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

[charliolemieux]

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 ...

THN yearbook has Toronto one spot ahead of Detroit. Without Kadri and Gardiner on Toronto but with Smith, Nyquist and Tatar on Detroit.

HF has Detroit 10 spots ahead of Toronto yet they include Kadri.

Grant found a team thast was rated higher overall, but individually the players on Toronto were ranked higher. I can't remember who it was right now.

Basically to answer your question I have no idea WHERE they should be ranked. Just that these rankings seem to be very inconsistant.

 

[DaveT83*]

THN yearbook has Toronto one spot ahead of Detroit. Without Kadri and Gardiner on Toronto but with Smith, Nyquist and Tatar on Detroit.

HF has Detroit 10 spots ahead of Toronto yet they include Kadri.

Grant found a team thast was rated higher overall, but individually the players on Toronto were ranked higher. I can't remember who it was right now.

Basically to answer your question I have no idea WHERE they should be ranked. Just that these rankings seem to be very inconsistant.

Ok I think you mean Nashville ... our Goalies have similar ratings but its a weakness for us and a strength for their club.

Detroit + Nashville ... Thats 2 teams - so we're 18th? A bit nitpicky no?



Do you dispute that this prospect pool is in the bottom 3rd of entire NHL? If you dont' have enough information to form an educated opinion thats one thing ... but to argue the merits of a professional scouting report without having done research yourself seems a bit ignorant.

 

[Michel Beauchamp]

All of this, and yet you're all fans of the same team.

Those Christmas reunions must be enjoyable...

Peace and love.

 

[achtungbaby]

All of this, and yet you're all fans of the same team.

Those Christmas reunions must be enjoyable...

Peace and love.

Christmas fishing with Scott Peterson is still worse, so it's not a totally unrecoverable situation just yet.

Happy Holidays to you sir.

 

[Rants Mulliniks]

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 .

Yes, eyeball would because eyeball knows that there is zero consideration of ability (apart from having hockey experience) that goes into these selections. Eyeball has direct family members who sport Stanley Cup rings. Eyeball can tell you what the criteria are for being hired in the NHL. Eyeball can also go into great detail with you about what scouts actually do. It's fairly evident many on these boards have very little clue about how they actually work. Most importantly, MajorityRules was bang on. The notion of being a "professional" means nothing when you aren't hired based on ability (proven ability). All it means is you are connected. Eyeball takes these lists for what they are: a massive crap shoot. Eyeball also knows full well the intention behind why certain individuals want to live on one hill while ignoring another. It has nothing to do with the worth of one list versus another and everything to do with wanting to maintain a schtick. These people can't even begin to talk about the worth of the list they "support" because they have no idea what the success of the scouts is. Heck I'll go out on a limb here and bet they don't even know who the scouts are.

 

[charliolemieux]

Ok I think you mean Nashville ... our Goalies have similar ratings but its a weakness for us and a strength for their club.

Detroit + Nashville ... Thats 2 teams - so we're 18th? A bit nitpicky no?



Do you dispute that this prospect pool is in the bottom 3rd of entire NHL? If you dont' have enough information to form an educated opinion thats one thing ... but to argue the merits of a professional scouting report without having done research yourself seems a bit ignorant.

No the goalies was a seperate issue.

One team was the Rangers. Take a look at their individual rankings compared to the Leafs. That isn't the only one.

So now I'm being ignorant?

You're the one asking me for answers while you blindly defend something you obviously know less about than I do. Otherwise you would have the answers for yourself.

Enough research was done, to show the rankings are flawed.

 

[Michel Beauchamp]

Honest question.

Aren't every team's prospect done by a different individual, while the teams rankings are done collectively ?

If a 7.5C for the Blue Jackets guy is only a 7.0/6.5B in the eyes of the Kings guys, that might explain some of the so-called discrepancies perceived by some.

Oh my God, it might be a big misunderstanding, there might be no bias at all !!!

It's also possible that some of these guys are wrong (individually and/or collectively). Shocking, isn't it ?

Who can you trust...?

I demand a refund.

 

[Disgruntled Observer*]

THN yearbook has Toronto one spot ahead of Detroit. Without Kadri and Gardiner on Toronto but with Smith, Nyquist and Tatar on Detroit.

HF has Detroit 10 spots ahead of Toronto yet they include Kadri.

