Who has the best OVERALL prospect pool in the NHL?

Felix Unger

Registered User
Aug 2, 2005
13,634
2
If three years from now you have ten players in your lineup who are presently one of your prospects you can call me , well, whatever you want. I will myself post a topic titled ISLES FANS ARE RIGHT AND I AM A BLITHERING FOOL. But until then, it's tough to escape the clear impression that there is a level of hysterical optimism among Islanders fans regarding their prospect pool that simply defies all realism.

I agree with you about the depth, but I disagree about what you said about the Isles having no blue-chipper. Of all the Islanders prospects, Hamonic is the legitimate blue-chipper. And that's assuming his development curve flattens out a bit. I assume it will - because it simply can't continue the way it is. He has played at least as well as any other drafted defensive prospect not in the NHL, and in big spots. I can't for the life of me understand how people consider him maybe the 15th or 20th best defensive prospect, when he was seemed to be the best d-man in the WHL and WJC before injury. There could be questions after his WJC injury, but he came back and was stellar in the Memorial Cup.

Besides Hamonic and Niederreiter (who is a sure bet to be a NHL-player, whether he's a 3rd liner or top-6 guy is yet to be determined), I think there's significant questions about every single Islanders prospect (except Andrew MacDonald, see below): De Haan (physicality), Petrov (desire to play in NA), Kabanov (maturity), Koskinen (injury), etc.

To defend us Islander fans, I think our optimism - especially with respect to D-men - comes from our current run of great luck with defensive prospects. For example, I'll take Jack Hillen over the more heralded Matt Gilroy any day (an I'm not a huge Hillen fan), and I'll take the never-ranked Andrew MacDonald (actually still a prospect by hf criteria) well ahead of either of them and over many other defensive prospects listed in this thread. I think Isles fans are getting greedy, if they expect similar results from Aaron Ness, Matt Donovan, and Blake Kessel.

Cheers,

Dan-o
 

s7ark

RIP
Jul 3, 2003
27,579
175

I'm not going to quote your whole report, but you are aware that given the number of times you wrote "if they reach their max potential" or something similar, any HF fan can do a comparable essay about their team's prospects, right? Every team has 20+ future NHLers "if they reach their max potential"
 

Qvist

Registered User
Apr 14, 2009
2,357
0
I agree with you about the depth, but I disagree about what you said about the Isles having no blue-chipper. Of all the Islanders prospects, Hamonic is the legitimate blue-chipper. And that's assuming his development curve flattens out a bit. I assume it will - because it simply can't continue the way it is. He has played at least as well as any other drafted defensive prospect not in the NHL, and in big spots. I can't for the life of me understand how people consider him maybe the 15th or 20th best defensive prospect, when he was seemed to be the best d-man in the WHL and WJC before injury. There could be questions after his WJC injury, but he came back and was stellar in the Memorial Cup.

Besides Hamonic and Niederreiter (who is a sure bet to be a NHL-player, whether he's a 3rd liner or top-6 guy is yet to be determined), I think there's significant questions about every single Islanders prospect (except Andrew MacDonald, see below): De Haan (physicality), Petrov (desire to play in NA), Kabanov (maturity), Koskinen (injury), etc.

To defend us Islander fans, I think our optimism - especially with respect to D-men - comes from our current run of great luck with defensive prospects. For example, I'll take Jack Hillen over the more heralded Matt Gilroy any day (an I'm not a huge Hillen fan), and I'll take the never-ranked Andrew MacDonald (actually still a prospect by hf criteria) well ahead of either of them and over many other defensive prospects listed in this thread. I think Isles fans are getting greedy, if they expect similar results from Aaron Ness, Matt Donovan, and Blake Kessel.

Cheers,

Dan-o

There's a misunderstanding there - I never said the Isles have no blue-chip prospects. I wrote earlier that in my opinion they have three - Hamonic, Niederreiter and De Haan, in addition to which you could certainly make a case for Kabanov. Not bad at all. Just not as good as some seem to think.

Interesting observation at the end there.
 

