Pre-Season Hockeys Future Team Rankings (Prospects)

[hockeyfan33]

sorry about that, I including him by mistake, but everyone else on that list has played less than 50 NHL games.

 

[Unknownbutfamous]

We are the Rangers so low?

They pick up 2 great prospects in this Draft.(Korpikoski and Montoya)
They have one of the best goalie trios in Blackburn, Lundqvist and Montoya.
Fedor Tyutin-a number 2 DMan( worst case 4th DMAN)
Jessiman a good power foward.(1st line or 2nd line)
Balej- Sure Fire 2nd liner if not First Liner

and then people have Toronto ahead of the Rangers? Toronto only has one good prospect and thats Cola.

 

[iamcaper]

No offense to anybody but I see a few lists that don't have the Habs listed. Do you really think the Habs are not a top 5 team when it comes to prospects? I'd like ot know your reasonings please.

 

[Slats432]

We are the Rangers so low?

They pick up 2 great prospects in this Draft.(Korpikoski and Montoya)
They have one of the best goalie trios in Blackburn, Lundqvist and Montoya.
Fedor Tyutin-a number 2 DMan( worst case 4th DMAN)
Jessiman a good power foward.(1st line or 2nd line)
Balej- Sure Fire 2nd liner if not First Liner

and then people have Toronto ahead of the Rangers? Toronto only has one good prospect and thats Cola.

Those rankings are from mid season (January?). I am sure the Rangers will have a big jump in the new rankings. (Which I know will happen before January )

Edit: And don't pump me for infomation about the new HF Organizational Rankings...because I won't talk...you can't make me talk...I won't ever talk...

 

[stanley]

Its amazing how fast philly fell. I don't disagree (based on what I read) but the really emptied their prospect tank this season

How so? They lost Woywitka but picked up Eager and signed Umberger. They traded a lot of picks this year, but I don't know about the prospects which were you claim were "emptied from the tank."

-----------------------

I'd really like to be a fly on the wall of the person evaluating organizations across the board. One would have to have a through understanding and unbiased mentality of all 30 organizations, which is asking a lot. Perception becomes reality in a hurry around these parts. If the evaluations are being conducted individually and compiled afterward, I'm going to pull out my big question mark foam finger and call the evaluations horse poop. It might be asking a bit much to expect a single body to evaluate all 30 organizations and countless prospects in order to create a situation where we are evaluating individuals and organizations on the same scale. If we're not - and I politely mean the friendly, communal "we" here - that much should be made clear as opposed to simply attaching a number from one to thirty, as it appears is done now.

I look at the Flyer system and it seems from the performances of the past year and prospect camps (admittedly, most everyone walks away from these sessions with a "feel good" attitude) that they have quite a few players that seem ready in various degrees for the big club: Carter, Richards, Umberger, Nittymaki, and Eager. We didn't get to see Ruzicka because of visa problems, but unless he's fallen off unexpectedly over the summer, he could end up on that list, too. Mike Richards called Ryan Potulny the biggest surprise of camp. However, six or none of them could end up with the big club because of the depth in their lineup. Will HF suddenly consider their prospect depth to increase because they're not with the Flyers? Williams and Pitkanen weren't discussed when considering the organizational prospect depth when they were 19, which seems like a gaping hole in the evaluation. Pitkanen is one of the best young defensemen in the world, yet the organization gets no credit for him because he plays with the Flyers instead of the Phantoms or Karpat. They drafted him, they should get credit for him irrespective of competition level.

I suppose what I'm getting at is that the prospect evaluations I've read have not taken into consideration young players of ages 18, 19, 20, etc. that are already contributing in the NHL, and have therefore only looked at part of the picture. When Justin Williams was 19, HF wasn't including him in the Flyers' "Organizational Strength" rankings because it was already his second year with the Flyers (he never spent a minute of time in the OHL or minor leagues after being drafted). The same is true of Pitkanen now. I'm sure if Williams were at Plymouth at the time, he'd be included and the ranking would increase, but I can't be sure because he was never included in the discussions. I can only presume their ranking was lowered because he was contributing at a HIGHER level. I'm sure the same is true of other organizations, and that would be unfortunate because the level of contribution from such players at the NHL level isn't quantified. The Flyers might have been ranked in the bottom end last year, but is an organization with major contributions from Simon Gagne, Justin Williams, and Joni Pitkanen weak if they're in the NHL yet strong were those players a step lower and in development leagues? Not at all. It's misleading, although I'm sure unintentionally so. We really just have rankings assigned without a benchmark. In other words, the ranking is meaningless because it has no league-wide quantitative comparison.

