The Hockey News "Future Watch" 2011

[mvp23]

Players rated 1st overall in Future Watch (1994 was the first year they did a top 50):

1994: Peter Forsberg
1995: Ed Jovanovski
1996: Bryan Berard
1997: Marc Denis
1998: Marian Hossa
1999: Roberto Luongo
2000: Roberto Luongo
2001: Rostislav Klesla
2002: Tuomo Ruutu
2003: Kari Lehtonen
2004: Kari Lehtonen
2005: Alex Ovechkin
2006: Evgeni Malkin
2007: Erik Johnson
2008: Carey Price
2009: Nikita Filatov
2010: Alex Pietrangelo

Anyone want to take a stab at 2011?

gotta be Brayden Schenn no?

 

[thrillhous]

1. Schenn

Rest of the top 10 in no particular order:

Johansen
Niederreiter
Ellis
Markstrom
Hodgson
Gudbranson
Morin
Granlund
Tarasenko

 

[Habsfan18]

gotta be Brayden Schenn no?

He's definitely gotta be up there, along with Markstrom and Ekman-Larsson (assuming he's back in San Antonio when the issue is written).

I would assume Gudbranson and Tarasenko would also be fairly close to top 5.

 

[thrillhous]

If OEL is eligible IMO it'll be a race between him and Schenn for No. 1, with the edge to OEL.

 

[arsmaster*]

I love the Future watch issue, but I hate the way it is chosen.

I dont understand how a player who was drafted in the latest draft who is still playing junior is a better prospect ie ranked higher in THN's future watch than a player who has graduated on to the AHL and contributes at a high level against men....it seems more like a flavour of the week contest IMO.

My example would be the fact that Jonathon Blum continues to fall in this ranking although he is playing at a higher level than a guy like John Moore who hasnt overwhelmed in the OHL, but was just a more recent pick. The only that has changed for Blum (former CHL defensman of the Year) is that he graduated that level.

Just my opinion....anyone else feel the same?

Is Derek Forbort better Jon Blum? I dont think so....I bet he'll be ranked higher.

 

[KopitarFAN]

1. Brayden Schenn
2. Derek Forbort
3. Andrei Loktionov
4. Vyacheslav Voynov
5. Thomas Hickey

 

[Habsfan18]

After their WJC performance, one would have to assume Tarasenko, Schenn and Kuznetsov will be ranked fairly high. They likely would have been anyways, but the WJC sort of cemented it.

 

[Habsfan18]

Jason Kay from THN just informed me that the on sale date for Future Watch this year is March 14th (about a week later than usual). Subscribers will receive it about a week earlier.

 

[Staalguy]

1) Brett Connolly
2) Dustin Tokarski
3) Richard Panik
4) Carter Ashton
5) Alex Killorn. Tik hasn't had a great year in the AHL and Panik has a great WJHC( 2nd on goals) and could push him..........no #5 guy but I think that Killorn is a lot better than people think. Also Dana Tyrell is too old?

 

[Qvist]

Kadri shouldn't count since he's been with Leafs longer than the Marlies.

Sorry if this has already been addressed, but the way it works is that that doesn't really matter. They make a decision in each case if they think the player is up for good or if he's likely to continue to see considerable time in the minors in the future. In the latter case they consider him a prospect, no matter if he's been longer with the Leafs than with the Marlies.

 

[Qvist]

I love the Future watch issue, but I hate the way it is chosen.

I dont understand how a player who was drafted in the latest draft who is still playing junior is a better prospect ie ranked higher in THN's future watch than a player who has graduated on to the AHL and contributes at a high level against men....it seems more like a flavour of the week contest IMO.

Er, if they were chosen in the way you suggest, the ranking would be meaningless in my opinion. The way they select is completely logical given what it is they are ranking: How they see the player 7-8 years down the road, ie, when he has finished developing.

My example would be the fact that Jonathon Blum continues to fall in this ranking although he is playing at a higher level than a guy like John Moore who hasnt overwhelmed in the OHL, but was just a more recent pick. The only that has changed for Blum (former CHL defensman of the Year) is that he graduated that level.

Just my opinion....anyone else feel the same?

Is Derek Forbort better Jon Blum? I dont think so....I bet he'll be ranked higher.

The ranking doesn't intend to reflect who is the better player right now. It doesn't much matter who is. There are players who are tearing up the OHL or the AHL but who aren't even good enough prospects to be drafted because they simply don't have the potential to succeed at the next level.

