View Single Post
Old
04-18-2013, 03:18 PM
  #14
Leslie Treff
HFB Partner
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 1,346
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nyr2k2 View Post
Some interesting (if relatively minor) movement on grades:

Ceresnak from a 6.0 D to a 6.0 C. I'm surprised, since he looked pretty crappy to me this year. His stock didn't improve at all in my eyes. Noreau stayed flat at a 6.0 C. That's an inconsistency, I think, as Noreau actually showed improvement.

Lindberg stays at a 6.5 C. I feel like he deserves a B, if not the rare A rating. Other than maybe JT Miller, I feel like he's the most "sure thing" prospect we have in the system.

How on earth did Kyle Jean move from a 6.5 D to a 6.5 C? The guy had like 10 points his last 60 games or whatever. He was invisible. What caused his stock to go up in your eyes, Leslie?

I also think one could easily make the case for Talbot having a 7.0 rating (journeyman #1 goaltender in HF's system). He has continued to develop his skills and really has been the only constant on an up-and-down Hartford team.

Of course, I'm only mentioning the things I disagree with. In general, I think the list is solid (as usual). Thanks, Leslie.
Thanks to everyone for their comments thus far.

First, our prospect criteria only includes players with up to 65 games in the NHL. Therefore, neither Moore nor Palmieri, both of whom would otherwise be on the list, appear in the article.

Also, the letter grade--it indicates our current feeling of whether the player will reach potential and how far off they are currently (so the probability of success). So, a 6.0 we see as a third line forward or a third pairing D-man. A movement of letter does not mean a player has improved--what it means is that there is a change in where HF believes that a player will wind up.

Right now, I believe that both Ceresnak and Noreau are unlikely to have long NHL careers, but most likely will be good minor league blueliners. So, its not strictly about how each has improved--its about where they are likely to wind up, whether they are signed to an ELC or not. Which goes for the list too. So a player with high potential, but is really not doing well and may not even be signed, may appear higher on the list than someone who will be signed but has a lower upside.

As for a couple of specific players--Jean, he was not used to the longer season and got burned out early. I do believe that he will bounce back--we did not move his letter up because he improved his play during the season--we just had a better feel for where he will wind up.

Stajcer lost pretty much a full season of hockey, so while his age is close to the same as Missiaen, he is behind in development. We think that they are very close and because Stajcer lost time in development, I made the decision to put him in the top 20.

Lindberg, who I saw play in person this season, is an interesting case and I am stumped as to why folks who have not seen him play in person are showing consternation. We have him as a top 9 player--somewhere between a second and third line forward. Just like we still think that Hagelin is mostly a defensive player (who can sometimes generate offense and puts up some numbers), Lindberg is not expected to be a big offensive producer in the NHL. Arguably, he could be a "B", which would move him up on the list, but I am surprised that some on these boards think of Lindberg as a more offensive player.

Lastly, you should know, and most around here do, that I have seen all of these prospects in person at least once this season and most many times more than that.

Leslie Treff is offline   Reply With Quote