[CP Story] Calgarypuck Prospect Ranking - 2015

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.