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

[NYRFANMANI]

I wanted to say the only rookie is Raddysh, because I'm a purist and I'd go by the 25 NHL games threshold.

But the title says "prospect", so the purist is uncertain.

 

[Harbour Dog]

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.

That's right.

People can change their votes if they want, but whatever the total is at 8pmEST will be the one I go by.

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

Same logic here re. 22 and under.

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

Whoops. My bad! We have so many, I forgot!

Fixed.

 

[nyr2k2]

A player will be considered a prospect until he meets the following criteria:

• If a prospect is a skater (forward, defenseman) and has played in 65 NHL games or more before the completion of the season of his 24th birthday; or, if a goaltender has played in 45 NHL games before the completion of the season of his 24th birthday, that player will be considered graduated to the NHL. Conversely, if a player completes the season of his 24th birthday without passing those milestones, then that player will no longer be considered a prospect by Hockey’s Future, regardless of the player’s status with his NHL club.
• An NCAA player who signs his first contract at or above the age of 22 has three years to meet the above criteria (65/45), while those NCAA players that turn pro under the age of 22 will be subjected to the criteria above.
• European players who sign their first NHL contract at or above the age of 22 have three seasons from the time they sign that contract to meet the above criteria. Those European players below the age of 22 that have signed a NHL contract will be subjected to the criteria in section one.

NOTE: These are general guidelines and should be followed the majority of the time but certain players may still be listed as prospects if circumstances warrant.

Source: Hockey's Future - NHL Prospect Criteria

I always thought these criteria were very reasonable.

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

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).

I hear you, and you make good points, especially re: "Ranking the players X-and-under."

For me, in regard to this specific poll, it's more of a feel re: how much development the guys might have left. Truthfully, the closest decision for me was whether or not to cut Lindgren from the list, rather than to add any of the others.

 

[The Crypto Guy]

A player will be considered a prospect until he meets the following criteria:

• If a prospect is a skater (forward, defenseman) and has played in 65 NHL games or more before the completion of the season of his 24th birthday; or, if a goaltender has played in 45 NHL games before the completion of the season of his 24th birthday, that player will be considered graduated to the NHL. Conversely, if a player completes the season of his 24th birthday without passing those milestones, then that player will no longer be considered a prospect by Hockey’s Future, regardless of the player’s status with his NHL club.
• An NCAA player who signs his first contract at or above the age of 22 has three years to meet the above criteria (65/45), while those NCAA players that turn pro under the age of 22 will be subjected to the criteria above.
• European players who sign their first NHL contract at or above the age of 22 have three seasons from the time they sign that contract to meet the above criteria. Those European players below the age of 22 that have signed a NHL contract will be subjected to the criteria in section one.

NOTE: These are general guidelines and should be followed the majority of the time but certain players may still be listed as prospects if circumstances warrant.

Source: Hockey's Future - NHL Prospect Criteria

I always thought these criteria were very reasonable.

He did that for the official list. This is for the supplemental list of the few players who just missed it.

 

[kovazub94]

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).

You're exactly right but this is why I thought we're doing SUPPLEMENTAL ranking on a side, rather than discussing whether having these prospects in the main voting makes sense.

The reason is to further assess the depth and strength of the youth within the organization. That's why adding these 21 year-olds with still room to develop further seems reasonable to me.

 

[Harbour Dog]

Yeah, this isn't intended to be added prospect rankings.

It is to take guys that the fanbase views as being narrowly outside that frame and seeing how we would fit them in. I've already posted the final rankings; they are done.

Pretty sure we did this last time as well.

 

[nyr2k2]

He did that for the official list. This is for the supplemental list of the few players who just missed it.

You're exactly right but this is why I thought we're doing SUPPLEMENTAL ranking on a side, rather than discussing whether having these prospects in the main voting makes sense.

The reason is to further assess the depth and strength of the youth within the organization. That's why adding these 21 year-olds with still room to develop further seems reasonable to me.

I 100% understand that this is for supplemental rankings, and people are sharing their criteria for including or excluding players.