Grant found a team thast was rated higher overall, but individually the players on Toronto were ranked higher. I can't remember who it was right now.

Basically to answer your question I have no idea WHERE they should be ranked. Just that these rankings seem to be very inconsistant.

Follow the rankings list created by professional nhl scouts.

That will remove inconsistencies.

Say... do you know a better means of assessing leaf prospects compared to the rest of the league than rankings lists created by professional nhl scouts?
Just curious.

Because if you know a better way, I would love to hear it.

If you don't know a better way... that means that the best means available in the world to assess our prospects ranked the leafs prospects 20th. After 5 straight bottom 10 finishes. Ranked them 20th.

What do you think about that?

 

[Disgruntled Observer*]

Yes, eyeball would because eyeball knows that there is zero consideration of ability (apart from having hockey experience) that goes into these selections. Eyeball has direct family members who sport Stanley Cup rings. Eyeball can tell you what the criteria are for being hired in the NHL. Eyeball can also go into great detail with you about what scouts actually do. It's fairly evident many on these boards have very little clue about how they actually work. Most importantly, MajorityRules was bang on. The notion of being a "professional" means nothing when you aren't hired based on ability (proven ability). All it means is you are connected. Eyeball takes these lists for what they are: a massive crap shoot. Eyeball also knows full well the intention behind why certain individuals want to live on one hill while ignoring another. It has nothing to do with the worth of one list versus another and everything to do with wanting to maintain a schtick. These people can't even begin to talk about the worth of the list they "support" because they have no idea what the success of the scouts is. Heck I'll go out on a limb here and bet they don't even know who the scouts are.

Hi Eyeball.

Can you please tell me a better way to compare leaf prospects to the rest of the league than a rankings list created by professional nhl scouts?

In my never ending search for truth, I would like to investigate this superior means of evaluation.

It would mean a lot to me...

Your friend,

Disgruntled Observer

 

[Disgruntled Observer*]

No the goalies was a seperate issue.

One team was the Rangers. Take a look at their individual rankings compared to the Leafs. That isn't the only one.

So now I'm being ignorant?

You're the one asking me for answers while you blindly defend something you obviously know less about than I do. Otherwise you would have the answers for yourself.

Enough research was done, to show the rankings are flawed.

Really?

You think prospect rankings are flawed?
Wow. Very insightful.

There is of course no way in the world to 100% correctly rank prospects. That's just so painfully obvious it's sickening that it had to be stated here.

But what is a superior way to assess our prospects than professional nhl scouts creating a rankings list?
We fully understand that there will be "flaws". We are not children. We understand that.
But there will be flaws no matter how we assess them.

So if prospect lists created by professional nhl scouts should be ignored because they're "flawed", then how do you assess prospects?

Let me guess... if they're on the "leafs" they are "good", correct?
Genius.

 

[4evaBlue]

Really?

You think prospect rankings are flawed?
Wow. Very insightful.

There is of course no way in the world to 100% correctly rank prospects. That's just so painfully obvious it's sickening that it had to be stated here.

At this point, I'd settle for a 50% accuracy in rankings, instead of the crapshoot that is currently available.

7C = this guy could end up anywhere from being a star to a bust. Anyone with an 8+ rating, the majority of HFBoards could have "scouted", and done just as well.

 

[charliolemieux]

Follow the rankings list created by professional nhl scouts.

That will remove inconsistencies.

Say... do you know a better means of assessing leaf prospects compared to the rest of the league than rankings lists created by professional nhl scouts?
Just curious.

Because if you know a better way, I would love to hear it.

If you don't know a better way... that means that the best means available in the world to assess our prospects ranked the leafs prospects 20th. After 5 straight bottom 10 finishes. Ranked them 20th.

What do you think about that?

I think your argument is old and tired. Get yourself something new to harp on.

 

[Disgruntled Observer*]

I think your argument is old and tired. Get yourself something new to harp on.

If you ever answer the question, I'll never bring it up again.

So... what do you think is a better way to assess our prospects compared to the rest of the league than a rankings list created by profesional nhl scouts?

 

[charliolemieux]

Really?

You think prospect rankings are flawed?
Wow. Very insightful.

There is of course no way in the world to 100% correctly rank prospects. That's just so painfully obvious it's sickening that it had to be stated here.

