Leafs ranked 20th. by Hockey's Future (Not the Kessel Trade)

[Gutchecktime]

Ok so perhaps people are cluing in that Kadri, Colborne, Ashton, and Blacker have very suspect futures at the NHL level. That's what I think.

I think if HockeysFuture is changing their opinions so quickly that these lists have even less credibility than I already thought... these prospects' standing in their eyes dropped so dramatically in the 20 AHL games that had been played since the last rankings, that we added a top 5 prospect and dropped?

 

[Bomber0104]

I think if HockeysFuture is changing their opinions so quickly that these lists have even less credibility than I already thought... these prospects' standing in their eyes dropped so dramatically in the 20 AHL games that had been played since the last rankings, that we added a top 5 prospect and dropped?

Wouldn't you want up to date information and opinions from the writers?

I mean if three of your five best prospects are Ashton, Colborn,e and Blacker you probably shouldnt be surprised all that much...

 

[Gutchecktime]

Wouldn't you want up to date information and opinions from the writers?

I mean if three of your five best prospects are Ashton, Colborn,e and Blacker you probably shouldnt be surprised all that much...

Sure, up to date information is nice but I think good talent evaluators don't tend to change their opinions on young players so drastically over such a small sample size. They're not supposed to be like radio show callers - 10 good games: "OMGZ BEST EVER!", 10 bad games: "STRIP HIM OF THE C!!1".

And again - it's not about being surprised by the rankings. It's about a site calling this group of 5 worthy of 18th in the league, adding a player like Rielly and dropping. I'd just like to see a little more consistency.

 

[charliolemieux]

I think if HockeysFuture is changing their opinions so quickly that these lists have even less credibility than I already thought... these prospects' standing in their eyes dropped so dramatically in the 20 AHL games that had been played since the last rankings, that we added a top 5 prospect and dropped?

Not only just a top 5 prospect but a player who in the early going has shown he is a full step ahead of his peers and had he been healthy last year he would have been in discussion for #1.

Yakupov was enough to keep EDM at the top but adding Rielly means squat. This is only the beginning of the inconsistancies and potential anti-leafs bias we have uncovered in these rankings.

 

[Gutchecktime]

Not only just a top 5 prospect but a player who in the early going has shown he is a full step ahead of his peers and had he been healthy last year he would have been in discussion for #1.

Yakupov was enough to keep EDM at the top but adding Rielly means squat. This is only the beginning of the inconsistancies and potential anti-leafs bias we have uncovered in these rankings.

I don't really think it's anti-Leaf bias. Just that these are put together by a lot of people I'm assuming and it leads to this type of inconsistencies. I'm sure it's hard to put this list together but it's a little frustrating.

 

[Bomber0104]

Sure, up to date information is nice but I think good talent evaluators don't tend to change their opinions on young players so drastically over such a small sample size. They're not supposed to be like radio show callers - 10 good games: "OMGZ BEST EVER!", 10 bad games: "STRIP HIM OF THE C!!1".

And again - it's not about being surprised by the rankings. It's about a site calling this group of 5 worthy of 18th in the league, adding a player like Rielly and dropping. I'd just like to see a little more consistency.

I dont think its a good idea to stick to one prediction over the course of a publication if u want to be credible. I do obviously prefer The Hockey News edition better but I dont see a problem with revising evaluations of players.

Frattin should be higher, Colborne Lower, Biggs higher, Ashton lower, etc. etc.

 

[Bomber0104]

I don't really think it's anti-Leaf bias. Just that these are put together by a lot of people I'm assuming and it leads to this type of inconsistencies. I'm sure it's hard to put this list together but it's a little frustrating.

Thats what I think too. Im unsure if the writers do this voluntarily or not.

 

[Gutchecktime]

I dont think its a good idea to stick to one prediction over the course of a publication if u want to be credible. I do obviously prefer The Hockey News edition better but I dont see a problem with revising evaluations of players.

Frattin should be higher, Colborne Lower, Biggs higher, Ashton lower, etc. etc.

If they do a ranking at the start of the season, watch the season unfold and re-evaluate, absolutely.

If they do a ranking, have the draft, and release new rankings before the quarter mark of the AHL season with zero NHL hockey going on? I think that's a different story. I think you're essentially just evaluating their additions through the draft at that point.

 

[Bomber0104]

If they do a ranking at the start of the season, watch the season unfold and re-evaluate, absolutely.

