Virtanen, Demko new top prospects in Vancouver Canucks Fall 2014 Top 20

[denkiteki]

Total disagree with the artical. Virtanen being #1 could be argued and argued with Horvat not Demko. The board voting didn't have Demko remotely close to the article and most teams didn't rate him all that high because he's a raw prospect who needs a lot of development. There's a reason he dropped to the 2nd round in the draft and since the draft just ended not too long ago (not long enough for games to be played), his status doesn't suddenly just jump up.

Then at #4, Nikita??? Seriously? He's an interesting prospect due to his size but again saying a 3rd round pick this year is better than first round pick this year, last year, etc iis quite shocking. Shinkaruk, Jensen, BG, McCann, etc all should be ahead of him. After all they were first round picks for a reason and a couple of them dropped down from where they were rated. The article basically insults most professional and team ratings by ranking later picks this year ahead of early (1st round) picks last year. Either that or they are already calling all those players bust as it is. The probability Nikita makes the NHL is much lower than any of the first round picks mentioned (with Vey who was ranked lower likely a lock to make the team this year, Gaunce and Jensen both have shots of making the team along with others).

Also Corrado being ranked 13th when he's likely our most NHL ready D prospect once again shows the writer doesn't know much about the team. Corrado saw NHL action the last 2 seasons and likely will see some (tho probably not a lot) this season and is poised to break out sooner rather than later. If it isn't for his waiver status, he probably is close to a lock this year.

 

[NoRaise4Brackett]

HF ratings are so inconsistent. Looking at the Panthers new prospect list, and their 7th best prospect - 2nd round pick, 5'6" Rocco Grimaldi - has a better rating (8.0C) then anyone in our prospect pool. Brutal.

 

[PetterssonSimp]

I like both of these.
I agree the big Russian is rated way too high on the top prospect list, but I do like his potential. Wish his KHL contract didn't have him playing overseas this coming season otherwise I'd love to see him get some NA ice time in Utica and the Canucks coaching staff have some input on his development.

I'm surprised a lot of people have boarded the McCann train for best prospect. I like him and this his offensive talent is better than Bo's but I think Bo has the overal talent on McCann. Both are going to be fun to watch though, two guys at anytime you can send out and shut the other teams top player down while probably getting some decent offensive out of both as well. That's like having two Ryan Kesler's. Which is exactly what we've been screaming for.

Even though I think his drop is justified I think Jensen is the first prospect to make the Canucks roster full time. He's had the most development time with pro experience and has been decent when called up. I think given another shot beside Hank for a few weeks would be nice to see. He had some chemistry there

Vey still considered a prospect? I guess he still has rookie status. Which is odd since I don't remember when the Canucks had a rookie status player who was most likely penciled into a roster spot like Vey is. He'll probably get some 2nd unit PP looks as well. Maybe a Calder chaser? False hope? Who knows.

And lastly Jake the Snake is the exact player I wanted going into the draft and is the exact player I want the Canucks to build around. I think he'll end up being the best player they've drafted in the top 10 since the Sedins. I think Jake's fan fav status will reach Trevor Linden status in no time. (If you think I'm high on the kid, yeah I think I might be a little high on him)

 

[CanaFan]

HF ratings are so inconsistent. Looking at the Panthers new prospect list, and their 7th best prospect - 2nd round pick, 5'6" Rocco Grimaldi - has a better rating (8.0C) then anyone in our prospect pool. Brutal.

Lol, that Grimaldi rating is the worst thing I've ever seen on that site. I tend to think Flames fans overrate Gaudreau but even I think it's a travesty that he gets the same score (8.0C) as Grimaldi considering Gaudreau destroyed Grimaldi's numbers (both in their junior year) and is actually an inch taller (when can you ever say that about Gaudreau?). Florida writer has a serious case of "does-not-watch-hockey" to come up with that evaluation.

 

[ihaveyuidonttouchme]

HF ratings are so inconsistent. Looking at the Panthers new prospect list, and their 7th best prospect - 2nd round pick, 5'6" Rocco Grimaldi - has a better rating (8.0C) then anyone in our prospect pool. Brutal.

ahaha man this is just pure gold...