Qvist

Registered User
Apr 14, 2009
2,357
0
Yeah, ok Tarnqvist - you should have said "WTF do the Habs..."


Bubble = popped.

Indeed I should have. Thank you for the correction.

Other than that, I'd have to say those must be three of the more unusual posts I've had addressed to me on any board. I have no idea who Daniel Tarnqvist is. And I can only humbly apologise if I fail to meet your exacting standards for being impressed while sober. :)
 
Last edited:

bluechipbonzo

Registered User
Feb 12, 2010
3,057
0
Ottawa
No, it's not as simple as that. A prospect isn't a dart (metphorically speaking), unless you think of them as some darts you get to throw from virtually point blank and others you get to throw from the other end of the room. And take into consideration that not all dart-throwers are equally proficient.

Lots of selections does not neccessarily turn into lots of players. Lots of decent prospects does not neccessarily turn into lots of players either - in fact, it ususally doesn't. You are projecting that the Islanders end up with 10-15 NHL players from their current prospect pool, even after deducting those who are already there. That's just ludicruous. I'd bet good money that there has never, in the history of the NHL, been a prospect pool who resulted in that kind of output. And certainly not one that consists largely of players drafted in the second round or lower. Do you realise how momentuously against any normal probability that outcome would be? If you get five players, you have a good result.

Why exactly do you need to look at a best-case scenario? (ie, one that is virtually guaranteed to not be the reality). As you write, "It is unheard of to think that a single draft could produce seven NHL regulars, which would be the best-case scenario.". True, but on the other hand, it is very easy to think of a single draft that at some point looked like it might produce seven NHLers if you applied a best-case scenario. Which is again the basis on which you consider that it's realistically possible enough to be worth discussing for the Islanders to get seven players out of that draft.



And right there, in the jump from the first paragraph to the second, is where your line of reasoning falls apart, and reveals the blithe optimism at its core. As you note, if you draft 1 or 2 NHLers per year, it's a good job (Actually it isn't, it's an average job). But, an NHLer is not the same thing as "a player with a legitimate shot at the NHL". In fact, getting one or two of the former out of six of the latter would be pretty normal.

If we're going to include players who are already in the NHL, then we obviously have a completely different discussion than the present one, so let's not mix things up.

If three years from now you have ten players in your lineup who are presently one of your prospects you can call me , well, whatever you want. I will myself post a topic titled ISLES FANS ARE RIGHT AND I AM A BLITHERING FOOL. But until then, it's tough to escape the clear impression that there is a level of hysterical optimism among Islanders fans regarding their prospect pool that simply defies all realism.

The darts analogy wasn't the best from a control standpoint- yes Kabanov needs to prove a maturity level this year. Yes Petrov needs to officially commit to the NHL. And these are things that are mostly out of say Garth Snow's hands. In the best-case scenario option I was considering, if these two players do get their acts together, the talent is already there- in spades. These two are top five picks on talent alone- which as prospects certainly puts them in the same group as Eberle and MPS.

As far as Kabanov being the better prospect than Eberle- again, best case scenario Kabanov wins hands down. Would Eberle have challenged Hall and Seguin in the draft? I don't think so...but there was early talk of Kabanov doing just that- before the circus mind you. And not to re-hash that, but if Kabanov is such a cancer, why is Moncton ready to take him back with open arms?

You're right- there never has been in the history of the NHL such a large number of potential NHLers from a single prospect pool, or individual draft, unless you go waaaay back (and I'm not about to call Liam MacGuire on that one), though the 2008draft for the Islanders certainly looks to be a watershed moment for the organization. So how can we say the Islanders look to have six NHLers from the 2008 draft? I will try to be as conservative as possible here. And getting away form best-case scenarios, and looking at talent alone, here they are:

For starters, let's remove Bailey and Hamonic from the mix because I think most here would agree that a two-season NHLer, and a bonafide blue-chip defensive prospect are not worth discussing. So there's two.

