|
Major Leagues
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 316
|
I somehow always get carried away with this stuff, even if I don't do it full-time. It's like I'm writing a dissertation on the subject right now. Ouch.
_________________________
2023 NHL DRAFT
1. Joe Holbert, RW, Peterborough Petes (OHL) – Ability 5.5 / Potential 11.0 (Offensive Potential – 800 / Defensive Potential – 753) – AGING =8 -> 12
YEAR ONE – New York Islanders (NHL), 75 GP, 6 G, 24 Points, +7 – Ability 6.0/ Potential 11.0 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR TWO - New York Islanders (NHL), 82 GP, 31 G, 62 Points, -5 – Ability 8.0/ Potential 11.0 (+2 Ability)
YEAR THREE - New York Islanders (NHL), 82 GP, 21 G, 68 Points, +16 – Ability 8.5/ Potential 11.0 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR FOUR – New York Islanders (NHL), 82 GP, 26 G, 68 Points, +18 – Ability 8.5/ Potential 11.0 (No change)
YEAR FIVE – New York Islanders (NHL), 82 GP, 40 G, 76 Points, +4 – Ability 9.5/ Potential 11.0 (+1 Ability)
YEAR SIX – New York Islanders (NHL), 82 GP, 36 G, 62 Points, -9 – Ability 9.5/ Potential 11.0 (No change)
YEAR SEVEN – New York Islanders (NHL), 74 GP, 30 G, 56 Points, -13 – Ability 10.0/ Potential 11.0 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR EIGHT – New York Islanders (NHL), 66 GP, 27 G, 52 Points, -5 – Ability 10.0/ Potential 11.0 (No change)
YEAR NINE – New York Islanders (NHL), 82 GP, 36 G, 71 Points, +19 – Ability 10.0/ Potential 10.0 (-1 Potential)
YEAR TEN - New York Islanders (NHL), 60 GP, 21 G, 43 Points, +6 – Ability 9.5/ Potential 9.5 (-.5 Ability, -.5 Potential)
2. Oakley Murray, RD, Seattle Thunderbirds (WHL) – Ability 6.0 / Potential 9.5 (Offensive Potential – 738 / Defensive Potential – 797) – AGING = 11 ->13
YEAR ONE – Anaheim Ducks (NHL) / New York Rangers (NHL), 71 GP, 3 G, 10 Points, +4 (Traded to New York in February) – Ability 6.5/ Potential 9.5 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR TWO - New York Rangers (NHL), 74 GP, 3 G, 20 Points, -3 – Ability 7.0 / Potential 9.5 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR THREE - New York Rangers (NHL), 71 GP, 5 G, 21 Points, -2 – Ability 7.0 / Potential 9.5 (No change)
YEAR FOUR – New York Rangers (NHL), 72 GP, 4 G, 34 Points, +20 – Ability 7.5 / Potential 9.5 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR FIVE – New York Rangers (NHL), 82 GP, 8 G, 37 Points, +26 – Ability 7.5 / Potential 9.5 (No change)
YEAR SIX – New York Rangers (NHL), 69 GP, 5 G, 28 Points, +24 – Ability 8.0 / Potential 9.5 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR SEVEN – New York Rangers (NHL), 52 GP,3 G, 12 Points, +11 – Ability 8.5 / Potential 9.5 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR EIGHT – New York Rangers (NHL), 82 GP,2 G, 24 Points, +21 – Ability 8.5 / Potential 9.5 (No change)
YEAR NINE – New York Rangers (NHL), 68 GP,1 G, 30 Points, +16 – Ability 8.5 / Potential 9.5 (No change)
YEAR TEN - New York Rangers (NHL), 82 GP,2 G, 40 Points, +9 – Ability 8.5 / Potential 8.5 (-1 Potential)