 

[Juggernaut27]

HF ratings are so inconsistent. Looking at the Panthers new prospect list, and their 7th best prospect - 2nd round pick, 5'6" Rocco Grimaldi - has a better rating (8.0C) then anyone in our prospect pool. Brutal.

Grimaldi is more skilled and developed than any canucks prospect save maybe Horvat. Does height figure in the rating system?

Lots of whacky ratings but Grimaldi is just short, not improperly ranked. He's only 7th for Florida because we like to draft extra high

 

[CanaFan]

Grimaldi is more skilled and developed than any canucks prospect save maybe Horvat. Does height figure in the rating system?

Lots of whacky ratings but Grimaldi is just short, not improperly ranked. He's only 7th for Florida because we like to draft extra high

Ya I think being 5'6 should probably play just a *bit* into the "likelihood to reach NHL projection". The travesty in that rating isn't so much the "8" (though that seems high for a guy who hasn't cracked a PPG by his 3rd year of college) but the "C" is indefensible when a player is shorter than virtually any player in the history of the NHL.

 

[Juggernaut27]

Ya I think being 5'6 should probably play just a *bit* into the "likelihood to reach NHL projection". The travesty in that rating isn't so much the "8" (though that seems high for a guy who hasn't cracked a PPG by his 3rd year of college) but the "C" is indefensible when a player is shorter than virtually any player in the history of the NHL.

his height should probably be considered and in their explanation of what a C is it sort of is (says flashes of potential with 'uncertainty' and risk of never reaching full potential). He's been a D until this year, I don't see a C being unreasonable for the guy at all.

He's short so he should just never progress? Despite a very good and ever growing resume?

I don't really have much love for Grimaldi, his religious bent annoys me, but I'll defend that rating because he has defied everyone at every step of his career and it's not a joke at all but quite accurate within the current HF ranking system.

 

[CanaFan]

his height should probably be considered and in their explanation of what a C is it sort of is (says flashes of potential with 'uncertainty' and risk of never reaching full potential). He's been a D until this year, I don't see a C being unreasonable for the guy at all.

He's short so he should just never progress? Despite a very good and ever growing resume?

I don't really have much love for Grimaldi, his religious bent annoys me, but I'll defend that rating because he has defied everyone at every step of his career and it's not a joke at all but quite accurate within the current HF ranking system.

Look I have no reason to love or hate Grimaldi, but you only have look around the league and count how many 5'6 players are in it to gain an appreciation for why a "C" rating is a ridiculous assessment of his risk level. You may feel his upside is high, but you can't ignore that being 1-inch shorter than John Gaudreau introduces more than just a touch of "uncertainty" into his projection. Hell our recent 6th overall pick who is 6'1, 215 pounds, and quick as anyone was just given a "D" rating for his risk.

Sorry that I appear to be dumping on your guy - it's nothing against RG personally - but that is just flat out wrong, subjective opinion or not.

 

[NoRaise4Brackett]

Basically, Grimaldi's rating says he is hands down, better than our entire prospect group. Has just as high potential as our best prospect, with a better chance to reach it. He is just as likely to reach his potential as anyone in our whole group is - including Horvat. Blasphemy!

 

[Wisp]

I wonder why Corey Pronman gets twice three times the amount of backlash as this crap does.

 

[Juggernaut27]

Look I have no reason to love or hate Grimaldi, but you only have look around the league and count how many 5'6 players are in it to gain an appreciation for why a "C" rating is a ridiculous assessment of his risk level. You may feel his upside is high, but you can't ignore that being 1-inch shorter than John Gaudreau introduces more than just a touch of "uncertainty" into his projection. Hell our recent 6th overall pick who is 6'1, 215 pounds, and quick as anyone was just given a "D" rating for his risk.

Sorry that I appear to be dumping on your guy - it's nothing against RG personally - but that is just flat out wrong, subjective opinion or not.

I'm not even disagreeing, but I think it's a flawed rating system within which Grimaldi is appropriately rated. They view the grades as a sort of graduation program while the talent score varies less.

It fails epically as a useable system but following its logic Grimaldi is a very highly skilled player whose career keeps progressing and while we all know that being short is going to be an issue at some level they don't seem to project things like that.

