Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community
Old 02-24-2011, 09:38 PM   #21
Beerfest
Lifetime Suspension
 
Join Date: May 2010
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MJM View Post
5 point in 17 games...... I wouldn't rank him in the top 10 either. Do we even have 10 prospects worth ranking?
Keep up the trolling.

You have zero knowledge of our prospect base and instead of trying to learn about it, you just bash it.
Beerfest is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Beerfest For This Useful Post:
Old 02-24-2011, 09:42 PM   #22
bubbsy
Franchise Player
 
bubbsy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MJM View Post
5 point in 17 games...... I wouldn't rank him in the top 10 either. Do we even have 10 prospects worth ranking?
bit unfair. Kids first games against men, don'tn think expecting a PPG avg is really expected.

i concur our prospects are not that great. The heat are a testament to that.

there are definitely a few good pieces there, nemiesz, brodie, wahl, who are all pretty young. You add in our whl kids over the next few years, plus erixon, and hopefully something clicks.

I still can't believe the flames have 1 pick in the first 2 rounds 2010 + first 3 rounds 2011. You can't help but blame d sutter there. to mortgage a future on a team that was never really that close, to never get the necessary pieces, despite giving up these assets, that's on the GM.

From a youth/prospect angle, thank God D. sutter is gone.
bubbsy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2011, 09:50 PM   #23
Johnny Rotten
Powerplay Quarterback
 
Johnny Rotten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: London
Exp:
Default

I've asked this question before, but how many times have the writers and scouts the Hockey News employ actually seen the Heat and the other Flames prospects play this year?

Reinhart's not even mentioned as alluded to above.

I still get the Hockey News, but I hardly ever read an issue. It's just not that interesting.

At least National Geographic has naked pygmies.
Johnny Rotten is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2011, 10:38 PM   #24
MJM
Lifetime Suspension
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beerfest View Post
Keep up the trolling.

You have zero knowledge of our prospect base and instead of trying to learn about it, you just bash it.
No... I have a good deal of knowledge about our prospect base. Not a GM or anything, but on par with anyone else who follows the FLames and their prospects on a heavy basis. What I don't have, is the ability to be a blind fanboy. Our prospect pool sucks, it's as simple as that. Every hockey megazine published concurs, and anytime I've heard an expert speak on the subject (that wasn't directly involved with the Flames) has the same opinion. No where outside of calgarypuck will you hear a good thing about our prospect base.

Why is it so hard to see your own team's faults? It's not even debateable. That's why these threads never turn into debate and always turn into "You're a troll", "Debbie Downer", etc. as results.

Last edited by MJM; 02-24-2011 at 10:40 PM.
MJM is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to MJM For This Useful Post:
Old 02-24-2011, 10:40 PM   #25
MJM
Lifetime Suspension
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bubbsy View Post
bit unfair. Kids first games against men, don'tn think expecting a PPG avg is really expected.

i concur our prospects are not that great. The heat are a testament to that.

there are definitely a few good pieces there, nemiesz, brodie, wahl, who are all pretty young. You add in our whl kids over the next few years, plus erixon, and hopefully something clicks.

I still can't believe the flames have 1 pick in the first 2 rounds 2010 + first 3 rounds 2011. You can't help but blame d sutter there. to mortgage a future on a team that was never really that close, to never get the necessary pieces, despite giving up these assets, that's on the GM.

From a youth/prospect angle, thank God D. sutter is gone.
We have some pieces, definitely, but we don't have any highend potential. Bouma, NEmiesz, Wahl, etc. These are all 3rd and 4th liners that are easily replaceable and interchangeable.Every team has these pieces. If they don't, they can easily be had by adding free agents. We're in deep sh** when current guard gets a few years older.
MJM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2011, 11:00 PM   #26
Beerfest
Lifetime Suspension
 
Join Date: May 2010
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MJM View Post
No... I have a good deal of knowledge about our prospect base. Not a GM or anything, but on par with anyone else who follows the FLames and their prospects on a heavy basis. What I don't have, is the ability to be a blind fanboy. Our prospect pool sucks, it's as simple as that. Every hockey megazine published concurs, and anytime I've heard an expert speak on the subject (that wasn't directly involved with the Flames) has the same opinion. No where outside of calgarypuck will you hear a good thing about our prospect base.

