ESPN future power rankings for all 32 teams

[WhiskeyYerTheDevils]

Hard to disagree with Calgary at 32.

I think Ottawa, Anaheim, Arizona are all a bit low on the rankings. But this is actually a pretty well done list.

 

[Osakahaus]

I'm not buying the Islanders that low.
They have an "older" group but I see a lot of compete, and so far none of their older guys have fallen off.
They are going to compete for a playoff spot again this year, and their contract situation has a lot of deals expiring at the right times in those respective players' careers.
They also made the playoffs with their best player injured down the stretch.

Probably the first non-islanders fan i've seen have this opinion. I agree but at the same time, everyone has been just so bullish on the islanders for the fact that they "don't score", yet they do have goal scoring talent. I don't think they're a terrible team, but they don't have the wealth of prospects NOW. Down the road sure. They are in the same boat as the Blues really, just held down by a few stinky contracts compared to the Blues glut of bad contracts on defensemen.

 

[HBK27]

Look at it as a window in the US media mindset. Unfortunately they have a huge influence on the league's direction. Ignore at your own peril.

No, I'll continue to look at is as a poorly executed exercise that they should've questioned the methodology on the moment they saw the rankings.

And I say this as a Devils fan, the team they ranked #1.

One of many, many examples - you have the Bruins at #24 & the Flyers at #25. How much success do you think either of these teams are going to have over the next 3 seasons? Flyers are actively in tank mode and are going to suck and rack up high picks the next few seasons while trading away any vets they can. Boston is coming off a historic season and while they lost some key players and the window is closing, they should at the very least be playoff contenders the next few seasons.

The Sharks are just entering their rebuild and will most certainly suck royally over the next 3 seasons. I think most people would be surprised to see them make the playoffs in any of the next 3 seasons, yet they are ranked above 3 teams that all reasonably have a decent shot (maybe 50/50 or so, give or take) of making the playoffs this season in the Islanders, Canucks and Flames - 3 teams that, for better or for worse, are very much in a win-now mode.

If this was a ranking of how teams would be positioned 3 years from now, maybe I could understand it...but they explicitly state in the opening of the article that "These rankings consider how teams are set up for success this season as well as the next three seasons." So maybe they mean the next 4 seasons (if so, they could've worded it a bit clearer)...either way the point still stands, as I don't see the Sharks or Flyers competing for the playoffs 4 years from now either as rebuilds take a long time.

 

[NyQuil]

I honestly don't think this is bait. I think this is somebody who knows way less about hockey than even the average HF poster that fooled people at ESPN into thinking he was knowledgeable about the sport.

It's pretty clear who it is if you actually read the article.

They talk about "panelists" and then have insight from the following people, who I assume comprise the panel or at least part of the panel:

Ryan S. Clark, Kristen Shilton and Greg Wyshynski.

 

[CupofOil]

Hard to disagree with Calgary at 32.

I think Ottawa, Anaheim, Arizona are all a bit low on the rankings. But this is actually a pretty well done list.

Easy to disagree with it. You think that Calgary will be the worst team in the league over the next 3 seasons? There's just no way that happens. That actually might be the best thing for their franchise long term but it's not going to happen, no way. Same with Vancouver at 31. No chance, not even remotely realistic.
Or the Islanders at 30 for that matter. Horrible list

 

[Edenjung]

Very interesting indeed, I mean I bet it is at least if I was willing to pay 10 bucks to read it.

I was able to read it withoit having anything.
strange.

And really strange list.

 

[Siludin]

Probably the first non-islanders fan i've seen have this opinion. I agree but at the same time, everyone has been just so bullish on the islanders for the fact that they "don't score", yet they do have goal scoring talent. I don't think they're a terrible team, but they don't have the wealth of prospects NOW. Down the road sure. They are in the same boat as the Blues really, just held down by a few stinky contracts compared to the Blues glut of bad contracts on defensemen.

Which contracts are Islanders fans most concerned about right now?
The Varlamov one raised some eyebrows on my end, specifically because of the big raise they gave Sorokin coming into effect next year - I would have figured they would have tried to identify an alternative veteran making less money.

 

[Osakahaus]

Easy to disagree with it. You think that Calgary will be the worst team in the league over the next 3 seasons? There's just no way that happens. That actually might be the best thing for their franchise long term but it's not going to happen, no way. Same with Vancouver at 31. No chance, not even remotely realistic.

