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

[Guy Flaming]

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 will accept the blame for this.

I did much of the final draft of the write up and 99% of the players listed in the "top prospects" line. However, I failed to put the top 5 in there and instead had, for some teams, the top 8 or the top 10. Some teams only had 5 because, in the case of colorado say, there wasn't much to talk about after 5. The point is, in order to mkae things nice and neat, the final edit chopped the prospects down to 5... and becasue I didn't put them in order of 1-5... some guys got edited from there. Believe me when I say that guys like Richmond and Belle were in the final draft but due to my blunder, were trimmed out.

Sorry about that. (They're there in spirit )

 

[guitaraholic*]

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.

You've not even mentioned the Blues collection of goaltender prospects, easilly the best in the NHL. Not to mention their vastly underrated collection of solid dmen like Byrne, Fitzgerald and other guys you haven't seen play or heard a thing about. top it off with high end offensive prospects like Soderberg, Shkotov, Zakharov and Alexandrov, who the HF staff failed to even mention, and you have an outstanding group of prospects, easilly among the top 10 in the NHL.

 

[guitaraholic*]

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

nope, not going to happen. Why not? because they've been given their ratings based on input from Blues scouts and others who have actually watched the kids play, unlike yourself, who hasn't and yet still seems to believe his opinions on players he's never seen skate a shift is valid. hard to understand, IMO.

 

[Vlad The Impaler]

Sorry about that. (They're there in spirit )

Guy, doesn't matter. You're still the best writer at HF in my book

 

[Mothra]

nope, not going to happen. Why not? because they've been given their ratings based on input from Blues scouts and others who have actually watched the kids play, unlike yourself, who hasn't and yet still seems to believe his opinions on players he's never seen skate a shift is valid. hard to understand, IMO.

Whats funny is this......

You say that this guy cant have a valid opinion on these players because "he's never seen (them) skate a shift".....but before that you said "the Blues collection of goaltender prospects, easilly the best in the NHL....are you saying you have seen all the other elite goaltending prospects play....and therefore your opinion is valid?

 

[Slats432]

As mentioned earlier in the thread, there will be much restlessness from people who think their team is ranked too low. Human nature to defend our own, regardless of right and wrong.

 

[guitaraholic*]

Whats funny is this......

You say that this guy cant have a valid opinion on these players because "he's never seen (them) skate a shift".....but before that you said "the Blues collection of goaltender prospects, easilly the best in the NHL....are you saying you have seen all the other elite goaltending prospects play....and therefore your opinion is valid?

I'm taking the claim regarding the Blues goaltending prospects from a number of different sources who have stated the Blues boast (easilly, to here them tell it) the best collection of goaltending prospects in the NHL, beyond a doubt. And at this point I figure I'm allowed to have opinions on players I've never seen play seeing as how you and all the rest of the posters here feel free to do the same. I'm going to begin offering my opinion on prospects I've never seen play, too, so I can be just like the rest of the posters at HFBoards and have opinions but no logical reason as to how I arrived at them. Gee, then I'll fit right in, Wally.

 

[Chaos]

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.

I think you might have misunderstood what I meant when I said that. I didnt mean that you "punished" the Stars for not having a writer. I really meant that because we haven't had a writer in quite some time, we dont have one single person focusing almost entirely on our prospects, and therefore, we dont have that person to give their input, and instead are relying on people who are responsible for other teams taking what spare time they have to look at Stars prospects.

 

[NYRangers]

"the Blues collection of goaltender prospects, easilly the best in the NHL"

Easily? I'll agrue Blackburn, Montoya, Lundqvist are better.

 

[Mothra]

I'm taking the claim regarding the Blues goaltending prospects from a number of different sources who have stated the Blues boast (easilly, to here them tell it) the best collection of goaltending prospects in the NHL, beyond a doubt.

cool....can you post some of these reports/sources. I can see where it can be argued....but "beyond a doubt" I have issues with...there are a few teams that can make this claim IMO

And at this point I figure I'm allowed to have opinions on players I've never seen play seeing as how you and all the rest of the posters here feel free to do the same.

find one time where I have offered an opinion on a player I have never seen

I'm going to begin offering my opinion on prospects I've never seen play, too, so I can be just like the rest of the posters at HFBoards and have opinions but no logical reason as to how I arrived at them. Gee, then I'll fit right in, Wally.

Its hard to begin something that you have already started......

I just find it funny that you blast a guy for not having seen certain players when offering his opinion (which isnt exactly what he did anyway)....and then you turn around and do the same thing yourself.....then get mad when you are called out

 

[Teemu]

I'm gonna go with Washington #1, Pittsburgh #2, Chicago #3

 

[DownFromNJ]

1. Atlanta
2. Washington
3. Pittsburgh
4. New York Rangers

 

[210]

Where are the previous season's rankings archived? Also, where are the previous player rankings from team pages archived?

I'd like to compare those previous lists to what those players actually did so I can place these rankings in their proper perspective.