Matt Martin projects as a cruiserweight, fourth-line energy agitator, who if he keeps developing may end up on the third line. He has already played for the Islanders, and been assigned a number now http://www.lighthousehockey.com/2010/8/26/1651797/matt-martin-is-now-on-the-team You won't find him listed under the Islanders' prospects page anymore either http://islanders.nhl.com/club/roster.htm?type=prospect So Martin looks to be number three, barring injury.

Kirill Petrov has top six NHL talent, and after the recent rookie camp, coach Gordon glowed about Petrov, and that he looked like he belonged in the NHL. The kid came to rookie camp, and has said that he will return in September. Until the Islanders and Petrov say otherwise, don't believe everything you read on Twitter...so there is number four.

Kevin Poulin looks to be number five: “There are so many raw-talented goalies in the Quebec League that, to be frank, many of them tend to be a dime-a-dozen,†emailed an Eastern Conference QMJHL scout that has watched Poulin play for four seasons in Victoriaville. “What it looks like now is that Poulin is not an average prospect. From what he’s shown this season, I’d have to say he has a legitimate chance to play in the NHL if the Islanders bring him along the right way.†and this: Poulin was so improved in every aspect of his butterfly-style game that the general manager and head coach of the Quebec Ramparts was moved to declare Poulin as the best goaltender in Canadian junior hockey. That would be Patrick Roy. http://www.islanderspointblank.com/...nd-draft-pick-kevin-poulin-is-the-real-thing/

Matt Donovan should also see NHL ice. Is he a top four defenseman? Probably not- though many Islanders fans would argue here. But this isn't about "best-case" scenarios, is it? He will play in the show, and is number six. Here are a few opinions http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=720907 and this too for another 2008 draft plug and discussion around Donovan http://hfboards.ca/showthread.php?p=23586785

Number seven, David Ullstrom, has the body and the speed to top out on the second line in a best-case scenario, but conservatively speaking will end up as a third-line centre or wing. Worst case is fourth line based on his physical tools alone: Ullstrom, who signed a three-year Entry Level deal, told Point Blank last summer that he was determined to begin his North American playing career in 2010. Most scouts project him as a third-line forward, with an outside chance of developing into a second-liner. http://www.islanderspointblank.com/...-onswedish-forward-gets-his-entry-level-deal/

That's the 2008 draft. Add in El Nino, Kabanov, Nelson, de Haan, and you can start to see why Islanders fans are excited. Nay, why fans of other NHL teams are starting to take notice too.

Not to mention the real possibility of players like Anders Lee, Casey Cizikas, Blake Kessel, Mikko Koskinen, and Anders Nilsson also looking like they have the tools to also make the pros.

You'll change your tune, rest assured. In rebuttal, make sure to break down your arguments for each player- and be sure to let all Islanders fans know where and when you have seen each play. That would be nice.
 

Qvist

Registered User
Apr 14, 2009
2,357
0
The darts analogy wasn't the best from a control standpoint- yes Kabanov needs to prove a maturity level this year. Yes Petrov needs to officially commit to the NHL. And these are things that are mostly out of say Garth Snow's hands. In the best-case scenario option I was considering, if these two players do get their acts together, the talent is already there- in spades. These two are top five picks on talent alone- which as prospects certainly puts them in the same group as Eberle and MPS.

Kabanov is a top five player, on talent alone. Who nevertheless dropped to the third round. I have never heard anyone speak about Petrov as that kind of talent before you just did.

As far as Kabanov being the better prospect than Eberle- again, best case scenario Kabanov wins hands down. Would Eberle have challenged Hall and Seguin in the draft? I don't think so...but there was early talk of Kabanov doing just that- before the circus mind you. And not to re-hash that, but if Kabanov is such a cancer, why is Moncton ready to take him back with open arms?

I haven't called Kabanov a cancer, nor have I compared him to Eberle. As I have said repeatedly you could make a case for him as a blue chip prospect - but hardly a consensual one. Eberle certainly wouldn't have challenged Hall (in his draft year), but then on the other hand, there's not a GM in the NHL who wouldn't have laughed you out of the room if you proposed a Kabanov for Eberle trade at this point.