 

[CanaFan]

I'm not even disagreeing, but I think it's a flawed rating system within which Grimaldi is appropriately rated. They view the grades as a sort of graduation program while the talent score varies less.

It fails epically as a useable system but following its logic Grimaldi is a very highly skilled player whose career keeps progressing and while we all know that being short is going to be an issue at some level they don't seem to project things like that.

I don't think the letter grade works in the way you are describing it. It isn't meant to represent progression in time, as it sounds like you are describing for RG. It merely assigns a "risk level" based on various factors that may limit or inhibit them from reaching their potential at the NHL level. You don't start at a "D" and move up a letter grade for each year after the draft. And while improving your performance year over year helps, in RG's case his scoring spike in his sophomore year should speak more to his 'ceiling' (the 8 in his score) than to his 'risk' (the C).

While RG has progressed well in the 3 years since he was drafted, he remains 5'6 which is a MASSIVE risk to him reaching his NHL potential. And height/weight/strength is obviously incorporated in these ratings otherwise John Gaudreau would be an "A" since size/weight is the only thing possibly holding a player with his elite skill back from succeeding at the NHL.

So while we agree that the HF ratings are fairly flawed in general, I can't agree that they are applied correctly in the context of RG as he is the dictionary definition of being a massive risk to reach his potential.

 

[HockeyHobo73]

Criticism is fine, I don't think its a great list (or grading system) either...I just don't see why people seem to take it so personally that they feel the need to try and get the author removed...just find another source for information.

Also, I don't believe I'm speaking to a bunch of posters who are looking for an expert opinion, I think they are mostly looking to have their own lists confirmed, or to whine when they aren't.

So let me get this right... 1) You don't like the list that was made 2) You agree that the quality of the writing and research done is poor 3) You DONT want Hockeyfutures to improve

It's ironic that you are complaining about people complaining... You basically are saying that we have no right to tell someone to go away because we dont like their product... However, you are telling everyone who thinks that to go away for your own personal reasons...

Obviously your stance is pointless.... If you get your way, nothing changes and we get crappy articles with nonsensical opinions. If you dont get your way, HockeyFutures gets a new writer and we all can enjoy more accurate information.

 

[D0ctorCool]

A lot of people have problems with this article, but I honestly don't. The ratings system instantly becomes flawed the moment you have multiple writers. This is an opinion/entertainment piece, and the person who wrote it decided to shoot from the hip rather than play it safe, and I'm down with that.

Let's briefly go through the list ignoring the stupid HF ranking system.

Virtanen @1. No argument here. I watched a few of his games, and I think he's a safe bet for top 6 duty

Demko @ 2. Boston College produced Cory Schneider, and the CHL stinks at producing goaltenders. So yeah, give him four years and we could see a very similar career path.

Horvat @ 3. No argument here. His 'safeness' prevents him from being #1 on our list. I think we overvalue him a touch as he was drafted at 10th in a deep draft and we expect big things.

Tryamkin @4. How am I going to defend this pick? Kinda hard to when you look at the guys below. But look a where his fellow Russians were drafted, and you realize that if this guy had a North American name, he'd be ranked way higher. In some ways, he can be viewed as a 'home-run pick' like Hunter Shinkaruk.

Shinkaruk @5. Seems like undersized overskilled players are becoming a dime a dozen in the draft, so I can understand how our most offensively skilled winger can be ranked at 5.

Jensen @ 6. Had he not had a late season offensive burst, I'd have ranked him lower, but 6 sounds about right.

Gaunce @ 7. Okay... Gonzo is my favourite Canucks prospect, and I'd have him higher... Bu t I feel like this city tends to favour the try-hards... I think he's destined to be a third line superstar, so 7th is fair.

Vey @ 8. I hate Linden Vey because he makes me think of Roland Mckeown, whom I wanted to draft. He can probably be pushed down.

McCann @ 9. I don't agree with McCann @9th, but I do see him as a ronin, who may or may not find a role in the NHL.

Cassels @ 10. Love him, and want to push him higher, but he had one of the coziest gigs in the OHL, playing many of his minutes alongside Dal Colle and Laughton

Zalewski @ 11. I still know nothing about him, so I assume a writer who is paid to write articles knows infinitely more than a peon like me.