Why is it so hard to see your own team's faults? It's not even debateable. That's why these threads never turn into debate and always turn into "You're a troll", "Debbie Downer", etc. as results.

When have I ever said the Flames have a good prospect pool?
I agree our prospect pools needs to improve big time.

Posts like this however when you're already saying what potential players have when their 18, 19, 20, 21 etc, makes no sense to me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MJM View Post
Why do people get so mad when they read the truth? Our prospect pool absolutely sucks. Unless you are drinking the Flames Kool Aid heavily, it's painfully obvious that we don't have one single player in our system that could even remotely be considered to be a top 6 forward in the NHL. Even our D is full of 2nd/3rd pair prospects. We may have two legitimate goalie prospects in Irving and Ortio, but that's it.

I think a C rating is pretty generous for us.......
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJM View Post
5 point in 17 games...... I wouldn't rank him in the top 10 either. Do we even have 10 prospects worth ranking?
Beerfest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2011, 12:22 PM   #27
flamesaresmokin
Lifetime Suspension
 
flamesaresmokin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Philtopia
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matty81 View Post
Ya Wahl in the top 10 and Reinhart not even ranked tells me all I need to know about how much research went into that article.
Pretty much. He conveniently fails to mention that we have 5 forwards in the top 75 scoring for the dub and 3 of them have only just turned 19 and are on pretty average teams. If that isn't potential i'm not sure what is. Just because they're not in the Q or OHL putting up 100 point seasons means they are irrelevant I guess. Watch as they light it up next year, team canada comes knocking and suddenly we have a nice stable of potential nhlers.

Not too mention that leland irving is one of the top netminders in the ahl and he's pretty much an afterthought with this plug. Sad that someone is considered a professional journalist when they don't even do research.
flamesaresmokin is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to flamesaresmokin For This Useful Post:
Old 02-25-2011, 12:30 PM   #28
flamesaresmokin
Lifetime Suspension
 
flamesaresmokin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Philtopia
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MJM View Post
We have some pieces, definitely, but we don't have any highend potential. Bouma, NEmiesz, Wahl, etc. These are all 3rd and 4th liners that are easily replaceable and interchangeable.Every team has these pieces. If they don't, they can easily be had by adding free agents. We're in deep sh** when current guard gets a few years older.
Explain to me why so many of these other teams in the league have such amazing talent pools then? Aside from having one standout pretty much everyone else has similar player pools as us. The big difference is that the experts who talk about prospects you refer to are doing as much research as the guy who wrote this piece of crap article.

These experts you refer to only consider players that are about to be drafted phenomenal players because it generates attention. They aren't paid to analyze players who have either been drafted or wont be in the top 30. Look no further then bob mackenzies joke of a mid season ranking. His write ups were one liners and after about spot 40 they stopped completely and he just ordered them off of someone elses list.

Put our WHL prospects up against the drafted WHL prospects of the rest of the league stat wise and age group wise and i guarantee we are somewhere around 10-15 if you base it only on numbers.

I'd say also having a stud defensive prospect in Europe and a standout ahl goalie is a pretty good start at having players ready to take over for the "old guard".

Last edited by flamesaresmokin; 02-25-2011 at 12:38 PM.
flamesaresmokin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2011, 12:46 PM   #29
Parallex
I believe in the Jays.
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matty81 View Post
Ya Wahl in the top 10 and Reinhart not even ranked tells me all I need to know about how much research went into that article.
I'm not sure how... Mitch Wahl and Max Reinhart have put up about the same counting stats when you compare their developmental stage

Max Reinhart 3rd Full WHL year (Thus Far): 61GP 31G 38A 69P
Mitch Wahl 3rd Full WHL year: 63GP 32G 35A 67P

And from what I've read about Reinharts game (since I havn't seen him play much) and from what I saw of Mitch Wahl at the same stage they actually sound like pretty similer players.

Given that Wahl has graduated to the next stage and Reinhart is still in his junior league I don't see any problem with ranking Mitch Wahl above Max Reinhart for the time being.
Parallex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2011, 12:56 PM   #30
Matty81
#1 Goaltender
 
Matty81's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Exp:
Default

The list is so wide open for next year - Howse and Bennett will go to Abby and get a chance to score and maybe Bjorklund comes across, dunno his contract status, he's scoring nicely in the Allsvenskan this season (second league in Sweden) and has taken a pretty big step forward.

