HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Central Division > Winnipeg Jets
Notices

Jets 2011 Top-20 Prospects #1

View Poll Results: Jets 2011 Top-20 Prospects #1
Carl Klingberg - LW 9 15.00%
Paul Postma - D 3 5.00%
Mark Scheifele - C 38 63.33%
Patrice Cormier - C 4 6.67%
Arturs Kulda - D 1 1.67%
Spencer Machacek - RW 1 1.67%
Eric O'Dell - C 0 0%
Adam Lowry - LW 1 1.67%
Akim Aliu - RW 1 1.67%
Ivan Telegin - C 2 3.33%
Voters: 60. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-23-2011, 10:41 AM
  #1
DMaz16
@DMaz16
 
DMaz16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Edmonton, AB
Country: Canada
Posts: 403
vCash: 500
Jets 2011 Top-20 Prospects #1

Most forums have started one of these by now and I figure why not take a look at the future of Canada's newest team...

In addition to voting reply with who you think should be added next...

DMaz16 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-23-2011, 10:57 AM
  #2
Hank Chinaski
Mod Supervisor
 
Hank Chinaski's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,228
vCash: 264
Scheifele and Klingberg are the only blue-chip prospects we have left in the pipeline. Between the two I'd pick Scheifele, based solely on career potential.

It really depends what your criteria is though, are you talking who is closest to cracking the lineup? In that case, Postma would be #1.

Hank Chinaski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-23-2011, 12:11 PM
  #3
surixon
Registered User
 
surixon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,052
vCash: 500
Scheifele for me, he's the only prospect we have with top line potential!

surixon is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-23-2011, 12:16 PM
  #4
DMaz16
@DMaz16
 
DMaz16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Edmonton, AB
Country: Canada
Posts: 403
vCash: 500
Don't forget to tell me which prospect should be added to the poll next

DMaz16 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-23-2011, 12:38 PM
  #5
DWD
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 78
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski View Post
Scheifele and Klingberg are the only blue-chip prospects we have left in the pipeline. Between the two I'd pick Scheifele, based solely on career potential.

It really depends what your criteria is though, are you talking who is closest to cracking the lineup? In that case, Postma would be #1.
Just to keep it clear, I think we should use potential as the criteria.

DWD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-23-2011, 03:06 PM
  #6
DMaz16
@DMaz16
 
DMaz16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Edmonton, AB
Country: Canada
Posts: 403
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DWD View Post
Just to keep it clear, I think we should use potential as the criteria.
To each his own, it depends what you value. Is Klingberg better than Postma because he has the potential to be a top line guy or is Postma a better prospect than Klingberg because it appears almost certain that he will be an contributor in the NHL for some time. You Decide

DMaz16 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-23-2011, 03:13 PM
  #7
WJG
Running and Rioting
 
WJG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Country: Ireland
Posts: 12,736
vCash: 500
Schiefele has the most potential, but I have soft spots for Machacek, Maxwell and Postma.

WJG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-23-2011, 07:11 PM
  #8
mazmin
Go! Jets! Go!
 
mazmin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,832
vCash: 500
Add Redmond

mazmin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-23-2011, 07:11 PM
  #9
mazmin
Go! Jets! Go!
 
mazmin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,832
vCash: 500
...and add Gregoire too!

mazmin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-23-2011, 07:31 PM
  #10
Hank Chinaski
Mod Supervisor
 
Hank Chinaski's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,228
vCash: 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Momentum View Post
To each his own, it depends what you value. Is Klingberg better than Postma because he has the potential to be a top line guy or is Postma a better prospect than Klingberg because it appears almost certain that he will be an contributor in the NHL for some time. You Decide
Hate to be pedantic, but the examples you give are one and the same for the purpose I'm referring to. You can state guy A is a safe bet to be a long-term contributor at the NHL level, while guy B is more of a risk/reward player who will either be a top-6/top-4 fixture, or nothing at all. Both fall under the guise of "career potential".