 

[Vlad The Impaler]

Where are the previous season's rankings archived? Also, where are the previous player rankings from team pages archived?

I'd like to compare those previous lists to what those players actually did so I can place these rankings in their proper perspective.

Here's 2004. You can probably find links to the others in the archives.

http://www.hockeysfuture.com/orgrankings.php

I wouldn't know how to put things in perspective based on that older stuff. HF's method is a bit changing from year to year and the staff is (IMO) improving over time.

 

[CaptainBure]

imo, the Rangers trio of goaltending prospects (Blackburn,Montoya, Lundquivst) is slightly better than that of Schwarz and Baschashua.

 

[Flames Draft Watcher]

"the Blues collection of goaltender prospects, easilly the best in the NHL"

Easily? I'll agrue Blackburn, Montoya, Lundqvist are better.

I'd take the Rangers goalie prospects over the Blues goalies prospects.

And the Blues homerism continues. Come on, "easily the best"? You should know better than to say that when it's EXTREMELY debateable.

 

[Frenzy31]

*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.

Backes isn't on the radar because most blues fans don't PIMP our prospects. There isn't a lot of hype that is generated by fans for more then 1-2 guys, even then most fans here on these boards, have not seen or really heard much about Zakharov and Shkotov before January.

Backes had a very good year and I hope that he continues to develop, but to say that he wont turn out because you don't see a lot mentioned about him on the prospect board..... Do you want hype or reality? IF you really want to find out about Backes head to the NCAA boards.

But one shouldn't comment on a player if he hadn't seen them play and if he didn't follow them last year. I make no comments on others prospects because I don't follow them. I would advise that you and others do the same.

I have no problem w/ the rankings, because at least they talked about some of our guys, unlike last year where they mentioned Hemmingway . And in all fairness to the Mods, it can be tough to rank teams. Most teams can have a legit arguement for moving 4-5 spots up or down.

I see the rankings like thisL: there are really about 5 teams that have to ton of highend potential. About 10 teams that follow, but may be a step below and then another 10 than are a step below them. A team on those tiers can be interchanges with another very easily...

Besides, this doesn't dictate how many players will develop into something worthwhile or who will be the best team in 5 years. People shouldn't take it as a insult.

BTW: I wouldn't call Zakharov a 1 way skill player. He play is far from 1 way.

Edited: I don't believe that the Blues have the best collection of G prospects. I strong stable, but not the best.

 

[210]

Here's 2004. You can probably find links to the others in the archives.

http://www.hockeysfuture.com/orgrankings.php

I wouldn't know how to put things in perspective based on that older stuff. HF's method is a bit changing from year to year and the staff is (IMO) improving over time.

Thanks for the link Vlad...if anyone knows of previous season's rankings let me know...and the player rankings too is anyone knows

I know the "rankers" and method has changed, but each previous set of rankings would be all done by the same method. I'm interested in comparing those rankings (and the methods used) vs these rankings and methods.

 

[MrMastodonFarm*]

What are the parameters for not being considered a prospect for these lists?

Surely everyone knows that Daniel and Henrik Sedin are no longer prospects. Henrik has 318 NHL games under his belt, and Daniel has played 315 NHL games.

 

[Vlad The Impaler]

What are the parameters for not being considered a prospect for these lists?

Surely everyone knows that Daniel and Henrik Sedin are no longer prospects. Henrik has 318 NHL games under his belt, and Daniel has played 315 NHL games.

Here's what I found. Don't know if they always use the same criteria:

http://www.hockeysfuture.com/whatmakesaprospect.php

 

[NYRangers]

I'd go with

1. Washington
2. Atlanta
3. Pittsburgh
4. New York Rangers
5. Montreal

 

[Guy Flaming]

What are the parameters for not being considered a prospect for these lists?

Surely everyone knows that Daniel and Henrik Sedin are no longer prospects. Henrik has 318 NHL games under his belt, and Daniel has played 315 NHL games.

I'll field this one because it was largely my idea.

Of course regular HF readers will realize plyers like the Sedins, Heatley and Kovalchuk are long ago graduated according to our guidelines. However, because these lists are some of the major things that draw new people to the site i felt it was important to put down some of the more noteable young players from NHL teams to make sure NEW readers were aware players like those were not eligible and why.

It's silly if you're a longtime reader of HF but for a new person or for someone used to THN's Future Watch... I wanted to make the distinction. Eric Staal isn't eligible yet he's only 19... THN would still have him in their list and that would greatly change Carolina's standing in our list if we did too.

Get it?

 

[Vic Rattlehead*]

I knew what would happen in this thread.

"My team should be higher damnit!"
"My teams prospects are better than your teams prospects"
"No they're not!"
"Yes they are"
"No theyre not"
"Yes they are times infinity"

 

[Enoch]

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

Mistaken - I said its likely depth and name prospects that gives a high ranking.

 

[thestonedkoala]

Just kind of curious but why rank Atlanta that high? Top 15-20 fine but not top 5 IMO...

They are kind of weak up front prospect wise...