Any meaningful evaluation of prospects involves a projection curve from the point A of where he is today to the the point B of where you think he will be once he has finished developing. If you have two players who have a similar projection but one is 18 and the other is 20, the second one should be a much better player to justify a similar projection as the 18-year old.

Also, neither point is static. The player develops, and so does the projection. It is set on the basis of things like skills and physical factors and hockey sense, but ultimately you need it confirmed by performance. If a player fails to follow the curve you expect towards the projected outcome, then the projected outcome gets adjusted. The projection is perhaps best thought of as an informed hypothesis subject to constant revision.

In short - what the list reflects is how the panel (which has more than 20 NHL scouts on it) see the players within the group ranking as finished products. It's an expected projection as opposed to a best-case projection, and certainly not a "right now" ranking. And the older the player is, the more his performance to date is a factor in the projection, while for younger player it still relies more on assessed potential. That's why most of the first round of the preceding year's draft class always make the top 75, only to see more and more of those who are still prospects fall out of the picture as the years go by.

 

[arsmaster*]

Er, if they were chosen in the way you suggest, the ranking would be meaningless in my opinion. The way they select is completely logical given what it is they are ranking: How they see the player 7-8 years down the road, ie, when he has finished developing.




The ranking doesn't intend to reflect who is the better player right now. It doesn't much matter who is. There are players who are tearing up the OHL or the AHL but who aren't even good enough prospects to be drafted because they simply don't have the potential to succeed at the next level.

Any meaningful evaluation of prospects involves a projection curve from the point A of where he is today to the the point B of where you think he will be once he has finished developing. If you have two players who have a similar projection but one is 18 and the other is 20, the second one should be a much better player to justify a similar projection as the 18-year old.

Also, neither point is static. The player develops, and so does the projection. It is set on the basis of things like skills and physical factors and hockey sense, but ultimately you need it confirmed by performance. If a player fails to follow the curve you expect towards the projected outcome, then the projected outcome gets adjusted. The projection is perhaps best thought of as an informed hypothesis subject to constant revision.

In short - what the list reflects is how the panel (which has more than 20 NHL scouts on it) see the players within the group ranking as finished products. It's an expected projection as opposed to a best-case projection, and certainly not a "right now" ranking. And the older the player is, the more his performance to date is a factor in the projection, while for younger player it still relies more on assessed potential. That's why most of the first round of the preceding year's draft class always make the top 75, only to see more and more of those who are still prospects fall out of the picture as the years go by.

I disagree with the first part of your post. I dont think they are ranking the players as to who will be better in 7 or 8 years.....like I said, its generally a popularity contest with players who were drafted in the year of the issue always getting higher rankings.

John Moore over Jon Blum is my example, as there is no way Moore is a better player now or in the future...he may be a faster skater, but is Oleg Tverdosky better than Brian Rafalski....I dont think so.

The rest of you post is good....it makes general sense, but I dont agree that the THN list reflects these ideas.

 

[Jwm1986]

I love the Future watch issue, but I hate the way it is chosen.

I dont understand how a player who was drafted in the latest draft who is still playing junior is a better prospect ie ranked higher in THN's future watch than a player who has graduated on to the AHL and contributes at a high level against men....it seems more like a flavour of the week contest IMO.

My example would be the fact that Jonathon Blum continues to fall in this ranking although he is playing at a higher level than a guy like John Moore who hasnt overwhelmed in the OHL, but was just a more recent pick. The only that has changed for Blum (former CHL defensman of the Year) is that he graduated that level.

Just my opinion....anyone else feel the same?

Is Derek Forbort better Jon Blum? I dont think so....I bet he'll be ranked higher.

How much do you know about Forbort? There is a reason many scouts thought that when all is said and done, Forbort could potentially be the best dman out of last draft, and that is saying a lot considering some of the players....

maybe in terms of where they are in their respective development, but you cant possibly tell me that once they both hit their peeks, you think Blum will be better....

 

[Columbus Jack]

I disagree with the first part of your post. I dont think they are ranking the players as to who will be better in 7 or 8 years.....like I said, its generally a popularity contest with players who were drafted in the year of the issue always getting higher rankings.

John Moore over Jon Blum is my example, as there is no way Moore is a better player now or in the future...he may be a faster skater, but is Oleg Tverdosky better than Brian Rafalski....I dont think so.

