Prospect Info: SJ HFBoards 2024-25 Prospect Pyramid: Tier II

[The Nemesis]

I meant to close this up early but the week sort of got away from me.

Macklin Celebrini was the only player to place on Tier I, collecting 100% support from voters. 6 other players received votes, but none from more than 39% of voters.

TIER I (Franchise Cornerstones)

Macklin Celebrini

If you don't know what the prospect pyramid is, The Tier I thread has a fuller explanation. The basic gist is that you will vote for all players on the poll that you believe meet the criteria for induction into this tier. It could be none (there's an option for that), one, fifteen, or anything in between. Players will qualify by receiving at least 66% of the vote by the time the poll closes (percentages are by the number of voters, not the number of votes, so voting for more guys will not water down anyone's support)

Unlike @Lebanezer's ordinal top 20 prospect list, this one includes young roster players who are under 25 but have surpassed the other polls' GP threshold (Eklund, Bordeleau, Thrun, and Dellandrea) to get a fuller picture of the overall organizational youth.

This is for the second tier, which is for the players who are at the top of the pool, but not on the all-timer, potential franchise-changing megastar level. Here we're looking for players that will fit at the top of the lineup on a good team, but are not in the highest of high echelons. They could make some all-star games over their career or maybe get a couple of potential nods for a major award in their best seasons, but may regularly be just below that level of recognition. We're talking about guys who are sure top 6 forwards, but on the low end they may "merely" be strong second liners. Top pairing d-men who just aren't those #1 with a bullet blueline anchors, either as a sort of second tier #1D or a good to great #2. Or starting goalies who you can expect will carry the water for a team and play well behind a solid defense, but who can only steal games from time to time, not on any given night.

Tier	Forwards	Defensemen	Goaltenders
Tier I - Franchise Cornerstones	Surefire first line players. Perennial all-stars and frequent major award contenders	Absolute Elite #1 D-man. Regular Norris contender and all-star	Top-Shelf Vezina-caliber starter and workhorse starting goaltender. Is capable of regularly stealing games.
Tier II - Elite Talent (*CURRENT POLL*)	Strong top 6 F (good 1st liner or great 2nd liner). Occasional all-star or infrequent award contender	1st pairing D-man, but not a guaranteed #1. Sometimes all-star and may get occasional major award consideration.	Good regular starting goalie. May occasionally be able to steal a game. May get Vezina consideration in his best seasons.

Click to read more...

 

[The Nemesis]

Sorry for the weird false start. It turns out that when you press enter on the keyboard while typing poll options (as a reflex to go to a new line instead of pressing tab) it interprets that as wanting to post the thread.

The over-40gp, under-25 guys that were at the bottom of the poll before are now at the top for now, just because I couldn't figure out where to slot them into the poll's distribution without it looking like I'm trying to rank them on my own.

I expect that this tier will see a greater # of potential inductees, so it'll be the Tier III poll where I start plugging in the other guys who haven't made it onto the list yet.

 

[The Nemesis]

Also I am still trying to figure out my formatting for the first post. Don't worry. I'm sure I'll have it in time for the final poll

 

[hohosaregood]

Based on the definition, gonna go with Smith, Eklund, Dickinson, and Askarov. Debated on Musty. If it was based more on elite "vibes", I'd probably say Smith and Askarov are a step above.

 

[Barrie22]

Smith, eklund, askarov, dikinson.

But i truly believe that smith also ends his career in tier 1.

 

[Le Rosbeef]

Askarov, Dickenson and Smith definitely meet this definition. In hindsight seeing the definition, I'd probably have Askarov closer to T1 than T2.

Eklund and Musty, for me, are just below (good second liners).

 

[coooldude]

I only went with Smith and Askarov. Dickinson isn't a guaranteed top 1 or even top pair, which is what the description says. Musty has upside to the first line and even higher, but there's no guarantee he even ends up as an okay 2nd liner, while the description says "great 2nd liner."

Eklund may end up being a first or excellent second liner, but also I'm not yet confident he's already guaranteed to be that. All three are on the borderline of 2 and 3 to me.

 

[Juxtaposer]

Based strictly on Nem's criteria, I went with Smith, Askarov, and Eklund. I wasn't going to put Eklund until I read the OP closer and saw "We're talking about guys who are sure top 6 forwards, but on the low end they may "merely" be strong second liners", which to me fits Eklund. He's proven enough that he's a guaranteed second liner IMO with upside to be the kind of elite second liner good teams have.

