NHL Team Prospect Pools Power Rankings

[Bingo]

I think Oil Stain was being tongue in cheek to make a point ... not honestly thinking he felt you could remove half a D core and then call it average.

[Oil Stain]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Also, OilStain was grilled not that long ago on the exact same issue. He seems incapable of understanding the need for depth in a prospect pool.

I'd trade the players 6-35 in Calgary's prospect pool for John Tavares.

There is a reason the saying goes, "The team who gets the best player wins the trade".

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Oil Stain

I'd trade the players 6-35 in Calgary's prospect pool for John Tavares.

There is a reason the saying goes, "The team who gets the best player wins the trade".

We're not talking about trades, we're talking about prospect pools.

There are no guarantees, so you need as much depth as you can get your hands on.

And in a cap world, you need a perpetual supply of young players on ELCs that are actually contributing to the team.

No one has ever said high-end quality isn't important.

But you continually refuse to acknowledge the value of depth - which does nothing for your reputation as a poster.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I think Oil Stain was being tongue in cheek to make a point ... not honestly thinking he felt you could remove half a D core and then call it average.

That's a terrible analogy, then.

Hamilton, Brodie, and Giordano are proven NHLers.

Nurse has never played an NHL game just like Kylington, Hickey, and Andersson.

I'd rather take my bets on three players with similar upside (#4-#2 Defenseman) over putting all my eggs into the Nurse basket, even though Nurse is obviously the more "attractive" prospect. If 33% of them make it, that's 1 of the 3 and yet for the Oilers that's still 0/1.

I'd rather take my bets on Wotherspoon, Kulak, Culkin, Nakladal, Morrison, Kanzig, Wotherspoon, Rafikov than place all my bets on flawed, but more hyped prospects like LaLeggia and Reinhart.

And while McDavid's a hell of a prospect, this is still is their fourth time banking their entire future on a 1st overall. They learned over and over that you can't build a team with just one player. If you wanna use an analogy, how about this:

As Edmonton fans, would they trade all those under 25 former 1st round picks:

Hall
RNH
Yakupov
Eberle
Nurse
Draisaitl
Reinhart
Klefbom

for

Connor McDavid?

[ricardodw]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

...



Prospects

Hickey
Kylington
Andersson

These three guys' upside is significantly higher than any Oilers prospect not named Nurse. In Kylington's case, a year ago he was considered a better prospect than Nurse was ever considered, and if he gets his future back on track will be better than Nurse. I would rather have all of these three than Nurse, by a long shot. The competition between them will make each of them better players and trade assets.

Nakladal*
Morrison
Kulak
Culkin
Kanzig
Wotherspoon
Rafikov

Each of these guys, as much as OIlers fans want to think otherwise, is a similar level prospect to Griffin Reinhart and better than LaLeggia. Maybe Nakladal's too old to be officially a prospect, but he like Russell and Smid is still on the good side of 30 and he's waiver exempt next season so we can acclimate him into our system slowly.

Gilmour
Ollas Mattson
Sieloff


These three guys are all close in level to Oilers B-prospects like Simpson, Musil, Bear, Marino, and Oesterle.

to paraquote you: Your Flame homerism is getting really really old.

Griffin Rienhart is not good enough to play on the Flames AHL team?? Yet he was called up as a 20 year old by the Islanders who were 6 deep in NHL d-men able to play 18+ nhl minutes on a team with a better record than the Flames in a tougher divison.

If you were using the same evaluation for the Flames prospects then they should have cut ties with 22 year old Wotherspoon as he was obviously not NHL ready on a team was really short of NHL level d-men.

You are as far off as to join that epic Oiler evaluation in that they had 5-6 Giordano level D-men waiting for a chance.

[Fire of the Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Oil Stain

Outside of Brodie, Giordano and Hamilton, Calgary's D-core is pretty average......

#1-3 are far, far more important than #4-6 so at least we have that signed up for the next 5-7 years.

Where we apparently disagree is how you regard our #4 and #5. Wideman as a 4 and Russell as a 5 is above average in my mind, good luck finding 15 teams with better 4/5's than those two. Just my opinion, I'm sure you disagree and/or think Engelland and Smid are below average #6/7s.

Lol at 'after Brodie, Gio and Hamilton'... yes, AFTER our 3 legit top pairing defensemen... it sounds like a self-defeating argument before it even begins. I'd much rather have a hypothetical defense composed of 3 #1s and 3 #6s and a #7 than 6 #3/4s, and a #6, but maybe that's just me? There's only so much ice time to go around and I would rather have elite players with weaker depth rather than a bunch of good depth players and that's it. Look at Chicago's defense, does it seem to hurt them that their bottom 3 is average? I'd say their overall D is still top 5, even with their rotating and disposable bottom 3.