If they do a ranking, have the draft, and release new rankings before the quarter mark of the AHL season with zero NHL hockey going on? I think that's a different story.

I don't think it's unfair at all. I understand your skepticism but I also agree with their deflation of certain players rankings. Coupled with a similar ranking, this time with professional scouts in charge of it, I think the Leafs do, in reality, have a subpar group of prospects...

after being one of the absolute worst hockey teams on the planet for years.

Unfathomable.

 

[Gutchecktime]

I don't think it's unfair at all. I understand your skepticism but I also agree with their deflation of certain players rankings.

I didn't say unfair - I just implied their opinions are being swayed too easily based on small sample size. I stick by that - their opinions on that group of 5 swayed so much that adding Rielly still resulted in a drop.

 

[Gutchecktime]

I don't think it's unfair at all. I understand your skepticism but I also agree with their deflation of certain players rankings. Coupled with a similar ranking, this time with professional scouts in charge of it, I think the Leafs do, in reality, have a subpar group of prospects...

after being one of the absolute worst hockey teams on the planet for years.

Unfathomable.

I've already stated several times that I do not have a real issue with the ranking itself so you need to stop it with this.

Worth noting that the professional scouts in the Hockey News were the ones that said Jake Gardiner was no longer of first round caliber after the trade though.

 

[Bomber0104]

I didn't say unfair - I just implied their opinions are being swayed too easily based on small sample size. I stick by that - their opinions on that group of 5 swayed so much that adding Rielly still resulted in a drop.

What is your opinion of the following players.

Rank it in terms of upside, expected, and downside. I'd like to see where you are coming from. Descriptive and or comparisons are welcome.

Rielly
Kadri
Colborne
Blacker
Frattin

 

[Bomber0104]

I've already stated several times that I do not have a real issue with the ranking itself so you need to stop it with this.

Worth noting that the professional scouts in the Hockey News were the ones that said Jake Gardiner was no longer of first round caliber after the trade though.

I think he was worthy of a mid to late 1st round pick.

 

[MajorityRules*]

Heres what he said

"You can trust whatever you want. I know for a fact that you couldn't provide me with even the slightest semblance of an objective opinion of any scout's body of work. You'll hang your hat on it though because it sounds good to you."

WHich seems to me like he doesnt believe these men (or women) got a job as a scout because they knew what they were talking about or seeing on the ice.

Stunningly he doesn't offer anything of his own to back up what I assume is his belief that the Leafs should not be ranked in the bottom ten prospect pools after being the worst team in the league for years. Must be because he has a lot of evidence to support such a silly position lol

Jesus, no wonder arguments go on for so damn long here. You can't even grasp what the poster is saying.

I'm just an idiot sailor and even I know what the hell he was talking about. Eyeball didn't put down any of the scouts. He's simply pointing out that DO knows nothing about any of the scouts track records for being right or wrong on prospects but he's willing to support them anyway just because they are professional scouts. That sir, is just blind faith in a name.

"Mad" Mike Milbury was a GM for many years, but everyone here, knowing his (Milbury) body of work, would not want him anywhere near the Leafs. Hell I imagine the entire hockey fanbase wants no part of the guy. Why? Because we all know his track record. How well do you think DO knows any of the scouts track records from THN? My guess is absolutely zero but he'll stand behind them anyway.

 

[hotpaws]

Jesus, no wonder arguments go on for so damn long here. You can't even grasp what the poster is saying.

I'm just an idiot sailor and even I know what the hell he was talking about. Eyeball didn't put down any of the scouts. He's simply pointing out that DO knows nothing about any of the scouts track records for being right or wrong on prospects but he's willing to support them anyway just because they are professional scouts. That sir, is just blind faith in a name.
"Mad" Mike Milbury was a GM for many years, but everyone here, knowing his (Milbury) body of work, would not want him anywhere near the Leafs. Hell I imagine the entire hockey fanbase wants no part of the guy. Why? Because we all know his track record. How well do you think DO knows any of the scouts track records from THN? My guess is absolutely zero but he'll stand behind them anyway.

Do you actually think eyeball or others would be questioning these scouts or rankings if they had the Leafs in the top 5 ?

Blind faith in a name . Priceless .

 

[MajorityRules*]

Do you actually think eyeball or others would be questioning these scouts or rankings if they had the Leafs in the top 5 ?

Blind faith in a name . Priceless .