3. Martin Drobny, LW, PSG Zlin U20 – Ability 6.0 / Potential 9.5 (Offensive Potential – 771 / Defensive Potential – 799) – AGING = 10 -> 11
YEAR ONE – Arizona Coyotes (NHL), 81 GP, 6 G, 16 Points, -9 – Ability 6.5/ Potential 9.5 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR TWO – Edmonton Oilers (NHL), 82 GP, 8 G, 18 Points, +3 (Traded to Edmonton in September) – Ability 6.5/ Potential 9.5 (No change)
YEAR THREE - Edmonton Oilers (NHL), 82 GP, 16 G, 34 Points, -18 – Ability 7.0/ Potential 9.5 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR FOUR – Edmonton Oilers (NHL), 74 GP, 15 G, 33 Points, +6 – Ability 8.0/ Potential 9.5 (+1 Ability)
YEAR FIVE – Edmonton Oilers (NHL), 73 GP, 26 G, 51 Points, +2 – Ability 8.5/ Potential 9.5 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR SIX – Edmonton Oilers (NHL), 78 GP, 21 G, 42 Points, +6 – Ability 9.5 / Potential 9.5 (+1 Ability)
YEAR SEVEN – Edmonton Oilers (NHL), 64 GP, 16 G, 46 Points, -10 – Ability 9.5 / Potential 9.5 (No change)
YEAR EIGHT – Edmonton Oilers (NHL), 82 GP, 34 G, 45 Points, +1 – Ability 9.5 / Potential 9.5 (No change)
YEAR NINE – Edmonton Oilers (NHL), 70 GP, 21 G, 40 Points, +4 – Ability 9.0 / Potential 9.0 (-.5 Ability, -.5 Potential)
YEAR TEN - Edmonton Oilers (NHL), 80 GP, 25 G, 49 Points, +21 – Ability 8.5 / Potential 8.5 (-.5 Ability, -.5 Potential)
4. Michael Clark, C, Prince Albert Raiders (WHL) – Ability 6.0 / Potential 10.5 (Offensive Potential – 822 / Defensive Potential – 777) – AGING = 12 -> 14
YEAR ONE – Florida Panthers (NHL), 56 GP, 0 G, 5 Points, -7 – Ability 6.0/ Potential 10.5 (No change)
YEAR TWO - Florida Panthers (NHL), No games played – Ability 7.5/ Potential 10.5 (+1.5 Ability)
YEAR THREE - Florida Panthers (NHL), 65 GP, 3 G, 9 Points – Ability 8.0 / Potential 10.5 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR FOUR – Florida Panthers (NHL), 82 GP,8 G, 16 Points, 133 PIM, +1 – Ability 8.0 / Potential 10.5 (No change)
YEAR FIVE – Florida Panthers (NHL), 82 GP,22 G, 38 Points, 212 PIM, -5 – Ability 8.0 / Potential 10.5 (No change)
YEAR SIX – Florida Panthers (NHL), 82 GP,22 G, 48 Points, 197 PIM, +8 – Ability 8.5 / Potential 10.5 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR SEVEN – Florida Panthers (NHL), 82 GP,30 G, 64 Points, 200 PIM, +6 – Ability 9.0/ Potential 10.5 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR EIGHT – Florida Panthers (NHL), 63 GP,19 G, 45 Points, 138 PIM, +13 – Ability 9.0/ Potential 10.5 (No change)
YEAR NINE – Florida Panthers (NHL), 82 GP,32 G, 65 Points, 240 PIM, +27 – Ability 9.0/ Potential 10.5 (No change)
YEAR TEN - Florida Panthers (NHL), 82 GP,30 G, 67 Points, 198 PIM, +8 – Ability 9.0/ Potential 10.5 (No change)
5. Simon-Richard Lacroix, RD, Cape Breton Screaming Eagles (QMJHL) – Ability 6.5 / Potential 10.5 (Offensive Potential – 706 / Defensive Potential – 748) – AGING = 10 -> 11
