Hockey's Future Top 50 Prospects Spring 2006: 1-10

[Sammy*]

Yes, it is "pretty much even" to most people outside of Washington and Pittsburgh.

Truer words were never spoken

 

[Sammy*]

Jagr does all of that. Is he a defensive player?

Crosby has *twice* as many PMs, a worse +/-, hits far less, and doesn't play the PK.

God your a fanboy. Crosby plays just a physical as Ovechkin & takes more of a pounding & comes back for more. Saying Ovechkin is more physical than Crosby is like saying Bertuzzi is more physical than Forsberg.
Because Ovechkin plays the pk does not make him a good defensive player. To suggest otherwise is ridiculous. He might be in time. Right now he's no better defensivly than Crosby.

 

[Vic Rattlehead*]

God your a fanboy. Crosby plays just a physical as Ovechkin & takes more of a pounding & comes back for more. Saying Ovechkin is more physical than Crosby is like saying Bertuzzi is more physical than Forsberg.
Because Ovechkin plays the pk does not make him a good defensive player. To suggest otherwise is ridiculous. He might be in time. Right now he's no better defensivly than Crosby.

Also, who else is going to play the PK in Washington? For the Capitals, Ovechkin is God. They have to rely on him for everything.

 

[Jeff Goldblum]

I'm so glad to see neutral parties here. You are the voice of reason.

 

[EroCaps]

God your a fanboy. Crosby plays just a physical as Ovechkin & takes more of a pounding & comes back for more. Saying Ovechkin is more physical than Crosby is like saying Bertuzzi is more physical than Forsberg.
Because Ovechkin plays the pk does not make him a good defensive player. To suggest otherwise is ridiculous. He might be in time. Right now he's no better defensivly than Crosby.

Ovechkin takes less of a pounding than Crosby? No.
Ovechkin is the "Bertuzzi" to Crosby's "Forsberg"? No.
Ovechkin no better than Crosby defensively?

All the stats suggest otherwise and Ovechkin=Crosby defensively bc you say so?

Yet, I'm the fanboy.

Brilliant.

 

[Sammy*]

Ovechkin takes less of a pounding than Crosby? No.
Ovechkin is the "Bertuzzi" to Crosby's "Forsberg"? No.
Ovechkin no better than Crosby defensively?

All the stats suggest otherwise and Ovechkin=Crosby defensively bc you say so?

Yet, I'm the fanboy.

Brilliant.

Brilliant!
Try watching hockey. You may actually learn something aside from stats.
And yes, you are. I'm not a fan of Pitt/Crosby, certainly something that cant be said with regards to your boy.

 

[EroCaps]

Try watching hockey. You may actually learn something aside from stats.

3, 2, 1...pissing match.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

To the people who keep bringing up the fact that Crosby is younger. Don't you think it is more difficult for an overseas player whose first language is not English to adapt to a completely new country, city, team and teammates, language, culture, environment, etc. We saw how difficult it was for many NHLers to adapt to some European nations last season during the lockout. Age isn't the only reason why Ovechkin is currently ranked as the top prospect in the NHL. The better player is the individual who makes his team better, and judging by his teams position, with the roster the Capitals have (not just his linemates), Ovechkin is the rookie has had the biggest impact on his team. CASE CLOSED.

As for HF's Top 50 lists are concerned, just look at this, http://www.hockeysfuture.com/2000top50.html

 

[ryz]

To the people who keep bringing up the fact that Crosby is younger. Don't you think it is more difficult for an overseas player whose first language is not English to adapt to a completely new country, city, team and teammates, language, culture, environment, etc. We saw how difficult it was for many NHLers to adapt to some European nations last season during the lockout. Age isn't the only reason why Ovechkin is currently ranked as the top prospect in the NHL. The better player is the individual who makes his team better, and judging by his teams position, with the roster the Capitals have (not just his linemates), Ovechkin is the rookie has had the biggest impact on his team. CASE CLOSED.

As for HF's Top 50 lists are concerned, just look at this, http://www.hockeysfuture.com/2000top50.html

I thought we were talking about prospects, not campaigning for Calder votes.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I thought we were talking about prospects, not campaigning for Calder votes.

Explain. Is a prospect not a rookie? Don't rookies win the Calder? What is your point?

 

[Sammy*]

Explain. Is a prospect not a rookie? Don't rookies win the Calder? What is your point?

I dunno. When Makarov won the Calder did you think he was the best prospect?

 

[Lionel Hutz]

Explain. Is a prospect not a rookie? Don't rookies win the Calder? What is your point?

