Prospect Info: Supplemental Prospect Rankings [READ OP BEFORE VOTING]

[Harbour Dog]

Vote for EVERY guy that you think still could be considered a prospect.

The player with the most votes, and every player with at least half as many votes as him, will be included in the supplementary polls to see how we would fit them into our prospect rankings.

Click to read more...

 

[Harbour Dog]

If I missed anybody, let me know!

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

IMO, any player who is younger than 25 and has played fewer than 100 NHL games should be considered a prospect still.

 

[nyr2k2]

Raddysh.

Everyone else has one or more seasons of NHL experience. I mean come on, Chytil has played almost 150 games, who cares if he's young? He's an NHL player at this point, one who is developing, but still an NHL player. He's not a prospect.

Kakko, Fox, Lindgren--I get where people are going with that. But the likelihood that those players ever play another professional game outside of the NHL is really, really small. They're not going to be back in the AHL. They're young players who are inexperienced but they are NHL professionals now. That's what they are. They're not prospects. Prospects are guys who are still developing who have yet to really break through and establish a spot on an NHL roster. That doesn't apply to those guys.

 

[The Crypto Guy]

KK, Fox, and Lindgren

 

[Sayba]

One of these is not like the others.

 

[kovazub94]

Raddysh.

Everyone else has one or more seasons of NHL experience. I mean come on, Chytil has played almost 150 games, who cares if he's young? He's an NHL player at this point, one who is developing, but still an NHL player. He's not a prospect.

Kakko, Fox, Lindgren--I get where people are going with that. But the likelihood that those players ever play another professional game outside of the NHL is really, really small. They're not going to be back in the AHL. They're young players who are inexperienced but they are NHL professionals now. That's what they are. They're not prospects. Prospects are guys who are still developing who have yet to really break through and establish a spot on an NHL roster. That doesn't apply to those guys.

Had the Rangers were not in rebuild it would be quite possible that Chytil doesn't see half these NHL games he played in. IMO I'd go with age for the cut off rather than experience.

 

[GoAwayPanarin]

Kakko strictly based on age, but the reality is none of these guys should be considered prospects.

 

[kovazub94]

Howden is the same age as Fox and Lindgren (he's actually younger than both).

 

[Edge]

There are three easy "yes" votes for me in Kakko, Fox and Lindgren.

I included Georgiev in there as well.

I can honestly make a case for most of these kids based on their age and experience --- ADA is probably the toughest sell for me because of his age and having 5 pro seasons under his belt (including 200 NHL games). Technically he has more North American pro experience under his belt than Buchnevich.

But if the preference is to go with a "Top 25 Age 25 and Under", I'm be okay including ADA and Buch.

 

[Thirty One]

Where is Kreider?

 

[H00fHearted]

To me, "prospect" means a player that has not yet developed into a legitimate NHL player based on the merit of his current performance. Therefore, his value is primarily based on expected future development. Based on my personal definition of the word, the three players who clearly are good NHL players today and would continue to be considered good NHL players even if they never develop further are ADA, Fox and Lindgren. Therefore, I do not consider them prospects. Two others that probably fall into that category also are Georgiev and Chytil. Kakko was not a good NHL player last year but obviously is expected to be, and that is my definition of a prospect. Howden is in that category too. Lemieux is the toughest call for me because he could probably be a journeyman NHL tough guy right now, but there are still hopes that he can be more than that.

 

[Beer League Sniper]

I don't think any of the choices should still be counted as prospects.

Raddysh is the one guy I think you could make an argument for, but he's 24, turn 25 in February.

All the other options have played a season or more in the NHL. I really don't consider those types to be prospects anymore. To me, the term prospect infers that we don't really know how the player will perform in the NHL in a permanent role. It also infers youth, not a likely career minor leaguer.

I know my definition is different from many here, but just because a player is young and can keep developing doesn't necessarily make them a prospect.

 

[Edge]

I also see clusters here.

If you're including Kakko, you should include Fox and Lindgren.

If you're including Chytil (49 points in 144 games), then I think Howden and Lemieux need to be in the mix (42 points in 136 games) and (36 points in 131 games).

As a goalie, we've only 7 Georgiev in 7 more games than Fox, and only 17 more games than Lindgren.

Raddysh should be in no matter what, but probably wouldn't rank higher than the mid-20s.

 

[eco's bones]

I just went with Raddysh. Other than him most of these guys should improve further but even so they're all legit NHL players.

 

[SA16]

I would not personally consider any of them prospects.

 

[Harbour Dog]

I went with Kakko, Fox, Lindgren, and Raddysh.

Raddysh is a pretty clear fit, and the other three feel like they are more likely to have a big development leap than the rest.

 

[Harbour Dog]

I never expected this to create such a debate about the definition of "prospects"

By the definition we use, none of them are prospects. This poll is to decide which ones we would be justified to fit into our rankings with an asterisk.

Maybe 'borderline prospects' would have been a better term for me to use.

 

[Edge]

I never expected this to create such a debate about the definition of "prospects"

By the definition we use, none of them are prospects. This poll is to decide which ones we would be justified to fit into our rankings with an asterisk.

Maybe 'borderline prospects' would have been a better term for me to use.

I was actually just chuckling about this and thinking to myself there's a reason this is supplemental the topic is probably venturing into "over-analyazing" territory.

 

[Savant]

For me, only Kakko and Fox.

My initial though was if we are including Kakko, you have to put Fox in (I am probably unfairly not putting in Lindgren because he played games in 18-19) but it’s crazy Fox is about 3 years (!!!) older than Kakko is.

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

For the asterisk in the Pronman like ranking?

I'd go with Howden, Chytil, Kakko, Fox, Lindgren. All the guys 22 and younger.

And in terms of any adds... if you're including Lemieux, DeAngelo, and Georgiev, then Gauthier really needs to be there.

[Edited to fix stupid mistake.]

 

[kovazub94]

For the asterisk in the Pronman like ranking?

I'd go with Howden, Chytil, Kakko, Fox, Lindgren. All the guys 22 and younger.

And in terms of any adds... if you're including Lemieux, DeAngelo, and Georgiev, then Gauthier really needs to be there.

Same logic here re. 22 and under.

and eh.. checkout who's in #8 spot.

 

[kovazub94]

So Kakko is leading with 27 votes, meaning you need 14 to be added to the poll, no?

Let's get Chytil a couple of more votes to qualify him.

 

[nyr2k2]

I just went with Raddysh. Other than him most of these guys should improve further but even so they're all legit NHL players.

This is exactly my thinking.

 

[nyr2k2]

I'd go with Howden, Chytil, Kakko, Fox, Lindgren. All the guys 22 and younger.

So we could theoretically be here next year and on a 22-and-under list include Filip Chytil with 200+ games played. Doesn't that seem kind of out of whack? On a list with guys who are still in amateur hockey?

I think if you're going to do a list of players X-and-under, you just call it "Ranking the players X-and-under" because you'll run into guys who are really in a completely different class than your traditional "prospects." You could see the same thing with Lafreniere in three years--he'll be 22 with 200+ games and he could be an absolute star. Kakko, as well, could theoretically be over 300 games.

I've always liked 25-and-under as a good barometer for young organizational talent. But that's very different than "prospects" and I think 22-and-under is, as well. You also immediately then disqualify someone like Shesterkin, Rueschhoff, and Huska. Two guys who are second-year NA pros and one guy who is just starting his career.

This is why HF always used a combination of games played and age, and also had different criteria for players who signed later (like NCAA guys or Europeans).