[Report] THW's Top 100 Prospects Report Released

[Warhippy]

Make of this what you will, but the top 100 prospects report was just released by THW and it's interesting and also kind of sad for us Canucks fans.  

 

It keeps newer prospects lower on the list with more well established prospects higher it seems.  Some confusing mentions for sure.

 

Discuss

 

https://thehockeywriters.com/nhl-top-100-prospects-ranking/?fbclid=IwAR0eUM0u2TZMl7eYP2drp4On7d1ZlN8o5qDInCV1MeYvj0YNtPC5VxnxsSc

[joe-max]

Well, that's the price of being a perennial contender.

 

 

[DeNiro]

All subjective, doesn’t mean much.

 

Our top prospects have all graduated to become NHLers. Sure we have kind of gap right now but at least we have Miller, Garland, and OEL to show for it.

 

Also 90% of those players won’t be impact players. Most of them will bust no matter how much they’re hyped.

[-AJ-]

Surprised that Kemell isn't on the list. My friend has been drooling over him and lamenting that we didn't pick him.

[joe-max]

Just now, -AJ- said:

Surprised that Kemell isn't on the list. My friend has been drooling over him and lamenting that we didn't pick him.

Well, he was my best player when I won the Finnish Liiga with JYP on "Franchise Hockey Manager" in 2021. So there's that.

[Bure_Pavel]

8 minutes ago, -AJ- said:

Surprised that Kemell isn't on the list. My friend has been drooling over him and lamenting that we didn't pick him.

Doesnt seem like this list is based on potential more current performance even Nemec and Slaf are ranked in the 50's despite going first and second overall. 

[HighOnHockey]

10 minutes ago, DeNiro said:

All subjective, doesn’t mean much.

 

Our top prospects have all graduated to become NHLers. Sure we have kind of gap right now but at least we have Miller, Garland, and OEL to show for it.

 

Also 90% of those players won’t be impact players. Most of them will bust no matter how much they’re hyped.

 

90%!? Might wanna think that one over for a minute.

[Warhippy]

1 minute ago, Bure_Pavel said:

Doesnt seem like this list is based on potential more current performance even Nemec and Slaf are ranked in the 50's despite going first and second overall. 

As stated, they have placed newer prospects further down the list over more established prospects taken 2-3 years ago.

[HighOnHockey]

1 minute ago, Bure_Pavel said:

Doesnt seem like this list is based on potential more current performance even Nemec and Slaf are ranked in the 50's despite going first and second overall. 

Yeah it's a bad list. Most of them are. People have a lot of trouble finding a balance between safety and upside.

[Warhippy]

13 minutes ago, DeNiro said:

All subjective, doesn’t mean much.

 

Our top prospects have all graduated to become NHLers. Sure we have kind of gap right now but at least we have Miller, Garland, and OEL to show for it.

 

Also 90% of those players won’t be impact players. Most of them will bust no matter how much they’re hyped.

Our top prospects have been

 

Hoglander

Podkolzin

Pettersson

Boeser

Hughes

Demko

Horvat

 

Since Horvat was drafted in 2013

 

That's still pretty much an indictment of things here especially when we consider Horvat was drafted in 2013.  our only prospects on that list are Rathbone and Lekkerimaki.  It's troubling no matter how you look at it.

[Warhippy]

1 minute ago, HighOnHockey said:

Yeah it's a bad list. Most of them are. People have a lot of trouble finding a balance between safety and upside.

Not a good list, but a good reference.

[VegasCanuck]

19 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

Our top prospects have been

 

Hoglander

Podkolzin

Pettersson

Boeser

Hughes

Demko

Horvat

 

Since Horvat was drafted in 2013

 

That's still pretty much an indictment of things here especially when we consider Horvat was drafted in 2013.  our only prospects on that list are Rathbone and Lekkerimaki.  It's troubling no matter how you look at it.

It's a list with a lot of misses all over the league.

 

Why wouldn't they have Braden Schneider on there for the Rangers? He hasn't played enough games to be off of that list yet.

 

 

[DeNiro]

33 minutes ago, HighOnHockey said:

 

90%!? Might wanna think that one over for a minute.

Impact player being the key term.

 

How many impact players would you say are in the league?

 

Wer’re not talking about just making the NHL we’re talking about being a top scorer or top 4 D man. Odds are only a small amount of those prospects become those players.

 

All they’ve really done is take the first and second round picks from the last few drafts for the most part. Look at any draft and there’s only usually a handful of players in the first couple rounds that become impact players.

