Calgarypuck Prospect Ranking - 2015

[Bingo]

As promised a summary of Calgarypuck voting for prospects in summer 2015

http://www.calgarypuck.com/2015/08/2015-summer-prospect-rankings-summary/

Includes:
- a new category of story types called Prospects to make it easier to find (will migrate past results into this category as well)
- cleaner table with links to each poll and run off
- a top five list
- movers and shakers
- graduates
- moving on

and two questions

1) Maginot line - where is the line in the list between actual prospect and filler?
2) IBM line - where does blue chipper meet just good prospect?

I'll poll the first.

Read and enjoy! Thanks to all for helping out.

[Enoch Root]

My first thought was also 17, but I changed it to 21

[Bingo]

My first thought was also 17, but I changed it to 21

that's interesting that you picked the same number. I did the same but then went back to my first instinct.

[AC]

Yep I have to agree with 17 actually.

I like Agostino but I'm not confident he'll get another serious look at the NHL.

[Brad Marsh]

That 2009 prospect list is a stark reminder that the majority of prospects just simply aren't going to make it.

There is no doubt that the 2015 prospect pool is legitimately deeper and better than it was on 2009 (I hope!), but still I think both of these lines should be on the conservative side of the spectrum.

I went 13 on the Maginot line. There are a couple of really interesting players after 13 for sure, but for me that's the point where I really start to feel more suspect about the prospects. Agree with Bingo on the IBM line at #3.

[Jay Random]

Looking at the list, I'm a bit surprised Agostino was rated so high. I voted 17, but I gave serious thought to 21 because Kulak, Rafikov, and Mangiapane all look like they have possibilities.

Which raises another point: ‘Maginot Line’ is a cute name, but not really all that applicable. The line is rather fuzzy and porous, and you can only draw it clearly if you believe that the poll delivered the best possible result in every round, and everybody was voting based on the same criteria. Those are a couple of pretty large assumptions.

One way in which the Maginot Line moniker is appropriate: If you want to invade the Calgary Flames, all you have to do is go around. I guess this makes Josh Jooris a panzer division?

[Bingo]

One way in which the Maginot Line moniker is appropriate: If you want to invade the Calgary Flames, all you have to do is go around. I guess this makes Josh Jooris a panzer division?

I weant by the word fortify popping up in maginot definitions. The team is on the ice, but the fortification is from the next line of players adding to the front.

Reaching? yep

[PugnaciousIntern]

By 'actual prospect', I'm interpreting it as a reasonable chance to establish themselves as full time, regular NHLers. I'm sure plenty on this list do have that chance, and I hate 'writing off' so many kids when there are almost certainly a few players below my line that will make it, but statistically, not that many prospects ever really make it. If we were to look back on this list in a decade, I'd be shocked if more than 7 made it, and thus I selected the seven best prospects to be above my line. I hope I'm wrong

[FBI]

Maginot line 18, I think agostino might make it.

Ibm line at least 4, I think Ferland will be a beast. Maybe even 7 but I am pretty pro jankowski.

[Enoch Root]

I had the IBM line at either 7 or 10 - and even at that, I had a hard time cutting off Wotherspoon.

[jg13]

21 for me.

I had Mangiapane at 18 and think he's a legit prospect due to his upside.

IBM currently at 7

[GranteedEV]

IBM Line - I can only see Bennett as a only true "Blue Chipper". So 2 and under are all just "good" prospects - still think our prospect pool is awesome though, and Blue Chippers are overrated anyways.

Maginot line - In terms of Top 6 F / Top 4 D / #1 G potential, probably 13, with a few potential stragglers (Culkin/Kulak/Mangiapane/Rafikov).

In terms of just replacement level NHLer potential, I would cut off at Turner Elson personally #29, but since a few of those above him (Sieloff/Maatson/Kharnaukov/Smith/Kanzig) are suspects to me, I'd probably cut off at about Mangiapane. so 22 and under (plus Smith, the 20 year old who just looks really awkward offensively to me).

I do think Hathaway and Caroll are legigitmate prospects though, but the dropoff in my eyes from Mangiapane to Hathaway was pretty significant. That might have more to do with Mangiapane being way too low at 21 than Hathaway being a suspect.