I shared HF's criteria which is what I will also use for the supplemental list because I think it is better than anything I've seen proposed here. That's all.

 

[nyr2k2]

Yeah, this isn't intended to be added prospect rankings.

It is to take guys that the fanbase views as being narrowly outside that frame and seeing how we would fit them in. I've already posted the final rankings; they are done.

Pretty sure we did this last time as well.

IIRC last time we voted ahead of time whether guys like Lemieux, Chytil, Andersson, etc., would be included in our eligible list.

Anyway I'm not trying to shit on this idea. I just like the established criteria.

 

[Harbour Dog]

IIRC last time we voted ahead of time whether guys like Lemieux, Chytil, Andersson, etc., would be included in our eligible list.

Anyway I'm not trying to shit on this idea. I just like the established criteria.

Ah, maybe so, yup.

I did a quick search and never found anything either, but I could have sworn that there were some polls for individual guys where the selections were where they should be ranked were they eligible. Lemieux specifically, I remember trying to decide where to vote on how he should fit into the finished rankings.

No matter either way, the rankings are done and this is more a 'what if' thing.

 

[KirkAlbuquerque]

Kakko because he should not have been in the NHL last year

 

[The Crypto Guy]

Ah, maybe so, yup.

I did a quick search and never found anything either, but I could have sworn that there were some polls for individual guys where the selections were where they should be ranked were they eligible. Lemieux specifically, I remember trying to decide where to vote on how he should fit into the finished rankings.

No matter either way, the rankings are done and this is more a 'what if' thing.

I did do that last time. The search option is pretty terrible though.

 

[Crease]

The Rangers’ organizational ranking includes Hajek (22) and Rykov (23), but not Kakko (19), Chytil (21), Lindgen (22) or Fox (22). Simply because Hajek and Rykov haven’t been good or healthy enough to play NHL games, and because the others have been. Always seemed odd to me to rank organizations that way, if the point is to predict future success.

Also, I did not read OP. What are we here about?

 

[Fitzy]

Have to imagine Fox and Kakko will be fighting big time in the vote with Shesty and Lundkvist- it'll be interesting to see who lands where.

 

[CasusBelli]

Hard to make a case for anyone other than Kakko. Went with Raddysh as well because he’s yet to play in the NHL.

 

[kovazub94]

Have to imagine Fox and Kakko will be fighting big time in the vote with Shesty and Lundkvist- it'll be interesting to see who lands where.

Shesterkin - yes, but I bet both will comfortably beat Lundkvist in head-to-head.

 

[ElLeetch]

KK, Fox, and Lindgren

my same trio. All have less than a seasons worth of NHL games, all within one season.

 

[NYRFANMANI]

A player will be considered a prospect until he meets the following criteria:

• If a prospect is a skater (forward, defenseman) and has played in 65 NHL games or more before the completion of the season of his 24th birthday; or, if a goaltender has played in 45 NHL games before the completion of the season of his 24th birthday, that player will be considered graduated to the NHL. Conversely, if a player completes the season of his 24th birthday without passing those milestones, then that player will no longer be considered a prospect by Hockey’s Future, regardless of the player’s status with his NHL club.
• An NCAA player who signs his first contract at or above the age of 22 has three years to meet the above criteria (65/45), while those NCAA players that turn pro under the age of 22 will be subjected to the criteria above.
• European players who sign their first NHL contract at or above the age of 22 have three seasons from the time they sign that contract to meet the above criteria. Those European players below the age of 22 that have signed a NHL contract will be subjected to the criteria in section one.

NOTE: These are general guidelines and should be followed the majority of the time but certain players may still be listed as prospects if circumstances warrant.

Source: Hockey's Future - NHL Prospect Criteria

I always thought these criteria were very reasonable.

Thanks for providing the terms to term "prospect".

Even so, only Raddysh qualifies.

The purist can rest in peace.

 

[Harbour Dog]

Kakko, Fox, and Lindgren it is.