You're right- there never has been in the history of the NHL such a large number of potential NHLers from a single prospect pool, or individual draft,

What I wrote was the exact opposite of that - you can easily find former drafts who at some point contained seven players who looked like they had a legitimate chance to make the NHL. You don't even have to look very far, or outside your own drafts. What you're not going to find (at least not easily and in the 30-team era) is a draft that contained seven players who actually had reasonably good NHL careers.

Take for example your own 1999 draft. Tim Connolly, Taylor Pyatt, Branislav Mezei, Kristian Kudroc, Mattias Weinhandl, Juraj Kolnik, Justin Mapletoft and Radek Martinek. All eight were legitimate NHL prospects, and all eight played in the NHL. Only 3 of them however had more than 300 games in the NHL, in a draft where you had 3 top 10 picks. Not the strongest of years of course, but still.

Or your own 93 draft. Even if we assume that only those who played at least one game in the NHL (of whom there were seven) were ever considered to have legitimate NHL potential, what you ended up with was four players with any sort of NHL career worth speaking about.

We could go on like this for a long time.

Then for your player profiles. Let me first make a few selective quotes from them:

who if he keeps developing may end up on the third line....look like he has top six NHL talent.........he has a legitimate chance to play in the NHL if the Islanders bring him along the right way.....Most scouts project him as a third-line forward, with an outside chance of developing into a second-liner.

Thanks for the write-up, it was interesting to read and I don't question that these are good young players. But how many prospects on every team do you think fairly similar words have been used about? You're just expecting too much.

In rebuttal, make sure to break down your arguments for each player- and be sure to let all Islanders fans know where and when you have seen each play. That would be nice.

It would be nice if I didn't have to repeat everything every second post. But since it's seemingly neccessary (key bits bolded out):

A general point. I don't care how much you've watched your team's prospects - to rank, you just as much need to consider those of every other team in the league. Nobody in this thread is even remotely in a position to make a general ranking on the basis of direct observation of the players.

Hence, in a discussion like this, I don't think you can get away from employing some sort of useful and reasonably grounded heuristic. One such heuristic is the typical rate at which prospects turn into reasonably good NHL players. The only group of players who does so with any very great regularity (as in more than a 50% likelihood) are those who get more or less consensually identified as blue-chip prospects, most of whom are first round draft picks. On average, those are the 2-3 best prospects on a team. As far as expectation is concerned, these are the guys you can reasonably reckon with.

There is also going to be a considerable number of Kris Versteegs - prospects who make it despite not being so highly rated as prospects. But those are, in the nature of things, not easy to spot. That's why they're not so highly rated. Only a small proportion of those not in the above group are going to be players like these. So, the reality is that if your team have 15 players you really like outside of those guys everybody who reads rankings have heard about, maybe 3 of them will be players. On average. \

Which brings me to another useful heuristic, namely the fact that there are consistent and marked differences between teams when it comes to their ability to turn lesser prospects into NHL players. In practice, the averages mask the fact that there are a handful of teams who pull this off with much higher consistency than the rest - they include Colorado, Detroit, Nashville, Buffalo and New Jersey. In recent years, Washington and Chicago seem to have joined the club as well. Then there is on the other hand a handful of teams who seems to achieve that much more rarely than the average. One of them is the Islanders, and another is Edmonton. Maybe it's the quality of the drafting, maybe it's the quality of their player development program, or both, but the difference is discernible over time. This is also something to take into account.

What everybody here can do with this subject is not much more than try to put some order into the limited information we have. And with that basis, things like these count.
 
Last edited:

bluechipbonzo

Registered User
Feb 12, 2010
3,057
0
Ottawa
Kabanov is a top five player, on talent alone. Who nevertheless dropped to the third round. I have never heard anyone speak about Petrov as that kind of talent before you just did.



I haven't called Kabanov a cancer, nor have I compared him to Eberle. As I have said repeatedly you could make a case for him as a blue chip prospect - but hardly a consensual one. Eberle certainly wouldn't have challenged Hall (in his draft year), but then on the other hand, there's not a GM in the NHL who wouldn't have laughed you out of the room if you proposed a Kabanov for Eberle trade at this point.



