Ranking Prospects Post-Matthews

[TBLeafer]

When Pronman does his annual prospect rankings (who quite frankly I find more credible than anyone on PPP) does he include full time NHL'ers? 

Does McDavid still show up?  No.  No he does not.

PPP.

Wasn't.

Ranking.

Prospects.

You admittedly never clicked on the link. Had you done so you might have known that.

I've clicked on those PPP lists in previous seasons, I know what I was avoiding and why I created a true PROSPECT list in a PROSPECT RANKING thread to begin with.

No offence intended.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

I've clicked on those PPP lists in previous seasons, I know what I was avoiding and why I created a true PROSPECT list in a PROSPECT RANKING thread to begin with.

No offence intended.

This thread doesn't have any ironclad rules defining it. Last years edition of PPP's T25U25 was discussed at the beginning of it. While it's not a prospect ranking per se, it does include most of them so it's not forbidden to discuss here.

(on that note I split this off from last years thread so there's really no point in not having it by itself)

All in all, this was a pretty silly thing to get worked up about, but that's what happens when we don't have a Stamkos thread to unload on.

 

[Highlander]

Hockey Lives Matter!!!

 

[Bender]

There is nothing wrong with my criteria because I've qualified it, before I created the list.

Like I said, because it arbitrarily narrows the scope of what's being discussed I think it creates a less extensive answer to the fundamental question which is the overall strength(and effective depth chart) of the organizational pool of young players.

Nah, quite frankly, you're just being a dick.

When Pronman does his annual prospect rankings (who quite frankly I find more credible than anyone on PPP) does he include full time NHL'ers? 

Does McDavid still show up?  No.  No he does not.

Wow, resorting to name calling... classy.  Seriously though, herman brought up the PPP T25U25 and you responded to that by changing the parameters.  Kudos for sticking to your guns, but you've basically stolen the topic from talking about the T25U25 into a discussion of what YOU care about.  I say we just ignore you and just move on to talking about the T25U25.

Which I invited anyone to do.  I think a T 25 U 25 belongs in the main section because it includes full time NHL'ers.

I don't think its fair to rank an unproven prospect against a full time NHL'er and yes name calling because all Nik and Busta have tried to do is discredit my list since I created it using a perfectly accepted industry model.  Multiple posters now (RL and BF) have had no problem discussing my list upon qualifying my criteria.

Neither Nik or Busta created legitimate lists but had no problem trying to paint mine as invalid when it comes to ranking prospects even though it is the very model the ENTIRE NHL uses.

But I guess here the PPP is more credible because in their list it allows for all players in the system under 25, that pitts prospects against full time NHL'ers.

It pits players of a certain age bracket against each other. If that's the intention of the list how is that list considered a non-credible list? Like I said before, sometimes prospect lists are terrible because you have players "graduating" at 20 and the depth of youth in the organization is then considered bad, when in reality that team could have the best pool of young players because, you know, they're GOOD players playing in the league at 19 or 20. I think Auston Matthews is far more valuable than someone like Frederik Gauthier today, and he will still be far more valuable come October when Matthews is playing full time for the Leafs at 18 and Gauthier is a possible career AHLer. But you know, he makes the list!

 

[TBLeafer]

I've clicked on those PPP lists in previous seasons, I know what I was avoiding and why I created a true PROSPECT list in a PROSPECT RANKING thread to begin with.

No offence intended.

This thread doesn't have any ironclad rules defining it. Last years edition of PPP's T25U25 was discussed at the beginning of it. While it's not a prospect ranking per se, it does include most of them so it's not forbidden to discuss here.

(on that note I split this off from last years thread so there's really no point in not having it by itself)

All in all, this was a pretty silly thing to get worked up about, but that's what happens when we don't have a Stamkos thread to unload on.

LOL, too true.  ;D

3 pages to discuss the validity of the prospect list I chose to create that included only prospects....  :

 

[TBLeafer]

There is nothing wrong with my criteria because I've qualified it, before I created the list.

Like I said, because it arbitrarily narrows the scope of what's being discussed I think it creates a less extensive answer to the fundamental question which is the overall strength(and effective depth chart) of the organizational pool of young players.