Eriksson @ 12. Anyone tasked with backstopping the Comets in the 2013 season deserves a top 15 ranking in my books.

Corrado @ 13. The writer obviously hates Italians (mods, it's a JOKE)

Guys missing: Ben Hutton, Dane Fox... I'll say this: Overagers like Fox statistically have a huge hurdle to climb to make the NHL. Hutton, well, McNally projected fairly similar at one point... A lot has to go right for these types of players to make it in the NHL.


Would my list look different? Yes it would... Just as I would think/ hope that all of yours would look different based on your viewings. The hive mind on this board isn't always a good thing, and I enjoy reading different perspectives.

 

[Balls Mahoney]

I swear the quality of HF writers has plummeted over the years. This is just bad. But then again what do you expect from kids who aren't getting paid and are being exploited for money for Crave?

 

[hackey]

If Nikita Tryamkin is any good as projected, he won't set foot in North America to play for the Nucks

KHL teams will throw globs of tax free Ruble's at him, so much that the Nucks won't be able to match

He being drafted by the NHL is more of a bargaining chip to get maximum Ruskie dollars

If his big dream was to play in North America and the NHL, he would most likely be playing in the CHL
for some junior team right now, and not in the KHL

 

[Barney Gumble]

Demko @ 2. Boston College produced Cory Schneider, and the CHL stinks at producing goaltenders. So yeah, give him four years and we could see a very similar career path.

or he could be like another BC graduate - Scott Clemmensen (journeyman NHL goalie) - and I think he was one of the better NHL goalies that BC produced (not including Schneider obviously). Plenty of risk with any goalie prospect developing into an NHLer.

 

[D0ctorCool]

or he could be like another BC graduate - Scott Clemmensen (journeyman NHL goalie) - and I think he was one of the better NHL goalies that BC produced (not including Schneider obviously). Plenty of risk with any goalie prospect developing into an NHLer.

Yes, after Cory Schneider, the wells runs fairly dry in terms of BC talent. But I'll say this... if I had to choose a school/ program for Demko to attend Within North America... Boston College would be on the top of my list.

 

[D0ctorCool]

If Nikita Tryamkin is any good as projected, he won't set foot in North America to play for the Nucks

KHL teams will throw globs of tax free Ruble's at him, so much that the Nucks won't be able to match

He being drafted by the NHL is more of a bargaining chip to get maximum Ruskie dollars

If his big dream was to play in North America and the NHL, he would most likely be playing in the CHL
for some junior team right now, and not in the KHL

If my grandfather was a hockey fan, I think he'd sound like you.

There are a plethora of NHL calibre prospects who stay in EU to develop, and while I personally believe their best way of showcasing their talents is in the CHL, they obviously disagree. There are many KHL'rs these days who are moving to the NHL in their early 20's as they feel their best trajectory is working their way through the KHL.

If they're talented enough, NHL teams will take notice. In the case of someone like Tryamkin, big bodied guys like him take time to develop, and I'd rather a player like him stay in his comfort zone until he's primed for a breakout.

In the grand scheme of things, does he belong that high on a prospect list? Likely not... But if the writer believes he has Chara potential, well... You have to take that into consideration.

 

[Balls Mahoney]

Why is Tryamkin playing in the second best men's league in the world for the last two years a bad thing?

He'll come over when his two years on his KHL contract are up, Benning wouldn't have drafted him if Tryamkin didn't express interest in playing North American hockey.

Speaking of which, here's a killer interview with Tryamkin where he's talking about all these questions.
http://thehockeywriters.com/interview-with-canucks-prospect-nikita-tryamkin/

 

[VanJack]

Find it interesting that so many posters are dissing the Tryamkin rating as Canucks fourth best prospect.....KHL is arguably the second best professional league in the world and he's been playing in that league for the past two years!....and not just an eight-minute a night guy but taking shifts as a top-four d-man. Agree that if this guy was plying his trade in the CHL nobody would be doubting his ranking...but overrating junior hockey players seems to a fact of life on these boards.

 

[Iridescent*]

I found it funny how Curtis Lazar was bumped up to a 7.5B and Horvat is still a 7.5C.


