Not getting into the whole Toronto-Vancouver debate, just one thing that I sort of think is important to reflect upon with the broad claim that you made along the lines of "HF will soon be proved to be totally wrong." The quotation isn't your exact words, just a paraphrase because I don't want to go back and find exactly what you said.
You may be right. HF's rankings right now may prove to be inaccurate in five years. So what? They are a guideline, not a Holy prophet. In reality, the difference between five spots or whatever it is that seperates Vancouver and Toronto on the listings is pretty negligible. Furthermore, you have to keep in mind that the ratings are done on HF's Prospect Criteria. THE LINE HAS TO BE DRAWN SOMEWHERE. I'm sorry if you feel that the Leafs are punished because Matt Stajan graduated, but what alternative is there? HF has committed to focusing on prospects on their way to the NHL, and once they make it, leave them to take their course. There has to be some line that players no longer are considered prospects. That's reality. Where should it be? Should we let players be considered prospects until they're 27 because I swear Nik Antropov is going to bust out a 70 point season any year now? Or because Brandon Reid is totally going to net 50 assists when he's 26? HF has drawn the line where it has. Next year the Canucks are going to be 'screwed' (just using them because that's the example you seem most outraged about) when Alex Auld, Ryan Kesler, heck maybe Brandon Reid, have all graduated.
The point is that a line has to be drawn somewhere and HF has decided to draw it shortly after they make the NHL, which I think is excellent because it limits how many players we need to keep tabs on and such.
However, for you to dismiss HF's credibility because of some mistakes? Come on, that's ridiculous and you know it. It's comprable to saying that the Edmonton Oilers organization is full of idiots because they chose Jason Bonsignore in 1994? Or is every team in the league incompetant because everyone took somebody that was worse than Kim Johnsson (the last player selected in '94) sometime during the draft?
Bringing up an old Top 50 list and using it to substantiate that HF was wrong then so they must be wrong now, seems like an extremely poor argument to me. The reality of the matter is not everyone (in fact many don't) develops as they are projected. That is the nature of prospects and young hockey players. Had HF NOT included Artem Kriukov at the time they would have been assaulted by Sabres fans.
You may be right. HF may be totally wrong with its organizational rankings this year. However, your argument of "their top 50 from several years ago with a completely different set of writers was wrong so their Organizations Rankings today must be wrong" is a horrendously poorly substantiated argument. It's like saying the Oilers drafted poorly in 1998 so their 2005 draft is going to suck.
You point out JM Liles as a 3 in 2000. Well, how many people expected a tiny defenceman who had just finished coming off a pretty decent freshman season, but the year before had put up relatively unimpressive numbers for an offensive d-man with the US development program, to become a top four NHL defenceman? Not many. If more expected that from him he wouldn't have been the 159th player selected. Besides, the old rating system had its issues. That "3" is very open to interpretation. Perhaps under the new system that type of prospect would receive a 7.5D rating, indicating the potential was there, but it is unlikely that he would achieve it. How many sub 190lb defencemen are there in the NHL? Not many. How many failed offensive, sub 190 lb d-men prospects are there? Hundreds.
So like I said, you MAY be right, but your method of trying to prove it is, to me, an unacceptable form of citation. Perhaps I'm looking at this too academically, but it seems like a poor methodology.
