Top 50 BRHL prospects

VanIslander · Guru

RE: Top 50 BRHL prospects

Predsgm · Guru

very good analysis.. but its true.. what you said vanisle...... im shooting for that AHL calder cup trophy..... and gearing up for the offseason and next season..

Preds GM
David Barbosa

Hawks_G · Guru

VanIslander wrote:

Is it better to

or

(b) draft and trade for guys you think will be good prospects, some of whom will develop into good prospects, some of whom won't. The list at the end of the year, when payouts are made, is just a snapshot in time, but it is a snapshot of trule prospects NOW, of developing prospects that rewards g.m.s for investing in the future, not in NHL rookies, but in prospects that are developing.

My point being that if this is true then we shouldn't draft a full year behind the NHL. We should draft the same season as the NHL.

This goes back to Bryce's reasoning for drafting one year behind the NHL. To allow for GMs to see the development of prospects for one year before drafting them.

If your point is true then the BRHL2 should draft talent in the same year as the NHL.

One of my two points because of chronology must be correct.

1. If the reward is for drafting good prospects, then draft at the same time as the NHL.
2. If the reward is for having good prospects, then payout after our draft.

Personally, I don't care what the solution is. I have been trying to find an explanation towards a similar situation that wouldn't make sense, but I can't.

Maybe this....these guys are on this list based on 2006-07 stats/performance....but we are paying out based on the 2005-06 season?

VanIslander · Guru

Hawks_G wrote:
Personally, I don't care what the solution is. I have been trying to find an explanation towards a similar situation that wouldn't make sense, but I can't.

Hawks_G · Guru

VanIslander wrote:

Hawks_G wrote:
Personally, I don't care what the solution is. I have been trying to find an explanation towards a similar situation that wouldn't make sense, but I can't.

I was trying to figure out a scenerio where there is a similar situation.....and I think I may have above. The players on the Top 50 list are on there based on the 2006-07 performance, and we are using players that are based on 2005-06.

VanIslander · Guru

Hawks_G wrote:
My point being that if this is true then we shouldn't draft a full year behind the NHL. We should draft the same season as the NHL.

If your point is true then the BRHL2 should draft talent in the same year as the NHL.

I don't agree that these "should"s necessarily follow.

We draft players in the offseason who have had an extra year to develop (a year behind the NHL),:
(1) some of whom will develop fast enough to be on the following BRHL2 top prospect list (the current NHL list),
(2) some of whom will develop real slowly and hence be first round picks who may never make the top-50 prospect list regardless whether their stunted/untouted development path results in an NHL career eventually,
(3) a few of whom will develop at breakneck speed and become NHL rookies (the Malkins of the world, who will reward a team by being Calder candidates in the BRHL2 the following year), having been on top-40 prospect lists.
(4) a rare odd player who'll come out of nowhere and become a great NHL rookie and not make any top-50 prospect lists (in which case it makes sense that they fall through the cracks of rewards for prospect predictions!)

Here is last year's top prospects on the hockey news' top-50 list:

1. Evgeni Malkin, C, Magnitogorsk (Pittsburgh)
2. Jack Johnson, D, Michigan (Carolina)
3. Bobby Ryan, RW, Owen Sound (Anaheim)
4. Shea Weber, D, Milwaukee (Nashville)
5. Niklas Kronwall, D, Detroit (Detroit)
6. Marc-Andre Fleury, G, Wilkes-Barre (Pittsburgh)
7. Gilbert Brule, C, Vancouver (Columbus)
8. Marc Staal, D, Sudbury (Rangers)
9. Cam Barker, D, Medicine Hat (Chicago)
10. Ladislav Smid, D, Portland (Anaheim)

Guys like Malkin would have earned a g.m. in the BRHL2 some cash if they had had drafted him the previous year (assuming the brhl2 had been around then). Similarly, guys we draft this summer (from the NHL 2006 entry draft) will be potential top-50 prospects for cash payout next summer, assuming their development is good.

