Hockey's Future Top 50 prospects: 1-10

[rebedom]

What a difference a year makes?

http://www.hockeyinsider.de/top100.htm

 

[The Mars Volchenkov]

As an Ottawa fan, I would even say Ray Emery is overrated. But then again, this isn't based on this years play, and it's a good thing, because he's been awful. Even then, I would have put Vermette ahead of him.

 

[Mothra]

I took exception to your last statement, which was unneccesary.

If I had said "most","all", or "everyone", I would see your point. But, I said "many". Yes, many people feel this way. Many is pretty ambiguous, it doesn't mean most, or that it is a consensus.

My opinion is laid out in my first post on the topic. I have seen only clips of both Ovechkin and Malkin. I have difficulty with the logic in:

Zherdev > Malkin, b/c Malkin has played well in the NHL;

If you accept NHL experience as that important; how can:

Ovechkin > Zherdev, when Ovechkin has never played in the NHL?

IMO using NHL success to put Zherdev over Malkin is weak if you don't use it consistently. If Ovechkin is just that much better than Zherdev that lack of NHL play doesn't slip him to #2, than I think Malkin is a notch above Zherdev as well.

well.....first....maybe I missed it but I didnt see where it was said that Zherdev was ranked higher because he played in the NHL....it was mentioned that he looked good...but thats pretty much it....you are making it sound as if that is the only reason he is ranked higher than Malkin....and I dont see it that way. He was of course #2 on the previous list......

"many" and "some" are both defining unknown quantities..."many" however...by defintion I believe....defines a "large unknown quantity". I do not believe that applies in this case.....if you care to prove me wrong please do.....

 

[Lionel Hutz]

well.....first....maybe I missed it but I didnt see where it was said that Zherdev was ranked higher because he played in the NHL....it was mentioned that he looked good...but thats pretty much it....you are making it sound as if that is the only reason he is ranked higher than Malkin....and I dont see it that way. He was of course #2 on the previous list......

"many" and "some" are both defining unknown quantities..."many" however...by defintion I believe....defines a "large unknown quantity". I do not believe that applies in this case.....if you care to prove me wrong please do.....

Given the fact that the summary on Zherdev speaks to his NHL success and that he "tied for 6th in rookie scoring despite playing far fewer games" I think that NHL success was an influential consideration in placing him above Malkin, yet it seems possible that this was not applied to Lhetonen (unless it is the case the Lhetonen's limited NHL play is equal to Zherdev's) and Ovechkin. I didn't intend to imply that it was the only reason.

Many, yes, a large unknown quantity of people see the gap as having closed. Would you like to debate the definition and application of the word large now? Your hedging on this word is quite ridiculous.

 

[Mothra]

Given the fact that the summary on Zherdev speaks to his NHL success and that he "tied for 6th in rookie scoring despite playing far fewer games" I think that NHL success was an influential consideration in placing him above Malkin, yet it seems possible that this was not applied to Lhetonen (unless it is the case the Lhetonen's limited NHL play is equal to Zherdev's) and Ovechkin. I didn't intend to imply that it was the only reason.

Many, yes, a large unknown quantity of people see the gap as having closed. Your hedging on this word is quite ridiculous.

I only see you saying its "many"....again.....show me "many" and dont count yourself in that group

Im confused......at first you said...

"I fail to see why Zherdev ranks above Malkin. I assume it is because Zherdev had a great rookie campaign in the NHL"

now you say....

"I didn't intend to imply that it was the only reason"

so which is it?.....you did of course say it was because...

 

[HOCKEY_GURU]

Goaltending is the most important position... , Goalies can steal games much easier than make the biggest difference in the outcome of a game, however the paradox is that its easier to get a decent goalie than anyhting else.. just look how cheap the Falmes got Kiprussoff...now think what it would take to pry an Iginla caliber player off another team...... much tougher, why even have such a debate?..Id rather have top 10 list of goalies..and top 50 FWD and D prospects .

 

[mazmin]

Still laughing at the fact that Lundqvist didn´t make the list... HF has missed out on many players before but this must be the biggest omission ever.

I don't think prospects playing in Europe and the NCAA were very well represented but I think the top 10 was pretty decent.

Fleury>Malkin... both kids are top notch but Fleury plays a more desireable position and this kid is physically a freak of nature with a terrific attitude.

