Hockey's Future's Fall 2004 Organizational Ranking are up

[Holly Gunning]

I'm happy to present the first installment of Hockey's Future's new Organizational Rankings.

http://www.hockeysfuture.com/article.php?sid=7220&mode=threaded&order=0

Click to read more...

 

[montreal]

I'm sure we'll see many upset fans that there team should be higher or lower on the list, and while I completely understand wanting to see your team ranked higher or your favorite prospect not being listed in the writeup, I hope that fans can discuss the articles in a civil way without anyone having to take a "time out" for getting too worked up.


That said, it's very hard to put these kinds of lists together, imo and don't really hold much value either way, as opinions will vary and often key players will get overlooked. But I also think that fans take for granted the hard work that the people put into this, so my hat's off to them.

For the Stars, I would think that Jokinen would be one of their top prospects, I was very impressed with what I've seen from him in the sm-liiga, although I have no idea how his game will translate in North America.

For the Nucks, I really think fans are overlooking a small but skilled forward in Evgeny Gladskikh. I hope they end up bringing this kid over, as he was very fun to watch last year playing on a line with Pens prospect Malkin. Good speed and hands, he's surely going to put up points and get fans out of their seats, he's not talked about much, but I would think Nucks management is keeping a close eye on him. I know Cory Schneider is hyped up coming off a big U-18, and I hopefully will get to see him a number of times this year, but I'm always skeptical of any kid coming out of the USHS, a league I played in some 10 years ago, although it's grown a great deal, and I happen to think that Schneider will end up being one of the top goalies from this past draft, I'll wait till I see him play at a higher level.

For the Blues this will be interesting, since there seems to be a lot of passionate Blues fans wanting to see their prospects get more lime light. I would be concerned about their defensive prospects, but at forward, they boast some impressive talent with Soderberg, Zakharov and Shkotov. Those 3 could all end up being big impact players for the Blues, and it's always fun to watch Shkotov fly around and stir things up. I'll be very interested to see how Zakharov does, as to me he could be their top prospect. Also of note but not talked about much is Dartmouths Lee Stempniak who is coming off a great sophomore year, and should be a major part of his teams success this year as an early favorite to win the ECAC.

For the Isles, I'm impressed with their late pick of Igor Volkov, who despite being an 8th round pick, he's off to a great start in the RSL this year. Hopefully for Isles fans he keeps it up. They also have two impressive defensemen in Ryan Caldwell and Bruno Gervais. I like what I've seen from both, although it will be interesting to see how they progress at the next level, they should get a long look from Isles management based off their past season in Caldwell's case and defensive potential in Gervais's case.

 

[Teemu]

Ah, the calm before the storm

 

[Slats432]

Ah, the calm before the storm

You ain't just whistling dixie.

One thing that HF Staff expects to see is many fans of many teams saying that the list is bad based on where their favourite team sits.

That is to be expected.

 

[Chaos]

Lets see....Stars at 16 last year, before Eriksson wins SEL Rookie of the Year, before drafting Fransson(2nd in that voting, not even listed as a top prospect), Fistric, trading for Belle. And they dont even include Jokinen in the top prospects. Yet they drop 10 spots to 26th ...Im sure I wont be the first or last to take issue with this list, which seems pretty bad so far IMO. By the way, this in no means I dont appreciate the work that was put into this, but I obviously disagree with it so far.

 

[Mizral]

I'll be around here to answer fan gripes. I was on the Organizational Rankings group, so if you please, I'll be the one of the few martyr's of the group.

Before you guys go on and on about how we forgot players & such, let me say that the group we had really analyzed everything. No prospects of note were 'forgotten', and I can honestly say that every single team was pitted against one another for me at least.

If anyone has any gripes, go ahead and air them - that's what this thread will be for. However, one thing you can't say is that we forgot guys.

 

[Captain Conservative]

Lets see....Stars at 16 last year, before Eriksson wins SEL Rookie of the Year, before drafting Fransson(2nd in that voting, not even listed as a top prospect), Fistric, trading for Belle. And they dont even include Jokinen in the top prospects. Yet they drop 10 spots to 26th ...Im sure I wont be the first or last to take issue with this list, which seems pretty bad so far IMO. By the way, this in no means I dont appreciate the work that was put into this, but I obviously disagree with it so far.

Fistric, in my mind, was an unwise use of a draft pick. Dave Bolland and Mike Green are two guys that are a step above and available at the time that Fistric was picked. Its a crap shoot though, and Fistric does have his strong points.

