Hockey's Future Top 50 Prospects Fall 2006: 11-25
- Thread starter Holly Gunning
- Start date
Teams with 3:
Kings (Tukonen-40, Kopitar-14, O'Sullivan)
Ducks (Perry-30, Ryan-13, Getzlaugh)
Canes (Ladd-28, Ward, J. Johnson)
Caps (Semin, Backstrom, Fehr-48)
Bruins (Rask-26, Toivonen-16, Kessel-15)
Teams with 0:
Buffalo
Calgary
Dallas
Philadelphia
Tampa Bay
Judging by the ranking of the already known Kings and Ducks players, Getzlaugh will be 3 and O'Sullivan will be 4.
so who's number 2?
The guy is a bust. You know it, and I know it.
What is wrong with Sens scouting!??!?!? URGHHH!!!
ADD:
firstroundbust
lacks explosiveness
Beukeboom Fan
Registered User
Agree on O'Sullivan, but I think you're missing the point. The prospects aren't being evaluated solely on point production as future indicators of success. There is a hell of a lot more to hockey than just point production. Staal maybe playing with Crosby or Backstrom w/ Ovechkin should have a ZERO impact on their rankings here, because by the time they make the team who knows what their role will be. This is a knowledgable group of people trying to evaluate who will become the better hockey player down the road - not who is the the best selection for your fantasy keeper league.
And for all of those people complaining about the inconsistency between the teams rankings - you do realize that the top 50 list is a group of people that evaluating all available prospects. There are bound to be NUMEROUS differences between their opinions and the individuals that rank the teams top 20 prospects. I don't think that having two different lists makes either one less valid - it just points out that there are many different views.
Also, people need to step back from the ledge if their guy didn't make the top 50 list, or was ranked lower than they would have him. It just kills me when someone is complaining about having a guy 2 spots higher (13 vs 15) when in all likelyhood that is a MINUTE difference.
OH MY GOD
Are you people ill?
TOP 50 doesn't really mean anything.... for God sakes.
There is not a whole lot separating 40-70. They just stopped making the list at 50.
Are you people ill?
TOP 50 doesn't really mean anything.... for God sakes.
There is not a whole lot separating 40-70. They just stopped making the list at 50.
Powdered Toast Man
Is he a ham?
- Nov 22, 2005
- 13,852
- 1
I doubt it. I mean, after all, Marc Staal and Luc Bourdon have both clearly proven that they are far better than him...
First of all, you are right. It is very doubtful he is in the top 10, he just isn't that good. Putting him there would be wrong.
Where you are wrong is concerning Staal and Bourdon. Lee plays in an entirely different league with entirely different playstyles. Staal and Bourdon may be clearly more proven but what makes a better prospect is not who can make the NHL in whatever role first. What makes a better prospect is who will turn out to be the better NHL player. All three have the potential to be #1 defencemen, there is no arguement. Staal and Bourdon are on this list so far ahead of Lee simply because they are OHL players and get more exposure, and they are more NHL ready. That all should not be totally discarded however, I just feel that Lee will turn out to be just as good as Staal and Bourdon and possibly better. If you watch him play and take account of his skills as a hockey player then it should be obvious that he should at least be on this list.
I am aware that goalies are much different from defencemen but the sole reason Carey Price is on this list is because he projects to be a good nhl goalie and he was drafted really high. He didn't have a great season and didn't even make the WJC team, he totally sucked at the training camp. You look at Price by watching him play you know he is going to be a great NHL starter one day, not this year or maybe even next year but he will eventually. Yet he is still on this prospect list. If Price can get on this list then so should Lee. Lee obviously has the skill, he obviously has the attitude and he obviously has the hockey sense to be a great #1 defenceman in the NHL. Yet no one watches him, no one talks about him so no one cares. There is no precident for him, he was not hyped up at the draft like some of the others and he was not elbowing players during his two WJC's. As a player and his projections as a NHL player I feel he clearly belongs on this list. He just doesn't have alot of the outside help that I guess it takes to make this list. I apologize if this is too long to read, I started typing and it just kinda dragged on!
The Zookeep
Registered User
- Aug 17, 2006
- 259
- 0
Whats the criteria to be on that list? Ward and Getzlaf dont belong on there as prospects anymore. Kessel at 15 is a bit surprising, he has skills to match any of the top guys but for whatever reason this kid doesnt get any respect.
- Apr 27, 2005
- 33,647
- 29,852
cam barker at 11????? WOW, that is funny. I would put Carle, M Staal, Weber, and Bourdon all ahead of him.
David A. Rainer
Registered User
I'm just wondering of the guys that are on the top 50 list or will be or should be who do you guys think has the best offensive potential? Basically which prospects have the top offensive potential?
DaveMatthew
Bring in Peter
I think you misunderstood my post. I was trying to be sarcastic.
But I completely agree with you, I don't see why people rank Bourdon and Staal so high on these lists and not even mention Lee.
kimzey59
Registered User
- Aug 16, 2003
- 5,692
- 1,972
Can you(or somebody else) please explain why PO games aren't counted in those requirements? I don't see any reason why ONLY regular season games should count towards a prospects "games played" tally; in fact it makes absolutely ZERO sense IMO.
David A. Rainer
Registered User
Among other things, the NHL does not recognize playoff games for purposes of the Calder Trophy, for scoring titles, for game-time accrued for purposes of a player's pension, etc. We use the NHL's standard for games-played. If the NHL changes their standard, we probably would also.
Now, why should playoff games be included?
kimzey59
Registered User
- Aug 16, 2003
- 5,692
- 1,972
Using PO games as credentials for Calder voting and Using PO games to define a prospect are NOT the same thing; and anybody with any sense of logic can tell you that. You are trying to say that the League doesn't take the PO games into account when DEFINING a rookie; and that is simply incorrect. The NHL has VERY clear definitions for what qualifies as a rookie, and they DO use PO games when defining rookies. I'd like to know why this site doesn't use the same rules as the NHL when defining prospects.
I look at it this way: a prospect is a prospect if he can still compete for the Calder. Guys like Ward, Getzlaf, Perry, Lehtonen and Semin would NOT qualify as a rookie next year and as such wouldn't qualify for the Calder voting. Therefore, why should they still be considered prospects? It simply makes no sense and your explaination is flawed.
David A. Rainer
Registered User
Here is the standard for the Calder Trophy:
"To be eligible for the award, a player cannot have played more than 25 games in any single preceding season nor in six or more games in each of any two preceding seasons in any major professional league. The player must not be older than 26 years before September 15 of the season in which he is eligible."
"[G]ames in any single preceding season" does not include playoffs games. The NHL does not count the playoffs as part of the "season". They are post-season games. If you doubt this, send an e-mail to the NHL or the NHLPA and they will tell you the same thing.
While HF might use the NHL's definition for "games played", HF does not use their definition of rookie as the definition of prospect is too restrictive. A player that has played in 12 games over two seasons as a call-up due to injuries is still very much a prospect. Or, let's say that Wolski plays in only 6 games this year and is sent to the AHL, you mean that he is no longer a prospect at the age of 20 and 15 NHL games under his belt and still in the AHL? Hardly.
Last edited:
David A. Rainer
Registered User
BTW - it is among other considerations as well. That is not the only reason for setting the criteria as it is.