Oh and I see Suter>Michalek and Suter>Vanek but thats just my opinion and mostly for the same reasons as above (position, attitude etc)

 

[Lionel Hutz]

I only see you saying its "many"....again.....show me "many" and dont count yourself in that group

Im confused......at first you said...

"I fail to see why Zherdev ranks above Malkin. I assume it is because Zherdev had a great rookie campaign in the NHL"

now you say....

"I didn't intend to imply that it was the only reason"

so which is it?.....you did of course say it was because...

Let it go dude, seriously. You are really picking this apart too much.

There is no contradiction here, I believe that an influential factor in ranking Zherdev above Malkin was the NHL success Zherdev enjoyed, and I don't agree with it, given that the #1 ranked prospect has never seen the NHL, and the argument. In addition to "because" I also said "if NHL success is that important" - which implies that other things are important.

I'm through discussing semantics with you, if you would like to give an opinion and disagree with the idea I am conveying, please do. If not then perhaps you should join a language discussion group or something.

 

[Lionel Hutz]

I only see you saying its "many"....again.....show me "many" and dont count yourself in that group

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2004/writers/stephen_cannella/06/25/draft.preview/

Quote: "Malkin doesn't turn 18 until July 31 and gives away 10 months and more than 25 pounds to Ovechkin, but many evaluators believe he's nearly Ovechkin's equal when it comes to talent"

http://www.insidehockey.com/draft/

Quote: "However, over the course of the past year, fellow Russian Evgeni Malkin's stock has risen considerably, to the point where many scouts feel that the Sergei Fedorov clone might well have surpassed Ovechkin. "


I don't beleive I dug this up, but here are two articles that use the word "many".

If you care to do a google search, you will find "many" articles by "many" writers who say the gap has closed and that they are not that far apart.

If you do a search here, you will find "many" posters who have said this.

 

[Mothra]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2004/writers/stephen_cannella/06/25/draft.preview/

Quote: "Malkin doesn't turn 18 until July 31 and gives away 10 months and more than 25 pounds to Ovechkin, but many evaluators believe he's nearly Ovechkin's equal when it comes to talent"

http://www.insidehockey.com/draft/

Quote: "However, over the course of the past year, fellow Russian Evgeni Malkin's stock has risen considerably, to the point where many scouts feel that the Sergei Fedorov clone might well have surpassed Ovechkin. "


I don't beleive I dug this up, but here are two articles that use the word "many".

If you care to do a google search, you will find "many" articles by "many" writers who say the gap has closed and that they are not that far apart.

If you do a search here, you will find "many" posters who have said this.

I thought you were done?

As I said before.....I have seen these...... Before the draft when this was brought up.....the "many" turned out to be just a couple...and then re-hashed by reporters over and over. What I was asking you for was quotes from NHL scouts/GMs that are saying that....the only one I have ever seen was from David Conte (which is impressive...if you are only going to have 1 guy...he's a good one to have no doubt)....but still.....he is the only NHL man that I have seen that come from

 

[littleHossa]

Well it's only been brought up once in this topic and I didn't see any answer, what about Mark Stuart, why did we fall off the list?

Ladd also seems to be too high, he could of been replaced by Cam Ward to still keep one 'Canes player on the list.

Also why is Montoya so high compared to Schwaz?

 

[Slats432]

Well it's only been brought up once in this topic and I didn't see any answer, what about Mark Stuart, why did we fall off the list?

Ladd also seems to be too high, he could of been replaced by Cam Ward to still keep one 'Canes player on the list.

Also why is Montoya so high compared to Schwaz?

If you read this whole thread there is a lot on Montoya/Schwarz. Also, if you go to the Bruins board, there is a good discussion about Mark Stuart.

 

[Mothra]

There is no contradiction here, I believe that an influential factor in ranking Zherdev above Malkin was the NHL success Zherdev enjoyed, and I don't agree with it, given that the #1 ranked prospect has never seen the NHL, and the argument. In addition to "because" I also said "if NHL success is that important" - which implies that other things are important.

first off you assume that it played a huge role in the ranking...which I'm sure it factored in but to what degree I dont know and neither do you

I know this season is not factored in....but not sure about the World Cup...in which AO played. If that had anything to do with it then it shoots more holes in your arguement...it may not be the NHL...but it was a chance for all of us to see him and see him play with the best in the world...and most would say he was as advertised

It seems you want a black and white list of what matters and how much weight it carries....I dont see that as possible

I also get a huge laugh at your expense...you talk about how "you" would rank these guys but then admit you have only seen some video clips of Malkin/AO.....I know many do that.....I just cant understand how you can....THAT is what seems ridiculous

 

[Lionel Hutz]

I thought you were done?