[MJK]

That Monster Hunter Smith is the cut off, #17 it is.

[Bingo]

I have Bennett as the only guaranteed blue chip prospect as well ... but a case can be made for Poirier (number one pick, advancing through our polls and on other team's radars) and Gillies (what else can a goaltender do as a prospect) so I picked three.

Having said that I think Ortio is pretty similar to Gillies.

[GranteedEV]

but a case can be made for Poirier

If you look at Poirier's actual goal scoring and NHLe, they project out to a third liner right now (which is fine, let him develop). He's a great prospect, especially at his age, but I wouldn't call him a blue chipper. We're not even sure yet if he can be a 20 goal scorer at the NHL level as a forward IMHO.

Gillies (what else can a goaltender do as a prospect) so I picked three.

Well, he could have improved his save percentage over three years and actually led the NCAA(like Winnipeg's guy from the same draft year did).

He could have had a better showing for team USA (like WInnipeg's guy did)

He could have turned pro by now and had a decent pro season (... like Winnipeg's guy did)

He could have looked clearly better than the two-years-younger McDonald during dev camp, but I'm not sure he did.

Those are four reasons why I wouldn't call Gillies a blue chipper. If you look at true blue chip goaltenders throughout the NHL he's still tier below.

[Bingo]

^can't disagree ... not a moniker I want to give out easily as well (though I think a 20 goal guy if he is one, would be a blue chipper given scoring these days).

Weighted average maginot result so far is 17.06

[SuperMatt18]

I put it at 19 (think Agostino is good, and Kulak still has a shot) but really think that you could go as far as 25 (Kanzig) and I would be fine with it.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Maginot line is #16, Culkin. I don't think there's any real sustainable NHL potential in anyone below that line, except for a couple that really didn't deserve to be ranked so low.

"Blue Chip" to me means can't miss NHL prospect. Someone who will have to have things go terribly wrong to not make the NHL in a regular capacity. For those reason, my IBM line is #6 Jankowski. I almost included Hickey, but he still has a lot to prove before I include him as a "Blue chipper".

[GranteedEV]

(I think a 20 goal guy if he is one, would be a blue chipper given scoring these days).

Agreed, if he's a 20 goal guy then he's probably a blue chipper.

So far his NHLe Goal Scoring though:

Draft-1 Year (Age 17) - 4.8
Draft Year (Age 18) - 10.5
Draft+1 Year (Age 19) - 14.6
Draft+2 Year (Age 20) - 13.3

So far even his NHLe has yet to hit 20 goal status. Gaudreau in comparision, was at 12.9G as an 18YO, 16G as a 19 YO and 24G as a 20 YO (and then scored 24 NHL goals as a 21 YO). Mangiapane also dropped a very high 15.6 goal / 22 assist NHLe as an 18 year old last year

[Yamer]

18 because it allows one of those 4-5 in that close proximal range to be included.

IBM I would say is 12.

[Benched]

1 - Blue Chip
8 - Actual Prospect Line
9-17 - Wildcard Prospect
18+ - Long shot Prospect

I'd like to think our pool is deep and stacked, but history teaches us that most of these guys won't have any sort of impactful NHL careers.

[bubbsy]

Maginot line for me was 15, but i'm just not as high on Smith as others.

As the poster above, breakdown for me is:
1 - Blue chip
2-7 Solid if unspectacular prospects (will make it to the show question is if they're good enough to be real contributors)
8-15 wildcard prospects (50/50 if they ever make the jump to the NHL and stick)
16+ Long shots, hoping there's some Jooris' or better in there.

[Crumpy-Gunt]

Agree about 17 being the maginot. But I think the IBM is tough to judge from this list. Imo jankowski hickey macdonald klimchuk kylington and Anderssen could all be or become blue chip prospects. Arguments to be made for them all being or potentially becoming blue chip prospects in this organisation. I've always believed klimchuk is the most underrated prospect we have closely followed by Bill Arnold.

[RobbieT]

I would like to see teams that were considered extremely deep and what they ended up at. I think that 17 is pretty high, and I love our prospect pool, and think that we have some very legitimate NHLers to come, but I cautiously went with 12. Would LOVE to be proved wrong...