Not necessarily. In fact, after 65 games of a rookie campaign they graduate and aren't prospects at all.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I dunno. When Makarov won the Calder did you think he was the best prospect?

The Calder eligibility rules have changed since then. You should be smarter than that.

 

[ryz]

Explain. Is a prospect not a rookie? Don't rookies win the Calder? What is your point?

I don't think of them as the same thing. If you have some 18 yr old wonder kid and a 29 yr old playing his first year comming over from Europe you can't really compare them on the same terms even though they are both rookies. In terms of prospects I thought (but I guess not judging by this thread) that a younger guy with comparatively equal talent and upside as a guy a few years older would get the nod as a better prospect due to the fact that he is at basically the same point in development a few years earlier.

I don't want to get into a pissing match with Sid or AO fanboys but to me a 18 yr old with X potential is a better "prospect" than a 20 yr old with X potential, whether they are both rookies or not. It all depends on how each individual defines the word "prospect" I suppose.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Not necessarily. In fact, after 65 games of a rookie campaign they graduate and aren't prospects at all.

And a PROSPECT appearing in his first 65 games is still a ROOKIE and is eligible to qualify for the CALDER, which is awarded to the best ROOKIE, who starts the season out as a PROSPECT. This is starting to get petty.

 

[Lionel Hutz]

And a PROSPECT appearing in his first 65 games is still a ROOKIE and is eligible to qualify for the CALDER, which is awarded to the best ROOKIE, who starts the season out as a PROSPECT. This is starting to get petty.

Right, but we're not talking about rookies or Calder races because hypothetically, someone who has never set foot in the NHL or a franchise's development system could be ranked #1.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I don't want to get into a pissing match with Sid or AO fanboys but to me a 18 yr old with X potential is a better "prospect" than a 20 yr old with X potential, whether they are both rookies or not. It all depends on how each individual defines the word "prospect" I suppose.

Ovechkin and Crosby aren't A and B prospects with X potential. People are aware of their potential and they have fulfilled the hype to a certain extent and are going to get better. I stated the difficulty a European has assimilating to a new environment. It is silly for people to think it is easier for Ovechkin to be productive because he is two years older than Crosby. Is a player in his 30's who can net 80+ points worse than a player in his late 20's who can score 60+ points?

By HF's definitions, both Ovechkin and Crosby are prospects. I could care less about who is #1 or #2. I enjoy watching both rookies, have them both on my fantasy team and am not a fan of either club they play for. I don't care if Crosby is from Canada or if Ovechkin is from Russia. The point is that it goes beyond a slight difference in age that makes a prospect better.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Right, but we're not talking about rookies or Calder races because hypothetically, someone who has never set foot in the NHL or a franchise's development system could be ranked #1.

They could be, but they are more unproven than the current crop of rookies who are currently making a big impact in the NHL. There are more question marks with the prospects who have never set foot in the NHL. Just go take another look at the 2000 Top 50 list. http://www.hockeysfuture.com/2000top50.html
Gaborik and Heatley made the NHL before some of those players selected ahead of them on that list. What did Brendl, Kraft or Beech do outside of the NHL that made them rank better than Gaborik and Heatley? See my point of view?

 

[Lionel Hutz]

They could be, but they are more unproven than the current crop of rookies who are currently making a big impact in the NHL. There are more question marks with the prospects who have never set foot in the NHL. Just go take another look at the 2000 Top 50 list. http://www.hockeysfuture.com/2000top50.html
Gaborik and Heatley made the NHL before some of those players selected ahead of them on that list. What did Brendl, Kraft or Beech do outside of the NHL that made them rank better than Gaborik and Heatley? See my point of view?

Look, I see your point on this and I agree, I'm just pointing out that being a prospect does not = being a rookie; and that the Calder race and ranking prospects are two entirely different analyses.

For example, say hypothetically that you thought for sure, 110% absolutely that Crosby had more upside, and would be a better player in the long run than Ovechkin. That would make Crosby the better prospect, even though Ovechkin may well be the better rookie at present.

Also, I'm not going to wade into this whole debate on who is in fact better, I have my own opinion, and that's all it is, its no more deserving of respect or disrespect than anyone else's. But I do believe firmly that 2 years is not a minor gap or something to take lightly. Think back (or forward as the case may be ) to where you were at 18 compared to 20. I know I came an awful long way in that ammount of time.

Posting the 2000 ranking proves what a crapshoot ranking prospects really is. That's just the way she goes.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Posting the 2000 ranking proves what a crapshoot ranking prospects really is. That's just the way she goes.