But what is a superior way to assess our prospects than professional nhl scouts creating a rankings list?
We fully understand that there will be "flaws". We are not children. We understand that.
But there will be flaws no matter how we assess them.

So if prospect lists created by professional nhl scouts should be ignored because they're "flawed", then how do you assess prospects?

Let me guess... if they're on the "leafs" they are "good", correct?
Genius.

Do you seriously not understand we've been discussing the HF rankings and not the THN rankings?

LMAO

DaveT83 asked why we thought the HF rankings were flawed. Now you're on topic.



JUst re-read your post. Awesome stuff.

 

[charliolemieux]

If you ever answer the question, I'll never bring it up again.

So... what do you think is a better way to assess our prospects compared to the rest of the league than a rankings list created by profesional nhl scouts?

I answered that like 5 pages ago. What the heck are you talking about?

Do you even know?

 

[Disgruntled Observer*]

I answered that like 5 pages ago. What the heck are you talking about?

Do you even know?

Can you please direct me to that post?

I would love to read it.

I fully expect spin and deflection as your response... something like "I'm not writing it again" or "go look for yourself".
well... I did look for myself. Can't find it.

So please enlighten me...
What is a better means for assessing our prospects than a rankings list created by professional nhl scouts?

 

[crump]

For the most part drafts are a crap shoot. Kids mature, physically and mentally. Unless they are obviously elite they can change drastically both ways. Even elite players in junior have the potential to flop. They can be effected so many ways that ranking is pretty hard. Coaches, teammates can all affect development. Your really ranking/evaluating an organizational ability to develop a kid as much as the kid himself. We do it because as humans we like to compare and predict especially in a competitive sport. It's fun to do, predicting how a player will turn out. We want to see if we are accurate in our own assessment of skill and ability, but one should not get upset or hang their hat on anyone's rankings.

There are a lot of people on these boards that have the same ability to rank a prospect based on going to the rinks and watching junior teams. If you do in enough you get pretty good at assessing talent. What makes a person a scout? Just like any job, some do it based on experience in professional capacities, but some are just connected to the right people. That does not necessarily make them specialists or good at it.

 

[Morbo]

If you ever answer the question, I'll never bring it up again.

So... what do you think is a better way to assess our prospects compared to the rest of the league than a rankings list created by profesional nhl scouts?

You were told the answer, you just ignored it. Stop repeating yourself.

I told you -- the answer is to find MORE professional scouts opinions than THN talks to. Simple.

Because since they do moronic things like list Toskala as a top 10 goalie and publish articles saying Gardiner isn't all that good, they obviously need more help.

 

[ULF_55]

For the most part drafts are a crap shoot. Kids mature, physically and mentally. Unless they are obviously elite they can change drastically both ways. Even elite players in junior have the potential to flop. They can be effected so many ways that ranking is pretty hard. Coaches, teammates can all affect development. Your really ranking/evaluating an organizational ability to develop a kid as much as the kid himself. We do it because as humans we like to compare and predict especially in a competitive sport. It's fun to do, predicting how a player will turn out. We want to see if we are accurate in our own assessment of skill and ability, but one should not get upset or hang their hat on anyone's rankings.

There are a lot of people on these boards that have the same ability to rank a prospect based on going to the rinks and watching junior teams. If you do in enough you get pretty good at assessing talent. What makes a person a scout? Just like any job, some do it based on experience in professional capacities, but some are just connected to the right people. That does not necessarily make them specialists or good at it.

To add more discussion points apparently Button has a new list. http://www.tsn.ca/draftcentre/feature/?id=9601

TSN Scout Craig Button has ranked the top prospects in hockey already affiliated with NHL teams. The players listed have played less than 10 games in the NHL and are still under the age of 24. The ranking is an amalgamation of a player's potential as well as how well they are playing over the course of the past year, including this season.