No, I think he would recognize it for what it is. One persons opinion. You guys are the ones that love to hang off of every word the scouts say, when it suits your argument.

 

[TOGuy14]

What is your opinion of the following players.

Rank it in terms of upside, expected, and downside. I'd like to see where you are coming from. Descriptive and or comparisons are welcome.

Rielly
Kadri
Colborne
Blacker
Frattin

Personally I think Frattin is the #3 guy in our prospect pool behind Rielly and Kadri.

He isn't the most talented, but he just seems to have that "sense" that makes him dangerous every time he is out there.

 

[hotpaws]

No, I think he would recognize it for what it is. One persons opinion. You guys are the ones that love to hang off of every word the scouts say, when it suits your argument.

Who do you think you're kidding ? If we were ranked top 5 the pro Burke crowd would be using it as proof positive that Burke was building a dynasty . I couldn't care less where we are ranked to be honest because i don't need a outside source to tell me what i already knew about our prospects .

Your "blind faith of a name" clouds your judgement of the team and it's prospects and i find it very entertaining the amount of energy the pro Burke crowd will expend to defend everything the guy does .

 

[indigobuffalo]

Do you actually think eyeball or others would be questioning these scouts or rankings if they had the Leafs in the top 5 ?

Blind faith in a name . Priceless .

You're trying to posit that one opinion is wrong because another (separate) opinion is wrong. Just so we're clear on that.

 

[hotpaws]

You're trying to posit that one opinion is wrong because another (separate) opinion is wrong. Just so we're clear on that.

I think my post was very clear so there's no need to try to spin what i said .

I also find it amusing that some of the people who put zero faith or believe these rankings are wrong assume that our prospects are better than where they have us . What if these scouts are wrong but we are worse than they believed ?

 

[indigobuffalo]

I think my post was very clear so there's no need to try to spin what i said .

I also find it amusing that some of the people who put zero faith or believe these rankings are wrong assume that our prospects are better than where they have us . What if these scouts are wrong but we are worse than they believed ?

I'm not spinning anything.

I merely elicited that you were using an error in logical argument.

You try to create the inference that a prior statement is wrong by making another wrong statement seem like the other one.

I'm not saying the point you're making is wrong, just that the way by which you went about it is wrong.

If you want to actually comment on another person's posts, you should try and keep commentary in the form of a debate, by way of counter-arguments (usually involving a statement of fact or logical inference/opinion) rather than simply misapplying logical statements for the purpose of artificially supporting your point.

It may seem like a moot discussion, but I assure you, to me those logical fallacies are like the insufferable cries of a petulant child having a temper tantrum. A person can only tolerate it for so long before something must be done...

 

[ULF_55]

No, I think he would recognize it for what it is. One persons opinion. You guys are the ones that love to hang off of every word the scouts say, when it suits your argument.

Isn't the point to use supporting positions?

One can of course just say this is my opinion, and my opinion alone.

Now perhaps we have some professional scouts posting here, but if they are unidentified their opinion is of equal value to every other personal opinion.

If you quote a professional opinion it does provide more weight because of the qualifications of the person making that opinion.

The opinions made by a CA in regards to your financial statements hold much more weight than some bookkeeper who once sat beside a CA in an office. Doesn't mean the CA is always perfect, but his opinion is of superior value.

 

[Pyrophorus]

I wonder where scouts ranked Daigle, Stefan, Zetterburg and Datysuk?

There is one thing which can be said with absolute certainty. Nobody,
not any poster, not any scouts, no one, can really see what their impact will truly be.

 

[DaveT83*]

Ok so for those who do not agree with the ranking position ... where do you believe the Leafs prospect pool should be and why? so far I've read that were maybe better than Detroit ... can anyone else clarify this for me ...

 

[DaveT83*]

I wonder where scouts ranked Daigle, Stefan, Zetterburg and Datysuk?

There is one thing which can be said with absolute certainty. Nobody,
not any poster, not any scouts, no one, can really see what their impact will truly be.

Ok then you trade me your first round picks for the next 10 years ... and I'll give you my 7th round picks in return ... and we'll see who comes out with the better calibre players.

Oh and you shouldn't take the advice of your PROFESSIONAL SCOUTS either ... because nobody knows anything. Its a total crapshoot.

While were at it - lets trade Morgan Reilly for Blake Wheeler because we dont' even know if Reilly will ever amount to anything in the NHL and its a better/safer route to just get Blake while we can.

The arguments and spin in here is unreal. Y