YEAR ONE – Pittsburgh Penguins (NHL), 5 GP, 0 G, 2 Points – Ability 7.0 / Potential 10.5 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR TWO – Columbus Blue Jackets (NHL), 67 GP, 1 G, 26 Points, -17 (Traded to Columbus in June) – Ability 7.5 / Potential 10.5 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR THREE - Columbus Blue Jackets (NHL), 73 GP, 7 G, 36 Points, +1– Ability 8.0 / Potential 10.5 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR FOUR – Columbus Blue Jackets (NHL), 79 GP, 1 G, 32 Points, 119 PIM, +16– Ability 8.0 / Potential 10.5 (No change)
YEAR FIVE – New York Rangers (NHL), 66 GP, 3 G, 35 Points, +20– Ability 8.5 / Potential 10.5 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR SIX – New York Rangers (NHL), 66 GP, 5 G, 32 Points, +8 – Ability 9.0 / Potential 10.5 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR SEVEN – New York Rangers (NHL), 66 GP, 4 G, 29 Points, +5 – Ability 9.5 / Potential 10.5 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR EIGHT – New York Rangers (NHL), 73 GP, 7 G, 32 Points, +4 – Ability 9.0 / Potential 9.0 (-.5 Ability, -.5 Potential)
YEAR NINE – New York Rangers (NHL), 62 GP, 4 G, 28 Points, +9 – Ability 9.0 / Potential 9.0 (No change)
YEAR TEN - New York Rangers (NHL), 72 GP, 6 G, 42 Points, +23 – Ability 8.5 / Potential 8.5 (-.5 Ability, -.5 Potential)
6. Ryan Khafipour, LW, Red Deer Rebels (WHL) – Ability 5.5 / Potential 9.0 (Offensive Potential – 783 / Defensive Potential – 731) – AGING = 10 -> 13
YEAR ONE – Binghamton Senators (AHL) / Ottawa Senators (NHL), 15 GP, 0 G, 2 Points, -1 – Ability 6.0/ Potential 9.0 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR TWO - Ottawa Senators (NHL), 82 GP, 6 G, 12 Points, -8 – Ability 6.5/ Potential 9.0 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR THREE - Ottawa Senators (NHL), 82 GP, 3 G, 26 Points, +7 – Ability 7.0/ Potential 9.0 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR FOUR – Ottawa Senators (NHL), 82 GP, 14 G, 56 Points, +22 – Ability 7.5/ Potential 9.0 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR FIVE – Ottawa Senators (NHL), 79 GP, 18 G, 48 Points, -11– Ability 8.0 / Potential 9.0 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR SIX – Ottawa Senators (NHL), 82 GP, 36 G, 76 Points, -13– Ability 8.5 / Potential 9.0 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR SEVEN – Ottawa Senators (NHL), 75 GP, 20 G, 59 Points, -8– Ability 9.5 / Potential 9.0 (+1 Ability)
YEAR EIGHT – Ottawa Senators (NHL), 67 GP, 21 G, 48 Points, +4– Ability 9.5 / Potential 9.0 (No change)
YEAR NINE – Ottawa Senators (NHL), 67 GP, 26 G, 59 Points, +12– Ability 9.5 / Potential 9.0 (No change)
YEAR TEN - Ottawa Senators (NHL), 67 GP, 23 G, 67 Points, -6– Ability 9.5 / Potential 9.5 (+.5 Potential)
7. Renato Nemeth, RD/LD, Hungarian U18 – Ability 3.0 / Potential 10.5 (Offensive Potential – 1000 / Defensive Potential – 1000 / Aging - 10) – AGING = 10
YEAR ONE – Utica Comets (AHL) – Ability 3.0 / Potential 10.5 (No change)
YEAR TWO - Utica Comets (AHL) – Ability 3.0 / Potential 10.5 (No change)
YEAR THREE – Kalamazoo Wings (ECHL) / Utica Comets (AHL) – Ability 3.5 / Potential 10.5 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR FOUR – Kalamazoo Wings (ECHL), No games played – Ability 3.5 / Potential 10.5 (No change)