What I wrote was the exact opposite of that - you can easily find former drafts who at some point contained seven players who looked like they had a legitimate chance to make the NHL. You don't even have to look very far, or outside your own drafts. What you're not going to find (at least not easily and in the 30-team era) is a draft that contained seven players who actually had reasonably good NHL careers.

Take for example your own 1999 draft. Tim Connolly, Taylor Pyatt, Branislav Mezei, Kristian Kudroc, Mattias Weinhandl, Juraj Kolnik, Justin Mapletoft and Radek Martinek. All eight were legitimate NHL prospects, and all eight played in the NHL. Only 3 of them however had more than 300 games in the NHL, in a draft where you had 3 top 10 picks. Not the strongest of years of course, but still.

Or your own 93 draft. Even if we assume that only those who played at least one game in the NHL (of whom there were seven) were ever considered to have legitimate NHL potential, what you ended up with was four players with any sort of NHL career worth speaking about.

We could go on like this for a long time.

Then for your player profiles. Let me first make a few selective quotes from them:



Thanks for the write-up, it was interesting to read and I don't question that these are good young players. But how many prospects on every team do you think fairly similar words have been used about? You're just expecting too much.



It would be nice if I didn't have to repeat everything every second post. But since it's seemingly neccessary (key bits bolded out):

So in short, you are thinking that Milbury is still running the organization (your bolded part regarding the actual development of each prospect) and in addition to that your logic about players actually having NHL careers applies only to the Islanders, and no other team in the NHL?

Hall, Eberle, MPS- any of these players projected to play 300 games? Is your argument guaranteeing that? No? If assumptions are allowed, then why don't they apply to the Islanders prospects?

The bottom line is that because you did not give your opinion on each profile I listed from the 2008 draft, it's impossible to know how you devalue each player's respective chance on making the NHL.

Heureka! I just realized that you probably have never seen most of them play...your real name isn't Omar is it?
 

TheLaughsWeKnow*

Guest
How the hell are we not in the top 10?

Top Prospects

1. Nazem Kadri, C
2. Jonas Gustavsson, G
3. Tyler Bozak, C
4. Carl Gunnarsson, D
5. Jussi Rynnas, G
6. Luca Caputi, LW
7. Brad Ross, LW
8. Jerry D'Amigo, LW
9. Keith Aulie, D
10. James Reimer, G
11. Jesse Blacker, D
12. Greg McKegg, LW
13. Christian Hanson, RW
14. Marcel Mueller, LW
15. Juraj Mikus, D
16. Korbinian Holzer, D
17. Ben Scrivens, G
18. Kenny Ryan, RW
19. Brayden Irwin, RW
20. Sondre Olden, LW
 

CoupeStanley

Registered User
Dec 1, 2003
2,783
187
Nicolet
coupestanley.com
How the hell are we not in the top 10?

Top Prospects

1. Nazem Kadri, C
2. Jonas Gustavsson, G
3. Tyler Bozak, C
4. Carl Gunnarsson, D
5. Jussi Rynnas, G
6. Luca Caputi, LW
7. Brad Ross, LW
8. Jerry D'Amigo, LW
9. Keith Aulie, D
10. James Reimer, G
11. Jesse Blacker, D
12. Greg McKegg, LW
13. Christian Hanson, RW
14. Marcel Mueller, LW
15. Juraj Mikus, D
16. Korbinian Holzer, D
17. Ben Scrivens, G
18. Kenny Ryan, RW
19. Brayden Irwin, RW
20. Sondre Olden, LW

Because 2, 3 and 4 are graduated.
 

boredmale

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Jul 13, 2005
42,620
7,156
Hall, Eberle, MPS- any of these players projected to play 300 games? Is your argument guaranteeing that? No? If assumptions are allowed, then why don't they apply to the Islanders prospects?

I think Hall is in a completely different class then any other prospect out there. I am guessing I could go down any teams top prospect list and wouldn't think twice about trading Hall for the top 3 prospects on any team.
 

FinlandPanther

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Mar 16, 2009
22,469
20,934
Florida
How the hell are we not in the top 10?

