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

[Captain Conservative]

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.

I'm a bit surprised they are rated as high as they are actually. Backes is a borderline prospect and Shkotov and Zakharov have done nothing to distinguish themselves from the multitudes of one dimensional skill prospects that every team has. Soderburg was a great pickup however and Sejna I think will adjust to the NHL game in short time.

 

[Slats432]

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.

Writers involved in the Organizational Rankings check their "Team Hat" at the door.

Whether a team has a writer or not has no bearing on where they place on the list.

 

[Holly Gunning]

I would also add that the fact that a team doesn't have a designated writer means that more people at HF have chipped in and written things for the page, so they are more aware of the team's prospects than they would be otherwise. It might actually help awareness.

 

[degroat*]

I'm a bit surprised they are rated as high as they are actually. Backes is a borderline prospect and Shkotov and Zakharov have done nothing to distinguish themselves from the multitudes of one dimensional skill prospects that every team has. Soderburg was a great pickup however and Sejna I think will adjust to the NHL game in short time.

Even if you were right about the players you mentioned (and you're not), an organization is (or at least should be) judged on their entire farm system, not 5 players. Funny how you conveniently left out any goaltender in the system, which is their strongest position.

 

[Enoch]

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.

But they are extremely anemic at defensive prospecsts (although I'm sure a few will pan out for you guys....your system always produces them). Furthermore, their one name prospect is already in their area of strength....goalie. Sejna is an on the fence prospect after last year, and even though Alexandrov looks like a good pick considering his pre-rank position....one has to wonder why he fell so far, and consider their were reasons he fell. I'm not sure if the Blues should be higher than where they are in the rankings, but you have to realize that HF has always put an emphasis on depth in overall areas AND name prospects. For what its worth, though, the Blues will not be hurting by any stretch of the imagination in years to come in the area of young talent .

 

[Winston Wolf]

I think we should be seeing some of the player ratings on the Blues' page drop...

 

[Dave is a killer]

I think every non-Habs fan has to agree that Washington has some seriously amazing prospects, they're the consensus #1 in my book...I'm a Nashville fan, and I sometimes drool over what they've got in their cupboard.

 

[Moskau]

I think every non-Habs fan has to agree that Washington has some seriously amazing prospects, they're the consensus #1 in my book...I'm a Nashville fan, and I sometimes drool over what they've got in their cupboard.

Yeah they acquired alot of prospects other teams didn't want...

 

[Dave is a killer]

Yeah they acquired alot of prospects other teams didn't want...

they sure did! the rest of the league will be crying in a few years when they learn how to play together well

 

[X-SHARKIE]

Caps have to be #1 because of Ovechkin, and all the depth they have. Everything for scoring forwards, to goaltending, they got it all.

 

[417]

I think every non-Habs fan has to agree that Washington has some seriously amazing prospects, they're the consensus #1 in my book...I'm a Nashville fan, and I sometimes drool over what they've got in their cupboard.

I'm a Habs fan, and I agree, Washington should be ranked #1 with Chicago close by, I think the Habs should rank anywhere from #7 to 10...but the Caps prospects might be a little overrated because as another poster mentionned, there's alot of prospects that other teams didn't have plans for, Jakub Klepis for example, he's been traded twice and hasn't even played a game in the AHL I believe...but they have a solid group, and I don't mind my team the habs relinquishing that role at all

 

[Ajacied]

But they are extremely anemic at defensive prospecsts

That's bull.. Their logic is complete flawed and filled with holes. The Stars for example, have a better blueline than they've ever had with Trevor Daley, Mark Fistric, Johan Fransson, Shawn Belle, Matt Nickerson, Niclas Grossman, Dan Jancevski and Elias Granath. Yet because there's no potential superstar or anything, they somehow find it unimpressive.

I think the Stars deserve to be where they were last season, between 15 and 20th. Certainly not lower than the Nucks and Isles..

 

[Kevin Forbes]

That quote from Enoch was in reference to St. Louis' system, not Dallas....

 

[Enoch]

That's bull.. Their logic is complete flawed and filled with holes. The Stars for example, have a better blueline than they've ever had with Trevor Daley, Mark Fistric, Johan Fransson, Shawn Belle, Matt Nickerson, Niclas Grossman, Dan Jancevski and Elias Granath. Yet because there's no potential superstar or anything, they somehow find it unimpressive.

I think the Stars deserve to be where they were last season, between 15 and 20th. Certainly not lower than the Nucks and Isles..

As Forbesy just said, I was referring to the Blues prospects, not the Dallas Stars.

 

[Ajacied]

As Forbesy just said, I was referring to the Blues prospects, not the Dallas Stars.

But you made a statement about how HF has such a hardon for defensemen in general, om am I just mistaken?

 

[Captain Conservative]

I'm a Habs fan, and I agree, Washington should be ranked #1 with Chicago close by, I think the Habs should rank anywhere from #7 to 10...but the Caps prospects might be a little overrated because as another poster mentionned, there's alot of prospects that other teams didn't have plans for, Jakub Klepis for example, he's been traded twice and hasn't even played a game in the AHL I believe...but they have a solid group, and I don't mind my team the habs relinquishing that role at all

Actually Klepis was only traded from Ottawa to Buffalo after their attempts to sign him proved futile. Ditto on the trade to Washington.

 

[Vlad The Impaler]

Actually Klepis was only traded from Ottawa to Buffalo after their attempts to sign him proved futile. Ditto on the trade to Washington.

There's no need to try and justify it. Klepis was traded because he's not half as good as most thought he was when he was originally drafted. He's a very average player and nothing to write home about.