YEAR FIVE – Kalamazoo Wings (ECHL), No games played – Ability 4.0 / Potential 10.5 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR SIX – Kalamazoo Wings (ECHL), No games played – Ability 4.5 / Potential 10.5 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR SEVEN – Kalamazoo Wings (ECHL), No games played – Ability 4.5 / Potential 4.5 (-6 Potential)
YEAR EIGHT – Albany Devlis, (AHL) (Signed in free agency by New Jersey) – Ability 5.0 / Potential 5.0 (+.5 Ability , +.5 Potential)
YEAR NINE – South Carolina Stingrays (ECHL), No games played– Ability 4.5 / Potential 4.5 (-.5 Ability , -.5 Potential)
YEAR TEN – Providence Bruins (AHL) / South Carolina Stingrays (ECHL) – Ability 4.5 / Potential 4.5 (No change)
8. Jason Fullerton, LD, Medicine Hat Tigers (WHL) – Ability 3.0 / Potential 10.0 (Offensive Potential – 1000 / Defensive Potential – 1000 / Aging - 6) – AGING = 6
YEAR ONE – Medicine Hat Tigers (WHL) – Ability 3.0 / Potential 10.0 (No change)
YEAR TWO - Medicine Hat Tigers (WHL) – Ability 3.0 / Potential 10.0 (No change)
YEAR THREE – Cincinnati Cyclones (ECHL) / San Francisco Bulls (ECHL) (Traded to San Jose in mid-January, after he turned age 21) – Ability 3.5 / Potential 3.5 (+.5 Ability / -6.5 Potential)
YEAR FOUR – San Francisco Bulls (ECHL) , No games played– Ability 3.5 / Potential 3.5 (No change)
YEAR FIVE – UBC Thunderbirds (CIS) – Ability 3.5 / Potential 3.5 (No change) RELEASED
YEAR SIX – Mississippi Surge (SPHL) – Ability 3.5 / Potential 3.5 (No change)
YEAR SEVEN – RETIRED
9. Jeff Miller, C, Western US Jr. B – Ability 3.0 / Potential 10.0 (Offensive Potential – 1000 / Defensive Potential – 1000 / Aging - 14) – AGING = 14
YEAR ONE – KOOVEE Tampere (Suomi-Sarja) – Ability 3.0 / Potential 10.0 (No change) RELEASED
YEAR TWO - KOOVEE Tampere (Suomi-Sarja) – Ability 3.0 / Potential 10.0 (No change)
YEAR THREE - KOOVEE Tampere (Suomi-Sarja) – Ability 3.0 / Potential 10.0 (No change)
YEAR FOUR – Keupa HT Keuruu (Suomi-Sarja) – Ability 3.5 / Potential 10.0 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR FIVE – Keupa HT Keuruu (Suomi-Sarja) – Ability 3.5 / Potential 10.0 (No change)
YEAR SIX – Keupa HT Keuruu (Suomi-Sarja) – Ability 3.5 / Potential 10.0 (No change)
YEAR SEVEN – Keupa HT Keuruu (Suomi-Sarja) – Ability 4.0 / Potential 10.0 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR EIGHT – Red Ducks Waasa (Suomi-Sarja) – Ability 4.0 / Potential 10.0 (No change)
YEAR NINE – EHC Niesky (Oberliga) – Ability 4.0 / Potential 10.0 (No change)
YEAR TEN – Bietigheim Ironmen (DEL2) – Ability 4.0 / Potential 10.0 (No change)
10. Valdemar Olsson, C, Northern Sweden U18 – Ability 3.0 / Potential 10.5 (Offensive Potential – 1000 / Defensive Potential – 1000 / Aging - 20) – AGING = 20
YEAR ONE – Hartford Wolfpack (AHL) – Ability 3.0 / Potential 10.5 (No change)
YEAR TWO – Greenville Road Warriors (ECHL) / Hartford Wolfpack (AHL) – Ability 3.0 / Potential 10.5 (No change)
YEAR THREE - Greenville Road Warriors (ECHL) – Ability 3.5 / Potential 10.5 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR FOUR – Greenville Road Warriors (ECHL), No games played – Ability 3.5 / Potential 10.5 (No change)
