Pronman: Flames have #31-ranked farm system in NHL

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

Posters here certainly do, many have been complaining about it for a while now.

It's August ...

We need something to talk about don't we?

The actual line in the sand, objectively or not, played a huge role between the Edmonton and Calgary rankings. Seems to me that's worth discussing in lead up to camp.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Toonage

Can't post gifs, but that one of Ryan Reynolds in hospital scrubs seems appropriate right about now.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

Posters here certainly do, many have been complaining about it for a while now.

I think only insofar as some posters have drawn the conclusions of Pronman's list into actual discussion about the current roster.

[NESW] Flames sign Andrew MacDonald to a PTO

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

This is definitely not a reflection of the last placed prospect pool.

Definitely.

[Redrum]

Despite the convenient criteria and the 31st ranking, as mentioned earlier in this thread, he had them very low last year as well and they ended up moving a boatload of talent to the NHL. So his rankings are a turd anyway. Summer time...

[Toonage]

Many thanks Gio!

I get wanting to discuss or argue prospect pools in general, but its one guy's opinion. If it were TSN doing a collaborative piece it would seem to hold more water but as Bingo says, its August, need something to talk about.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Toonage

Many thanks Gio!

I get wanting to discuss or argue prospect pools in general, but its one guy's opinion. If it were TSN doing a collaborative piece it would seem to hold more water but as Bingo says, its August, need something to talk about.

What would that piece look like? Do you envision something like Bob MacKenzie's annual pre-draft rankings where team scouts and GMs are anonymously polled about each other team's players?

That might be interesting, but I still think the criteria would muddy the results. It is far more clear to see whom is draft eligible than it is what constitutes a "prospect" v. a "player."

[Toonage]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

What would that piece look like? Do you envision something like Bob MacKenzie's annual pre-draft rankings where team scouts and GMs are anonymously polled about each other team's players?

That might be interesting, but I still think the criteria would muddy the results. It is far more clear to see whom is draft eligible than it is what constitutes a "prospect" v. a "player."

I guess I'm thinking 2 or 3 columnist posting their opinions on a team's prospect pool. Something a little more varied than just one person I suppose. And with TSN you perhaps have a few more trusted or noteworthy people in on the fun.

[Rando]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I think only insofar as some posters have drawn the conclusions of Pronman's list into actual discussion about the current roster.

[NESW] Flames sign Andrew MacDonald to a PTO

Haha, That poster always brings his A game.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Rando

Haha, That poster always brings his A game.

If only Andrew MacDonald did.

... Or maybe he does. There's a scary thought. That'd actually be worse.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

False. The hard cutoff was agreed at the outset at 41 NHL games.
https://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthread.php?t=174750

I don't see that number being adopted. I see people agreeing, I see someone suggesting 41 games in a single season. I searched for this and see no set criteria established. Has this always been the criteria going back years? Did it change for this year?

I don't believe you. You posted in the thread about the criteria, and complained about the criteria. You're just pissy because you didn't believe that Valimaki belonged on the list.

It would be neat if the moderation team didn't try to explain away conflicting opinions as being pissy and instead focused on the actual opinions and arguments.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that the Flames have a top-ten ranked prospect base, but there is certainly a legitimate complaint that the criteria artificially disadvantages their placement because of how closely so many of their players are to the line. There is a legitimate case to be made that the Flames's "farm system" is much healthier in fact than a 31st-place ranking would seem to indicate.

So then make that argument, apply it to other teams and see what happens.

There were 30 rookies in the NHL who played between 20 and 30 games in the regular season last year. There are 17 rookies who played between 25 and 30 games last year. The Ducks had 3 guys play between 25 and 30 games as rookies.

Sure, for this exercise it maybe makes the flames look a bit worse than they are relative to other orgs because their two best prospects each played the exact cutoff of games, but this is also happening in other organizations.

Relative to everyone else, a year after finishing 28th in the league from the same guy and trading away Adam Fox, a 31st ranking is entirely plausible/believable/attributable and is a reflection upon not making enough draft picks in the preceding 3 year time frame as explained in his ranking.

Carve this post into stone tablets because it's the definitive post about why Calgary's prospect ranking is where it is:

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

And they have traded too many picks in the last 3 drafts as as well.

2017: No 2nd or 3rd
2018: No 1st, 2nd, or 3rd
2019: No 2nd

That's 6 pieces that would probably figure into the top 15 of a list like this.

There were 40 guys who played between 25 and 41 games last year as rookies. Every team in the league is impacted by the 'arbitrary' cutoff.

Apply a 41 game standard and see for yourself how greatly it impacts the Flames vs other organizations. There are really good players there for every team in the league.