When you have that good of a top 3, you can stand to have a Reinhart or a Nurse learning on the job, or even legit bad players like Gryba, Nikitin or Schultz, AND still have a top 10 defense. That's how much more important the top 3 is than the bottom 4 IMO. Personally I think we are fortunate to have quality vets like Wideman and Russell (who would be your 2/3 with a bullet) in those spots instead of the many other lesser players that could be there instead. There aren't many other options out there that are upgrades that wouldn't be wasted on our team because the top 3 is so good. Again, there's only so much ice time to go around.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Fire of the Phoenix

#1-3 are far, far more important than #4-6 so at least we have that signed up for the next 5-7 years.

Where we apparently disagree is how you regard our #4 and #5. Wideman as a 4 and Russell as a 5 is above average in my mind, good luck finding 15 teams with better 4/5's than those two. Just my opinion, I'm sure you disagree and/or think Engelland and Smid are below average #6/7s.

Lol at 'after Brodie, Gio and Hamilton'... yes, AFTER our 3 legit top pairing defensemen... it sounds like a self-defeating argument before it even begins. I'd much rather have a hypothetical defense composed of 3 #1s and 3 #6s and a #7 than 6 #3/4s, and a #6, but maybe that's just me? There's only so much ice time to go around and I would rather have elite players with weaker depth rather than a bunch of good depth players and that's it. Look at Chicago's defense, does it seem to hurt them that their bottom 3 is average? I'd say their overall D is still top 5, even with their rotating and disposable bottom 3.

When you have that good of a top 3, you can stand to have a Reinhart or a Nurse learning on the job, or even legit bad players like Gryba, Nikitin or Schultz, AND still have a top 10 defense. That's how much more important the top 3 is than the bottom 4 IMO. Personally I think we are fortunate to have quality vets like Wideman and Russell (who would be your 2/3 with a bullet) in those spots instead of the many other lesser players that could be there instead. There aren't many other options out there that are upgrades that wouldn't be wasted on our team because the top 3 is so good. Again, there's only so much ice time to go around.

You totally missed what he was saying...

[Calgary4LIfe]

I really don't get Vancouver being ranked high. Centers revolve around Cassels and McCann - solid prospects for sure, but what is really their upside? Maybe solid 2nd line centers if their development goes right? Virtanen is the closest thing to a blue-chip prospect, and I think many people question as to how well his game will translate, and it isn't like he took a big step last year that many people would be expecting him to. All Shinkaruk has shown so far is that scouts were right to pass on him, justifying his drop in the draft. Baertschi has shown there are HUGE question marks and holes in his game. Demko sure is a great goalie prospect - but even if someone has him ranked ahead of Gillies and MacDonald, there is no justification to have him ranked much better (I think he is a step below MacDonald and Gillies myself, just making the point).

To me, it sounds like a very pro Vancouver writer fought tooth and nail for that ranking.

Edmonton over Calgary? Yeah, I see it. I don't think it is that big of a deal. They have a generational talent in McDavid. They have a 3rd overall in Draisaitl. They have a 7th overall in Nurse. That is some serious blue-chip talent there. Depth sucks, but they do have additional prospects that I think will also make the NHL. They just have much lower depth than the Flames. However, blue-chip talent is always going to be more expensive to acquire, and thus their pool be ranked higher than Calgary. No arguments there.

[Fire of the Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

You totally missed what he was saying...

He said outside of the top 3, the rest of the D is average. I was just saying that that even if it were, which it's not, it's kind of a pointless thing to say.

It's basically like saying that your team's top 6 forwards are ALL legit first liners on 90% of the league BUT your bottom 6 forwards are average at best. Who flippin cares when the top half is so good? What's the point of that observation? I'll take average depth every day of the week if it means the rest of the lineup is laden with stars.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Fire of the Phoenix

He said outside of the top 3, the rest of the D is average. I was just saying that that even if it were, which it's not, it's kind of a pointless thing to say.

It's basically like saying that your team's top 6 forwards are ALL legit first liners on 90% of the league BUT your bottom 6 forwards are average at best. Who flippin cares when the top half is so good? What's the point of that observation? I'll take average depth every day of the week if it means the rest of the lineup is laden with stars.

He was being sarcastic. He was pointing out the silliness of the "outside of McDavid, Nurse and Draisaitl the oilers have average prospects" argument

[MrMastodonFarm]

Sure, but we're talking about a pool of prospects that stretch into the twenties, not a d-core that consists of 6 guys. The initial point was a bit of a stretch (outside of three prospects) but the response was flat out stupid because it's eliminating half of the small group of 6, it's a much larger percentage. When it comes to prospects having top end talent is key but prospect depth cannot be brushed aside. Yeah, having one golden bullet is awesome, but I want as many regular bullets in the chamber as possible.

Chicago got on top because of the big names but they've stayed there because of how they've continued to draft and develop players outside the big name range. How that's lost on someone, especially in a cap world is a bit staggering.