 

[Mizral]

Lets see....Stars at 16 last year, before Eriksson wins SEL Rookie of the Year, before drafting Fransson(2nd in that voting, not even listed as a top prospect), Fistric, trading for Belle. And they dont even include Jokinen in the top prospects. Yet they drop 10 spots to 26th ...Im sure I wont be the first or last to take issue with this list, which seems pretty bad so far IMO. By the way, this in no means I dont appreciate the work that was put into this, but I obviously disagree with it so far.

Eriksson, Fransson, Fistric, Belle, Lessard and Jokinen - none of those are what we might call 'bluechip' guys yet. This is the problem. It's possible they all turn out, sure, but when I looked at the Stars, I saw no sure-fire guys in there, and perhaps the best potential group of the lot in Eriksson and Belle have not thus far shown top line or top D-pairing potential.

The Stars have a poor group compared to the rest of the NHL, but they do have a little bit of depth. Again, this is just my opinion, but it was shared by many on the group.

 

[JSmith81x]

Lets see....Stars at 16 last year, before Eriksson wins SEL Rookie of the Year, before drafting Fransson(2nd in that voting, not even listed as a top prospect), Fistric, trading for Belle. And they dont even include Jokinen in the top prospects. Yet they drop 10 spots to 26th ...Im sure I wont be the first or last to take issue with this list, which seems pretty bad so far IMO. By the way, this in no means I dont appreciate the work that was put into this, but I obviously disagree with it so far.

You have to factor in Steve Ott, Niko Kapanen, and John Erskine graduating from prospect status and the trading away of Jason Bacashihua as well, not just the progression of a couple prospects and the additions of a few more. And of course the argument of why Dallas was as high as 16th last time comes into play. Only five prospects are listed in the article for all the teams, so some guys have to be left out (Jokinen in Dallas' case). Dallas lacks top-end talent; they have quantity, but few are projected as top-line players.

 

[Legionnaire]

Nice work so far guys! Bravo.

Oh, and great work on that WHL article Miz.

 

[Atlas]

I think the descriptions are very very well done. Thanks for doing all that work.


That actual rankings don't matter so much to me. I think of 1-10 as being stocked organizations, 11-20 in decent shape and 21-30 as the cupboard being empty. The actual difference between #23 and #27 is awfully unimportant.

 

[leafaholix*]

I was on the Organizational Rankings group...

That explains it.

 

[Ajacied]

Lets see....Stars at 16 last year, before Eriksson wins SEL Rookie of the Year, before drafting Fransson(2nd in that voting, not even listed as a top prospect), Fistric, trading for Belle. And they dont even include Jokinen in the top prospects. Yet they drop 10 spots to 26th ...Im sure I wont be the first or last to take issue with this list, which seems pretty bad so far IMO. By the way, this in no means I dont appreciate the work that was put into this, but I obviously disagree with it so far.

Yeah it's quite pathetic. We actually improve the team in comparison to last year. Heck we have no one graduating so we should still be 16th, at least. Horrible.. Last time I ever put any faith into these list.

 

[Legionnaire]

So who's going to be number 1? I'm putting my money on Washinton.

 

[Douggy]

Wow the Leafs slip to 29. I guess it can only get better from here right?

 

[Legionnaire]

Wow the Leafs slip to 29. I guess it can only get better from here right?

Nah. You guys could slip to 30 next year.

 

[degroat*]

For the Blues this will be interesting, since there seems to be a lot of passionate Blues fans wanting to see their prospects get more lime light.

To say that I'm unhappy with the Blues being 21st would be an understatement, but it's simply not worth the time or effort to complain about the rankings. Unfortunately, most Blues fans stop putting anything into these rankings years ago.

A couple things I will say, though...
1. For the first time ever, the Blues 'Top Prospects' were listed accurately.
2. Contrary to what the writeup says, the Blues are not weaker on the wing than at center. Shkotov + Sejna + Backes + Zakharov + Alexandrov vs McClement + Soderberg. In fact, it's really not even close.

 

[Chaos]

You have to factor in Steve Ott, Niko Kapanen, and John Erskine graduating from prospect status and the trading away of Jason Bacashihua as well, not just the progression of a couple prospects and the additions of a few more. And of course the argument of why Dallas was as high as 16th last time comes into play. Only five prospects are listed in the article for all the teams, so some guys have to be left out (Jokinen in Dallas' case). Dallas lacks top-end talent; they have quantity, but few are projected as top-line players.

Kapanen and Ott were already both graduated when the list was put out last time, so that has nothing to do with it.

 

[Chaos]

Eriksson, Fransson, Fistric, Belle, Lessard and Jokinen - none of those are what we might call 'bluechip' guys yet. This is the problem. It's possible they all turn out, sure, but when I looked at the Stars, I saw no sure-fire guys in there, and perhaps the best potential group of the lot in Eriksson and Belle have not thus far shown top line or top D-pairing potential.