Nah, quite frankly, you're just being a dick.

When Pronman does his annual prospect rankings (who quite frankly I find more credible than anyone on PPP) does he include full time NHL'ers? 

Does McDavid still show up?  No.  No he does not.

Wow, resorting to name calling... classy.  Seriously though, herman brought up the PPP T25U25 and you responded to that by changing the parameters.  Kudos for sticking to your guns, but you've basically stolen the topic from talking about the T25U25 into a discussion of what YOU care about.  I say we just ignore you and just move on to talking about the T25U25.

Which I invited anyone to do.  I think a T 25 U 25 belongs in the main section because it includes full time NHL'ers.

I don't think its fair to rank an unproven prospect against a full time NHL'er and yes name calling because all Nik and Busta have tried to do is discredit my list since I created it using a perfectly accepted industry model.  Multiple posters now (RL and BF) have had no problem discussing my list upon qualifying my criteria.

Neither Nik or Busta created legitimate lists but had no problem trying to paint mine as invalid when it comes to ranking prospects even though it is the very model the ENTIRE NHL uses.

But I guess here the PPP is more credible because in their list it allows for all players in the system under 25, that pitts prospects against full time NHL'ers.

It pits players of a certain age bracket against each other. If that's the intention of the list how is that list considered a non-credible list? Like I said before, sometimes prospect lists are terrible because you have players "graduating" at 20 and the depth of youth in the organization is then considered bad, when in reality that team could have the best pool of young players because, you know, they're GOOD players playing in the league at 19 or 20. I think Auston Matthews is far more valuable than someone like Frederik Gauthier today, and he will still be far more valuable come October when Matthews is playing full time for the Leafs at 18 and Gauthier is a possible career AHLer. But you know, he makes the list!

Okay so the PPP list is a young players list, instead of a prospect list.  Glad we cleared that up. 

 

[herman]

This thread doesn't have any ironclad rules defining it. Last years edition of PPP's T25U25 was discussed at the beginning of it. While it's not a prospect ranking per se, it does include most of them so it's not forbidden to discuss here.

(on that note I split this off from last years thread so there's really no point in not having it by itself)

Thanks for the spin off, CtB.

I've updated the first post now to keep the running tally with a comparison to last year's result.

 

[Bender]

I've clicked on those PPP lists in previous seasons, I know what I was avoiding and why I created a true PROSPECT list in a PROSPECT RANKING thread to begin with.

No offence intended.

This thread doesn't have any ironclad rules defining it. Last years edition of PPP's T25U25 was discussed at the beginning of it. While it's not a prospect ranking per se, it does include most of them so it's not forbidden to discuss here.

(on that note I split this off from last years thread so there's really no point in not having it by itself)

All in all, this was a pretty silly thing to get worked up about, but that's what happens when we don't have a Stamkos thread to unload on.

LOL, too true.  ;D

3 pages to discuss the validity of the prospect list I chose to create that included only prospects....  :

: Indeed

 

[herman]

Top 60 Prospects (modified Calder rules), per Scott Wheeler
http://www.pensionplanpuppets.com/2016/7/20/12212480/2016-top-60-drafted-nhl-prospects-ranking

Eligibility

Most drafted NHL prospect rankings use Calder Memorial Trophy criteria to dictate who is eligible to be ranked and who isn't. Calder eligibility is currently dictated by a number of criteria. First, the player must be under 26 years old by September 15 of their rookie season. Second, the player must not have played more than 25 games in a single season or six or more games in two separate preceding seasons.

While I will use the latter to dictate eligibility, I have amended the age for the former. Because we know that a player is no longer a prospect at age 26, and the average NHL player begins to decline between the age of 26 and 30, the criteria for this ranking will dictate that a player must be 24 years old or younger by the start of his rookie season.

The only ones that matter:
1. Auston Matthews
4. William Nylander
6. Mitch Marner

The Leafs have the most players in the top 10 at 3, but they only have that many players on this (objectively subjective) list in its entirety. Arizona is sporting 7!