Teams do not dump prospects very often for monetary reasons, unless the demands are downright outrageous. This would simply mean these two teams thought he was not worth what he was asking for. Wasn't a bad trade for the Sens as they got a player who is pretty much worth exactly Klepis in Varada.

His upside if all the stars are aligned is that of Andrei Nokolishin and the downside is he will be flipping burgers somewhere near the white house pretty soon. It was a terrible mistake by Ottawa the minute they drafted him, an awful selection.

 

[thestonedkoala]

Washington, Pittsburgh are the top 2 teams...I can't believe Pittsburgh was ranked so low...

I think Atlanta will take a hit and tumble a bit...

I think Minnesota will go up a couple spots and I'm not being a homer there, I'm just looking at their prospects and I think their write up last year was completely wrong (two legitimate prospects to make the NHL? Misharin, Bolduc, Michalek, Reitz, Heid...I count five)

But a lot of teams look pretty good coming out of the 2004 draft especially Los Angeles...

Atlanta should take a tumble...

 

[Mizral]

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?

There were about 10 writers on the group. All of us were familiar with prospects league-wide.

Chaos, one thing you might need to remember is that the other teams don't stand still either. But one thing to note that last years' ranking had literally no bearing on this years. But even if it did, there are enough teams that jumped up in the rankings recently do make for interesting team movements.

The fact that the Stars don't have a full time writer had no bearing on where they are.

 

[Vlad The Impaler]

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.

This may or may not have been true in the past but not anymore. This is why I think the heavy complaining on this thread is slightly misguided.

I've been following prospects many years and there hasn't ever been that much awareness about the quality league wide.

Being in the 21-30 range does not automatically mean the cupboard is empty. Only a few of the last place teams would qualify for that. There is not much difference between teams that are rated sometimes 10 spots apart. If I was to do my own rankings, it would be the same thing. I might end up with teams I find are pretty much equal yet ranked several spots apart.

Concerning the drops and rises in the rankings from year to year: Things are moving fast in the prospect world, you've got graduations, progressions. Also, one would hope the writers are actually improving year after year. And only a fool doesn't change his mind. So yeah, I always expect mouvement when these rankings come out.

Anyway, my beef here is that we shouldn't automatically assume an organization is considered crappy just because it is in the low ranks. As for my opinion of the actual list so far: It's so-so. Danny Richmond is a top 5 prospects in Carolina, no way around that. Jussi Jokinen and Shawn Belle ARE top 5 in Dallas. I would keep an eye on David Backes in St. Louis, might be top 5 very soon if not already. The list of disagreement I have would go on.

I find it hilarious that Capt. Conservative is downplaying Backes in one post and pimping the future Burger King employee of the month, Klepis.

 

[Baron Von Shark]

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.

Excellent point. There doesn't seem to be as much of a consideration for development either. Blue chips do not make the org, the development system and draft strategy does.

 

[waiverdraft33]

.... even though Alexandrov looks like a good pick considering his pre-rank position....one has to wonder why he fell so far, and consider there were reasons he fell.

What were the reasons?

 

[Vlad The Impaler]

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.

I completely agree with you that (particularly in the past) bluechippers counted for too much in the evaluation process.

As far as organizational need, I guess it's a matter of preferences as faar as methodology and what to prioritize. I happen to disagree with you but there is no wrong or right. As long as the methodology is clear and consistent from year to year, I've got no problem. This is something HF seems to be slowly working on.

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.

For what it's worth, TB was still very much under the influence of the Dudley regime in their system two years ago. And a whole lot of people who wouldn't see talent if it was the size of Oprah's ass dancing 6 inches from their face, know nothing else but to worship the guy and consider every prospect he drafts as a future superstar.

I guess Tampa was 4th "because it was Dudley".

This new ranking may not be completely fair, but I would say it is closer to the truth than the old ranking was two years ago.

 

[Slats432]

This new ranking may not be completely fair, but I would say it is closer to the truth than the old ranking was two years ago.

Does this count as the first compliment of the list? :lol

 

[Captain Conservative]

This may or may not have been true in the past but not anymore. This is why I think the heavy complaining on this thread is slightly misguided.

I've been following prospects many years and there hasn't ever been that much awareness about the quality league wide.

Being in the 21-30 range does not automatically mean the cupboard is empty. Only a few of the last place teams would qualify for that. There is not much difference between teams that are rated sometimes 10 spots apart. If I was to do my own rankings, it would be the same thing. I might end up with teams I find are pretty much equal yet ranked several spots apart.

Concerning the drops and rises in the rankings from year to year: Things are moving fast in the prospect world, you've got graduations, progressions. Also, one would hope the writers are actually improving year after year. And only a fool doesn't change his mind. So yeah, I always expect mouvement when these rankings come out.

Anyway, my beef here is that we shouldn't automatically assume an organization is considered crappy just because it is in the low ranks. As for my opinion of the actual list so far: It's so-so. Danny Richmond is a top 5 prospects in Carolina, no way around that. Jussi Jokinen and Shawn Belle ARE top 5 in Dallas. I would keep an eye on David Backes in St. Louis, might be top 5 very soon if not already. The list of disagreement I have would go on.

I find it hilarious that Capt. Conservative is downplaying Backes in one post and pimping the future Burger King employee of the month, Klepis.

*laughs* Well I guess its because I was at the Capitals Prospect camp this year and he looked pretty damn sharp to me. We'll see what happens, but i'd put my money on Klepis turning into a more valuable player. I am biased because i've seen Klepis in action and Backes really isn't on the radar. I get a lot of my information on prospect right here at HF, and his name barely gets mentioned around here.