Discussion in 'NHL Draft - Prospects' started by Holly Gunning, Nov 16, 2004.
Nothing really wrong with that. I'd rather have Phaneuf over Horton and Fleury but I can see it the other way as well.
Phaneuf over-rated has it it
7th is fine
Constructive Criticism for the HF crew: If you guys want to be 'more professional' like I've heard I'd suggest not condradicting yourself so blatanly. On the Pens page Malkin is behind Fluery but on the top 50 Malkin is ahead of Fluery. I realize different people make both lists but its something to consider.
Looks like the top 10 is pretty much what most posters thought. Good job HF, you guys took a bit of flack with the list, by hey, you can't please everyone.
Suter skipped his Sophomore, JR and SR years of college...not just his Senior
the top 10 is what I expected too
the ranks 11-50 are worse...
I still can't understand why Kronwall is not on the list.. lol
Hmmmm.....Not bad. I have some minor disagreements with the order, but pretty good overall.
I'd put Fleury at #3 ahead of Malkin and Zherdev.
It's all pretty level where they are placed, IMO.
I think Fleury should be top 4, but whatever.
I'm not even a Fleruy fan, mind you.
I dont think you do
One thing that I really don't get is how players like Bergeron and Staal aren't eligible for this list and players like Horton and Zherdev are. Horton would have played a full NHL season if not for injuries, and he still played a great deal of the season and played a pretty decent amount. Zherdev played a lot for CBJ this year as well. What was the GP cut off list for this list?
Once again, disappointed not to see Cam Ward crack the list. The main oversight.
Yeah, I don't understand the 65 games (I think that is what it is) cutoff. Why not go with 80-82 to represent a full season. It doesn't make sense to punish a durable player and cater to one who gets injured. I think it should be closer to 100 myself. Are you telling me that a kid like Chistov isn't still a prospect?
Answered my own question, it's 65 games. That's way too much if you ask me. Horton played 55 and he's not eligible for the Calder next season, I don't know why HF doesn't have the same standards if a player has solidified himself as a roster player instead of a prospect. Oh well.
Come to think of it you're probably right. The only thing that made Horton still a prospect this year was a little lack of durability. Which doesn't make sense. It needs to be raised before lowered. My mistake.
Thank you to the HF Committee who took the time to decide the top 50 prospects. Your time and work into this stuff doesn't get enough appreciation sometimes, so I just wanted to sound off on your hard work
Have to agree with Caniac and Smokey here. 100 games or a full season should be the cutoff. Very surprised at Malkin over Fleury. Also surprised to see Michalek and Vanek still ahead of Suter.....although I certainly understand I'm playing with peanuts and opinions here. Solid top 10, props to HF regardless of my disagreeance with their placement of several players.
The cut off was 65 games.
Interesting point based on top 20 rankings compared to top 50 rankings.
A similar situation between Malkin and Fleury occured with Anaheim prospects, #2 Bryzgalov being ranked higher then #1 Getzlaf. Personally, I agreed with it, due to the fact that Getzlaf as a skilled forward with size and strength was more valuable to Anaheim then Bryzgalov, while Anaheim already has Giguere. However in the long run, Bryzgalov has the potential (and looks to become) a better overall player.
I can't say for sure if it's a similar situation to this in Pittsburgh case, mainly because I'm not as familiar with their organization, but it is something to think about. Also, comparing goalies to forwards is quite hard to do, so there's a lot of room for interpretation.
And again, with a lot of rankings like this, the differences in scores is a fraction of a point. I didn't work on the Top 50, but I know with the Org Ranking, it was down to the tenths of a decimal to decide between some teams.
If your going to say this is HF top 50 prospects and put out another one says this is the Rangers top 20 prospects its from the site. Meaning its not "John Doe's top 20 Rangers prospects". If you put a label on it thats if HF's top prospects it should be the sites opinion . Meaning, HF things (ex) Malkin is better than Fluery. If you look around the site you can't find which one HF likes better. Its a little tough to explain. But I'm trying to say there should be consistancy within the site if you want to say this is HF's rankings and not John Does rankings.
The cutoff should be 25 games. Just like it is in the NHL.
That's rookie status. Not prospect status.
There is no prospect status number in the NHL is there? So if someone isnt a rookie they shouldnt be a prospect IMO.
There was some talk to raise it to 82 games back when it was raised. Some just thought that was too high. Maybe the 65 is the result of a compromise between those who wanted to leave it at 40 and those who wanted it at 82.
For Chistov to be included, it would have to be raised to like 140 games. That's just way too high. Hell, at that level, Frolov would almost still be a prospect but I don't think anyone would consider him a prospect anymore (great young player? yes, but not a prospect).
And for the understatement of the year...
The top 10 is anti-climatic.
I see what you're saying, and that is a possibility. But I don't see the problem with being a prospect and not qualify as a rookie anymore. It happens in baseball all the time because their rookie requirement is relatively low and most of the prospect sites would still consider a non-rookie a prospect.
this isnt about the top 10, but the top 50 in general, im not sure, maybe i just missed it but i didnt see Marek Svatos on the top 50 list??. He definetley is a good prospect, not top 10 material but i could see him definetley ahead of alot of prospects maybe around the 23-27 range. He had a good playoff campaign with the Avalanche and looks to be a promising upcoming forward.
Separate names with a comma.