Because both will always try to compete. The Flames are hung up by the Kadri and Huberdeau contracts, and the Canucks are (hopefully) still going to have their key players in Petterson and Hughes by 2026.

 

[These Are The Days]

The Lightning could very well win another title within those 3 years. I don't understand how they're not higher

 

[Osakahaus]

Which contracts are Islanders fans most concerned about right now?
The Varlamov one raised some eyebrows on my end, specifically because of the big raise they gave Sorokin coming into effect next year - I would have figured they would have tried to identify an alternative veteran making less money.

Mayfield and Varlamov, but those are a given. I don't think Varly stays the full 4 years here if he regresses btw.

 

[NyQuil]

The Lightning could very well win another title within those 3 years. I don't understand how they're not higher

Even with their 35% (criminally low) weighting for an organization's roster, they have "with an emphasis on players 26 and under" affiliated with it.

So if you are a very competitive talented team that happens to be older than 26, you're out of luck for some reason.

 

[KrisLetAngry]

Well I think that the write ups on strengths and weaknesses is correct on the first half I read (I stopped after 15). I do think the weightings may be off for and effected the rankings.


Detroit and Columbus I struggle with being in the top 10 for a 3 year outlook.

I definitely would have a differrnt looking list.

 

[MNRube]

Easy to disagree with it. You think that Calgary will be the worst team in the league over the next 3 seasons? There's just no way that happens. That actually might be the best thing for their franchise long term but it's not going to happen, no way. Same with Vancouver at 31. No chance, not even remotely realistic.
Or the Islanders at 30 for that matter. Horrible list

Who should be at the bottom then?

 

[boredmale]

I don't want to be a homer and say my team(NY Islanders) should be top 10, I know they have their share of questions. But when you have a top 3 goalie and above average defense under 30, you should be better than 3rd worst

Islanders maybe have the chance to be that team who always wallows in the playoff picture then drops out a few months before the end of the season and finished say 10th worst(give or take 3 spots) every year but that is still far from 3rd worst.

 

[These Are The Days]

Even with their 35% (criminally low) allocation for an organization's roster, they have "with an emphasis on players 26 and under" affiliated with it.

So if you are a very competitive talented team that happens to be older than 26, you're out of luck for some reason.

It's all good. I just hope they even have 1 more title in them. The Lightning have had a great run but I'll argue all day they've badly underachieved

 

[NyQuil]

It's all good. I just hope they even have 1 more title in them. The Lightning have had a great run but I'll argue all day they've badly underachieved

A lot has to go right for a team to win the Cup in the cap era, even for really talented teams.

You get fewer kicks at the can with a solid core because there's constant turnover of the support guys.

 

[Despote]

There's some extreme overrating of prospect pools over proven elite NHL talent.

Bleacher Report's Top Prospect Pools (published in 2016)
1) Maple Leafs
2) Coyotes
3) Blue Jackets
4) Jets
5) Flyers
6) Sabres
7) Canes
8) Habs
9) Isles
10) Bruins

Having good prospects is insanely far away from being a contending NHL team and ranking teams like Columbus over teams like Colorado over a time period as short as 3 years is absolutely asisine. It's far more likely that CBJ doesn't even make playoffs in that timeframe than that they outperform Avalanche.

 

[HBK27]

Who should be at the bottom then?

Teams entering or in the midst of a rebuild: San Jose & Philly easily in the bottom 2. Anaheim and Chicago (even with Bedard) probably in the next tier. Maybe Montreal, Washington, St. Louis, & Vancouver in the next tier with the Flames, Islanders, Jets and Predators not far behind...and Penguins and Blue Jackets a little after that...though I wouldn't be too shocked if one or two of those veteran teams had reasonable success the next few seasons.

 

[CupofOil]

Who should be at the bottom then?

Ducks, Sharks, Canadiens, Hawks, Coyotes, Flyers to name 6. Maybe some of the older teams like Washington and Pittsburgh in 2-3 years but doubtful that they'd decline that quickly.

We're talking next year and the 2 years after, not 5+ years down the road. Young teams early in a rebuild that are bad now are not likely to be good overnight. The Flames barely missed the playoffs and have pretty much the same team locked in for a while, the Canucks have been roughly a .500 team and have a young nucleus so they're unlikely to be a bad team.
The Islanders have been a good team for years and now all of a sudden they're going to bottom out with pretty much the same team for....reasons? Nah, not happening.