 

[TBLeafer]

Top 60 Prospects (modified Calder rules), per Scott Wheeler
http://www.pensionplanpuppets.com/2016/7/20/12212480/2016-top-60-drafted-nhl-prospects-ranking

Eligibility

Most drafted NHL prospect rankings use Calder Memorial Trophy criteria to dictate who is eligible to be ranked and who isn't. Calder eligibility is currently dictated by a number of criteria. First, the player must be under 26 years old by September 15 of their rookie season. Second, the player must not have played more than 25 games in a single season or six or more games in two separate preceding seasons.

While I will use the latter to dictate eligibility, I have amended the age for the former. Because we know that a player is no longer a prospect at age 26, and the average NHL player begins to decline between the age of 26 and 30, the criteria for this ranking will dictate that a player must be 24 years old or younger by the start of his rookie season.

The only ones that matter:
1. Auston Matthews
4. William Nylander
6. Mitch Marner

The Leafs have the most players in the top 10 at 3, but they only have that many players on this (objectively subjective) list in its entirety. Arizona is sporting 7!

Yet he has Jimmy Vesey on his list while leaving C. Brown and Zaitsev off.  Those two could easily factor into that top 60, IMO.

 

[herman]

William Nylander has been having an NHL summer on Instagram.

 

[TBLeafer]

William Nylander has been having an NHL summer on Instagram.

Schwartzenegger legs?

 

[herman]

TLN is doing a Top 20 list (Calder-eligible) starting today. PPP's T25U25 kicks off today as well.

OP has been updated with the list and links.

PPP: 25 - Yegor Korshkov
TLN: 20 - Garret Sparks

 

[herman]

PPP: 24. Martins Dzierkals
TLN: 19. Kasmir Kaskisuo

 

[herman]

Dzierkals sounds a bit like Soshnikov, with a more East-West game and a bit more snarl vs pestiness.

 

[herman]

PPP: 23. Carl Grundstrom
TLN: 18. Adam Brooks

This is normally the boring part of the list, where those long-term projects are shelved. To an extent, they still are, but they seem to have higher potential this time around than years past.

Not 100% sure what TLN is doing with their list though.

 

[herman]

PPP: 22. Andrew Neilsen
TLN: 17. Yegor Korshkov

 

[herman]

PPP: 21. Rinat Valiev
TLN: 16. Tobias Lindberg

I really like Valiev's speed and handling abilities; coupled with his size, I think he can top out as the 'defensive conscience' of a middle pairing. Offensive game could stand to grow more, as he has a pretty good shot that he just doesn't seem to want to use.

Lindberg was a bit underwhelming in his brief stint with the Marlies. Now that he's out of the Binghamton system (that didn't even work on skating), we might see some gains in his game, as he has a projectable frame and has shown flashes of talent. I kind of hope he becomes the Carl Gunnarson of the forwards.

 

[WhatIfGodWasALeaf]

A good Q&A with Carl Grundstrom:

http://www.pensionplanpuppets.com/2016/8/12/12452200/carl-grundstrom-i-choose-frolunda-because-they-were-the-champions

PB: What is your weight now, as I am sure you built up a bit extra during the summer?

CG: I weigh about 194 lbs, I gained a bit since last season.

PB: How was it being drafted by Toronto, a true classic team, and a crazy [I think you mean 'excellent', Patrik! -- Acha] hockey town?

CG: It was great fun, I was there for development camp I got a great impression of the team. They are very professional.

PB: Have they spoken to you about what you need to develop further in your game?

CG: We didn't speak about it that much, no.

PB: Do you have an idea about the other prospects in the Toronto system?

CG: Nah not really to be honest, I know Nylander and Matthews obviously but those are the ones I know, I just enjoy watching good hockey so that's what I do.

An interesting note on his contract at the end there, we likely won't see him on NA ice for at least two more years.

Grundstr?m's contract is for two years, and he was drafted outside the first round. Just like Mattias Janmark and Artturi Lehkonen, this means as he has a valid contract with a European team. He can't go to AHL while that is in effect, according to the CBA. After this season, he can play for either Toronto Maple Leafs or Fr?lunda HC.

 

[Highlander]

two to three years sounds good.