And for those of you wondering, Eriksson and Corrado got bumped down from 7.0C to 7.0D while Cassels got a raise from 6.5C to 7.0C. Jensen also got bumped down to 7.5D.

Good thing nobody takes these rankings seriously.

 

[denkiteki]

A lot of people have problems with this article, but I honestly don't. The ratings system instantly becomes flawed the moment you have multiple writers. This is an opinion/entertainment piece, and the person who wrote it decided to shoot from the hip rather than play it safe, and I'm down with that.

Let's briefly go through the list ignoring the stupid HF ranking system.

Virtanen @1. No argument here. I watched a few of his games, and I think he's a safe bet for top 6 duty

Demko @ 2. Boston College produced Cory Schneider, and the CHL stinks at producing goaltenders. So yeah, give him four years and we could see a very similar career path.

Horvat @ 3. No argument here. His 'safeness' prevents him from being #1 on our list. I think we overvalue him a touch as he was drafted at 10th in a deep draft and we expect big things.

Tryamkin @4. How am I going to defend this pick? Kinda hard to when you look at the guys below. But look a where his fellow Russians were drafted, and you realize that if this guy had a North American name, he'd be ranked way higher. In some ways, he can be viewed as a 'home-run pick' like Hunter Shinkaruk.

Shinkaruk @5. Seems like undersized overskilled players are becoming a dime a dozen in the draft, so I can understand how our most offensively skilled winger can be ranked at 5.

Jensen @ 6. Had he not had a late season offensive burst, I'd have ranked him lower, but 6 sounds about right.

Gaunce @ 7. Okay... Gonzo is my favourite Canucks prospect, and I'd have him higher... Bu t I feel like this city tends to favour the try-hards... I think he's destined to be a third line superstar, so 7th is fair.

Vey @ 8. I hate Linden Vey because he makes me think of Roland Mckeown, whom I wanted to draft. He can probably be pushed down.

McCann @ 9. I don't agree with McCann @9th, but I do see him as a ronin, who may or may not find a role in the NHL.

Cassels @ 10. Love him, and want to push him higher, but he had one of the coziest gigs in the OHL, playing many of his minutes alongside Dal Colle and Laughton

Zalewski @ 11. I still know nothing about him, so I assume a writer who is paid to write articles knows infinitely more than a peon like me.

Eriksson @ 12. Anyone tasked with backstopping the Comets in the 2013 season deserves a top 15 ranking in my books.

Corrado @ 13. The writer obviously hates Italians (mods, it's a JOKE)

Guys missing: Ben Hutton, Dane Fox... I'll say this: Overagers like Fox statistically have a huge hurdle to climb to make the NHL. Hutton, well, McNally projected fairly similar at one point... A lot has to go right for these types of players to make it in the NHL.


Would my list look different? Yes it would... Just as I would think/ hope that all of yours would look different based on your viewings. The hive mind on this board isn't always a good thing, and I enjoy reading different perspectives.

Problem is Demko is raw and you're talking about upto 4 years of development. That means long term prospect and realistically considering the other prospects, it doesn't seem fair to rank him that high. Its hard to even rank him ahead of Eriksson at this point because there is just as good of a chance he'll be worst than what Eriksson already is. Even if he's ranked ahead of Eriksson, 8 spots seems a bit too much for someone who is basically a "project" tho a project who could be a #1 goalie, he's still a project.

Tryamkin might be a "homerun pick" but again its a project pick. He's big with a shot but other area of his game needs development. Based on limited WJ video i found, his skating seems to need work and like most dman his age, his positioning could use work as well. That's the main reason he dropped. When you're a "project", it really doesn't make sense to be a top 5 prospect on any team unless you're close to being a finish product. Both "projects" are at the very start of their development and odds are both won't challenge for NHL spots in the next couple years.

As far as Shinkaruk goes, i more or less agree with his spot but not those ahead of him (at least not the 2 i mentioned). Yes undersized overskilled players seem to be quite common but HS's skill level is actually higher than the dime a dozen. Its almost like saying Kane is another player when he's clearly at another level (not saying HS is as good as Kane).