I think personally that the criteria for D seems to be tougher than for forwards. If it were "strong #3D, borderline top pairing" as might be analogous to the forward's description, I might have put Dickinson.

 

[Gecklund]

I’ll be honest I probably should have read the description closer cause I though D that are good 3s would qualify so I voted for Shakir and LSW too both of which I see as very good 2nd pair D at their peaks.

I do also vote for Smith, Askarov, Dickinson, Eklund, and Musty. Think the first 4 we all know why. Musty I think his ceiling is very good top 6 forward (similar to Eklund’s level although Eklund is safer)

 

[CHALUPA]

I wonder if Eklund is getting underrated on this board after we’ve restocked the prospect cupboard so dramatically. He had a good rookie season and looks like a strong part of our upcoming core.

 

[OrrNumber4]

There's too much of a spread/gap. Tier I is franchise cornerstone players, but tier II is great 2nd liners to guys who are almost cornerstone players? That tier would have players like Joe Pavelski and Milan Michalek in the same tier.

 

[mogambomoroo]

I see Tier II as 1st liners/great 2nd liners, 1st pair and starting goalies.
I put Smith, Askarov and Dickinson in this tier. I'm a big Dickinson believer as a solid #2 defencemen on a future Sharks team, kinda like Devon Toews for Colorado (not the same player type, but the same point wise)

Eklund is on the fence for me. I see him as a good complimentary 1st liner, perfect for 2nd line but kinda on the fringe of Tier II and III. I think Eklund will prove me wrong and I love it.

 

[themelkman]

Going Eklund, Smith and Askarov.

From what I have understood I am not sure Dickinson should be at this level

 

[timorous me]

I wonder if Eklund is getting underrated on this board after we’ve restocked the prospect cupboard so dramatically. He had a good rookie season and looks like a strong part of our upcoming core.

It's a classic thing you see across all sports with prospects, basically: anyone you've seen (and seen struggle at times, as is inevitable for most), will get dinged more to some than someone they haven't seen--except for YouTube highlight reels, where struggles are nonexistent.

 

[OrrNumber4]

It's a classic thing you see across all sports with prospects, basically: anyone you've seen (and seen struggle at times, as is inevitable for most), will get dinged more to some than someone they haven't seen--except for YouTube highlight reels, where struggles are nonexistent.

Mystery > History.

 

[OrrNumber4]

Feels like the definitions have changed between the threads. Under thread I's definition, Smith is a lock, Askarov and Dickinson are candidates, and Eklund isn't a realistic contender. But by thread II, Smith, Askarov, and Dickinson are locks while Eklund is a strong candidate.

I guess the answer is that I should make my own tier list.

 

[bluefunnel]

Feels like the definitions have changed between the threads. Under thread I's definition, Smith is a lock, Askarov and Dickinson are candidates, and Eklund isn't a realistic contender. But by thread II, Smith, Askarov, and Dickinson are locks while Eklund is a strong candidate.

I guess the answer is that I should make my own tier list.

 

[The Nemesis]

There's too much of a spread/gap. Tier I is franchise cornerstone players, but tier II is great 2nd liners to guys who are almost cornerstone players? That tier would have players like Joe Pavelski and Milan Michalek in the same tier.

The tiers will somewhat open up as we progress. That's part of the point: each one should successively have more people in it as we move down the ladder towards the bottom of a lineup/projections. Also the gap between the range of players in Tier I and everything else is also the biggest because the point of Tier I is that it is the most scarce/unique type of prospect in the sport.

Also if we narrowed things down into very specific bands there would be like 8-10 tiers. But most versions of the pyramid that I've seen top out at 7. Leb and I just decided to condense things a little bit and stop it at 6 to keep things streamlined (which is not out of the ordinary. I've seen as few as 5 tiers in some examples)

Feels like the definitions have changed between the threads. Under thread I's definition, Smith is a lock, Askarov and Dickinson are candidates, and Eklund isn't a realistic contender. But by thread II, Smith, Askarov, and Dickinson are locks while Eklund is a strong candidate.

I guess the answer is that I should make my own tier list.

I'm not sure I understand what the issue is. Players' relationship with a tier will change as we progress through the tiers. It doesn't have to be a static, regimented shift between a set of probabilities. Just because Askarov and Dickinson were "candidates" for tier I and Eklund was "not a realistic contender" it doesn't mean that they only move up one step on some imagined probability scale.