What I'm talking about is the criteria of career potential vs. how close they are to contributing at the NHL level. For example, Spencer Machacek is much closer to regular NHL duty at this point than Scheifele. Should he therefore be ranked higher? That inevitably gets confused in these discussions.

Hank Chinaski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-23-2011, 08:06 PM
  #11
Jet
Moderator
Chevel-takesadayoff
 
Jet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: New Glasgow
Country: Scotland
Posts: 16,918
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski View Post
Hate to be pedantic, but the examples you give are one and the same for the purpose I'm referring to. You can state guy A is a safe bet to be a long-term contributor at the NHL level, while guy B is more of a risk/reward player who will either be a top-6/top-4 fixture, or nothing at all. Both fall under the guise of "career potential".

What I'm talking about is the criteria of career potential vs. how close they are to contributing at the NHL level. For example, Spencer Machacek is much closer to regular NHL duty at this point than Scheifele. Should he therefore be ranked higher? That inevitably gets confused in these discussions.
That's why I picked Machacek. Because even though Scheifele might have more upside, a lot can happen between now and when he is ready to turn pro.

A bird in the hand is worth 2 in the bush.

__________________
The Olympic Line
Jet is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-23-2011, 08:22 PM
  #12
AndersUlfBobby
Was there 35 yrs ago
 
AndersUlfBobby's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,700
vCash: 500
I'd have to say that Scheifele has the most potential out of the listed bunch. He's got real top-6 potential.

One guy you are probably going to have to add eventually is Brennan Serville. We don't see him with the Jets for probably 4 years, but I think when he's ready, he'll make a real impact.

AndersUlfBobby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-23-2011, 08:31 PM
  #13
ramrod1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 132
vCash: 500
Klingberg, saw him at wjc and he really impressed me before i even knew he was drafted by anyone.

add gregoire

ramrod1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-23-2011, 09:20 PM
  #14
Huffer
Registered User
 
Huffer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 9,064
vCash: 50
IMO prospects are ranked by Top Potential.

Huffer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-23-2011, 10:30 PM
  #15
Le Golie
...
 
Le Golie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,736
vCash: 500
Can someone here honestly say if they could only keep ONE of this organization's prospects it would be Spencer Machacek?

If so, please turn in your hfboards membership.

Any answer other than Shiefele is straight up wrong.

Le Golie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-24-2011, 03:26 AM
  #16
wpgsilver
HFBoards Sponsor
 
wpgsilver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,114
vCash: 700
Quote:
Originally Posted by Le Golie View Post
Can someone here honestly say if they could only keep ONE of this organization's prospects it would be Spencer Machacek?

If so, please turn in your hfboards membership.

Any answer other than Shiefele is straight up wrong.
I agree its Schiefele, but by no means is he a can't miss prospect. I personally think he will pan out into a top line center one day (which is why I think he's out top prospect) but a legit case can be made against him.

Either way I think our farm system depth is subpar, I really like Klingberg, Scheifele, and Telegin*, but a side from that there isn't much.

(* I have no clue if Telegin will pan out and turn into a contributer for us, but I think he has the potential to be a very solid NHL player)

wpgsilver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-24-2011, 10:24 AM
  #17
Le Golie
...
 
Le Golie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,736
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by wpgsilver View Post
I agree its Schiefele, but by no means is he a can't miss prospect. I personally think he will pan out into a top line center one day (which is why I think he's out top prospect) but a legit case can be made against him.

Either way I think our farm system depth is subpar, I really like Klingberg, Scheifele, and Telegin*, but a side from that there isn't much.

(* I have no clue if Telegin will pan out and turn into a contributer for us, but I think he has the potential to be a very solid NHL player)
He's definitely not a 'can't miss' but he's still the obvious top prospect in a pretty barren system.

As someone who spent the Jets dark years as an Islander fan, I can straight up say Jason Gregoire was in the 12-15 range in their depth chart two months ago and now he's probably a top 5/6 here - I saw someone saying he could be considered for #1.