Again, yes, it sucks that two of the flames top prospects hit the 25 game mark exactly, but would the Sharks ranking not have benefited from Suomela and his 27 games? Ryan Graves in Colorado with his 26 games? Washington and Siegenthaler's 26 regular season games? Troy Terry and his 34 games with Anaheim?

It seems to me the problem for many posters in this thread is not that the Flames rank 31st, but that the Oilers rank 9th. Who freakin' cares?

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

I don't see that number being adopted. I see people agreeing, I see someone suggesting 41 games in a single season. I searched for this and see no set criteria established. Has this always been the criteria going back years? Did it change for this year?



It would be neat if the moderation team didn't try to explain away conflicting opinions as being pissy and instead focused on the actual opinions and arguments.


So then make that argument, apply it to other teams and see what happens.

There were 30 rookies in the NHL who played between 20 and 30 games in the regular season last year. There are 17 rookies who played between 25 and 30 games last year. The Ducks had 3 guys play between 25 and 30 games as rookies.

Sure, for this exercise it maybe makes the flames look a bit worse than they are relative to other orgs because their two best prospects each played the exact cutoff of games, but this is also happening in other organizations.

Relative to everyone else, a year after finishing 28th in the league from the same guy and trading away Adam Fox, a 31st ranking is entirely plausible/believable/attributable and is a reflection upon not making enough draft picks in the preceding 3 year time frame as explained in his ranking.

Carve this post into stone tablets because it's the definitive post about why Calgary's prospect ranking is where it is:



There were 40 guys who played between 25 and 41 games last year as rookies. Every team in the league is impacted by the 'arbitrary' cutoff.

Apply a 41 game standard and see for yourself how greatly it impacts the Flames vs other organizations. There are really good players there for every team in the league.

Again, yes, it sucks that two of the flames top prospects hit the 25 game mark exactly, but would the Sharks ranking not have benefited from Suomela and his 27 games? Ryan Graves in Colorado with his 26 games? Washington and Siegenthaler's 26 regular season games? Troy Terry and his 34 games with Anaheim?

It seems to me the problem for many posters in this thread is not that the Flames rank 31st, but that the Oilers rank 9th. Who freakin' cares?

Number one ... I'm not a moderator. And if I was, posting as myself, I certainly wouldn't be speaking for the Moderation team. The pissy comment was directed at an Oilers fan that spends his time looking to trip up any Calgary news item that slants to the positive ... so I can see why that would irk you as he likely often steals your thunder.

And I've said three times now ... it's August. It's newsworthy to me that the Oilers are 9th and the Flames 31st when the cut off that wasn't applied unfairly graduates the two best Calgary prospects at the exact number of games needed; one with regular season games, and the other with a nuance that you add playoff games to it too.

If you don't see that as worth discussing then don't.

But at least you've actually said something this time. Nice change from the snide one liners that have made you intolerable.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Number one ... I'm not a moderator. And if I was, posting as myself, I certainly wouldn't be speaking for the Moderation team.

And I've said three times now ... it's August. It's newsworthy to me that the Oilers are 9th and the Flames 31st when the cut off that wasn't applied unfairly graduates the two best Calgary prospects at the exact number of games needed; one with regular season games, and the other with a nuance that you add playoff games to it too.

If you don't see that as worth discussing then don't.

But at least you've actually said something this time. Nice change from the snide one liners that have made you intolerable.

Frankly, what team is in better shape - a team with a handful of rookies who have demonstrated NHL ability or a team with a handful of guys who might do that (or might not).

I'd bet a decent amount on the following: Kailer Yamamoto will never be as good as Dillon Dube. Ethan Bouchard will never be as good as Juuso Valimaki. Despite draft positions and all that nonsense.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Frankly, what team is in better shape - a team with a handful of rookies who have demonstrated NHL ability or a team with a handful of guys who might do that (or might not).

In terms of where they'll finish in the standings this year? The first team. In terms of the talent they'll be able to inject into the lineup in the future on cheap deals? The team with more guys who haven't graduated. It's not like Pronman is saying this list shows who will be the best team in the league in five years. At best, it's a ranking of who is likely to have good new players injected into their existing lineup in the next 2 seasons or so.

I'd bet a decent amount on the following: Kailer Yamamoto will never be as good as Dillon Dube. Ethan Bouchard will never be as good as Juuso Valimaki. Despite draft positions and all that nonsense.

I think I agree with this, even though I'm not that high on Dube. Meanwhile Valimaki looks like a real long term NHL contributor at the very least and possibly a long-term top 4, while Bouchard can't skate (which seems like an important skill for a hockey player to have), so that's a pretty easy bet to make.