3 scoring forwards getting a chance down - and lots of opportunity given the current lack of offense down there. Could be a very different list next year on the forward side.

I also thought Carter Bancks looked real solid this year before injuries and am hopeful him and Wahl can get in full productive years next year. Agree with comments about Irving being underrated too, he has had a brilliant year.
Matty81 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2011, 01:25 PM   #31
Matty81
#1 Goaltender
 
Matty81's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Exp:
Icon28

Quote:
Originally Posted by Parallex View Post
I'm not sure how... Mitch Wahl and Max Reinhart have put up about the same counting stats when you compare their developmental stage

Max Reinhart 3rd Full WHL year (Thus Far): 61GP 31G 38A 69P
Mitch Wahl 3rd Full WHL year: 63GP 32G 35A 67P

And from what I've read about Reinharts game (since I havn't seen him play much) and from what I saw of Mitch Wahl at the same stage they actually sound like pretty similer players.

Given that Wahl has graduated to the next stage and Reinhart is still in his junior league I don't see any problem with ranking Mitch Wahl above Max Reinhart for the time being.
Similar at the same stage for sure but I don't think their value as prospects is similar at this point in time - prospect value is all about potential and the development arc, Wahl's flatlined a bit this year. I don't get to see the Ice alot but I am of the impression that Reinhart plays in traffic just a little bit more but very comparable numbers.

Injuries played a role, but Wahl also played poorly in his limited action - if you said he would score 5 points in 17 games when in the A at 21 two or three years ago, that would have been below expectations, his development arc has not continued upward this year.

I think he was penciled in to be in their top 9 forwards, as Reinhart probably is two years from now.

Does that mean he can't trend upward next season - definitely not and I hope he does. I liked him in Spokane and expect him to be a solid AHL centre at least.
Matty81 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2011, 03:25 PM   #32
Flames Draft Watcher
In the Sin Bin
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matty81 View Post
Ya Wahl in the top 10 and Reinhart not even ranked tells me all I need to know about how much research went into that article.
Not sure why that invalidates it for you. Wahl was at least as good as Reinhart in junior if not better. Just because he's had an injury filled rookie pro season does not mean he's suddenly a horrible prospect.
Flames Draft Watcher is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Flames Draft Watcher For This Useful Post:
Old 02-25-2011, 04:38 PM   #33
Matty81
#1 Goaltender
 
Matty81's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher View Post
Not sure why that invalidates it for you. Wahl was at least as good as Reinhart in junior if not better. Just because he's had an injury filled rookie pro season does not mean he's suddenly a horrible prospect.
Yes he was a very similar prospect in junior. I don't think he is a horrible prospect, I just think that a year of injuries and poor play means most organizations if they were to pick one of the two players, in a trade say, would take the guy without the bad year on the resume.

If it were just injuries and he had played decent, it would have hurt his development but maybe not cast doubts on whether he will cut it as an AHL player.

It invalidates the article because it reflects upon a lack of consideration of current performance, which is the most important thing to consider when putting out a time sensitive ranking of an organizations prospects.
Matty81 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2011, 03:23 AM   #34
Flames Draft Watcher
In the Sin Bin
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matty81 View Post
It invalidates the article because it reflects upon a lack of consideration of current performance, which is the most important thing to consider when putting out a time sensitive ranking of an organizations prospects.
I disagree, current performance is not the major thing to consider. The point is to rank who will be the best in the NHL when they are fully developed in 3-5 years or so. When thinking about it that way, Wahl's rookie injury problems may just be a blip the radar and fairly insignificant in the long run. Perhaps he will be plagued by concussions, I sure hope not.

I believe the Hockey News and most other prospect ranking systems are not emphasizing current performance and are instead trying to rank long term for who will be the better NHLer. Wahl's year has been a write off for the most part. His next year will be significant for sure.
Flames Draft Watcher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2011, 02:53 PM   #35
madmike
Powerplay Quarterback
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Exp:
Default

I'm not sure how good the prospect pool is overall, but The Heat should be getting a nice infusion of young guys next year. They could use it.

I still really like Wahl. He's just had brutal luck with the injuries this year. Hopefully he can break out a bit next season.
madmike is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:43 AM.

Calgary Flames
2023-24




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Calgarypuck 2021