Prospect Info: Who is the Canucks #7 prospect?

[Virtanen2Horvat]

Alright why don't we take Corrado off the list? if Lack should be taken off, Corrado should be taken off I don't get it.

 

[BeardyCanuck03]

Lack is 25 years old and isn't even a prospect.

I mean, I take him over Eriksson but he shouldn't even be on the list.

Why isn't he a prospect? He hasn't played in the NHL yet, goaltenders take longer to develop.

 

[thefeebster]

Where would you slot McNally in in comparison to Hutton and Tommernes? Hutton and McNally seem to be very similar (both similar size) in that they seem to be puck rushers over puck movers.

I've seen very little of them all really, outside your prospect videos and the prospects camp.

Tommernes seems like he might be a better puck mover, really liked the one pass he made in the scrimmage to spring that one dude for his breakaway goal.

I think I'm still going to put McNally in the top 10.

I would not put McNally in the top 10. I can see how he might be there if you like his upside but I think he shot himself in the foot. Lost a key development year leading to building uncertainty about how committed he is to being an NHL player with the Canucks. Add in the main issues with his defensive game, I don't think I can place him that high.

I don't see Hutton as a puck rusher. Maybe a mix of both. He plays similarly to a blend of Edler and Ehrhoff in playing style. A puck mover but also one that isn't hesitant to skate the puck out of danger or rush the puck if given the opening. Whereas, McNally is a pure puck rusher IMO. I'd take Hutton over McNally, no hesitation.

I would take Hutton>Tommernes>McNally.

I would also add that I would take a healthy Andersson over Tommernes.

 

[Wisp]

Why isn't he a prospect? He hasn't played in the NHL yet, goaltenders take longer to develop.

sure, and that's the fair argument that there is good reason to be patient with him - like the Canucks were patient with Cory Schneider's development.

I think he can be an NHL starter, but he's too old to be considered a prospect. His age cuts him out of 'prospect' eligibility for most rankings, including HFs. Most players his age are considered projects at this point.

 

[dave babych returns]

Alright why don't we take Corrado off the list? if Lack should be taken off, Corrado should be taken off I don't get it.

Are you kidding? Corrado is 5 years younger and has 117 fewer games played at professional levels..

 

[BeardyCanuck03]

sure, and that's the fair argument that there is good reason to be patient with him - like the Canucks were patient with Cory Schneider's development.

I think he can be an NHL starter, but he's too old to be considered a prospect. His age cuts him out of 'prospect' eligibility for most rankings, including HFs. Most players his age are considered projects at this point.

Well if he is still developing and goaltenders take longer to develop why should his age be an issue?

 

[Bourne Endeavor]

Alright why don't we take Corrado off the list? if Lack should be taken off, Corrado should be taken off I don't get it.

Both are considered prospects until they either age out (25) or have a full season at the NHL level.

 

[arsmaster*]

Well if he is still developing and goaltenders take longer to develop why should his age be an issue?

Because this is a message board on Hockey's Future, it only makes sense to go with their set criteria for a prospect. Making up a different standard is just silly.

This should have been in Post #1 for prospect #1 :

http://www.hockeysfuture.com/whatmakesaprospect/

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.

Section one is the meat of the criteria as it will govern the majority of players that vie for a NHL roster spot. Sections two and three are simply an acknowledgement that some prospects arrive on the scene a bit later than their peers, thus needing some time past their 24th birthday to develop into an NHL-caliber player.

The graduated list on team pages will consist of players who are considered graduated to the NHL. A skater prospect may sit on the graduated list until he has played 130 games in the NHL. A goalie prospect may sit on the graduated list until he has played 90 games in the NHL.

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. Also, for players that are close to either the 65-game (skaters) or 45-game (goaltenders) benchmark but have also clearly "arrived" as NHL players, HF reserves the right to remove these players from consideration as prospects and instead consider these players graduated.

 

[Wisp]

Well if he is still developing and goaltenders take longer to develop why should his age be an issue?

when you get to that age, you're a bubble player now, not a prospect. There's more doubt than optimism.

 

[topheavyhookjaw]

I think there could be a good argument for Ericsson over Lack, but there's no point making it here. Not a close vote at all, wow.

 

[shottasasa]

Because this is a message board on Hockey's Future, it only makes sense to go with their set criteria for a prospect. Making up a different standard is just silly.

This should have been in Post #1 for prospect #1 :

http://www.hockeysfuture.com/whatmakesaprospect/

This bit is interesting:

"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."

We signed lack at 22 i believe, he has been over for 3 years but this last one was almost completely lost due to injury, so while i agree with the HF criteria, I don't mind making a small exception when the player is a goalie and has (likely) potential to stick with the canucks this coming season and make an impact. Albeit as a back-up.

 

[PhilMick]

Man...this poll could still go either way, really coming down to the wire

 

[alternate]

I like Mallet as much as the next guy and hope he develops into an NHLer, but how does 1 assist in 19 AHL games make you move into the top 10? It isn't as if he lit the ECHL on fire either.

Promising prospect for me, but I can't find a place in the top 10 for him.

Alot of stock seems to be going to a scrimmage here.

I don't mind admitting the prospect scrimmage boosted my opinion of Mallett. Obviously too small a sample size and a low-stakes contest, but its also the most recent sample and he flashed more offensive potential than I expected. Besides, we are pretty much out of purely offensive forwards, and offense or no I'd say Mallet is the best forward prosppect left on the table.

Goalie prospects are non-starters for me at this point. Only other guys worth considered imo are Hutton or Tommernes.

 

[arsmaster*]

I don't mind admitting the prospect scrimmage boosted my opinion of Mallett. Obviously too small a sample size and a low-stakes contest, but its also the most recent sample and he flashed more offensive potential than I expected. Besides, we are pretty much out of purely offensive forwards, and offense or no I'd say Mallet is the best forward prosppect left on the table.

Goalie prospects are non-starters for me at this point. Only other guys worth considered imo are Hutton or Tommernes.

Fair enough.

For me I think I'd have Archibald and Blomstrand over Mallet at this point. Don't even think Mallet is clearly ahead of Grenier.

 

[denkiteki]

This bit is interesting:

"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."

We signed lack at 22 i believe, he has been over for 3 years but this last one was almost completely lost due to injury, so while i agree with the HF criteria, I don't mind making a small exception when the player is a goalie and has (likely) potential to stick with the canucks this coming season and make an impact. Albeit as a back-up.

Even if he's hurt, its still a season. Just like if he was playing backup all year instead of starting. Also like you could argue with JS in the last thread...

"Also, for players that are close to either the 65-game (skaters) or 45-game (goaltenders) benchmark but have also clearly "arrived" as NHL players, HF reserves the right to remove these players from consideration as prospects and instead consider these players graduated."

JS pretty much arrived given the fact he played 1/2 the season last year and now needs to clear waivers. Not exactly a impact player right now but he'll be on the NHL roster either in Vancouver or somewhere else this season.

That said, i voted for Lack still he's still an option and clearly a better player than everyone else on the poll. Don't really consider him a prospect anymore but the drop off between him and who's next (haven't even decided yet) is pretty big.

 

[denkiteki]

Fair enough.

For me I think I'd have Archibald and Blomstrand over Mallet at this point. Don't even think Mallet is clearly ahead of Grenier.

Agreed... Mallet had a pretty bad year in terms of development. He looked great after his demotion but the level of competition was much lower. Honestly i get a feeling he might just get votes because of where he was drafted but our recent history of second round picks should suggest NOT voting for them. Of course he was drafted as a project so its not like he's a bust or anything like that yet... it'll just take a while longer before we really know how good/bad he might be.

I'm actually more interested in where Cole Cassels might end up. Right now i'm siding with possibly voting for him @ #8... gritty center with developing play making skill and i'm sure his dad will continue to help him with that. He could have a surprising year next year and be the biggest mover when the polls are done again next year.

 

[Saturated Fats]

Going to call this one early so we can move on to the fun ones.

 

[stevecanuck16]

Wow, our prospect chart has improved dramatically over the past couple years. Both in terms of top-end talent and overall depth. We are going to end up seeing some decent prospects not even crack the top 20.

Feels good, man.

 

[Reverend Mayhem]

How is Lack not a prospect? I understood Schroeder, but Lack has played 0 NHL games, and is in our farm system. Sure he's a bit old, but nonetheless being groomed for NHL games.

 

[arsmaster*]

How is Lack not a prospect? I understood Schroeder, but Lack has played 0 NHL games, and is in our farm system. Sure he's a bit old, but nonetheless being groomed for NHL games.

You didn't read the link I posted to hf's prospect criteria?