VanIslander · Guru

Hawks_G wrote:

1. If the reward is for drafting good prospects, then draft at the same time as the NHL.
2. If the reward is for having good prospects, then payout after our draft.

The reward isn't for drafting pre-determined good prospects, but for drafting prospects who develop well enough to be on the following year's top prospect list!

The reward isn't for just having good prospects through trading for top-50 prospects from a list, but for trading for prospects who develop well enough to be in the following offseason's top prospect list.

In both cases of drafting and trading, our present system rewards the good prediction of who will become a top-50 prospect the following year.

Hawks_G · Guru

VanIslander wrote:

Hawks_G wrote:

1. If the reward is for drafting good prospects, then draft at the same time as the NHL.
2. If the reward is for having good prospects, then payout after our draft.

The reward isn't for drafting pre-determined good prospects, but for drafting prospects who develop well enough to be on the following year's top prospect list!

The reward isn't for just having good prospects through trading for top-50 prospects from a list, but for trading for prospects who develop well enough to be in the following offseason's top prospect list.

In both cases of drafting and trading, our present system rewards the good prediction of who will become a top-50 prospect the following year.

No it isn't, guys who draft Okposo, Toews and Backstrom and Mueller etc, would get no reward at all. Maybe someone thinks these guys will develop into NHLers in one year.

What this system does is reward guys who develop slowly....or eventually stay on the lists for a long time but never become NHLers.(Again, Ari Ahonen...would have made a guy a ton of dough by being predicted as a star NHLer.)

If you want to do what you are saying, then drafting at the same time as the NHL should be your position. The present system rewards guys who pick late, and get slow developing players or guys that stay in college etc.

I would rather this payout be abolished than to pay it out as it is.

VanIslander · Guru

The cash payout is for predicting who will become a good prospect per se!, not for predicting who will be a good NHLer. Who will be a good prospect is a judgement made before the fact, not after the fact.

There will be NHL players who will come out of nowhere, who will never show up on prospect lists, or way down on them. Our system does not directly reward players who never were really touted when they drafted nor when they began to develop afterwards (the odd 5th rounder who make it to the NHL without ever rising high in esteem during their development).

But our system does reward good scouting by us!!! choosing to draft and keep those high round draft picks (1st rounders) who STAY on the top prospect radar during the following year of their development, and for choosing to trade for lesser known prospects who LEAP to the top lists of prospects in the year(s) following their nhl draft.

Look at the Sabres' 9 top prospects for several examples of the former, and look at my Islanders' 4 top prospects for examples of the latter.

Our system rewards good scouting in both brhl2 drafting and brhl2 trading. It's fine, even if counterintuitive.

VanIslander · Guru

Hawks_G wrote:

guys who draft Okposo, Toews and Backstrom and Mueller etc, would get no reward at all.

They were never top-50 prospects according to the 22 NHL scouts whose work comprises the yearly THN's top-50 prospect list?? If they never were top prospects, what's wrong in not paying out? Again, we are not getting cash for having good NHLers (that'll come in Calder and rating benefits). We get cash for choosing prospects who develop well enough to be considered a top-50 prospect, a prediction of a future event (the release of THN's top-50 list each spring).

A few guys will be seen to develop slowly (e.g., Backstrom, the forward) and then suddenly against all expectations make the jump suddenly and never be on the top-50 prospect list. C'est la vie. That's not the majority of cases.

We should remember the purpose of the payout: to reward g.m.s who focus on prospect development and make good predictions in that regard. Our system does a pretty good job of that. And most of the cash payouts for prospects will go to nonplayoff teams.

-- Edited by VanIslander at 13:46, 2007-03-12

VanIslander · Guru

I'll leave off my participation in this thread today with:

It's not perfect but it's pretty good. There's reason enough to keep things the way they are even if a better way is available.

Shoot! I think there are much better ways to do many things in this league. But I'm not the commish and I see that there's some reason to do what is being done, even if I don't agree it's the best way. Hopefully you do now too.

G'day.

