Nashville has really done an incredible job of scouting Sweden. Hornqvist could almost be attributed to dumb luck as much as talent evaluation, but when a team has a group of prospects like Ekholm, Lindback, Hellberg, Cehlin, and Karlsson, that's a bang-up job of scouting. I would assume Janne Kekalainen is due a good chunk of the credit for that.
Okay, wasn't sure how they divvied up responsibilities. Figured Kekalainen had Scandinavia, Bergman had Central Europe, and Bakula scouted Eastern Europe.
I appreciate the reply, but can we honestly say that Craig smiths ceiling is what he is on pace for in his rookie year, on a defensively minded team, with a defensive coach who is notoriously rough with rookies, and who has made a jump straight from NCAA to the NHL? I find that hard to accept especially given his play at last years world championship. Further isn't this a potential rating? Is Craig smiths max potential 50-60 points 2nd line forward? Again, it bears noting he is already on top line producing at that pace. *shrug* put this guy on Toronto or Detroit or Chicago or an equally big market and I severely doubt he grades out so harsh.
one thing to remember too, is that this is the first kid we begged to skip a college season and pretty much guarentee a spot on the nhl roster. Barry has to be nice to him.
To follow up my own post (and because I really want to rub this in), Rinne was actually a 6.0 C prospect.
As for the rankings themselves, I vehemently disagree with putting Latta ahead of Smith. Latta's AHL production is nice, but his scoring upside doesn't match Smith's. Smith has outstanding vision and puck skills that you simply cannot teach. I also disagree with the placement of Budish, who has lost two years of his development and been bypassed on the depth chart at Minnesota by several underclassmen. He has a lot left to prove. Geoffrion also should not be in the top ten. He has been projected as a productive third line player for most of his development curve, and this year has taken a serious step backwards. That doesn't strike me as a top ten prospect in many organizations, with the noted exception of Calgary, who never seem to have grasped the concept behind the draft.
I also would not have put Pickard in the top 20 at all, and probably not Roussel, either, certainly not ahead of Hellberg and Ekholm. Ekholm is the TOI leader for the #3 team in the Elitserien and might see his first WC duty with Sweden this spring, where Roussel is a mediocre over-ager in the Q. Ekholm has shown far more potential to this point and even got a taste of the NHL when Roussel couldn't even get himself an AHL job. That's pretty telling for a player's status within the organization. Pickard has been so utterly horrendous that he might not even get qualified this summer, and Hellberg is splitting starts on a mid-table Elitserien club and holding his own. He's only 22, but Pickard's upside has pretty much evaporated, where Hellberg is still developing and just now starting to hit his groove at 20.
Nashville has really done an incredible job of scouting Sweden. Hornqvist could almost be attributed to dumb luck as much as talent evaluation, but when a team has a group of prospects like Ekholm, Lindback, Hellberg, Cehlin, and Karlsson, that's a bang-up job of scouting. I would assume Janne Kekalainen is due a good chunk of the credit for that.
Rinne - As you can understand, I was not around when he received that grade.
Latta vs. C.Smith - I agree that Smith has more scoring upside. However, just like in the NHL players are valued by more than just goals, so are prospects. Latta does have a more well-rounded game in that he is excellent defensively and more physical than Smith. While Latta may not score as many goals as Smith, he can definitely put up more assists. It can definitely be argued who should be higher but I don't think having Latta ahead by 1 spot is a big deal.
To reply to another post about C.Smith...we cannot assume that he is going to hit 60 points this season. I believe he will end up with about 50 points.
Therefore, saying that his NHL upside is around 60 point, maybe a bit more, is not unrealistic. Some players reach their upside sooner than later. On a team like Nashville where the supporting cast is not exactly made up of Malkin and Crosby, that will also limit how many points C.Smith can put up each season.
Budish - I completely agree that he has a lot left to prove and I did allude to that in my article. However, his lack of production in the past was partially due to so many different injuries. He is finally healthy and producing at a point per game pace. I think that in terms of upside, he has more potential than most Predators forwards. It is very hard to find a power forward with his hands.
Geoffrion - He did rather well last season. I understand he has not fared as well this season but I have to look at the overall picture and not just at his 20 games this season. The reason why he is in the top 10 is because he does bring a lot of intangibles to the table and should still pan out as a good top 9 forward in the NHL.