I didn't want to make it more complicated, but it's like if you were grading prospects out of 10 based on their potential, Tier I is just the 10s. Tier II is like the 8s and 9s. Tier III is like maybe your 7s, 6s, and maybe particularly good 5s. Tier IV is 5s, 4s, and 3s, Tier V is low 3s, 2s, and 1s, and Tier VI is 0s. It's not a dead even distribution of outcomes because that's not really the point. And this numerical scale is not even necessarily true because what you consider those numbers to represent is arbitrary and personal and I pretty much just made this up on the spur of the moment for illustrative purposes.

I had intended to keep from going through the whole set of tiers until we revealed each one as the polls progress, but if people are going to get weirded out by not knowing where to put players, this is the gist of what's to come:

I: Elite, top-of-the-lineup, high high high end talent, like regular award contenders and guys who you'd expect to have potential HOF careers. Sure thing Top line Fs, #1 D, and workhorse starting G.

II: Good upper-reaches-of-the-lineup players. Top 6 (good 1st/great 2nd line) Fs, top pairing D, solid regular starting G

III: Solid middle-of-the-lineup players. Middle 6 (good 2nd/great 3rd line) Fs, middle pairing D, platoon starter/excellent backup G.

IV: Good bottom-of-the-lineup or role players. Bottom 6 (good 3rd line/great 4th line) Fs, regular bottom paring D, and good backup G.

V: Borderline NHLers and org depth guys. Good 4th line or 13th/14th Fs, low-end #6 D or good 7th D. Low-end backup G or 3rd stringers/AHL starters. This is the lowest tier for any players who you might figure have some degree of NHL potential, however meager.

VI: Everyone else. Basically your middling to poor minor pro guys without an NHL future of any reasonable expectation down to the non-prospects who you'd expect to not be signed or tendered. There won't be a poll for this tier, it's just going to be whoever's left after voting finishes on Tier V.

If you want to make your own tier lists and criteria, go ahead. Nobody will stop you.

 

[gaucholoco3]

There is a clear difference between Smith, Eklund, Dickinson, and Askarov versus the rest of the prospects. Those 4 are all top 11 picks.

I would generally expect to get a tier 1 player only at #1 overall.

I would generally expect top 10 (11 to include Dickinson and Askarov) picks to be tier 2 players.

After the top 10 (differs every draft) the draft really becomes a crapshoot in spite of what most fans think.

 

[OrrNumber4]

I'm not sure I understand what the issue is. Players' relationship with a tier will change as we progress through the tiers. It doesn't have to be a static, regimented shift between a set of probabilities. Just because Askarov and Dickinson were "candidates" for tier I and Eklund was "not a realistic contender" it doesn't mean that they only move up one step on some imagined probability scale.

The issue is miscommunication. I was referring to the definition of "tier II" that you've spelled out in this thread vs in the tier I thread. I think those descriptions are too different.

 

[TheBeard]

I misread it. I assumed tier II was the level just below elite.

 

[Lebanezer]

The issue is miscommunication. I was referring to the definition of "tier II" that you've spelled out in this thread vs in the tier I thread. I think those descriptions are too different.

If your goal is to take the fun out of doing something like this by bemoaning semantics then you are doing a good job. The criteria is difficult to define, and no perfect definition exists. Vote according to your best interpretation of the criteria, don't vote, or create your own thread as you suggested. Which, incidentally, will be met with the same level of resistance, because not everyone will agree with your definitions either. This is supposed to be a fun exercise to quash our boredom in the final weeks before the season, not a source of frustration.

 

[DG93]

Smith and Askarov were locks. Based on the strict criteria, I included Eklund even though I think he is a tier lower than those two. I did not include Dickinson as I am not sure he will be a top pair guy vs a very good #3 who won't look out of place as a #2. Musty is definitely in a lower tier.

 

[Bizz]

Eklund should be getting more votes. This is a guy that very easily could have gone #1-3 overall his draft year.

 

[jMoneyBrah]

I went for Smith, Askarov, Eklund, Dickinson, and Musty. I think Dickinson is poised to have a huge season this year, and has all the tools to be a top pairing dman. Musty is on the fence and I’m choosing a slightly optimistic projection that his size and skill carry him early on and he figures out some of the other aspects as he matures.

I’m expecting Muhk to be a super solid #3, but ultimately falling a little short of top pair guy as I think that requires just a bit more offense than he projects to bring.

Also, I still think Smith ends up a Tier I guys when all is said and done.