Florida Panthers · Senior Member

While obviously it won't happen, I personally would just abolish the whole idea of paying out anything for having a "top prospect". Some reasons have already been mentioned about why what exists right now doesn't really make a lot of sense. But primarily because you're already going to be rewarded for "good scouting" in the future. Either

1) you will keep your "top prospect" and he'll turn out to be a great player in which case your reward is getting a great player or
2) you will trade away your "top prospect" for some other good stuff.

If the prospect looks like a "top prospect" but turns out to be useless after all and because you kept him and he never becomes anything good, it's too bad so sad. In which case, why SHOULD you get anything? You drafted a guy that never became anything good, so you shouldn't get jack. If you managed to trade your top prospect before it turned out he was useless, good on you, you got something for nothing.

I've read the arguements about "good scouting", and at the end of the day, it just makes no sense that with the way things are prospects that jump right to the NHL are missed in the BRHL2 because we're a year behind. The "being rewarded for good scouting" is a crock because "good scouting" means ending up with a good NHL player, not ending up with a guy on the "top prospects" list.

Abolish the list, and hell give that money to charity for all the Panthers care.

Hawks_G · Guru

Florida Panthers wrote:

While obviously it won't happen, I personally would just abolish the whole idea of paying out anything for having a "top prospect". Some reasons have already been mentioned about why what exists right now doesn't really make a lot of sense. But primarily because you're already going to be rewarded for "good scouting" in the future. Either

1) you will keep your "top prospect" and he'll turn out to be a great player in which case your reward is getting a great player or
2) you will trade away your "top prospect" for some other good stuff.

If the prospect looks like a "top prospect" but turns out to be useless after all and because you kept him and he never becomes anything good, it's too bad so sad. In which case, why SHOULD you get anything? You drafted a guy that never became anything good, so you shouldn't get jack. If you managed to trade your top prospect before it turned out he was useless, good on you, you got something for nothing.

I've read the arguements about "good scouting", and at the end of the day, it just makes no sense that with the way things are prospects that jump right to the NHL are missed in the BRHL2 because we're a year behind. The "being rewarded for good scouting" is a crock because "good scouting" means ending up with a good NHL player, not ending up with a guy on the "top prospects" list.

Abolish the list, and hell give that money to charity for all the Panthers care.

At least someone agrees with me. And I wanted to point out that there is no self serving here with some early picks in the upcoming draft. Like I said, I would rather it be abolished rather than keep it the way it is.

Philippe27 · Guru

Hawks_G wrote:

Florida Panthers wrote:

While obviously it won't happen, I personally would just abolish the whole idea of paying out anything for having a "top prospect". Some reasons have already been mentioned about why what exists right now doesn't really make a lot of sense. But primarily because you're already going to be rewarded for "good scouting" in the future. Either

1) you will keep your "top prospect" and he'll turn out to be a great player in which case your reward is getting a great player or
2) you will trade away your "top prospect" for some other good stuff.

If the prospect looks like a "top prospect" but turns out to be useless after all and because you kept him and he never becomes anything good, it's too bad so sad. In which case, why SHOULD you get anything? You drafted a guy that never became anything good, so you shouldn't get jack. If you managed to trade your top prospect before it turned out he was useless, good on you, you got something for nothing.

I've read the arguements about "good scouting", and at the end of the day, it just makes no sense that with the way things are prospects that jump right to the NHL are missed in the BRHL2 because we're a year behind. The "being rewarded for good scouting" is a crock because "good scouting" means ending up with a good NHL player, not ending up with a guy on the "top prospects" list.

Abolish the list, and hell give that money to charity for all the Panthers care.
At least someone agrees with me. And I wanted to point out that there is no self serving here with some early picks in the upcoming draft. Like I said, I would rather it be abolished rather than keep it the way it is.

I never liked the prospect payouts from the beginning but I don't think it's fair to rebuilding teams to abolish it. However it seems that all GM's want to do here is change rules so I wouldn't disagree if one of them went in the direction I want.