Pickard - He has struggled for a few years now. You will notice that I did drop him from 11th to 14th. This is his make or break season probably. If he continues to struggle, yes, he will end up out of the top 20.
Roussel - Dropped from 6th to 12th. I'd say thats a pretty big drop. Players do rebound sometimes...more on that later in this post.
Ekholm - He does have good upside. The problem is that he was offered by the Preds to play in the AHL this season but refused. That makes me question his commitment to playing in N.America. It doesnt mean he wont be back...
Hellberg - While I really like his potential, he is still very young and unproven in terms of tournament play. Still, he is ranked the highest of any 2011 drafted player.
I just want to make a general comment on ranking prospects:
It is very instinctive of all of us to want to let's say drop a player like Pickard out of the top 20 due to his recent play or move C.Smith to #1 due to his recent play. However, we need to all keep in mind that prospects, like all humans, go through ups and downs. It's important to look at the whole picture therefore...past, present, future.
So that we are not so biased, lets use a prospect from another organization as an example: Jacob Markstrom.
Last season he was a rookie in the AHL and had some injuries,ending up with a 2.98 GAA and a .907 SV% in the AHL. That raised some doubts about his upside (there are a few articles on that). However, this season he is healthy and has a .928 SV% in the NHL and a .918 SV% in the AHL.
Last edited by Evgeny Oliker: 12-26-2011 at 10:03 AM.
Ekholm - He does have good upside. The problem is that he was offered by the Preds to play in the AHL this season but refused. That makes me question his commitment to playing in N.America. It doesnt mean he wont be back...
Let me just clarify. We, the Preds fans, were informed that there was a clause in the contract and that his Swedish team had the say in whether he stayed here or went back home. He didn't choose to go back instead of the AHL, his team made that choice for him. As I understand, that clause is over after this season. Next year he will be in NA one way or the other.
Let me just clarify. We, the Preds fans, were informed that there was a clause in the contract and that his Swedish team had the say in whether he stayed here or went back home. He didn't choose to go back instead of the AHL, his team made that choice for him. As I understand, that clause is over after this season. Next year he will be in NA one way or the other.
That isn't the way it works. He could have gone to the AHL had he chosen to, but he elected to return to Europe. I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure this is the situation. He could have stayed to work on his deficiencies, but decided to return home to work on his game on ice that doesn't help him here.
@Evgeny Oliker: Really appreciate you coming here and explaining the rankings. It really helps to understand what people considered when listing the players.
As for Ekholm, everything I remember reading indicated that he did not have a choice to stay in the AHL.
That isn't the way it works. He could have gone to the AHL had he chosen to, but he elected to return to Europe. I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure this is the situation. He could have stayed to work on his deficiencies, but decided to return home to work on his game on ice that doesn't help him here.
That's not what I heard, I heard that it was his team that made the decision and that he had mixed feelings about returning to Sweden. I'm not saying this is the case, but it is what I heard about the situation.
That isn't the way it works. He could have gone to the AHL had he chosen to, but he elected to return to Europe. I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure this is the situation. He could have stayed to work on his deficiencies, but decided to return home to work on his game on ice that doesn't help him here.
According to David Poile it was the way it worked. He had no choice.
@Evgeny Oliker: Really appreciate you coming here and explaining the rankings. It really helps to understand what people considered when listing the players.
As for Ekholm, everything I remember reading indicated that he did not have a choice to stay in the AHL.
This article talks about the situation in detail. The last few paragraphs of the article explain that he did have a choice.
I don't want to speculate too much and would rather stick to the facts , but from what Ekholm says in some of the quotes in that article, it seems that he had a decision to make and chose Brynas.
This article talks about the situation in detail. The last few paragraphs of the article explain that he did have a choice.
Sorry to disagree but the last few articles suggestthat he had a choice. On the other hand, this article http://admiralsroundtable.com/2011/1...attias-ekholm/ states he had no choice. It's based upon a statement by Paul Fenton.
Sorry to disagree but the last few articles suggestthat he had a choice. On the other hand, this article http://admiralsroundtable.com/2011/1...attias-ekholm/ states he had no choice. It's based upon a statement by Paul Fenton.
