guest
Good to see that the Flyers jumped from #30 to top 15 in terms of prospects in organization.. Homer did a good job as a GM in his 1st year. One year turn around. Impressive.
 

Safir*

Guest
While this doesn't really dignify a response, I'll make a factual point that there was so much initial agreement about the placement of the Thrashers that they did not even need to be discussed by the committee.

Actually, the committee was very much in agreement about virtually all of the teams. It was almost too easy this time.

Ah, initial agreement! Do you mean that some writers questioned the rank at one point of the evaluation? One has to wonder about it.

How much weight does the voice of the Online Editior (you) carry? I'd also like to know, which writers were actually involved in composing the Top30. How many games of the prospects did these writers actually saw?

According to your profile you are located in Atlanta. I doubt that you can follow a lot of current prospects on a regular basis. Just saying.

Wouldn't a writer like Guy Flaming (for example) be in a far better position to judge talent, because of the WHL teams in "his" region?
 

Mike Jones

Registered User
Apr 12, 2007
12,485
2,877
Calgary
is robbie earl really a better prospect then nikolai kulemin??

and why is detroit in the top 15??? our top 5 prospects are howard, kindl, ryno, mursak and abdelkader!!!

Considering the Red Wings' draft position through the years I think these are pretty good prospects. The Wings have done a lot with the few lower draft choices they've had. I have no problem with them in the top 15.
 

plaugher

Registered User
May 2, 2002
1,957
2
Halifax, NS
Visit site
Ah, initial agreement! Do you mean that some writers questioned the rank at one point of the evaluation? One has to wonder about it.

How much weight does the voice of the Online Editior (you) carry? I'd also like to know, which writers were actually involved in composing the Top30. How many games of the prospects did these writers actually saw?

According to your profile you are located in Atlanta. I doubt that you can follow a lot of current prospects on a regular basis. Just saying.

Wouldn't a writer like Guy Flaming (for example) be in a far better position to judge talent, because of the WHL teams in "his" region?

All of the writers had Atlanta ranked in roughly the same place in all of our discussions, thus they did not warrant any further discussion in regards to placement. Everyone was in agreement - initially and finally - in regards to their position. It has nothing to do with bias. It has nothing to do with slighting other teams. This was everyone's opinion. And everyone's opinion was in accordance with one another (forgive the Yogi Berra-ism).

To bring up Atlanta's division rivals' placement into the argument of Atlanta's ranking is asinine. Tampa Bay trumps Atlanta in regards to goaltending due to quality and quantity (though I would argue that Pavelec is at least on par with Ramo, Helenius and Koshechkin, if not slightly better), but Atlanta holds the upper hand - quite handily - in regards to defense and forwards. And Carolina was unanimously deemed last by a fair margin. The weight of the voice of the Online Editor carried the exact same weight as the voice of everyone else on the committee.

As far as your region argument goes, Guy was on the committee from the WHL region. As was I, in the QMJHL region; as was another writer from the OHL region. As well as a European writer. As well as two Americans, who have seen their fair share of minor pro and NCAA games this past season. If there was a discrepancy in regards to one league's prospects apparently being slighted, our opinions were heard. If anyone wanted an opinion on a couple of players that they were not familiar with, this questions were addressed. No league was left out of the loop. Not to mention everyone else on staff was given the opportunity to voice their opinions, no stone was left unturned (or at least no league left in the lurch) in the process.
 

Hammerwise

Registered User
Jun 13, 2002
781
0
Visit site
While I agree the TMLF should be a bit higher they have neither the depth nor the "so-far" success of CALG. I'm no fan of either, but only on HF could a guy who's never played a game in North America be better than a guy who played quite well in the NHL. Not to mention Boyd. Fact is CALG's prospects have made greater strides and have greater depth than Toronto's org, so I can't see how TOR should be ahead of CAL .

Also take a look at the HF report on the Maple Leaf rookies this season: other than White, a bunch of 24+ yr old callups. Doesn't scream AHL/NHL depth to me at the moment.

Tlrusty, pogge (who struggled in AHL) are not there yet and strahlman might not be either.

But I can't see how TOR would be that much higher on the list or disagree with the article's summary of their prospect pool. TOR has been in the bottom 7-8 for 3 yrs with good reason and as much as I like Thirsty and pogge and the others, they are still weaker. I can easily see at least 15 teams who have better prospects and depth than TOR.
 

Slats432

Registered User
Jun 2, 2002
14,757
2,778
hockeypedia.com
Ah, initial agreement! Do you mean that some writers questioned the rank at one point of the evaluation? One has to wonder about it.

How much weight does the voice of the Online Editior (you) carry? I'd also like to know, which writers were actually involved in composing the Top30. How many games of the prospects did these writers actually saw?

According to your profile you are located in Atlanta. I doubt that you can follow a lot of current prospects on a regular basis. Just saying.

Wouldn't a writer like Guy Flaming (for example) be in a far better position to judge talent, because of the WHL teams in "his" region?

Let me as a former staff member throw my hat in. (Since I don't have any affiliation to the site, and no vested interest in the debate.)

Holly's position when it comes to any type of rankings is never an issue. The staff, usually 8-12 members work together as a group. The knowledge base of those writers is utilized to come to consensus.

For example, if there is a WHL player in the discussion, then the people that have the most knowledge will weigh in on that particular player.

When the committee is assembled, it is the goal of the chairperson(I don't think it has ever been Holly), to try to get a diverse group covering a lot of areas. One strong NCAA, with a couple Europe, someone who sees lots of AHL and a few CHL folks.

Each member assembles a list on their own knowledge of the group of prospects based on almost an equal judgement of top end and depth.

If I have 3 good goalie prospects, that might put me on par with someone who has 1 very good goalie prospect...but obviously with this one example, there are 100 factors per team that are looked at.

After the original assignment, the entire group gets into a chatroom or IM protocol to individually debate these assignments.

This whole process takes a long time and the amount of effort is substantial. No one committee member weighs in over another.

Take it from someone who knows, but has no reason to play the company line.
 

Kevin Forbes

Registered User
Jul 29, 2002
9,199
10
Nova Scotia
www.kforbesy.ca
It's also worth noting (not sure if this was mentioned before) that after the initial rankings are done, they are presented to the rest of the staff, so they have a chance to question it, weigh in with their own opinion or otherwise provide information and feedback to help the process along. These comments are then taken back to the table and the committee votes again, coming up with the final list.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->