The rest of you post is good....it makes general sense, but I dont agree that the THN list reflects these ideas.

Just curious why you keep shooting down John Moore. You said in an earlier post that he's playing in the OHL. He's actually in the AHL in Springfield. Dont just say a player is worse then another, give reasons as to why.

 

[Jussi]

Teemu Pulkkinen should be rated high.

 

[ed bruin]

1. Brayden Schenn
2. Derek Forbort
3. Andrei Loktionov
4. Vyacheslav Voynov
5. Thomas Hickey

im still big on Teubert big fan of his

 

[Circulartheory]

1. Marco Scandella
2. Mikael Granlund
3. Matt Hackett
4. Casey Wellman
5. Jason Zucker

Really want to find space for Haula in there...

 

[sa cyred]

Flyers really dont have any top prospects. Three players, I think, that will get the nod are Gustafsson, Wellwood, and Ranford. It might be hard for a 7th round pick, but the guy is leading the WHL in points and goals as an 18 yr old.

EDIT: After tonight, Ranford is 2nd in the WHL in points, and 2nd in goals.

 

[FiveForDrawingBlood]

Jason Kay from THN just informed me that the on sale date for Future Watch this year is March 14th (about a week later than usual). Subscribers will receive it about a week earlier.

I was kind of hoping it would come out before the trade deadline. Can follow the prospects as they get traded a little more insight

 

[thrillhous]

Teemu Pulkkinen should be rated high.

What's your guess?

 

[Qvist]

I disagree with the first part of your post. I dont think they are ranking the players as to who will be better in 7 or 8 years.....like I said, its generally a popularity contest with players who were drafted in the year of the issue always getting higher rankings.

It is clearly stated, in the magazine, by what criteria the scouts are asked to compile their rankings, and they are the ones I stated. This is not something to agree or disagree about, it is a statement of fact.

John Moore over Jon Blum is my example, as there is no way Moore is a better player now or in the future...

Okay, so 24 NHL scouts see John Moore as a better player down the line than Jon Blum, and you don't. Not sure what that tells us exactly, but I'm pretty sure it's not that the THN FW is crap.

he may be a faster skater, but is Oleg Tverdosky better than Brian Rafalski....I dont think so.

That's two major argumentative fallacies crammed into one sentence - so major that most people don't even need to know they're argumantative fallacies in order to understand what's wrong with them.....you're not having much luck with this thread dude.

 

[Brock Anton]

1. Zach Boychuk
2. Zac Dalpe
3. Brian Dumoulin
4. Justin Faulk
5. Drayson Bowman

*Skinner and McBain in NHL

 

[Nabokov20]

Ottawa:

1. Cowen
2. Rundblad
3. Lehner
4. Silfverberg
5. Wiercioch

 

[arsmaster*]

Just curious why you keep shooting down John Moore. You said in an earlier post that he's playing in the OHL. He's actually in the AHL in Springfield. Dont just say a player is worse then another, give reasons as to why.

I was referring to last years FW issue when Moore was 15-20 spots ahead of Blum, when Blum was one year removed from being CHL Defensman of the year and playing in the AHL playing at a very high level as a first year PRO, when Moore was playing in Kitchener in the OHL and not blowing anyone out of the water on a very good team.

I think the only thing Moore has on Blum is maybe speed, they are both good skaters though. I like the way Blum processes/controls the game (not saying he is Lidstrom, but he has that ability in way like maybe Ryan Suter).

I dont think Moore has the hockey sense from what I've seen or the talent, he has tools that can be molded, but I dont think he is as good as Blum.

Could just be a big fan of Blum, but thats my opinion.

As for forbort....I think he has the size/skills to BECOME a very good player, I just dont see him more in the mold of a Seabrook (nothing to complain about....a very good defensman) whereas I see Blum being the pace setting defensman like a Ryan Suter or a Duncan Keith. Who knows I could be wrong, but its the internet and its always a good place to discuss things like this.

Qvist....you dont think THN doctors the list a little for journalistic reasons? I guess I just dont agree with the scouts

 

[Habsfan18]

1. Marco Scandella
2. Mikael Granlund
3. Matt Hackett
4. Casey Wellman
5. Jason Zucker

Really want to find space for Haula in there...

I'm assuming Tyler Cuma's stock has fallen quite a bit in the Wild organization?