 

Edited August 29, 2022 by DeNiro

[DeNiro]

31 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

Our top prospects have been

 

Hoglander

Podkolzin

Pettersson

Boeser

Hughes

Demko

Horvat

 

Since Horvat was drafted in 2013

 

That's still pretty much an indictment of things here especially when we consider Horvat was drafted in 2013.  our only prospects on that list are Rathbone and Lekkerimaki.  It's troubling no matter how you look at it.

And that’s our core. All good players.

 

How many roster spots can you fill with drafted players? No team fills out their roster with prospects.

 

Not many teams have much more than 7 players that they’ve drafted and developed making up their core.

[Master Mind]

Out of 100 prospects, most teams should average having 3, so for the Canucks to have 2 isn't too bad. We would have had 3 if our 2021 1st wasn't traded.

 

The bigger concern for us is what our prospect pool looks like after those 2 -- there isn't much depth aside from a couple players.

 

I see many times on CDC people saying they don't want "magic beans" with only a 25% chance of being a good player (% based on round). This is the wrong way to look at it. Look at the teams with the best prospect pools -- the key is volume. If you have many picks, you increase your odds of finding good players.

 

Sadly we've been trading away too many of our picks for no results. Hopefully the new regime doesn't trade away our picks too often.

[Nucker 67]

For many years the Canucks haven't gone after extra draft picks, but even occasionally giving them away for immediate help. That hasn't worked well at all.

 

Miller, OEL, Garland - all pretty good players, but still isn't enough to even make the Canucks a playoff team. 

 

 

 

 

[DeNiro]

3 minutes ago, NUCKER67 said:

For many years the Canucks haven't gone after extra draft picks, but even occasionally giving them away for immediate help. That hasn't worked well at all.

 

Miller, OEL, Garland - all pretty good players, but still isn't enough to even make the Canucks a playoff team. 

 

 

 

 

Well that also comes with drafting well with the picks you have.

 

The reason we’re not a playoff team has a lot to do with poor drafting. You can’t go 0 for with as many drafts as we did.
 

And take players like Juolevi over Sergachev/Tkachuk/McAvoy, Virtanen over Ehlers, Woo over Romanov etc. Even when we had multiple 2nds we struck out with Lind and Gadjovich.

 

This teams failures has 100% come down to scouting on the pro and amateur side of things.

 

Edited August 29, 2022 by DeNiro

[Warhippy]

21 minutes ago, Master Mind said:

Out of 100 prospects, most teams should average having 3, so for the Canucks to have 2 isn't too bad. We would have had 3 if our 2021 1st wasn't traded.

 

The bigger concern for us is what our prospect pool looks like after those 2 -- there isn't much depth aside from a couple players.

 

I see many times on CDC people saying they don't want "magic beans" with only a 25% chance of being a good player (% based on round). This is the wrong way to look at it. Look at the teams with the best prospect pools -- the key is volume. If you have many picks, you increase your odds of finding good players.

 

Sadly we've been trading away too many of our picks for no results. Hopefully the new regime doesn't trade away our picks too often.

Hundy p bud!

[King Loui]

12 hours ago, DeNiro said:

All subjective, doesn’t mean much.

 

Our top prospects have all graduated to become NHLers. Sure we have kind of gap right now but at least we have Miller, Garland, and OEL to show for it.

 

Also 90% of those players won’t be impact players. Most of them will bust no matter how much they’re hyped.

 I'd take Dylan Guenther and the 12 mil in savings over OEL + Garland

 

OEL has done fine and has slid under the radar so far but his contract is and will be an anchor.  He didn't even crack the 30 point mark last season 

 

Every team in the league has a young core outside of a few veteran teams like Tampa, Pittsburgh, Washington etc.  Every team has young players who have graduated to become NHL'ers.  We have a gap right now but now is not the time to have any gaps

 

 

[Bure_Pavel]

18 hours ago, DeNiro said:

Well that also comes with drafting well with the picks you have.

 

The reason we’re not a playoff team has a lot to do with poor drafting. You can’t go 0 for with as many drafts as we did.
 

And take players like Juolevi over Sergachev/Tkachuk/McAvoy, Virtanen over Ehlers, Woo over Romanov etc. Even when we had multiple 2nds we struck out with Lind and Gadjovich.

 

This teams failures has 100% come down to scouting on the pro and amateur side of things.

 

Im not sure I would say Lind and Gadjovich we total strike outs both may still be NHLers, but I was screaming pretty hard at the TV when they took Lind over Hague. 

Edited August 30, 2022 by Bure_Pavel