I know the Jets will be building through the draft and I know that many of our top young players aren't prospects anymore because they are already NHL'ers, but its going to take a few years to stock the cupboards here and it this point, none of the guys we have challenge Shiefele.

Le Golie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-24-2011, 12:06 PM
  #18
surixon
Registered User
 
surixon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,052
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Le Golie View Post
He's definitely not a 'can't miss' but he's still the obvious top prospect in a pretty barren system.

As someone who spent the Jets dark years as an Islander fan, I can straight up say Jason Gregoire was in the 12-15 range in their depth chart two months ago and now he's probably a top 5/6 here - I saw someone saying he could be considered for #1.

I know the Jets will be building through the draft and I know that many of our top young players aren't prospects anymore because they are already NHL'ers, but its going to take a few years to stock the cupboards here and it this point, none of the guys we have challenge Shiefele.
Agree with everything you said, we have one legit blue chip prospect and a couple of guys who may turn into good 2way third liners for forwards and 2nd and third pair d-men. I really hope over the next few years we can follow Ottawa's lead and stock up our prospect depth like they have over the past couple of years.

surixon is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-24-2011, 12:31 PM
  #19
Jet
Moderator
Chevel-takesadayoff
 
Jet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: New Glasgow
Country: Scotland
Posts: 16,918
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Le Golie View Post
Can someone here honestly say if they could only keep ONE of this organization's prospects it would be Spencer Machacek?

If so, please turn in your hfboards membership.

Any answer other than Shiefele is straight up wrong.
Stuff like this always makes me laugh.

If we put Machacek up against Scheifele at the exact same point in their careers, you wouldn't be saying that.

Machacek scored 75 points in 70 games in his last season in the W and just barely missed top 10 in Dub scoring.

I know Scheifele outscored him in Barrie this past year but it's well known that defence is tougher in the WHL. There is a reason that people scoffed when we picked Mark over Couturier. He is more of a risk. He may never play in the NHL, whereas it's pretty much a given with his pro performance that Machacek WILL be an NHL'er in some respect.

I want to make it clear that I am not anti-Scheifele, and I support his pick, but to say I should turn in my HF Boards membership because I picked Spencer is foolhardy and nearsighted. I also think it's very predictive to say that Scheifele is going to end up being the best player out of ALL our prospects. There is a reason that some teams suck, and some don't - some scouts are better than others, but ALL of them swear by their picks.

We are dealing with humans here and real life, and lots can happen.

That's the hilarious thing about HF Boards. New prospects are always shinier than the older ones

Jet is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-24-2011, 01:07 PM
  #20
surixon
Registered User
 
surixon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,052
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jet228 View Post
Stuff like this always makes me laugh.

If we put Machacek up against Scheifele at the exact same point in their careers, you wouldn't be saying that.

Machacek scored 75 points in 70 games in his last season in the W and just barely missed top 10 in Dub scoring.

I know Scheifele outscored him in Barrie this past year but it's well known that defence is tougher in the WHL. There is a reason that people scoffed when we picked Mark over Couturier. He is more of a risk. He may never play in the NHL, whereas it's pretty much a given with his pro performance that Machacek WILL be an NHL'er in some respect.

I want to make it clear that I am not anti-Scheifele, and I support his pick, but to say I should turn in my HF Boards membership because I picked Spencer is foolhardy and nearsighted. I also think it's very predictive to say that Scheifele is going to end up being the best player out of ALL our prospects. There is a reason that some teams suck, and some don't - some scouts are better than others, but ALL of them swear by their picks.

We are dealing with humans here and real life, and lots can happen.