[Jay Random]

Saying we have 17 legitimate prospects is not the same as saying 17 of our prospects will become regular NHLers. It's saying that we have 17 who have a shot. Some will develop into NHLers, some won't, but at this point you cannot possibly tell which of the 17 will bust.

[tvp2003]

I also agree with 17. Anyone above that line who tanks would be a disappointment. Anyone who makes it below that line would be considered found money.

I'm bullish on Ferland so my IBM line is at 4. Even if he doesn't reach his ceiling as a top six power forward, he has the tools to be a solid third liner or at worst a really good fourth liner.

[SweepToTheCup]

Great concept/analysis/article/site. Perhaps not entirely the point of the thread but worth noting that the Flames essentially acquired a graduated blue chip prospect at the expense of a 1st and two 2nds. Keeping them would have added a 5/6ish, and two 11 - 13's (subjective). Obviously still worth it, but important to bear in mind the list likely understates how much our future has improved.

[JiriHrdina]

I set the maginot line pretty high at 12. Perhaps I'm sand-bagging a bit, but I really believe that even with a great prospect pool, more guys end up busting then make it.
For me there is a fundamental drop off from McDonald to Andersson in terms of the likelihood they make it. Everyone from McDonald above, I classify as it being very disappointing if they don't make it. Kylington is the exception here but he is such an odd player to evaluate because of the immense upside but significant risk.

At Andersson and below I think the probability of success starts to drop significantly.

When I look at the group from 13-17
13 Rasmus Andersson
14 Bill Arnold
15 Kenny Morrison
16 Ryan Culkin
17 Hunter Smith
18 Kenny Agostino

That's 6 guys. I think, realistically 2 of them become regular NHLers. If 3 of them make it - that will be great. 4 would be amazing.

And after Agostino I think the probabilities drop again in a big waty.

Just the way I see it. Really I have no clue.

[FlameZilla]

Guys like Jooris, Bouma & Ferland are examples of why there is no 'maginot line' on these surveys. Once-promising prospects bust all the time & 'no-talent character plugs' sometimes exceed all expectations.

I like the looks of prospects 1 to 20 more than the ones listed afterwards, though there are some promising players in the later ranks.

If I had to predict who the next Jooris would be I would put my money on Garnet Hathaway or Austin Carroll. Late bloomers but they have some serious talent.

[dammage79]

Voted 20. Just cannot think that Rafikov isn't a great prospect. the 20th ranked prospect in the Flames depth chart has top 4 upside.

[Strange Brew]

Went with 15. I see a drop off after Morrison.

As for true blue chippers, it probably stops at 3.

[Bingo]

Guys like Jooris, Bouma & Ferland are examples of why there is no 'maginot line' on these surveys. Once-promising prospects bust all the time & 'no-talent character plugs' sometimes exceed all expectations.

I like the looks of prospects 1 to 20 more than the ones listed afterwards, though there are some promising players in the later ranks.

If I had to predict who the next Jooris would be I would put my money on Garnet Hathaway or Austin Carroll. Late bloomers but they have some serious talent.

I think a perceived Maginot Line is important, but that isn't to say the players above it are all guaranteed. Development archs are random and any one can either stall or burst ahead at any time.

However if you look at the number year to year its a pretty important stat even if it is subjective.

Year after year at rookie camp Eric Nystrom was the only guy that stood out for a handful of years. We went through a process to rank and assess prospects but even then we knew the list wasn't very deep. You didn't have to go 17 with a hum and haw over a guy.

Looking back on those years the Maginot line was likely 3, I would guess at the time I would have called it something like 7.

[Enoch Root]

Instead of a single (and therefore black and white) line in the sand, I would be inclined to suggest a tiered rating system and draw lines for each level:

where...
A+ is that rare talent that only comes around periodically
A are solid prospects that you pretty much expect to make it
B are guys at the next level - good, but some things to improve on
C are longer shots and younger guys with a long road ahead of them
D for the unlikely ones

and I would rate our group as follows:

A+ 1
A after 5 (I would probably have Hickey as an A as well)
B after 12
C after 21
D the remainder

[Fire of the Phoenix]

I said 9 was the line, but there were 2-3 below it that I would have voted higher, but more below it I would've voted lower, so it's hard to gauge as I didn't agree with many of the choices. If it were my personal list, the line would be at around 12.