Top Prospects

1. Nazem Kadri, C
2. Jonas Gustavsson, G
3. Tyler Bozak, C
4. Carl Gunnarsson, D
5. Jussi Rynnas, G
6. Luca Caputi, LW
7. Brad Ross, LW
8. Jerry D'Amigo, LW
9. Keith Aulie, D
10. James Reimer, G
11. Jesse Blacker, D
12. Greg McKegg, LW
13. Christian Hanson, RW
14. Marcel Mueller, LW
15. Juraj Mikus, D
16. Korbinian Holzer, D
17. Ben Scrivens, G
18. Kenny Ryan, RW
19. Brayden Irwin, RW
20. Sondre Olden, LW

because thats not that good.... plus 2-4 are gone now.
 

Qvist

Registered User
Apr 14, 2009
2,357
0
So in short, you are thinking that Milbury is still running the organization (your bolded part regarding the actual development of each prospect) and in addition to that your logic about players actually having NHL careers applies only to the Islanders, and no other team in the NHL?

I can only conjecture about where you contrived to pick up those ideas, but since you managed to completely misunderstand the paragraph this refers back to the first time around too I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

Needless to say, the answer to both rethorical questions are "no". You thought that it was unique in NHL history to have seven players in a draft with legitimate NHL potential, so I provided you with two examples just from recent Islanders history to the contrary. The point, if you really need it shovelled in a third time, being that it is far from unusual to get a significant number of players with a shot at making the NHL, but that only some of them actually do make it. I could easily provide you with similar examples pertaining to other teams. I have no idea on what basis you have dreamed up your second point, but it's got nothing to do with anything I think or have written.

Hall, Eberle, MPS- any of these players projected to play 300 games? Is your argument guaranteeing that? No? If assumptions are allowed, then why don't they apply to the Islanders prospects?

What, do you really, actually, need me to answer that question? Did you try reading previous posts? Really short version, repeating the same ****ing basic point I've made throughout the thread: Highly regarded prospects usually succeed. Less highly regarded prospects only occasionally succeed. Which applies also to the Islanders.

The bottom line is that because you did not give your opinion on each profile I listed from the 2008 draft, it's impossible to know how you devalue each player's respective chance on making the NHL.

Easy. I don't, not on an individual basis. Even if I had watched them a hundred times each and could describe my impressions of each of them in detail, that still wouldn't qualify me to evaluate them as a group against the prospects of the other teams. I am, as I am now stating for the fourth time, going on a heuristic. Which is that if a player is a consensual blue chip prospect, he gets picked up by rankings or otherwise acquires a strong reputation, which is by nature something that it is easy to find out about. If he isn't, then experience suggests his likelihood of becoming a good NHL player is fairly low. I don't know, was that intelligible to you? Anything still unclear here?

Heureka! I just realized that you probably have never seen most of them play...your real name isn't Omar is it?

Well Sherlock, I have no ****ing idea who Omar is, but no, I have never seen any of the Isles prospects other than Niederreiter play. Nor have I pretended otherwise. Just like you haven't seen the great majority of players involved in this discussion (ie, of the other 29 teams) play, and certainly not to the extent that you're qualified to have an opinion on their development prospects. But then I'm not basing my argument on individually evaluating them, am I? And I'll take a reasonable heuristic over a sofa expert evaluation of what an individual player is going to achieve in the future, any day of the week.
 
Last edited:

FinlandPanther

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Mar 16, 2009
22,469
20,934
Florida
I think Hall is in a completely different class then any other prospect out there. I am guessing I could go down any teams top prospect list and wouldn't think twice about trading Hall for the top 3 prospects on any team.

markstrom gudbranson grabner. GOOD one! :laugh: we wouldnt do it either. way too much value for hall even though he will be a star.
 

1 Timer

Registered User
Aug 23, 2009
1,321
173
Howell, NJ
I am an Isles fan who is high on our prospects however no matter how you look at this argument they are just that, PROSPECTS!!! As a small business owner I tend to see this discussion from a business standpoint. Yes the Isles do have a good proposed team in the near future, but as we know not all products do better in some markets then other i.e. CHL to NHL. You may be a CHL star but a career AHL'er.

