jaster
I am become woke, destroyer of ignorance.
- Jun 8, 2007
- 13,961
- 9,787
I think this is largely why many writers will do an "under 25" list for teams, or something similar, which I've liked the idea of more and more over time. Cutting it off at a specific age is also arbitrary, but I think at 25, for instance, that cutoff exists in much less murky water, and at least everyone considered is basically playing by the same rule. It's less "prospect status vs not prospect status" and closer to "still developing vs basically done developing."Fine, because Berggren "graduating" doesn't really mean anything other than you personally don't list him in the prospect pool. But either way he's a 22 year old who is in his rookie season.
The prospect pool discussion is hollow because of arbitrary qualifications that are placed on it. Like Raymond isn't considered a prospect at ages 20, but Soderblom is, despite being older than Raymond. And Johansson is a prospect, but Seider isn't, even though Johansson is older. Just because a player is good, doesn't mean that they are less prospect, just that they are a better prospect. To me, considering someone is graduated means you consider most of their development curve completed.
Like I could say that the Sabres prospect pool is weak because it is led by only Matt Savoie. Pretending that they don't also have Owen Power, Jack Quinn, JJ Peterka, Dylan Cozens, Mattias Samuelsson, Peyton Krebs and Rasmus Dahlin at 22 and under. What do they really have to be concerned about? So is their prospect pool bad, or are they stacked to the brim in really young, high end NHL talent. Or can prospect pool and NHL roster have some overlap?
For under 25, in Detroit, you are including Seider, Raymond, Berggren, Soderblom, Rasmussen, Veleno, Zadina, and Lindstrom. Which to me provides a more interesting snapshot, because even though those guys have "graduated," they are all still young and developing, and it gives you a better picture of the quality of an organization's "youth."