I think HF would be better served to evaluate an organization based on AGE rather than level of competition, or at the very least humor the reader by discussing in greater detail the players who have "graduated." That Justin Williams almost immediately "graduated" from the Flyer HF prospect list is trivial in the grand scheme of things, but not when we're discussing his contribution to the organization. If an attempt is not made to quantify such players throughout the league, the ranking system is style without substance, and certainly turns from fiction to reality. I suspect HF has become a slave to the word "future" so much so that it can't see the forest for the trees in this situation, and I'll reserve the right to use the word "crap" to discredit the evaluations when used as a talking point in a discussion.

Elaboration on my perspective is welcome. Make it tonight because I'm taking the lady to see birds and the concrete ship at Cape May for a week. Also, if you happen to be an author of a prospect evaluation, take my words as a critical analysis from a guy who deals in scienctific evaluations all day long, and not a blind insult from the peanut gallery! I think that many people do good work to make this an interesting site to read about young players and open forum to discuss various topics. I like the ideas but think they have obvious flaws that can be somewhat easily corrected to improve the evaluations and take them up a notch. There be holes in them there data that deserve explanation.

 

[Big McLargehuge]

1. Washington
2. Pittsburgh
3. Chicago

That much is easy, if there's any other ranking someone needs to have their heads examined.

 

[stanley]

1. Washington
2. Pittsburgh
3. Chicago

Why?

(Ranking the top three) is easy, if there's any other ranking someone needs to have their heads examined.

I don't debate that I need my head examined. That much has been established ad nauseum by many not affiliated with these boards. I simply question the manipulation of data used to obtain the rankings.

 

[FearTheFlyers]

1. Washington
2. Pittsburgh
3. Chicago

That much is easy, if there's any other ranking someone needs to have their heads examined.

I take Chicago over Pittsburgh.

 

[thestonedkoala]

Minnesota has a solid prospect group but the problem is they have no real solid goaltender after Harding...Kopriva and Khudobin are question marks...have played in the U18 or 20 games...and seemed good but they are questionable.

 

[Slats432]

Elaboration on my perspective is welcome. Make it tonight because I'm taking the lady to see birds and the concrete ship at Cape May for a week. Also, if you happen to be an author of a prospect evaluation, take my words as a critical analysis from a guy who deals in scienctific evaluations all day long, and not a blind insult from the peanut gallery! I think that many people do good work to make this an interesting site to read about young players and open forum to discuss various topics. I like the ideas but think they have obvious flaws that can be somewhat easily corrected to improve the evaluations and take them up a notch. There be holes in them there data that deserve explanation.

I would be glad to discuss this via PM stanley, because those who are blindly critical of HF for whatever reason wouldn't see the value of the discussion. As one of the staff members, I feel that there are some very intelligent readers whose ideas are welcome and valued. Feel free to PM me if you want to discuss it some more.

 

[sparkle twin]

Do you even know anything about the Habs prospects?

Cause if you did, you would know they rank in the top 5 easily...

Did I say anything about where I thought they should be? NO. I questioned them being at #1, that's all I said about them. Pay more attention next time.

 

[thestonedkoala]

Montreal is a solid top 10 prospect team but top 5? I think some other teams are a bit more rounded then they are...

 

[Next Best Thing*]

Montreal is a solid top 10 prospect team but top 5? I think some other teams are a bit more rounded then they are...

If you were rich and lost 50 dollars, would you care?

 

[thestonedkoala]

1. Washington
2. Pittsburgh
3. Chicago
4. Edmonton
5. Nashville
6. Montreal
7. Phoenix
8. New Jersey

???

I am basing this off of the 2004 draft and if they filled a weakness or not and what prospects they drafted...

 

[salty justice]

Im not saying the Hawks should be #1, but the way they dropped from #1 to #17 in the last rankings is a joke! It was completely based on the poor play of 2 heartless Russian (Mike Smith) forward prospects. They have so many sleepers who are actually close to making the NHL in the next couple of years, not to mention a very strong string of 3 1st round Dmen who are close.

Hard to argue against the Caps and the Pens being near the top.

 

[Next Best Thing*]

1. Washington
2. Pittsburgh
3. Chicago
4. Edmonton
5. Nashville
6. Montreal
7. Phoenix
8. New Jersey

???

I am basing this off of the 2004 draft and if they filled a weakness or not and what prospects they drafted...

Uhm, we got us a gritty scorer with size, capable of one day taking over Captaincy. That good enough?

 

[Garp]

Why is Edmonton ranked over Montreal?

