The Devils future looks much better than the Flyers future...It's fair to say that the Devils will be a great team in 5-6 years, the same CANNOT be said for the Flyers, yet. The Flyers have one of the worst organizational depth in the league (HF rated the Flyers 27th, and the Devils 4th) and with a core team well into their 30's, the Flyers have but a handful of players in their 20's on the roster right now (Esche, Gagne, Handzus, Somik, Markov, Johnsson, Pitkanen, Sharp). On that list there are NO first liners, and hopefully 1 top pair defensman on that list.
I checked the organization ranking summaries, just because I was curious, and I really have a hard time deciphering what prompted the author(s) to rank New Jersey fourth and the Flyers 27th. From where I'm sitting, the listed players are nearly identical in terms of upside. In addition, Eager - whom you mentioned in your post but I didn't include in the reply - and Ruzicka aren't included on the Flyers' list. The book is just about always out on prospects, but it seems that the list is derived from a little bit of first-hand knowledge and a whole lot of heresay - which is to be expected with 18- and 19-year old people. Plus, that list too readily discounts the addition of players not drafted or groomed from within the organization. In essence, it assesses a team's future in a vacuum, and the game on the ice isn't played in a vacuum (work with me here) - the perceived value of a prospect now isn't easy to quantify to success later. It's an interesting exercise, but it lacks only the merit of being provable.
From a managerial and scouting point of view, it's part skill and part chance when you're dealing with teenagers. I'm still waiting for the scouting report that reads "this guy really sucks." Everytime I read a scouting report, I think I'm being set up on a blind date, and it always seems it's with Brooke Burke.
My post had nothing to do with depth, I'm clearly pointing out that Parise and Carter will likely be the gems on their respected teams in the future.
Originally Posted by Teezax
i don't think so either, but since both teams' futures will rely on the play of Parise and Carter, it would be nice to see them square off earlier than expected.
'gems of the future' and 'both teams futures will rely on the play of Parise and Carter' are two completely different arguements. I understand if thats what you mean (I think Richards will be better). 'Gems of the future' is a beleiveable arguement. You should have said that the first time