YEAR FIVE – Greenville Road Warriors (ECHL), No games played – Ability 4.0 / Potential 10.5 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR SIX – Greenville Road Warriors (ECHL), No games played – Ability 4.0 / Potential 10.5 (No change)
YEAR SEVEN – Greenville Road Warriors (ECHL), No games played – Ability 4.5 / Potential 10.5 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR EIGHT – Greenville Road Warriors (ECHL), No games played – Ability 4.5 / Potential 10.5 (No change)
YEAR NINE – Greenville Road Warriors (ECHL), No games played – Ability 4.5 / Potential 10.5 (No change)
YEAR TEN - Greenville Road Warriors (ECHL), No games played – Ability 4.5 / Potential 10.5 (No change)
11. Maxim Many Bears, RW, Gloucester Rangers (CCHL) – Ability 3.0 / Potential 11.0 (Offensive Potential – 1000 / Defensive Potential – 1000 / Aging – 8 ) – AGING = 8
YEAR ONE – Rochester Americans (AHL), No games played – Ability 3.0 / Potential 11.0 (No change)
YEAR TWO - Rochester Americans (AHL), No games played – Ability 3.5 / Potential 11.0 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR THREE - Rochester Americans (AHL), No games played – Ability 3.5 / Potential 11.0 (No change)
YEAR FOUR – Rochester Americans (AHL), No games played – Ability 4.0 / Potential 11.0 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR FIVE – Kalamazoo Wings (ECHL), No games played – Ability 4.0 / Potential 4.0 (-7 Potential) RELEASED
YEAR SIX – Kalamazoo Wings (ECHL) – Ability 3.5 / Potential 3.5 (-.5 Ability, -.5 Potential)
YEAR SEVEN – Guelph Gryphons (CIS) – Ability 3.5 / Potential 3.5 (No change)
YEAR EIGHT – Guelph Gryphons (CIS) – Ability 3.5 / Potential 3.5 (No change)
YEAR NINE – Fayetteville FireAntz (SPHL) – Ability 3.5 / Potential 3.5 (No change)
YEAR TEN - Fayetteville FireAntz (SPHL) – Ability 3.5 / Potential 3.5 (No change)
12. Oleg Mikhailov, G, Russian Third Division – Ability 3.5 / Potential 10.0 (Goaltending Potential – 1000 / Aging - 15) – AGING = 15 -> 14 (Broken kneecap injury… probable culprit?)
YEAR ONE – Iowa Wild (AHL) / Minnesota Wild (NHL), 17 GP, 5 W, 10 L, 2.76 GAA, .921 SV% – Ability 3.5 / Potential 10.0 (No change)
YEAR TWO - – Iowa Wild (AHL) – Ability 4.0 / Potential 10.0 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR THREE - Iowa Wild (AHL) / Minnesota Wild (NHL), 5 GP, 3 W, 2 L, 2.40 GAA, .932 SV% – Ability 5.0 / Potential 10.0 (+1 Ability)
YEAR FOUR – Iowa Wild (AHL) / Minnesota Wild (NHL), 20 GP, 9 W, 6 L, 2.41 GAA, .928 SV% – Ability 5.0 / Potential 10.0 (No change)
YEAR FIVE – Iowa Wild (AHL) – Ability 6.0 / Potential 10.0 (+1 Ability)
YEAR SIX – Minnesota Wild (NHL) / Carolina Hurricanes (NHL), 60 GP, 28 W, 27 L, 2.76 GAA, .919 SV% (Traded to Carolina in January) – Ability 6.5 / Potential 10.0 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR SEVEN – Carolina Hurricanes (NHL), 60 GP, 33 W, 14 L, 2.24 GAA, .929 SV% – Ability 7.0 / Potential 10.0 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR EIGHT – Carolina Hurricanes (NHL), 54 GP, 20 W, 21 L, 2.37 GAA, .924 SV% – Ability 7.0 / Potential 10.0 (No change)