The Stars have a poor group compared to the rest of the NHL, but they do have a little bit of depth. Again, this is just my opinion, but it was shared by many on the group.

Again, how do they improve their prospect group, have a few of their prospects improve over the past year, and still manage to drop 10 spots? By the way, Im really interested to know how you guys make the list. Do you take the writers from each team and get together and talk abouthow you want to make the list or something? What Im getting at is does the fact that the Stars no longer have a full time writer factor into how the rankings are done?

 

[Ajacied]

Again, how do they improve their prospect group, have a few of their prospects improve over the past year, and still manage to drop 10 spots? By the way, Im really interested to know how you guys make the list. Do you take the writers from each team and get together and talk abouthow you want to make the list or something? What Im getting at is does the fact that the Stars no longer have a full time writer factor into how the rankings are done?

I'm curious to know the reasoning behind the Nucks standing a few spots higher than the Stars.

 

[Burnaby_Joe*]

We're still at 30.

 

[ceber]

Again, how do they improve their prospect group, have a few of their prospects improve over the past year, and still manage to drop 10 spots?

Not saying I agree or disagree with anything here, but one way that could happen is if other teams improved significantly and the Stars didn't. If you assume that the difference between 15 and 25 is fairly slim to begin with, more significant improvement by teams in the Stars range could easily explain a 10 spot drop.

 

[Chaos]

Not saying I agree or disagree with anything here, but one way that could happen is if other teams improved significantly and the Stars didn't. If you assume that the difference between 15 and 25 is fairly slim to begin with, more significant improvement by teams in the Stars range could easily explain a 10 spot drop.

Of particular note are these writeups...Here's the Stars(26):

Strengths: The Texas pipeline keeps producing a plethora of two-way forwards that have become a signature of the Stars. Antti Miettinen, Junior Lessard and Loui Eriksson lead the way. Even after the trade of Jason Bacashihua there are three respectable netminders in the organization. The defense is the true strength though for Dallas with Trevor Daley, Mark Fistric and Shawn Belle marking a good mix of offensive blueliners and stay-at-homers.
Weaknesses: There are not a lot of game-breaking offensive potential up front. The Stars also need power forwards and a definite upgrade in the size and strength of their forward corps.

Now Vancouver(23):

Strengths: The Vancouver Canucks prospects lack what one might consider star potential, but they do have good depth at forward and a strong group of goaltenders. Jason King and Ryan Kesler headline a deep, albeit unspectacular group of forwards. King has already shown strong goal-scoring potential in the NHL and Kesler, playing his first professional season in 2003-04, looks to be more of a third line center. The Canucks top prospect, Alex Auld, having played three seasons mostly in the AHL, will be ready for his first season of backup duty in the NHL. Behind Auld are the newly drafted Cory Schneider and Lukas Mensator.
Weaknesses: The Canucks lack not only a player of potential star caliber, but they also do not have a lot of talent on the blueline. Top prospects Kirill Koltsov and Brett Skinner are both offensive defensemen. Vancouver needs some workhorses to clear the front of the net.

And Calgary(22):

Strengths: The Calgary Flames organization boasts a plethora of potential two-way forwards and many role players. Few teams rival the combination of hard work, grit, and leadership among the Calgary prospect core. Fitting that description are newly drafted winger Kris Chucko and center Dustin Boyd. In Dion Phaneuf, the Flames also have perhaps the highest rated blueline prospect not yet in the NHL.
Weaknesses: Beyond Phaneuf, the Flames lack anything close to resembling a blue chip prospect, and lack in both quality and quantity of prospects. There is a particular shortfall of forwards of a pure offensive nature, with the organization seemingly preferring rough-and-tumble, two-way players.

Now I certainly hope Im not the only one who sees the difference there. But as others have said, and in no offense to those who worked on putting it together, but these lists dont hold a lot of water, especially when there are teams who dont even have a writer to vouch for their prospects.

 

[Sotnos]

I guess what bothers me about these things is the overemphasis on having a blue chip prospect and the lack of attention to organizational needs. Tampa has dropped like a rock since Svitov graduated, while I think the depth and overall quality in areas that were thin is much better. There was nothing in the system beyond Svitov two years ago, yet they were ranked 4th, I believe. Definitely better off this year than last year, yet they dropped once again! Thin at center? It's not a need right now, so why does this count? Since no one else has even discussed Tampa here, I thought I'd mention it.

 

[Gwyddbwyll]

Guys, its not like your team was the *only* one to add new prospects or improve you know. Contrary to your argument that does not mean automatic promotion up the rankings.

After the draft every single one of the 30 NHL teams considered themselves much improved. Its the high point of the year.