 

[FriendlyGhost92]

Columbus has quietly built a loaded system with bluechip talents at C & RHD. They also have a ton of depth coming.

Not as high on Detroit

Detroit doesn't have a talent like Fantilli at C, but they're more loaded at D, and still finally have some respectable center depth.

Both are in pretty good shape going forward.

 

[Osakahaus]

There's some extreme overrating of prospect pools over proven elite NHL talent.

Bleacher Report's Top Prospect Pools (published in 2016)
1) Maple Leafs
2) Coyotes
3) Blue Jackets
4) Jets
5) Flyers
6) Sabres
7) Canes
8) Habs
9) Isles
10) Bruins

Having good prospects is insanely far away from being a contending NHL team and ranking teams like Columbus over teams like Colorado over a time period as short as 3 years is absolutely asisine. It's far more likely that CBJ doesn't even make playoffs in that timeframe than that they outperform Avalanche.

Columbus always ends up on these lists....

 

[FriendlyGhost92]

Ducks, Sharks, Canadiens, Hawks, Coyotes, Flyers to name 6. Maybe some of the older teams like Washington and Pittsburgh in 2-3 years but doubtful that they'd decline that quickly.

We're talking next year and the 2 years after, not 5+ years down the road. Young teams early in a rebuild that are bad now are not likely to be good overnight. The Flames barely missed the playoffs and have pretty much the same team locked in for a while, the Canucks have been roughly a .500 team and have a young nucleus so they're unlikely to be a bad team.
The Islanders have been a good team for years and now all of a sudden they're going to bottom out with pretty much the same team for....reasons? Nah, not happening.

I think the problem here is that the basis of ESPN's list kinda contradicts how most people are looking at "Future".

Like, this list would look great if they were talking about teams 3 years FROM NOW. They're talking about over the next three years, and it makes no sense. Teams like Detroit and Columbus are still gonna be growing over the next three years and probably don't contend over that time.

Likewise, at the bottom, Calgary isn't worse than any of the teams you mentioned NOW. But in three years? Probably. Same for Pittsburgh and Boston and Washington.

 

[Figgy44]

I'm confused. Did they lift the paywall? I was able to read it just fine.

Flames at 32 is weird. I mean, I'd embrace it, but I don't get how we'd be absolute bottom for the next 3 year outlook. I get it's a balance of roster, cap structure, prospects and ownership/management... but even then, that's weird.

But if I try to understand how it came to that, maybe I sorta understand it.

The panel hated the Flames roster because they have no clue what's going to happen in 3 years because UFA Hanifin, Backlund, Lindholm, Zadorov, Kylington (leave) etc. Gun to their head maybe they're assuming insane roster turnover or that the Flames will lose most of these guys for free or something.

This then affects contracts. Lots of potential turnover and unknowns and concerns on Kadri + Huberdeau long term contracts (perhaps Weegar too). Suck.

Then if they assume a bunch of players walk in free agency, loss of assets means nothing in the pipeline for replacement. Plus we've graduated a ton of our players and we have few blue chips, suck.

Ownership/management. Brand new rookie coach with no track record. Suck.

But anyone else including rival fans would know that's not how the chips would fall. It's potentially overly pessimistic even if I sorta see the logic of how it potentially happened.

Even if a ton of guys walk for free, we have cap space to help broker deals to refill the cupboards.
If we lost that much talent for free, Flames would drop to bottom and draft high which would bounce us back up relatively quickly via blue chip prospects.
If that many players walked for free, our contract structure would be wide open to use in a rebuild or a retool and we wouldn't be locked in to some crazy stuff.
If our coach sucked, in 2-3 seasons we look for another one.

Unless rank 32 is also an indication on how ultra mediocre a team is, and not how likely a team would be ranked 32nd in points at year 3? Then OK, that's pretty accurate. Flames are probably likely to rank around 14-24 ish for a while.

 

[Ezekial]

I'm confused. Did they lift the paywall? I was able to read it just fine.

Do you have ESPN+ to watch all of the out of market games?

 

[boredmale]

We had a panel of writers and editors rate each team in four categories -- roster (with an emphasis on players 26 and under); prospects; cap situation and contracts; and front office, ownership and coaching.

Even a guy who is 30 now will only be 33 in 3 years, it's not like they will fall off the face of the earth between that time