RK| Player| DOB| Pos.| S| Ht/Wt| NHL|Team| Current Team
1.| Justin Schultz| Jul. 6/90| D| R| 6'2/185| Edmonton| Oklahoma|(AHL)
2.| Evgeny Kuznetsov| May 19/92| C| L| 6'3/187| Washington| Traktor|(KHL)
3.| Vladimir Tarasenko| Dec. 13/91| RW| L| 6'0/201| St. Louis| Saint Petersbury|(KHL)
4.| Morgan Rielly| Mar. 9/94| D| L| 6'0/200| Toronto| Moose Jaw|(WHL)
5.| Nail Yakupov| Oct. 6/93| RW| L| 5'11/183| Edmonton| Neftekhimik|(KHL)
6.| Alex Galchenyuk| Feb. 12/94| C| L| 6'0/194| Montreal| Sarnia|(OHL)
7.| Mark Scheifele| Mar. 15/93| C| R| 6'3/187| Winnipeg| Barrie|(OHL)
8.| Sven Baertschi| Oct. 5/92| RW| L| 5'11/189| Calgary| Abbotsford|(AHL)
9.| Jonathan Huberdeau| Jun. 4/93| LW| L| 6'1/176| Florida| Saint John|(QMJHL)
10.| Ryan Strome| Jun. 11/93| C| R| 6'1/192| NY Islanders| Niagara|(OHL)
11.| Brett Ritchie| Jul. 1/93| RW| R| 6'4/218| Dallas| Niagara|(OHL)
12.| Dougie Hamilton| Jun. 17/93| D| R| 6'5/205| Boston| Niagara|(OHL)
13.| Mikael Granlund| Feb. 26/92| C| L| 5'10/180| Minnesota| Houston|(AHL)
14.| Nick Bjugstad| Jul. 17/92| C| R| 6'5/212| Florida| Minnesota|(WCHA)
15.| Malcolm Subban| Dec. 21/93| G| L| 6'1/195| Boston| Belleville|(OHL)
16.| Jakob Silfverberg| Oct. 13/90| RW| R| 6'0/197| Ottawa| Binghamton|(AHL)
17.| Jonas Brodin| Jul. 12/93| D| L| 6'1/170| Minnesota| Houston|(AHL)
18.| Oscar Klefbom| Jul. 20/93| D| L| 6'3/201| Edmonton| Farjestads|(SWE)
19.| Calle Jarnkrok| Sept. 25/91| C| R| 6'0/176| Detroit| Brynas|(SWE)
20.| John Gaudreau| Aug. 13/93| LW| L| 5'8/153| Calgary| Boston College|(HE)
21.| Jacob Trouba| Feb. 26/94| D| R| 6'2/187| Winnipeg| USNDTP|(USHL)
22.| Austin Watson| Jan. 13/92| C| R| 6'3/202| Nashville| Milwaukee|(AHL)
23.| Mika Zibanejad| Apr. 18/93| C| R| 6'2/200| Ottawa| Binghamton|(AHL)
24.| Andrei Vasilevski| Jul. 25/94| G| L| 6'3/210| Tampa Bay| Tolpar|(MHL)
25.| Hampus Lindholm| Jan. 20/94| D| L| 6'3/195| Anaheim| Norfolk|(AHL)
26.| Ryan Muray| Sept. 27/93| D| L| 6'0/199| Columbus| Everett|(WHL)
27.| Filip Forsberg| Aug. 13/94| LW| R| 6'1/188| Washington| Leksands|(SWE)
28.| Mikhail Grigorenko| May 16/94| C| L| 6'3/200| Buffalo| Quebec|(QMJHL)
29.| Jaden Schwartz| Jun. 25/92| RW| L| 5'9/190| St. Louis| Peoria|(AHL)
30.| Boone Jenner| Jun. 15/93| C| L| 6'2/205| Columbus| Oshawa|(OHL)

Oilers have 2 defenders in the top 30 here, along with Yakupov.

 

[Disgruntled Observer*]

You were told the answer, you just ignored it. Stop repeating yourself.

I told you -- the answer is to find MORE professional scouts opinions than THN talks to. Simple.

Because since they do moronic things like list Toskala as a top 10 goalie and publish articles saying Gardiner isn't all that good, they obviously need more help.

Is there any rankings list like that that actually exists? If so, please link me to it.

If not, then the leafs are ranked 20th by a list created by professional nhl scouts... the best means in the entire world to assess our prospects to the rest of the league.

 

[zeke]

I'll just jump in and add that chl ppg (adjusted for age) has been shown to be a better predictor of nhl sucess than nhl draft position (i.e. The scouts).

 

[Morbo]

Is there any rankings list like that that actually exists? If so, please link me to it.

I already told you, the consensus you claimed was represented by THN doesn't exist -- that's the entire point. It's the opinion of a few scouts, not all or even most of them.