However, if this was a college lab where we only looked at data to create a conclusion, than yes the Islanders have a wave of NHL talent. But after watching 30+ years of NHL hockey I will be happy with 3 players from 2008.

IMO 1-10 in the prospect pool makes a hill of beans difference, it’s all what the individual makes of his situation.
 

Qvist

Registered User
Apr 14, 2009
2,357
0
I am an Isles fan who is high on our prospects however no matter how you look at this argument they are just that, PROSPECTS!!! As a small business owner I tend to see this discussion from a business standpoint. Yes the Isles do have a good proposed team in the near future, but as we know not all products do better in some markets then other i.e. CHL to NHL. You may be a CHL star but a career AHL'er.

However, if this was a college lab where we only looked at data to create a conclusion, than yes the Islanders have a wave of NHL talent. But after watching 30+ years of NHL hockey I will be happy with 3 players from 2008.

IMO 1-10 in the prospect pool makes a hill of beans difference, it’s all what the individual makes of his situation.

A sensible Islander with reasonable expectations. I knew you were still out there, somewhere. :)

One thing I've been meaning to ask (not just you, but Islanders fans in general really) is, how do you perceive the quality of your farm team organisation? Is the coaching staff good, from a development point of view? And is there a wilingness in the organisation generally to be patient with player development rather than rush players to the NHL to fill roster gaps? Because things like that can have a major impact on results, judging from the fact that many of the traditionally successful teams in this regard have also been noted for putting a lot of resources into their farm teams and being really patient with youngsters. Of course, that's easier to be when you already have a full high-quality roster. There must be some difficult tradeoffs to make there for the Isles.
 
Last edited:

Sidney the Kidney

One last time
Jun 29, 2009
56,798
49,272
I'm not going to quote your whole report, but you are aware that given the number of times you wrote "if they reach their max potential" or something similar, any HF fan can do a comparable essay about their team's prospects, right? Every team has 20+ future NHLers "if they reach their max potential"

:handclap:

I think this is why, for the most part, this kind of topic is difficult to actually discuss with any sort of accuracy.

Fans of a team have a tendency to always see their prospects in terms of "if they reach their maximum potential", whereas in the same breath they see other team's prospects as "unlikely to reach potential". It's why you often see a fan of a team touting their team's 6th round draft pick as having "potential to be a solid player", while writing off another team's 6th round draft pick as "fringe player who will be lucky to even play in the NHL".

I know you quoted an Islanders fan, but this is pretty widespread amongst the entire 30 teams' fanbases.
 

xIsle

Registered User
Oct 24, 2006
3,360
540
Montreal
"Depth" is overrated, and a balanced prospect pool is a pointless criterion.

I don't think I agree with that. I understand your idea but I think you underestimates a bit what a deep prospect could bring to a team. Having a strong group of prospect for a team is a big advantage. The more your group is strong the more the chances to see a number of them becoming NHL players are better.

It allows good competition inside the club and trading chips if necessary.

When you look at the teams that finish last or out of the playoffs for some years (like the Nordiques and the Islanders in the late 80's and early 90's) , one of the main reason is because of the lack of depth in their prospect pool. Just my opinion.
 

Kevin27NYI

Registered User
Aug 5, 2009
20,084
6,107
One thing I've been meaning to ask (not just you, but Islanders fans in general really) is, how do you perceive the quality of your farm team organisation? Is the coaching staff good, from a development point of view? And is there a wilingness in the organisation generally to be patient with player development rather than rush players to the NHL to fill roster gaps? Because things like that can have a major impact on results, judging from the fact that many of the traditionally successful teams in this regard have also been noted for putting a lot of resources into their farm teams and being really patient with youngsters. Of course, that's easier to be when you already have a full high-quality roster. There must be some difficult tradeoffs to make there for the Isles.

isles got gordon because they wanted someone that could work well with ounger players and axed nolan because he wouldnt. and check garths trade history once the rebuild began. if anything, he is too patient :laugh: the guy is the anti milbury
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad