When you want to know about what to see and where to eat you want to talk to locals not some hack
I think Merkulov and Poitras have top 9 skills I give Poitras a better chance of achieving that than Merkulov. Also the piece was written before Farinacci signed so I don't really think that's a valid criticism.
Pronman isn’t bad because of where he ranks the Bruins. Pronman is bad because he’s bad at his job. This is a widely held sentiment. You like him - that’s fine.
If I was doing lists I’d just toss Bruins 32 and start there
Bruins fans or anyone following prospects should look at several local writers/fans lists
No, I'd have Finns too high and Canadians too low.
Here's the thing.
You’re still missing it. Ranking Beecher in the top 3 is an example, not the driver behind why Pronman sucks. No experts have Lysell first, or Poitras first. And zero have Beecher in the top 5 much less top 3.
I’m not giving Lohrei or Bussi Grade A
Glad you've come around Beecher not being in the B's top 3. I guess you having him better than Maccelli, Pinto and Kaliyev as a prospect at one point is an example not the driver why your evaluations are off.
I don’t read him, so not in the least. If you’re suggesting he did include Beecher, that’s validation for not paying attention to him, isn’t it?
Well you subtweeted me above, so I'm responding. He did include Beecher - at 3. He's the top prospect writer at the Athletic, and I point out (every year, as Rico so eloquently wrote above) that he's not good at what he does.
So you agree that Beecher shouldn’t be included? Or that since he was, it means the team has a shitty prospect pool?
He has Beecher three - which is lazy and uninformed. No one has Beecher as a top three prospect for the Bruins. I still maintain he will play in the NHL for a good long while, albeit in a 4th line/3rd line grinder role. Many disagree. Regardless, having him above Merkulov, Poitras, et al is an indicator that said analyst has no idea what he's doing. Fans of pretty much every other team, along with every single "expert" I know, agree.
I mean, the guy follows 32 NHL teams' prospects pools. Sure, he's producing content, so its all about the clicks in the end, but basically NOBODY else is even attempting to do this. It's not gonna be perfect by any means, but I don't at all think its lazy because he didn't rank the 32nd teams' prospect pool the way a biased fan of the team sees it. He's wrong often, and he's right often. That's the world of prospects. It's incredible that he and Wheeler do this on a yearly basis, its an insane amount of work. To say he has no idea what he's doing when I'd be willing to bet he's seen more of these guys than the average fan base is silly. He's doing this, watching more of these guys than the average fan, while getting attacked by each individual fan base who ONLY watch their team and nobody else.
There are lots of guys who do this. You say NOBODY, then mention that Wheeler does it too. Again, the argument isn't rating the Bruins last (though I disagree by 5-6 slots or so). It's a body of work from Pronman over many years that shows some very distinct biases. He all but admitted that he doesn't value players who could become solid bottom six players. He rarely updates his prior knowledge (he still rates Lohrei as a poor skater despite a huge body of evidence to the contrary as an example), like when he had McAvoy the 14th best defenseman in his draft class and barely put him in their under 23 list a couple years later. Putting Poitras in the "Has a chance to play games" category when you look at who else he has in the "Projected to play in the NHL" category is laughable. Having Brisson #10 for Vegas is ludicrous. Etc.