Don't get me wrong, I don't think that the habs have the best prospects in the league, but I don't see anything special in the Oilers prospect. They have average or a little over average Defense, average or a little below average Offense and good goltending. They are a top ten, but not a top 5. I'd take florida ahead of them. My top 5 would be:

1 Caps
2 Pens
3 Hawks
4 and 5 (a tie) Habs and Nashville

 

[thestonedkoala]

Why? Because I like what Edmonton has done. Montreal has a lot of undersized guys and one guy sitting out for a suspension. I think they have comparable prospects and a bit underrated...

To me what puts Edmonton over Montreal is the fact they have a slightly better goaltending situation.

 

[Garp]

Yeah, but Habs forward are way better

 

[thestonedkoala]

I think Edmonton has underrated prospects and given the fact that one of Montreal's prospects is banned from AHL for a year, well...

 

[PanthersRule96]

I think that the Org rankings are flawed by having the "prospect criteria" in effect.

If you look at FLA:

Bouwmeester
Weiss
Nedorost
Kolnik
Horton
etc.....

All 2 years or less in the NHL

Then

Olesz
Stewart
Shantz
Globke
Mr. Underrated Novak
Meyer
Campbell
Uchevatov
Krajicek
Kreps
Taticek
Booth


THe list goes on and on and the panthers young draftees are so good that they aren't even still in juniors when the rankings come out. Add those guys to the list and FLA is #1 far and away. Only other one close is CHI.

I'd rather have superprospects and a ranking at #20 whatever it was than having like #1 with no prospects on the list who have produced in the NHL yet.

 

[Legionnaire]

Well, you could do it that way, but you'd have to change the title to something like "Young Talent" rankings.

I would probably put Atlanta over Florida if we did it that way.

 

[Liquidrage*]

Something is seriously wrong with the rankings. Compare Philly's (27) and NJ's (4) prospects. (I'm throwing Umberger in at the 10 slot since he wasn't on the list there and taking out Drozdetsky as I don't think he'll play)

Philly has:
Jeff Carter
Mike Richards
Antero Niittymaki
Stefan Ruzicka
Patrick Sharp
Rosario Ruggeri
Ben Eager
Nikita Korovkin
RJ Umberger
Nikita Korovkin

NJ has:
Zach Parise
Ari Ahonen
Aleksander Suglobov
Tuomas Pihlman
Travis Zajac
Adrian Foster
Anton Kadeykin
Petr Vrana
Ivan Khomutov
Barry Tallackson

I'm sorry, but NJ's lits isn't *that* much better if at all.

The Flyers are projecting a lot of those players to the NHL. Eager should be higher and was very impressive in prospect camp recently. Randy Jones sat at 15 for the Flyers and wasn't in my list yet he's already had a cup of coffee in the NHL and the Flyers like him. Ryan Potulny wasn't on the list yet was among the best players at the Flyers recent prospect camp that included Carter, Richards, Eager, Umberger etc..

The Flyers have a decent amount of prospect talent. And while not the best, they are too low, and certainly seeing them at 27 and NJ at 4 is just a WTF? They Flyers are better at the top and just as deep. Sure, there list is a little old, but even when it wa written it did things like list Kadeykin as a Top prospect for NJ but not Ruggeri for Philly. Sorry, but there is no way in hell I'd want NJ's Top 10 over Philly's Top 10. And yes, I realize I'm just focusing on the Top 10. But what comes after that isn't going to be the difference betweeen 4 and 27 anyways.

 

[Jason MacIsaac]

Something is seriously wrong with the rankings. Compare Philly's (27) and NJ's (4) prospects. (I'm throwing Umberger in at the 10 slot since he wasn't on the list there and taking out Drozdetsky as I don't think he'll play)

Philly has:
Jeff Carter
Mike Richards
Antero Niittymaki
Stefan Ruzicka
Patrick Sharp
Rosario Ruggeri
Ben Eager
Nikita Korovkin
RJ Umberger
Nikita Korovkin

NJ has:
Zach Parise
Ari Ahonen
Aleksander Suglobov
Tuomas Pihlman
Travis Zajac
Adrian Foster
Anton Kadeykin
Petr Vrana
Ivan Khomutov
Barry Tallackson

I'm sorry, but NJ's lits isn't *that* much better if at all.

The Flyers are projecting a lot of those players to the NHL. Eager should be higher and was very impressive in prospect camp recently. Randy Jones sat at 15 for the Flyers and wasn't in my list yet he's already had a cup of coffee in the NHL and the Flyers like him. Ryan Potulny wasn't on the list yet was among the best players at the Flyers recent prospect camp that included Carter, Richards, Eager, Umberger etc..