That's the hilarious thing about HF Boards. New prospects are always shinier than the older ones
Ummm, your comparing Machacek's 19 year old season with Scheifele's 17 year old season. Those 2 years make a massive difference in development, case in point Machecek's 17 year old junior year he scored 45 points in 70 games for a 0.64 ppg whereas Scheifele at the same age scored 75 points in 66 games for a 1.14 ppg. Its not even fair to compare the two, Mark almost doubled Spencer in PPG at the same age.

surixon is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-24-2011, 02:25 PM
  #21
Jet
Moderator
Chevel-takesadayoff
 
Jet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: New Glasgow
Country: Scotland
Posts: 16,918
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by surixon View Post
Ummm, your comparing Machacek's 19 year old season with Scheifele's 17 year old season. Those 2 years make a massive difference in development, case in point Machecek's 17 year old junior year he scored 45 points in 70 games for a 0.64 ppg whereas Scheifele at the same age scored 75 points in 66 games for a 1.14 ppg. Its not even fair to compare the two, Mark almost doubled Spencer in PPG at the same age.
I'm well aware that I am comparing the 17 year to the 19. Looking back at my post I probably should have eliminated the word exact to avoid confusion.

To me, the difference in production is bridged by the fact that Machacek has proven himself at the pro level, and we don't yet know if Sheifele will, nor do we know if he will continue his pace in junior (though he should)

I guess the point I was trying to make is, just because Sheifele looks good in junior doesn't mean when he gets to Machacek's point in his development, he will be as accomplished as Spencer.

Hockey is littered with Junior stars who couldn't handle pro. For Le Golie to say that it's obvious that Sheifele is our best prospect is being extremely short sighted.

Bottom line is, no matter how much everyone loves him, someone younger will come along next year, and everyone will call him our best prospect simply because he is younger and is lighting up junior.

Jet is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-24-2011, 02:33 PM
  #22
Le Golie
...
 
Le Golie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,736
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jet228 View Post
Stuff like this always makes me laugh.

If we put Machacek up against Scheifele at the exact same point in their careers, you wouldn't be saying that.

Machacek scored 75 points in 70 games in his last season in the W and just barely missed top 10 in Dub scoring.

I know Scheifele outscored him in Barrie this past year but it's well known that defence is tougher in the WHL. There is a reason that people scoffed when we picked Mark over Couturier. He is more of a risk. He may never play in the NHL, whereas it's pretty much a given with his pro performance that Machacek WILL be an NHL'er in some respect.

I want to make it clear that I am not anti-Scheifele, and I support his pick, but to say I should turn in my HF Boards membership because I picked Spencer is foolhardy and nearsighted. I also think it's very predictive to say that Scheifele is going to end up being the best player out of ALL our prospects. There is a reason that some teams suck, and some don't - some scouts are better than others, but ALL of them swear by their picks.

We are dealing with humans here and real life, and lots can happen.

That's the hilarious thing about HF Boards. New prospects are always shinier than the older ones
You really need to re-think they way you view hockey prospects. Seriously.

It's completely illogical to compare Machacek's 19 year old season against Schiefele's 17 year old season and then talk to me like it's comparing apples to apples. I can show you a list of older players you've never heard of that blew away Steven Stamkos in scoring in his draft year. Any scout who would have argued Justin Azevedo, Brett McLean or Luca Caputi were better prospects than Stamkos would have been committed to an institution.

You say "If we put Machacek up against Scheifele at the exact same point in their careers, you wouldn't be saying that."... huh? This comparison completely supports my opinion. Completely.

I look at where they were at the exact same point in their careers, and I see a rookie in the OHL putting up well over a point per game on the worst team in junior hockey, who is a consensus first round pick in his draft class because of his obvious upside.

Then I see a sophomore player scoring well under a point per game on the best team in junior hockey (Mem Cup champs), who is a consensus late second early third round pick, and who ultimately went in the third round because of his obviously limited upside.

I will state beyond a shadow of a doubt that if given the choice, not one professional hockey scout would advocate taking Machacek over Schiefele if their organization was only able to have one of the two. That's just not a realistic opinion for anyone who gets paid to evaluate hockey prospects.

Does that mean Schiefele will be a better player? Absolutely not. I never said it does. I'm saying that as hockey prospects, Mark Shiefele is light years ahead of Machacek. How they use their potential remains to be seen but it's not a fair fight when you view them as hockey prospects.