I would not argue with anything Paul Fenton says (had the pleasure to interview him)
I will however suggest that the situation could have been more complicated. Even if Brynas had the ability to refuse Ekholm's assignment to the AHL , there are ways to get around him going to Sweden. For instance, he could have stayed on as the 7th defenseman in Nashville. He could have also spoken to Brynas and asked them to do him the favor of letting him go to the AHL.
I'm again just speculating here. But from Ekholm's own remarks, it seems the situation was not as clear cut as it seems on the surface.
Last edited by Evgeny Oliker: 12-29-2011 at 11:21 PM.
No prob! It's a little code a mod has to update for buffaloed. I just submitted the new file, and it should be edited today probably.
As for the rankings....I'm still not familiar enough with the Preds prospects to pass judgement or failure, but I do think HF should consider changing its parameters on what it considers a prospect. I unsderstand Lindback hasn't played 45 games and isn't 24 yet, but he has spent a season and a half with the big club. I'd think that should mean someone's outside the prospect process at this point. It's pretty clear Lindback isn't being sent down.
Also, Evgeny, great article. there's only one thing I'll take exception to in your responses though. You said.....
Quote:
Top 3 forward - I agree with that, he is top 3 on the Predators(1st in points among their forwards!). However, its on the Predators. You are talking about a team who does not have a single forward with 10 goals yet. So on Chicago or Philly for example he would be only #5 among forwards in points
I hate it when people use this argument. Reason being, we don't know how Smith would produce under a different system. You can't really compatre a player's production in a defensive minded system like Nashville to what they might output (or their current output) in a different system. I'd dare say Smith would have more points in a more offensive minded system. Consider Rich Peverly, who couldn't produce under the Nashville system, but went on to post gaudy numbers with the more offensive minded systems in Atlanta and Boston. Or what about Braydon Coburn, who couldn't get anything done in Atlanta, but went on to be a significant contributor in Philly.
The article is good, and I respect you even more for dropping by to answer questions.
No prob! It's a little code a mod has to update for buffaloed. I just submitted the new file, and it should be edited today probably.
As for the rankings....I'm still not familiar enough with the Preds prospects to pass judgement or failure, but I do think HF should consider changing its parameters on what it considers a prospect. I unsderstand Lindback hasn't played 45 games and isn't 24 yet, but he has spent a season and a half with the big club. I'd think that should mean someone's outside the prospect process at this point. It's pretty clear Lindback isn't being sent down.
Also, Evgeny, great article. there's only one thing I'll take exception to in your responses though. You said.....
I hate it when people use this argument. Reason being, we don't know how Smith would produce under a different system. You can't really compatre a player's production in a defensive minded system like Nashville to what they might output (or their current output) in a different system. I'd dare say Smith would have more points in a more offensive minded system. Consider Rich Peverly, who couldn't produce under the Nashville system, but went on to post gaudy numbers with the more offensive minded systems in Atlanta and Boston. Or what about Braydon Coburn, who couldn't get anything done in Atlanta, but went on to be a significant contributor in Philly.
The article is good, and I respect you even more for dropping by to answer questions.
Brofist,
Thanks for the kind words!
HF prospect criteria - That is not up to me of course. However, it is hard to come up with an ideal criteria for a cut off point.
C.Smith - You are correct, we don't know how he would do on a different team, which goes hand in hand with my point. Going with that logic, we don't know if he would be 1st in points among forwards on a more offensive team like Philly(he is 1st in points among Nashville forwards). You can argue that he might produce more. But I can also argue that he would not produce more. In Nashville he a top 6 forward and getting around 15 minutes of ice time per game. In Philly I'm not sure if he would be a top 6 forward...they have Giroux, Hartnell, Jagr, Briere, Voracek, Read, Talbot(already 7 forwards) who all get over 16 minutes of ice time. How much you play and who you play with and how much PP time you receive does affect production...
We can argue about C.Smith for hours probably. What kind of point totals he finishes this season with will give us a better sense of what he is capable of. His second season will be crucial too.
craig smith has one goal in his last what, 20 games or so? I would say those who want him higher because of his hot start should at least acknowledge this fact
craig smith has one goal in his last what, 20 games or so? I would say those who want him higher because of his hot start should at least acknowledge this fact
ok, so if a guy misses an empty net and it ruins him for a quarter of a season it is ok? that is our top prospect? a guy who gets rattled that easily? I don't want to seem too negative toward the kid, but he is not the prospect with the highest ceiling in the org.
