Jack Campbell holds top spot in Dallas Stars Top 20
 

 

One would be hard-pressed to find a top-20 prospects list that has evolved and grown as rapidly and completely as the Dallas Stars has in the last few years.



While the Stars have not had many opportunities to garner blue-chip prospects, the amount of quality depth in the organization is top-notch and impressive. They may have less future number-one defensemen and franchise forwards than another team, but GM Joe Nieuwendyk could easily challenge most of the league’s clubs in terms of future top-six forwards and NHL-caliber defensemen.

With that said, the list starts out with a goaltender once again in Jack Campbell who will turn pro like a number of other top prospects in the system.… read more



More...

Guptill at 5 :amazed:

He might just be the best college player we've got, though. Really convinced me, Mike.

Actually agreed with a lot of it, but my only complaint is Dillon being so low.

I petition that the Stars should get a top 30, too much depth and am not satisfied with the lack of description of most of our newest draft picks. :D

With the Stars prospects theres really a case to be made for all kinds of rankings and this one is as good as any. There is certainly no "wtf" rankings here, imo. Bystroms rating as a 7.0D seems a bit low but not outrageous.

Yay.

I agree most of our prospects are in the 7.5C range. I wouldn't have minded seeing Chiasson and Fraser about .5 higher, I think Chiasson absolutely has 1st lineup upside and Fraser has at least 2nd line upside. Otherwise not much to complain about.

Jokipakka in Austin this year? Joke much?

I'd say he's probably the most ready of our second half of D-men.

I would love it if he could make the jump, but I had always thought that he needed one more year in Europe. Kind of a steal it's starting to seem with him being a 7th rounder.

Edit: I see Elite Prospects has him slated for Austin too. Will be interesting to see.

Not sure I'd call him a steal just yet...

6.5 and 7.5 allow for second line and first line upside, respectively.

Ah ok. I figured it meant tweener, and the number ranking was the actual projected ceiling. I could see those players as legit players on those lines and not as tweaners, thus my confusion.

Thanks for the great article!

? Les Jackson was quoted this summer as saying Jokipakka will play for Ilves this season. Has something changed?

Hmm...I'll get back to you on that...could be my mistake...

This is the quote from Jackson:

He’s really grown and matured the last year. He’s moving forward quickly. He’ll go back and play in the Finnish league with Ilves. He’ll be an every-night player there, so I sense that he’ll be right on track. He’s really been a good surprise for us

That came nearly a month after he signed his ELC too, so it's not like that was the impetus for a change in plans.

I remember reading that they wanted John Klingberg to come over to Austin this year, but with his injury he wanted to stay in Sweden. Maybe when Klingberg declined coming over they asked Jokipakka.

Could be something to do with his team getting relegated. Total speculation on my part.

I don't think they were relegated though, were they? They're still on the SM-liiga site. I know they finished last but I'm pretty sure they beat the team trying to take their place.

Was thinking this too, actually.

Thanks for this, great read.

they were not relegated. they had to play in the relegation tourney, and do well to not get relegated.

Mike, can you elaborate a little further on Guptill ahead of R. Smith? I'm having some trouble with that one.

I'm assuming you put almost zero stock in how close a prospect is to the NHL based on the rankings of guys like Eakin, Dillon, Fraser, and Sceviour while putting almost all of the weight on their long-range potential.

R. Smith's CCHA production easily surpassed Guptill's at the same age. I'm guessing there's just something particular about their games that you see either translating or not to the highest level?

Very fair question.

Likely potential (different from "highest ceiling") is worth more to me on a prospect list than proximity (that is, how close a player is to the NHL). Because of the nature of the list, a list of prospects, I think that's fair. I do evaluate proximity into it because the letter grade factors in and that helps the depth chart out. Otherwise a player like Sceviour wouldn't have made the list because he doesn't have a ton of potential, he's about as good as he's gonna get it seems (more or less). It's also why a player like Sinitsyn didn't make the list, he has some of the highest potential in the group from what I understand (one of the small handful I've never seen play before). So proximity matters, but "likely potential" rules all because it's my own concoction of both.

I see Guptill as a better NHLer than Reilly Smith. Reilly is a bit of a one-trick pony, he's a good goal scorer, but he's not particularly well-rounded at this point. He's also on the light side kinda - at least it looks that way on the ice - and he can be pushed off the puck even at the collegiate level. Smith is a good player (thus, the #6 ranking) but Guptill has more potential at the NHL, IMO. He's just bigger and more dynamic and he can really push the defense back with skill and size. You just get that feeling watching him that he has that "pro burst" and he's a rather smooth operator...

I figured Guptill would make the collective group kind of :amazed: at the list, but every a couple of lists I get a prospect that I really "push" ...a "darkhorse" of sorts, someone that started out without much fanfare and made an enormous jump into the upper reaches of the list (the last being Philip Larsen) and I believe in Guptill in the same way right now. Let's not roll out the red carpet because progression is important and I'd like to see what happens as a sophomore when the rest of the CCHA is gunning for him but he can play.

After all, if I went by stats (not that you suggested that), Austin Smith would be ahead of all of them but we all know that's not the case...

Another important point about Guptill is that he waltzed on in to Ann Arbor and didn't have to "earn" his keep so to speak. Red Berenson, who runs a pretty tight ship, immediately launched him into the big time...that says a lot. And maybe you're thinking, "well, Reilly had the same thing with Carter Camper and Andy Miele" and while that's true, I don't get the impression that Miami runs things the same way as Michigan does. The more prestigious, tradition-laden schools tend to make the young players wait and work their way up unless they're just too good to keep down (remember the #4 prospect when I took over or thereabouts, Nico Sacchetti...he's still waiting...).

I think it's close, but I believe that Guptill could really impress some people here with a little more exposure...

I'm all aboard the Guptill train. Like I've been aboard the Chiasson train for a looooooong time.

Thanks for the additional insight.

In R. Smith's defense he's put on a ton of weight since being drafted (over 190 lbs now) and continues to get stronger. He's never going to have Guptill's frame, but I don't think that should be the deciding factor in ranking prospects. Otherwise Larsen would've never been highly ranked for example.

When you say "one trick pony", is that referring to the way he behaves on the ice or just the area of his game his excels at? If you're going to be a one-trick-pony, goal-scoring winger isn't a bad thing to have as your trick, no?

Re: stats, I only brought that up because their situations are very similar and made a point of emphasizing what happened at the same age. Obviously A. Smith putting up huge numbers as an older player in a weaker league isn't the same thing.

Just quick hits here to follow-up

- He has put on weight, and he still looks small on the ice and still can get knocked around. Not the worst thing in the world, but head-to-head with Guptill, the latter has a significant advantage and skill-wise, I think Guptill is/will be better on that front as well.

- I mean, a goal-scoring winger is a valuable trick to be sure. However, Guptill can score goals in the same way as Reilly does and then there's a plus. Guptill can score goals in dirty areas, he goes to the front of the net and can swing with the big trees down there, he can work off the cycle and he's probably better one on one, so he can make more room for himself. Smith might be better finding open spots in the defense, but I'll take Guptill's skillset overall. Which isn't a knock on Reilly.

- Re: Stats. Your point was well taken, I'm not a huge stats guy was where I was going with it. You do a great job keeping tabs on the prospects here on the stats tables that you make, anyone can go by that and take a stab at who's good and who's not. In retrospect, the need to bring up Austin wasn't necessary really on my part - especially without elaboration. It's not part of the discussion at hand.