As I said before.....I have seen these...... Before the draft when this was brought up.....the "many" turned out to be just a couple...and then re-hashed by reporters over and over. What I was asking you for was quotes from NHL scouts/GMs that are saying that....the only one I have ever seen was from David Conte (which is impressive...if you are only going to have 1 guy...he's a good one to have no doubt)....but still.....he is the only NHL man that I have seen that come from

Well, I've given you "many". If you refer to my original post which you have been dissecting for 2 days, I did say many, with no qualifier. I didn't limit my comment to scouts - you did. I have established that I did not make stuff up, as you alleged, and that my opinion has a basis.

As for scouts, add Kyle Woodlief:

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/sports/penguinslive/archive/s_193851.html

 

[littleHossa]

If you read this whole thread there is a lot on Montoya/Schwarz. Also, if you go to the Bruins board, there is a good discussion about Mark Stuart.

Actually it degenerates into a Colaiacovo/Stuart discussion with some Habs in the mix, I'm also looking for an official answer, I read what the public's opinion is.

 

[Slats432]

Actually it degenerates into a Colaiacovo/Stuart discussion with some Habs in the mix, I'm also looking for an official answer, I read what the public's opinion is.

I gave the unofficial, as my part of the committee answer in that thread, near the end.

Edit: Post #126

 

[craig1]

What a difference a year makes?

[url="http://www.hockeyinsider.de/top100.htm"]http://www.hockeyinsider.de/top100.htm[/url]

That's a good point as to how unimportant rankings are. Example from your link:

102 Brooks Orpik3rd LineDPIT

or

88Anthony Stewart3rd LineRWFLA


Rankings mean nothing in the prospect world. Every single one is biased, and every single one is wrong to certain extents.

 

[Mothra]

Well, I've given you "many". If you refer to my original post which you have been dissecting for 2 days, I did say many, with no qualifier. I didn't limit my comment to scouts - you did. I have established that I did not make stuff up, as you alleged, and that my opinion has a basis.

As for scouts, add Kyle Woodlief:

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/sports/penguinslive/archive/s_193851.html

Yes...I forgot...the Pit scout and the Pit media.....

I already said that "making it up" was a bit strong......but I did feel like you put your own spin on it. Maybe that isnt accurate either because there are other "media" sources that say that...problem is they never/rarely say who those many are.....I dont give the Pit article any merit...what do you expect them to say?

In the end I see the Devils scout as the only credible person that said anything along those lines

 

[Lionel Hutz]

first off you assume that it played a huge role in the ranking...which I'm sure it factored in but to what degree I dont know and neither do you

I said beleive. You haven't made a point here. I did not say huge, I said influential. It was obviously influential. That is my opinion on the ranking, I've been quite clear about it. You give no indication of what you are trying to accomplish here, outside of more word wrangling.

I know this season is not factored in....but not sure about the World Cup...in which AO played. If that had anything to do with it then it shoots more holes in your arguement...it may not be the NHL...but it was a chance for all of us to see him and see him play with the best in the world...and most would say he was as advertised

Um, Malkin v Zherdev. I know its difficult, but please focus, that is what I am discussing. Not playing in the WC has dropped Malkin behind Zherdev?

It seems you want a black and white list of what matters and how much weight it carries....I dont see that as possible

You assume incorrctly that that is what I want.

I also get a huge laugh at your expense...you talk about how "you" would rank these guys but then admit you have only seen some video clips of Malkin/AO.....I know many do that.....I just cant understand how you can....THAT is what seems ridiculous

My opinion comes from what I have seen of the two, what I have read, and a synthesis of views and analysis of others who's knowledge I respect. If you think there is something funny about someone posting an opinion on a discussion board, that's your problem, not mine.

Its evident what is ridiculous here.

 

[Lionel Hutz]

I already said that "making it up" was a bit strong......but I did feel like you put your own spin on it. Maybe that isnt accurate either because there are other "media" sources that say that.

I guess comprehending late is better than never getting it.

And correct me if I'm wrong, but Kyle Woodlief is the scout and editor for the redline report, not the Penguins.

 

[Mess]

We can all agree on one thing...if the start that Grigorenko had was taken into account he probably wouldn't make the list. I saw the reports from Russia that he wasn't very good, his stats weren't good, but the list was made not using the beginning of this year's hockey as influence. If it was, guys like Kaigorodov, Lundqvist...may have had a better shot at it. Slow starts like Vanek, Montoya (although he has picked it up recently) might have had them drop.

Most people here have been unable to separate the two.

Perhaps HF should follow the CSS model and release the list 3 times annually .. Preliminary (before season) Mid Season and Final Top 50 for the year at the end ..

Then you would have a more current evaluation always ...and have the Up & Down scales ....to show prospect development and decline ..

Three times the grief perhaps but as a Prospect site .... it would certainly reduce them as well as people could clearly see then which prospects are performing better .. and emanates the problem on timing ..

because even as you mentioned above .. had the list been based on current info the list may have been different ..

 

[sunb]

Perhaps HF should follow the CSS model and release the list 3 times annually .. Preliminary (before season) Mid Season and Final Top 50 for the year at the end ..

Then you would have a more current evaluation always ...and have the Up & Down scales ....to show prospect development and decline ..

Three times the grief perhaps but as a Prospect site .... it would certainly reduce them as well as people could clearly see then which prospects are performing better .. and emanates the problem on timing ..

because even as you mentioned above .. had the list been based on current info the list may have been different ..

Thats awe---some man! Maybe we could even do this!
Maybe HF should hire 20 professional scouts and subsidize their plane tickets, let them fly around the world, use more HF money to defray their room, board & food costs and let them watch the top 100 prospects in the world and then let them make their decision!! How fabulous!

Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!


Or
...
we can be reasonable and appreciate the HF staff's work.

 

[PecaFan]

I've never seen an Elite Forward steal games.
Players like Forsberg, Lemieux, Modano, and Jagr could put up a lot of points(assuming 1 other person on their team showed up) but they have never stolen a game like Patrick Roy or Martin Broduer has. Elite goalies can totally shut down an opponent. Elite forwards, no matter how good, are not able to "single handedly" carry a team, they need a little help from at LEAST another player(Lemieux had Jagr(and vica versa), Forsberg had Sakic, Modano had Hull, Lehtonen, Hatcher and Niewendyke).

Horrible analogy. For one, elite goalies don't steal games alone. Because they *don't score goals*. The best an elite goalie by himself can do is get a 0-0 tie.

It's a team game. By it's very definition, all elite players need the help of the other players on the team to dominate. Over the past 50 years, I've seen *tons* of forwards strap the team to their back, and carry them to victory.

That said, goal is the rarer position. You need 12 forwards, but one goalie. So given the choice of franchise forward or franchise goalie, I'd build from the net out, as current GM's do.

On the whole "prospect definition" thing, I agree that something like the NHL's rookie rule should be used. A few games a year in the NHL over a period of years should graduate a prospect. Playing a full season should graduate a prospect. Fill in the desired numbers, like 10+ games in three years, or 50+ games in a single year, etc.

I hate age based limits, there should be none of that. If a guy is 28 and has never played in the NHL for whatever reason, he's still a prospect to me.

 

[King'sPawn]

Thats awe---some man! Maybe we could even do this!
Maybe HF should hire 20 professional scouts and subsidize their plane tickets, let them fly around the world, use more HF money to defray their room, board & food costs and let them watch the top 100 prospects in the world and then let them make their decision!! How fabulous!

Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!

That's a great idea. We may be able to make it work if each person pays $29.99 for their member account to log into this site! Plus we'd only have about seven banner ads and popups to various electronic toys and Midget Porn/bestiality/necrophilia/barely legal/[insert your own] Fetish sites to make up for the rest of it.

What could be, man...

 

[sunb]

That's a great idea. We may be able to make it work if each person pays $29.99 for their member account to log into this site! Plus we'd only have about seven banner ads and popups to various electronic toys and Midget Porn/bestiality/necrophilia/barely legal/[insert your own] Fetish sites to make up for the rest of it.

What could be, man...

I know man! We need to do whatever it takes to satisfy the lust of Leafaholix and The Messanger in their search for the "perfect 50".