Le Golie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-24-2011, 02:40 PM
  #23
Le Golie
...
 
Le Golie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,736
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jet228 View Post
Bottom line is, no matter how much everyone loves him, someone younger will come along next year, and everyone will call him our best prospect simply because he is younger and is lighting up junior.
It's absolutely untrue to speculate that. If the Jets burn out and end up with another top 5 pick, there's a very, very good chance the player they select will be a better prospect than Mark Schiefele. Players like Nail Yakupov, Ryan Murray, Griffin Reinhart and Mikhail Grigorenko are clearly better prospects than Schiefele at this point and if we get one of them, they will rightfully overtake Schiefele as our top pick unless he develops tremendously this season.

If the Jets end up with a pick in the 20-25 range, it's very unlikely they will get a player who would be considered ahead of Schiefele unless he regresses tremendously this season.

Le Golie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-24-2011, 02:49 PM
  #24
Hank Chinaski
Mod Supervisor
 
Hank Chinaski's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,228
vCash: 264
I get what you're saying Le Golie, but just to play devil's advocate here; at this time in 2005, if you were going strictly based on potential, Alex Bourret would've easily ranked ahead of Jim Slater. Now, of course, it's a laughable comparison.

For the record, I'm of the mindset that organizational rankings should be based strictly on potential.

Hank Chinaski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-24-2011, 03:05 PM
  #25
Jet
Moderator
Chevel-takesadayoff
 
Jet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: New Glasgow
Country: Scotland
Posts: 16,918
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Le Golie View Post
You really need to re-think they way you view hockey prospects. Seriously.

It's completely illogical to compare Machacek's 19 year old season against Schiefele's 17 year old season and then talk to me like it's comparing apples to apples. I can show you a list of older players you've never heard of that blew away Steven Stamkos in scoring in his draft year. Any scout who would have argued Justin Azevedo, Brett McLean or Luca Caputi were better prospects than Stamkos would have been committed to an institution.

You say "If we put Machacek up against Scheifele at the exact same point in their careers, you wouldn't be saying that."... huh? This comparison completely supports my opinion. Completely.

I look at where they were at the exact same point in their careers, and I see a rookie in the OHL putting up well over a point per game on the worst team in junior hockey, who is a consensus first round pick in his draft class because of his obvious upside.

Then I see a sophomore player scoring well under a point per game on the best team in junior hockey (Mem Cup champs), who is a consensus late second early third round pick, and who ultimately went in the third round because of his obviously limited upside.

I will state beyond a shadow of a doubt that if given the choice, not one professional hockey scout would advocate taking Machacek over Schiefele if their organization was only able to have one of the two. That's just not a realistic opinion for anyone who gets paid to evaluate hockey prospects.

Does that mean Schiefele will be a better player? Absolutely not. I never said it does. I'm saying that as hockey prospects, Mark Shiefele is light years ahead of Machacek. How they use their potential remains to be seen but it's not a fair fight when you view them as hockey prospects.
I addressed my error in the term 'exact' in my response to surixon.

The question was best prospect. I put a lot of weight on the likelyhood of a player being an NHL'er in considering who the best prospect is. Machacek is, in my opinion, the prospect most likely at this point to be a meaningful NHL'er. There are a lot of question marks with Sheifele. I disagree with your assertion that no one would take Machacek over Sheifele.

Let's say we were prospecting for gold. Machacek would be a nugget of gold that is just below the surface. You can see it, and easily mine it. Sheifele is a potential bar of gold buried even deeper. You may never be able to unearth him but if you did, it would be a bigger score.

Some prospectors would gamble and go for the bar, knowing they may never mine that gold, and some would go for the sure thing.

It is the way we are looking at prospects that is different. I am not trying to tell you that your way is wrong, but you are trying to tell me I am. That's the difference here.

Either way, I think I will just stay off these threads, as I know how passionate the prospect crew on HF is.

Jet is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:26 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.