[Fire of the Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

He was being sarcastic. He was pointing out the silliness of the "outside of McDavid, Nurse and Draisaitl the oilers have average prospects" argument

Oh I think I missed a couple posts there... d'oh!

After McDavid graduates and IF Nurse and Draisaitl do this year (I'd bet on it), that pool is instantly bottom 3 in the league. It's kind of hard to compare a team's D to a prospect pool, even tongue in cheek. When a player graduates, the pool suffers and the team gets better. It gets emptied and refilled perpetually, I think it is worth noting that when their top 3 graduate (likely this year), the pool will be crap... because it will be. You can't say that about many teams I'm the league, most could lose their top 3 and still have enough depth to be respectable despite being severely diminished. That is the point of a feeder system, you cant just rely on your top 5 picks every year as they tend to go right to the NHL anyway.

It was just another way of saying Edmonton 's pool has no depth.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by ricardodw

Griffin Rienhart is not good enough to play on the Flames AHL team??

Sure he is. But he's not much better, if at all, than the group I listed. I'd rather have 7 guys with that upside than one and see which Plinko chip falls where, than put all my eggs into the Griffin Reinhart basket.

[Oil Stain]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

We're not talking about trades, we're talking about prospect pools.

There are no guarantees, so you need as much depth as you can get your hands on.

And in a cap world, you need a perpetual supply of young players on ELCs that are actually contributing to the team.

No one has ever said high-end quality isn't important.

But you continually refuse to acknowledge the value of depth - which does nothing for your reputation as a poster.

I acknowledge depth. It's important.

But quality and depth are not equal.

Quality is a step above depth.

Defensemen 1-3 are infinitely more important than 4-16 in an organization.

Its the same with prospects.

I feel like you are just arguing the point because the Oilers are ahead in quality in this specific area.

[Fire of the Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Oil Stain

I feel like you are just arguing the point because the Oilers are ahead in quality in this specific area.

They are "ahead" in this area for the next few months until all three graduate this year and then then they are behind 29 teams again. After the 2016 draft they will add Mathews and then they are top 5 for another few months again... until he graduates. It's not how good feeder systems are maintained... and that's the point, the Oilers don't have a good feeder system because all they get out of the draft is the guy the drafted #1 in the previous draft. Most teams actually find talent in round 2-7 occasionally, which is important because they don't have a top 5 pick every year to bank on like the Oilers do.

[Oil Stain]

Originally Posted by Fire of the Phoenix

They are "ahead" in this area for the next few months until all three graduate this year and then then they are behind 29 teams again. After the 2016 draft they will add Mathews and then they are top 5 for another few months again... until he graduates. It's not how good feeder systems are maintained... and that's the point, the Oilers don't have a good feeder system because all they get out of the draft is the guy the drafted #1 in the previous draft. Most teams actually find talent in round 2-7 occasionally, which is important because they don't have a top 5 pick every year to bank on like the Oilers do.

I don't dispute that, but that's a different topic. We are looking at specific pools here not drafting history.

Edmonton hasn't drafted well in forever.

[heep223]

Paraquote

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by heep223

Paraquote

To paraphrase what you said: paraquote

[Fire of the Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Oil Stain

I don't dispute that, but that's a different topic. We are looking at specific pools here not drafting history.

Edmonton hasn't drafted well in forever.

Yes and my point is that guys like McDavid can't be used as an argument for why you have a good prospect pool. He's in and out, an instant NHL player that only one team could get. Nurse and Draisaitl are in different tier but are both expected to graduate this year as well. After that, there is nothing that other teams don't have in spades. If you're going to compare one teams prospects to another, it is fair to bring up how well the teams draft and what they are left with after you subtract imminent graduations/generational players. For the Oilers spots 4-35 might be a waste but for good drafting teams, they are the lifeblood of their future success.

[Lanny_McDonald]

The basement blogger set strikes again! Let's rank prospect depth by draft position and who has the supposed generational talent! Get serious. I mean, Edmonton, top three? McDavid suffers an injury, or pulls a Daigle, and their prospect pool is garbage. To be honest, the Edmonton prospect pool is almost as shallow as the gene pool at an Edmonton wedding, and should show in ratings. You look at the composite and the ratings are highly reliant on who has the most top 100 draft picks more than evaluation of talent in each prospect pool. These writers are the same ones that are shocked to see a TJ Brodie or Johnny Gaudreau as star players in the NHL. I mean, anyone making an impact in the NHL not drafted in the first round is just not possible! The whole exercise is a trip to HockeyDB.com and evaluating the number of picks made in first round rather than an actual evaluation of talent, a thing called development, and then what the potential for opportunity to even make a team looks like. I love articles like this because the writers end up with egg on their face in quick order, and smart fans come to realization these sites have no real insight to offer.