Discussion in 'NHL Draft - Prospects' started by thestonedkoala, May 28, 2004.
Usually how accurate are they when it comes to prospect and where they get drafted?
Well, the first difficulty you have is they separate the Euros from North American prospects.
So, if in a year (exaggeration follows) the 10 best players of the draft were Europeans, they'd still be rated 1-10 while one North American would be rated 1. They do not tell you which guys they prefer by cross-references.
They also put the goalies in separate lists so once again, no way of knowing what they think. It makes for lists that, taken by themselves alone, do not give you a ranking prediction on where the guys will be picked.
When you consider that they have four lists, they have four #1s.
But usually like Thelen is ranked number 11, is he really worse then Green, Valabik, that sort of thing...How are their rankings?
Somewhat bizarre. Not really much worse than everybody else but not better either. They do make odd calls, like ranking Gaborik behind Vorobiev, stuff like that.
I believe the way you phrase your question in the first post, it was more in relation to where the players would be *drafted* but the way you phrase your question, it's *how talented or better* the guys are. Quite different.
I think CSS was quite high on Kalinin for instance. But if you look at the draft, they were "wrong" because he was drafted a little later by the Sabres. But when you look at the results... well they were right.
Really, CSS (and any respected publication) is not concerned about where the guys will be drafted. They assess the talent. CSS does an ok job at it. They are not in the thought-proking stuff usually, so a bit more conservative than other publications, I think. This can be perceived as good or bad, depending on how you feel.
For the record, you can very easily find past ranking of CSS and see for yourself how well or how bad they do. Try searching in google (and vary between CSS and CSB until you find what you want)
Here's one I found on google (amusingly, it points back at HF)
2000 rankings. Look at it and see for yourself. Nobody will answer this question better than you:
Look at more. Try to locate older ones too, as the farther you go, the more accurate your reads on the players' career. 2000 is still very young to make a final verdict.
Here's another one. Again from Google pointing back to HF. Much more interesting, the 1997 draft so we have a couple more years:
It is fairly similar to how the actual draft went, but as the years go by, you can see how certain players have simply not lived up to their ranking while others have accomplished more than they expected.
Thanks a ton Vlad...I owe you a lot...
No problem at all, man! Hope you find everything you need
Its interesting looking back to 1997 and seeing how the North American rankings are ALL Major junior players for the whole first round (besides Samsonov). It just shows how much things have changed in short time, now you see much more NCAA, USHL, USNTDP, BCHL etc. in there at the top. It shows how much those leagues have improved at developing talent, but moreso how the scouting world has changed, with them putting much more credibility in those leagues as more and more players come out of them.
I agree that NHL teams are now scouting more leagues and players than they did in the past, even as recently as 1997. However, with the current financial situation of the league, teams can't afford to take a chance on signing as many prospects as they have in the past.
Therefore, with the CBA set up as it currently is, teams are a bit more reluctant to select CHLers since they have just two years to decide if they want to sign that prospect. If I were at a draft table making decisions, you can bet a US HSer, USHLer, Canadian Tier II or NCAA player would win out in any tie-breaker with a CHLer based on the fact NHL teams have seemingly an eternity to sign them.
Throw in Europeans, who can continue to develop in their home leagues for eight or nine years before being signed (I know NHL teams need to tender qualifying offers at some point to retain their rights), it's amazing the amount of CHL players taken is still as high as it is.
True CHL talents will be taken. It's the borderline player who has certain deficiencies (ie: size, skating) who will be affected. Large CHLers will still be taken late, with hopes of actually turning into a player in a year or two, while the smaller skill player gets overlooked in the draft.
Frankly, other than the ego-stroking that goes with being an NHL Draftee, if I were a potential late-round CHLer I'd rather go undrafted and try to make my own Free Agent deal with a team that fits my situation. You're seeing more and more undrafted FAs signing pro deals after going to rookie camps. And some of these guys have played in the show as 20-and 21-year olds.
It still boggles my mind how the Canucks at pick 10 can look at a 10th ranked NA d-man who's basically a no talent thug (Ference 324 PIM), a 4th ranked NA skill forward (Ward), and the #2 ranked Euro (Hossa), and pick the lousy d-man.
Separate names with a comma.