You said it all right there. Nobody can tell how these non-NHL prospects will be when they make it to the pros and how much they will progress or regress when they do make it. Remember Joe Thornton's rookie season? Or Olli Jokinen's first five seasons in the NHL. They started slowly and have now become proven #1 centers.

People here would have take a younger and unproven Kris Beech (before making it to the NHL) over Olli Jokinen (before he actually reached his potential).

 

[Lionel Hutz]

You said it all right there. Nobody can tell how these non-NHL prospects will be when they make it to the pros and how much they will progress or regress when they do make it. Remember Joe Thornton's rookie season? Or Olli Jokinen's first five seasons in the NHL. They started slowly and have now become proven #1 centers.

People here would have take a younger and unproven Kris Beech (before making it to the NHL) over Olli Jokinen (before he actually reached his potential).

That's the nature of the game, some prospects will live up, some won't, and some didn't deserve all the accolades in the 1st place. However, being prospects you have to evaluate their skillsets, and at times rank somone who has yet to set foot in the nhl over someone who has proven things in the NHL. Otherwise, you'd have to be willing to say something like: Maxime Talbot> Evgeni Malkin (maybe a weak example, but insert whatever 1st year you want who has done ok and held down a job).

 

[Sammy*]

The Calder eligibility rules have changed since then. You should be smarter than that.

Yeah, I already knew that. I was saying it to illustrate a point, that doesnt change cause Makarov was older. I thought one would be perceptive enough to figure that one out.
See, a guy can still be 26 year's old when he wins the Calder.So you think that if a 26 year old wins the Calder, he's neccesarily a better prospect than a younger kid. Nice logic.
So if you cant figure out that a calder winner by no means means the guy is the best prospect, I guess I can evaluate your future logic accordingly.

 

[AlanMSaunders]

Not even going to bother jumping into the Crosby/Ovechkin debate, but I will clarify the rookie/prospect issue. There are many rookies who are not prospects. These rookies will have played more than 65 NHL games (45 for goaltenders), or who are older than 24 (with the exception of some Europeans and collegiates, which are allowed to be older). There are also many prospects that are not rookies. These would be players in the minors, college, juniors, and Europe, in addition to those rookies not yet playing 65 games. The Calder Trophy is handed out to the best rookie every year in the NHL. The HF Top 50 prospect list, and as a function, then #1 propsect is determined by an analysis of two factors: potential, and realistic probability of reaching that potential. For example a rookie with 20 goals might seem impressive. If that rookie appears to only have the skills (for whatever reason), to only be at best a third line player, he would probably not be rated as highly as a player that has 10 goals, but has produced a spectacular amount of points at prior levels of hockey, and appears to have all the tools to do that at the NHL level, and just hasn't made the transition yet.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Yeah, I already knew that. I was saying it to illustrate a point, that doesnt change cause Makarov was older. I thought one would be perceptive enough to figure that one out.
See, a guy can still be 26 year's old when he wins the Calder.So you think that if a 26 year old wins the Calder, he's neccesarily a better prospect than a younger kid. Nice logic.
So if you cant figure out that a calder winner by no means means the guy is the best prospect, I guess I can evaluate your future logic accordingly.

The difference we were discussing was 2 years. You brought up Makarov and 26 year old prospects in comparision to players who were drafted a year apart. Clever thinking.

Is it possible to find out how Crosby will be performing as a 20 year old? Is it possible to predict what the Penguins roster will look like in 2 years? Is it possible to predict how much better Ovechkin will get?

Perhaps you should evaluate your logic before posting baseless arguements and adding nothing to this discussion.

 

[David A. Rainer]

That's the nature of the game, some prospects will live up, some won't, and some didn't deserve all the accolades in the 1st place. However, being prospects you have to evaluate their skillsets, and at times rank somone who has yet to set foot in the nhl over someone who has proven things in the NHL. Otherwise, you'd have to be willing to say something like: Maxime Talbot> Evgeni Malkin (maybe a weak example, but insert whatever 1st year you want who has done ok and held down a job).

Not to mention the times when an organization just flat out messes up a prospect.

I will use your example. Who knows, maybe Talbot was well on his way to being a perennial allstar but somewhere along the lines, the organization just messed up his development and he flat-lined (not saying that Talbot is flat-lining, but I thought I would use the prospects you already mentioned as an example). There are so many different things involved in why prospects do or do not develop as projected.

Irrespective...

I don't know about the rest of you, but I would rather have 1 Brandon Wood than 100 Lou Merloni's.