The Flyers have a decent amount of prospect talent. And while not the best, they are too low, and certainly seeing them at 27 and NJ at 4 is just a WTF? They Flyers are better at the top and just as deep. Sure, there list is a little old, but even when it wa written it did things like list Kadeykin as a Top prospect for NJ but not Ruggeri for Philly. Sorry, but there is no way in hell I'd want NJ's Top 10 over Philly's Top 10. And yes, I realize I'm just focusing on the Top 10. But what comes after that isn't going to be the difference betweeen 4 and 27 anyways.

All you do is whine about NJ. Be a classy fan like GKJ, LLPH, JFF or DL.

NJ's depth blows philly out of the water and I think we have the better top end prospects. Parise, Vrana, Suglobov, Kadeikin, DeMarchi, Ahonen is better then any line you can dish out by a long long way. Eager is nothing more then a 4th liner. Most philly fans or any other fans will tell you that. He doesn't have the goal scoring sense or hockey sense in gerneral to ever be nything usefull. Allmost every forward on the Devils prospect list have huge potential. Tallackson still probably has the best skill set on Minnesota but just doesn't show up but does show up in the playoffs and wjc where he dominates. Khomutov was considered a first round pick throughout his draft year but sliped due to coaching problems. People in London know what he is capable of but Hunters didn't give him a chance. Vrana was on the CHL allrookie team putting up far more points then Jeff Carter. Parise is better then any prospect you can boast. Suglobov played for russia's worl championships team....an event that boasted Kovalchuk, Frolov, Heatley, Luongo ect and scored 3 goals in 7 games. Pihlman led his SMliga team JYP in points as a 20/21 year old. Zajac was a first round pick this year and dominated junior A...not quite the feat but time will tell if he turns out to be a goo risk. I agree Foster is close to done but in a 16 gam period last year with Suglobov he was over a PPG. Considering the injuries he has had that is good progress. DeMarchi was on the ncaa tourniment allstar team and was part of Minnesota's back to back titles. Kadeikin was the best prospect dmen at the 2002 camp...that is as an 18 year old. He played bad in Sarnia but excellent in the Russia v CHL games. Once again a project.

 

[Liquidrage*]

All you do is whine about me not whinning. I wasn't whinning. I was disagreeing with a rating and it happened to be NJ's. And I wasn't dissing NJ's rating as much as I was saying someone is seriously undervaluing the Flyers.


Parise, Vrana, Suglobov, Kadeykin, DeMarchi, Ahonen
are not better then
Jeff Carter, Mike Richards, Antero Niittymaki, Stefan Ruzicka, Rosario Ruggeri and Eager.


Carter and Richards you know. And I'll take Carter over Parise and Richards over Suglobov. You want Parise? Fine. Don't act like he's a better Prospect. The NHL GM's didn't seem to agree and don't act like Parise's risen and Carter's dropped since then. They both have risen and both were 1st team at the WJC.
Niittymaki > Ahonen. Niittymaki looked great last year with the Flyers and did a lot better in the AHL last year then Ahonen did. A lot better.
Ruzicka is at worst a wash with Vrana. Which btw, you're flat out wrong with your statement that Vrana put up a lot more points then Jeff Carter. 2 years ago Vrana had more points and Carter more points per game. Total it was 11 points difference. And last year Carter put up a lot more points. 66 to 38. And it was still more points per game. Ruzicka last year put up more points by a large margin then Vrana did and more points per game.
And Ruggeri > DeMarchi

Ruzicka's stock has risen a ton and he's been awesome in international compeition.
Ruggeri's got the better numbers of that last pairing.

Now we'd have to compare Eager to a D in your "top" list so I'll just deal with Eager 1st.
Eager just a 4th liner?
He put up a better numbers last year then Vrana did and brings a lot more to the table outside of scoring. And you're going to pump up Vrana and dis Eager? That speaks volumes about what you're trying to say.
He's a good prospect that was a recent 1st Rnd pick that the Yotes couldn't get signed. He looked very good in the recent prospects camp. Flyers are happy with him. Otherwise, they just would have taken the comp pick for him and not signed him.

I'll take Korovkin for the Flyers over Kadeikin anyways. Hell, at least Korovkin can add some offense.

So just where are you better at the top? Which one's you want to argue and we'll break out the stats and what not.


I'm not dissing the Devil's prospects. I'm saying if you're going to say the Flyers are 27th and the Devil's 4th based on these lists you are nuts. Clarke has drafted well and guess what, people like Ruzicka and Ruggeri would also be drafted a lot higher now then they were.

As far as depth, hell, at 15 and 16 for the Flyers on the HF rankings are players that already have gotten time in the NHL. Randy Jones at 15 on D has put up better numbers in the AHL then some of the D you're touting up top in Canadian Juniors.

So seriously, I'm not whinning. The Flyers have decent depth. If you want to really argue that the Devil's are slightly better, that's your right. But 4 vs 27 is freaking nuts.