Don't know about Vey being pushed down. If he's included, if anything, he should be pushed up. He seems to be a lock on the team and might even be in the top 6. The question really should be rather or not he's included as a prospect since he's older and has to clear waivers (which he won't, so he'll be on a NHL roster).

McCann is a 1st round pick in the same draft as Demko/Tryamkin. So like i said, no reason for him to be ranked lower when there really hasn't been much status change since the draft (no hockey action to justify any ranking changes tho i guess you could argue Demko vs McCann since their draft spots weren't far apart). Draft spots don't have a ton of meaning but the draft rankings shows where various other "experts" and team scouts (those paid to scout players) think of the players. Of course everyone has their opinions but i think majority (if not all) "experts" and scouts seem to have McCann ranked ahead of Tryamkin. Of course players can develop differently but the key here is none of these players have seen any hockey action since the draft so the rankings should stay valid.

Agreed that Cassels might deserve to be moved up a bit given both his bloodline and the season he had last year. This year there are actually expectation for him to perform so it should give us a better idea on exactly what type of prospect we have (tho again given the bloodline, there really isn't any reason to expect him to regress).

Zalewski is probably ranked a bit high (at least in my opinion) since i think the only reason he saw any NHL action was he couldn't play for Utica last year and we had meaningless games. Corrado, like you said and i mentioned earlier is @ the wrong spot. I agree Fox should probably be ranked too just tho we seem to have overagers that do well in Jr. only to flop @ AHL. Hutton and McNally are both interesting, not sure where i would rank them still. Both need to work on positional play/defense and in the case of McNally, its really hard to tell where he's @ right now given all the time off. The other issue is can we sign them when they turn pro.... there really needs to be better NCAA draft rules (i.e. at least force them to sit a year after they declare/grad).

 

[I in the Eye]

You can see the thought process behind this prospect ranking...

• Liked Schneider, Demko described as resembling Schneider (same school, similar style), ranked as if Schneider.
• Liked Schneider, didn't like that Schneider was traded. Horvat gets ranked lower as a result.
• Didn't like Kesler trade, McCann ranked lower as a result.
• Didn't like Gillis, Gillis draft picks get ranked lower.
• Likes Benning better than Gillis (it's not Gillis), Benning draft picks get ranked higher than those drafted under Gillis.

This ranking list was determined not on the strengths of the prospects themselves, but on the drama inside the author's head. If it was just some poster's opinion, fair enough. But a prospect site shouldn't be caught up in the underlying drama, IMO. It's the strengths and weaknesses of the prospects (and the questions around them) that should be the thought behind it. Prospect experts (armchair or otherwise) getting a read and projecting a young player. This is seen as the official HF prospect ranking. But it's basically a list of how the author feels about the Canucks past, present, and future. Other team posters use these HF lists and letter grades to help determine fantasy trade value (it's a hobby of theirs, and these lists help determine value). Canuck fans who don't follow prospects all that closely use these lists, to see who the prospects are, how they measure up, and where they're going.

If the author was on here, defending his list... okay. These posters who actually use this HF list as some sort of authority a bit beyond a random poster, can determine the thought process behind it themselves (if they have the time) and come to their own conclusion about bias and personal feelings. The author doesn't (for whatever reason). Doesn't even care to research. Lives in his own head, is happy about certain things, is not happy about certain things, and passes on his feelings as the HF ranking.

In the end, not a big deal. Who cares, it's just a list. In the end, who cares about the accuracy of this board, or hockey in general (it's all just entertainment).... But, if we're here, and spend a lot of time here... why not ask for a certain level of substance? This ranking is so out of whack, it could be a troll job, IMO... or the author could be an Oilers fan (unconsciously bias).

I think, a poll should be attached to this thread... "How accurate do you, Canuck fans who follow prospects regularly, consider this HF list to be? (1) Very accurate; (2) Reasonably accurate (tough to rank, but more or less, solid); (3) Not reasonably accurate (tough to rank, but more or less, not solid); (4) Terribly inaccurate. Just some sort of quick disclaimer at the top... for those who might use these HF rankings as something of more substance than the ranking ramblings of an anonymous poster... which can be gateways to the thoughts and feelings about Canuck actions and characters - and not the prospects themselves.