Anyway, I just think people need to get over it. No matter where you set the bar, I doubt the Flames would be higher than 20th. Given that they won their conference last year, that's not something to get too worked up about. Just suggests that they should try to stop trading away first and second round picks and re-stock the cupboards a bit.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

In terms of where they'll finish in the standings this year? The first team. In terms of the talent they'll be able to inject into the lineup in the future on cheap deals? The team with more guys who haven't graduated. It's not like Pronman is saying this list shows who will be the best team in the league in five years. At best, it's a ranking of who is likely to have good new players injected into their existing lineup in the next 2 seasons or so.

I think I agree with this, even though I'm not that high on Dube. Meanwhile Valimaki looks like a real long term NHL contributor at the very least and possibly a long-term top 4, while Bouchard can't skate (which seems like an important skill for a hockey player to have), so that's a pretty easy bet to make.

Anyway, I just think people need to get over it. No matter where you set the bar, I doubt the Flames would be higher than 20th. Given that they won their conference last year, that's not something to get too worked up about. Just suggests that they should try to stop trading away first and second round picks and re-stock the cupboards a bit.

Speculative at best. He'd have said the same last year with both Dube and Valimaki "ungraduated". It's more likely than not that the majority of Edmonton's prospect pool doesn't move their bar at all.

Plus it's exactly one more year of a cheap ELC contract on their best day. Hell, Yamamoto already costs more than Dube if they are both in the NHL.

If anything, last years experience might show that Calgary's depth drafting (2nd round onwards) is superior, and therefore the guys evaluating prospect pools may just not be as good as the present amateur scouting staff.

[Rando]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

If only Andrew MacDonald did.

... Or maybe he does. There's a scary thought. That'd actually be worse.

If only Andrew McDonald did what, bring his A game? Okay? Gotta be honest not exactly sure where you're headed with this. Is McDonald being on a PTO a concern for you? Are you worried if he doesn't bring his "A" game to the preseason try out he's on?

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

I don't see that number being adopted. I see people agreeing, I see someone suggesting 41 games in a single season. I searched for this and see no set criteria established. Has this always been the criteria going back years? Did it change for this year?

I honestly don't recall, but while the 41-game mark is never explicitly spelled out in the discussion, it is abundantly clear from the content of the thread that it was adopted. I find it difficult to accept that you somehow failed to see that.

It would be neat if the moderation team didn't try to explain away conflicting opinions as being pissy and instead focused on the actual opinions and arguments.

You are the paragon of civil discourse. Of course you are always laser focussed on actual opinions and arguments.

So then make that argument, apply it to other teams and see what happens.

I don't need to, because I am sure that the Flames are not the only team being downgraded because of this. In the end, I don't really care because as pointed out previously, these rankings don't really mean much, and appear to have virtually no tangible impact on the team's overall health and longterm future.

Carve this post into stone tablets because it's the definitive post about why Calgary's prospect ranking is where it is

False. It's a key point, but certainly not the "definitive" one. There are several of reasons for this ranking—one of which is the Flames recent shortage of high draft picks; others being their trajectory within their competitive window, and the fact that the arbitrary cutoff of this list disqualifies some of their most important young players.

There were 40 guys who played between 25 and 41 games last year as rookies. Every team in the league is impacted by the 'arbitrary' cutoff.

Which does nothing to change the fact that the cutoff is arbitrary. Yes, it has to be, and that was never my complaint. My complaint is that it is artificial and misleading.

It seems to me the problem for many posters in this thread is not that the Flames rank 31st, but that the Oilers rank 9th. Who freakin' cares?

This is glorious, coming from you, since I don't see any other posters than yourself plugging drive-bys in other threads on the basis of this ranking as a means to propagandise his barely relevant point.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

The financial benefit of paying young players big money is that young players making big money are general good and old players making big money are generally bad.

It's never been a disadvantage to have good players. The best teams have the best players.

No doubt, but the days of younger players coming at a bargain are gone. Meanwhile commitments under veteran contracts don’t vanish overnight, so the relative cap advantages of a younger roster aren’t what they once were.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

No doubt, but the days of younger players coming at a bargain are gone. Meanwhile commitments under veteran contracts don’t vanish overnight, so the relative cap advantages of a younger roster aren’t what they once were.

Yep ...

The best you can do is hope you have some impact players on entry level contracts (Tkachuk the past three years), and the system/depth to give you the bottom half of your roster cheap so you can afford to pay the rest.

Then ... have the balls to just say no on July 1st, and let some of your own free agents walk for cheaper replacements.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Rando

If only Andrew McDonald did what, bring his A game? Okay? Gotta be honest not exactly sure where you're headed with this.

I'm not "headed" anywhere. I'm saying Andrew MacDondald sucks at hockey, because Andrew MacDondald sucks at hockey.

[Wastedyouth]

Corey Pronman's rankings directly correlate to the success of said prospect base.

We should be incensed.