You've already admitted yourself scouting lists aren't reliable, so I don't even know what you're arguing about. THN is not reliable, you've admitted it and I've posted links that prove it.

Or do you believe that Gardiner is not 1st round material? I guess you must, since professional scouts from the greatest magazine in all of world history utterly said so.

To get back to the original point, the Leafs did not have anything in the pipeline like Gardiner or Rielly in the Ferguson era. So your contention that they have not improved at all is patently false. That doesn't mean they're amazing as a group, but then it doesn't have to to prove you wrong.

 

[ULF_55]

I already told you, the consensus you claimed was represented by THN doesn't exist -- that's the entire point. It's the opinion of a few scouts, not all or even most of them.

You've already admitted yourself scouting lists aren't reliable, so I don't even know what you're arguing about. THN is not reliable, you've admitted it and I've posted links that prove it.

Or do you believe that Gardiner is not 1st round material? I guess you must, since professional scouts from the greatest magazine in all of world history utterly said so.

To get back to the original point, the Leafs did not have anything in the pipeline like Gardiner or Rielly in the Ferguson era. So your contention that they have not improved at all is patently false. That doesn't mean they're amazing as a group, but then it doesn't have to to prove you wrong.

Rielly certainly is making a name for himself as a junior, and Gardiner looks very good to excellent in the AHL, and looked good to excellent in the NHL last year.

JFj did have a 30 goal scorer in his draft, and his 2006 draft year is looking very good.

You'd really have to state the evaluation list with the greatest number of professional scouts involved should have the most credibility. Whatever the say obviously should be respected more than lists created by non-professionals. I'm not sure there can be any debate that NHL professional scouts know more about scouting then we do. Family connections might get you an interview but it is a billion dollar business not your friend's corner store.

 

[Grant]

Rielly certainly is making a name for himself as a junior, and Gardiner looks very good to excellent in the AHL, and looked good to excellent in the NHL last year.

JFj did have a 30 goal scorer in his draft, and his 2006 draft year is looking very good.

Was just looking at who we drafted that year and holy crap, pretty much every player is in the NHL. However I will and always will say a teams draft is from the scouts and not the GM.

Players taken in 2006:
First Round:
#13 - Jiri Tlusty
Second Round:
#44 - Kulemin
Fourth Round:
#99 - James Reimer
#111 - Holzer
Sixth Round:
#161 - Stalberg
#166 - Ruegsegger
#180 - Komarov

Those were all the players drafted by Toronto in 2006. The only ones to not play in the NHL are Holzer, Komarov and Ruegsegger. However Holzer and Komarov were expected to play this season if there is a season.

That is one hell of a draft getting all those NHLers even if none are stars.

 

[Morbo]

Rielly certainly is making a name for himself as a junior, and Gardiner looks very good to excellent in the AHL, and looked good to excellent in the NHL last year.

JFj did have a 30 goal scorer in his draft, and his 2006 draft year is looking very good.

A one-time 30 goal scorer, yes. But in what other season has Kulemin ever resembled that player? Kulemin's career as a whole has been pretty disappointing for a kid with those raw tools.

So has the kid Ferguson took ahead of him in the 1st round for that matter.

As for the others, will any of them be a true impact player? Gardiner already is and Rielly looks to be following in his footsteps soon.

You'd really have to state the evaluation list with the greatest number of professional scouts involved should have the most credibility. Whatever the say obviously should be respected more than lists created by non-professionals. I'm not sure there can be any debate that NHL professional scouts know more about scouting then we do. Family connections might get you an interview but it is a billion dollar business not your friend's corner store.

All scouts are not created equal was the point of the guy up there. I would have to say that makes sense. I never said professional scouts have less credibility than non-professionals, ever. That is a straw man and has nothing to do with anything.

The original argument, which has now turned into something else in this particular thread, was that the prospects have not been improved by Burke. This is repeated ad nauseum by certain individuals here, the THN ranking supposedly cementing that because they talked to a few scouts. I'm saying that is not quite the gospel it's being presented as, and I've made a pretty good case. While not amazing(nor is that even required to prove the point) the Leaf system has been better than before as Burke draftees Gardiner and Rielly are showing, regardless of what ranking THN has given them. That's two more star-type talents than we had before, whether that particular magazine thinks so or not.