View Single Post
11-18-2004, 03:48 AM
Olympic nut
007's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Mannahatta
Country: Lebanon
Posts: 3,475
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to 007 Send a message via MSN to 007
Originally Posted by nyr4life5186
That potential alone should've put him in the top 50. I dont think that just because he has yet to pass that "great hurdle" of adjusting to the North American ice (which IMO is overblown anyway), he should automatically be excluded from the top 50.
I'm very much inclined to agree with you. Lundqvist, it seems, has the potential to be as good or better than any goalie on that list (with the plausible exception of Kari Lehtonen, but then, I'm a huge Lehtonen fan -- a Roy-like tallent, if you ask me). I'm much happier with Lundqvist in the system than Ouellet or Niittymäki.

I understand the reasoning of ranking those two (and others) above Lundqvist. They are both definitely going to play for their NHL teams, thus they're going to be much more successful prospects than 80% of the rest. It would have been more fun if the HF writers had made individual lists of the *best* prospects, as opposed to a consensus list, which will invariably give you a list of the *safest* prospects.

It's a great list, it's great to read, and nice to have. I wouldn't be at all surprised, though, if someone who's not on the list ends up leapfrogging all of them (except maybe Lehtonen and Ovechkin) within a couple of years. I'm sure that we're not the only fans who feel one of our team's prospects got ridiculously short-changed.

Last edited by 007: 11-18-2004 at 04:00 AM.
007 is offline