Calgarypuck Prospect Ranking 2025 - Setting the List

[Yanda]

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

Keep the list simple and competitive.

Age 21 or under, anyone else would and should be far down the list anyway, guys like Stromgren, Kerins and Poirier are pro vets now.

Not a fan of this, plus its way too different that all the previous years. Just stop voting after the top 10-15 if it bothers you so much.

[Snuffleupagus]

Originally Posted by Yanda

Not a fan of this, plus its way too different that all the previous years. Just stop voting after the top 10-15 if it bothers you so much.

It doesn't bother me, I just feel after a couple of years in the AHL most don't make the top 10 anyway, I personally like to vote on the kids and their potential to be a pro before they're pros.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

It doesn't bother me, I just feel after a couple of years in the AHL most don't make the top 10 anyway, I personally like to vote on the kids and their potential to be a pro before they're pros.

A lot of 22-year-old prospects have never been in the AHL at all, since they spent their time in college or Europe. I think it's far too restrictive to exclude them.

[Flamescuprun2018]

Favor including them all. Morton still feels like a prospect despite his age.

[RyZ]

Another vote here to have the list based on Calder eligibility.
A 26 year old isnt a prospect.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

Bingo does use very similar critera every year, but every year people bitch in every direction about who is or is not on the list and it creates all kinds of false starts on the first poll.

So to avoid this Bingo makes this thread every year so people can complain in here, and he can add and remove prospects who would wind up in the bottom ten anyways and it keeps discussion on track for the main event.

To me the biggest thing is to make sure I don't include someone I shouldn't (not an age argument, but the guy is no longer Flames property), or conversely forgot a prospect that should be included.

I look at suggestions, but have learned in 15 years doing this that I'll basically make most people unhappy with the final list anyway.

The great thing about prospect rankings is everyone has the control in the end. If you don't think a guy should be included ... don't vote for him!

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

Keep the list simple and competitive.

Age 21 or under, anyone else would and should be far down the list anyway, guys like Stromgren, Kerins and Poirier are pro vets now.

So a guy like Duncan Keith doesn't make your list. 22 years old and 2 years in the AHL before he cracked the Hawks lineup.

And he was a 2nd round pick, so it's not like he came out of nowhere.

[looooob]

5 first rounders, 8 second rounders and 8 3rd rounders


it is noteworthy that (at least for players drafted by the Flames- but the rule holds broadly depending on your thoughts on Okhotyuk) that things sort themselves out by 5 or 6- depending how you look at it- years post draft essentially


last summer Pospisil graduated and closed the book on the 2018 draft. this summer Wolf has graduated, Pelletier has graduated and been traded and the rest are irrelevant and the book is closed on 2019 now


so makes sense to include the whole 2020 crew but this should be the final year of reckoning for that group (the notable names being Kerins, Poirier, Kuznetzov and Solovyov). odds are 1-2 join Zary in the ranks of graduated by this time next year and the rest are likely elsewhere

[Samonadreau]

The dog days are upon us. Lets do this!

[getbak]

Last year, we had the discussion about using Calder Trophy eligibility, but that would have excluded Coronato and Pelletier due to the number of games played, but the consensus was that they were still prospects.




The criteria I would use...

Unsigned drafted players:

1. Do the Flames still own his rights?
2. a) Was he drafted in one of the four most-recent drafts? OR
   b) Is he an NCAA player with at least one more year of college eligibility remaining?

If the answer to #1 and either #2a or 2b are "yes", then he should be included, otherwise, not.


For example, the following players have a yes for one of the questions, but not both, so they wouldn't be included:

• Ronni: N for 1 / Y for 2a
• Rafikov: Y for 1 / N for 2a
• Boltmann: Y for 1 / N for 2b

Players under contract (or Flames RFA):

1. Is he signed to his ELC, or has he completed fewer than 2 seasons beyond the end of his ELC?
2. If he is an RFA, has he not signed a contract to play the next season in Europe?
3. Was he assigned to a league other than the NHL at any point last season?
4. Has he played fewer than 40 games in any single NHL season?
5. Has he played fewer than 60 total NHL games in his career?

If a player answers "yes" to all questions, he is included. If any question is a "no", he is not included.

For example, Cicek and Morton would be included because they haven't played 2 seasons beyond their ELCs. Okhotyuk would not be included because he is signed to a European contract and has exceeded the 40 games in one season and 60 total games thresholds.

[Jay Random]

Getbak, I think your criteria are just about perfect. I can't quibble with any of them, nor can I think of any edge cases where they would do any prospect an injustice.

[looooob]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Getbak, I think your criteria are just about perfect. I can't quibble with any of them, nor can I think of any edge cases where they would do any prospect an injustice.

yeah they seem pretty strong, the old edge case I might see coming up in a drafted, unsigned, euro goalie- would I push that back by a year or so? probably not worth fretting over

[Freeway]

For our rankings at FN, I defaulted to Calder eligibility because it's simple and I'm lazy. But it does keep some fringey guys who probably aren't prospects anymore technically eligible for ranking.

[Bingo]

Unless someone has a list altering day coming in the next week (trade for prospects, signings) I'm going to launch round one TOMORROW morning.

[Groot]

I took a quick look back at the prospect rankings since 2013 as thats as far back as linked in last years prospect rankings.

No prospect has ever been unanimous #1. Closest has been Bennett at 94% in the 2015 rankings, and Valimaki at 92.6% in the 2019 rankings.

With Wolf and Coronato both graduating, is this the year for the first unanimous #1 in Zayne Parekh?

[Ped]

Unless that poster that uses a random number generator votes.

[FBI]

Originally Posted by Groot

I took a quick look back at the prospect rankings since 2013 as thats as far back as linked in last years prospect rankings.

No prospect has ever been unanimous #1. Closest has been Bennett at 94% in the 2015 rankings, and Valimaki at 92.6% in the 2019 rankings.

With Wolf and Coronato both graduating, is this the year for the first unanimous #1 in Zayne Parekh?

You gotta remember that there are people here that just like to watch the world burn..

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Unless someone has a list altering day coming in the next week (trade for prospects, signings) I'm going to launch round one TOMORROW morning.

Good! I have convinced myself that Conroy is just waiting for us to get in 3-4 prospects deep so he can trade Andersson and throw a wrench into this ranking, and laugh like the tyrannical overlord all GMs laugh like.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by FBI

You gotta remember that there are people here that just like to watch the world burn..

I imagine Parekh may end up being the closest to the most universal, as we know there definitely are people like you mentioned.


I, however, am pretty sure that there will be one poster here that will be voting for someone else, but he definitely gets a pass.

[Groot]

Originally Posted by FBI

You gotta remember that there are people here that just like to watch the world burn..

lol I was thinking this as well. Jaden Lipinski got 2 first place votes last year before finally going 19th. Walter Ignatjew got 1 vote before finishing 32nd.

Probably the closest to unanimous since 2013 but doubtful. Should be unanimous.