YEAR NINE – Carolina Hurricanes (NHL), 57 GP, 25 W, 25 L, 2.16 GAA, .934 SV% – Ability 7.0 / Potential 10.0 (No change)
YEAR TEN - Carolina Hurricanes (NHL), 26 GP, 14 W, 5 L, 1.74 GAA, .943 SV% – Ability 7.5 / Potential 10.0 (+.5 Ability)
13. Kyle Feasey, C, Windsor Spitfires (OHL) – Ability 4.5 / Potential 8.0 (Offensive Potential – 763 / Defensive Potential - 713) – AGING = 10 ->15
YEAR ONE – Windsor Spitfires (OHL) – Ability 5.0 / Potential 8.0 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR TWO - Windsor Spitfires (OHL) – Ability 5.0 / Potential 8.0 (No change)
YEAR THREE – Springfield Falcons (AHL) – Ability 5.5 / Potential 8.0 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR FOUR – Columbus Blue Jackets (NHL), 82 GP, 5 G, 9 Points, -5 – Ability 5.5 / Potential 9.0 (+1 Potential)
YEAR FIVE – Columbus Blue Jackets (NHL), 82 GP, 5 G, 12 Points, +4 – Ability 6.0 / Potential 9.0 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR SIX – Columbus Blue Jackets (NHL), 75 GP, 8 G, 18 Points, -7 – Ability 6.5 / Potential 9.0 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR SEVEN – Columbus Blue Jackets (NHL), 82 GP, 16 G, 27 Points, -6 – Ability 7.0 / Potential 9.0 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR EIGHT – Columbus Blue Jackets (NHL), 82 GP, 23 G, 43 Points – Ability 7.0 / Potential 9.0 (No change)
YEAR NINE – Ottawa Senators (NHL), 82 GP, 22 G, 46 Points , 114 PIM, -5 (Traded to Ottawa in June) – Ability 8.0 / Potential 9.0 (+1 Ability)
YEAR TEN - Ottawa Senators (NHL), 82 GP, 31 G, 62 Points, 121 PIM, -6 – Ability 8.0 / Potential 9.0 (No change)
14. Curtis Santi, RW, Edmonton Oil Kings (WHL) – Ability 6.0 / Potential 10.0 (Offensive Potential – 749 / Defensive Potential - 735) – AGING = 12 -> 13
YEAR ONE – Detroit Red Wings (NHL), 7 GP, 0 G, 4 Point – Ability 6.5/ Potential 10.0 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR TWO - Detroit Red Wings (NHL), 82 GP, 4 G, 10 Points, -3 – Ability 7.0/ Potential 10.0 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR THREE - Detroit Red Wings (NHL), 67 GP, 17 G, 35 Points, +7 – Ability 7.5/ Potential 10.0 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR FOUR – Detroit Red Wings (NHL), 78 GP, 38 G, 65 Points, +10 – Ability 8.0/ Potential 10.0 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR FIVE – Detroit Red Wings (NHL), 82 GP, 34 G, 70 Points, +7 – Ability 9.0 / Potential 10.0 (+1 Ability)
YEAR SIX – Detroit Red Wings (NHL), 76 GP, 45 G, 79 Points, +25 – Ability 10.0 / Potential 10.0 (+1 Ability)
YEAR SEVEN – Detroit Red Wings (NHL), 82 GP, 43 G, 74 Points, +10 – Ability 10.0 / Potential 10.0 (No change)
YEAR EIGHT – Detroit Red Wings (NHL), 63 GP, 33 G, 58 Points , +11– Ability 10.0 / Potential 10.0 (No change)
YEAR NINE – Detroit Red Wings (NHL), 82 GP, 43 G, 72 Points , +1– Ability 10.0 / Potential 10.0 (No change)
YEAR TEN - Detroit Red Wings (NHL), 72 GP, 26 G, 43 Points , +3– Ability 10.0 / Potential 10.0 (No change)
15. Johan Eriksson, C, Linkopings HC J20 – Ability 5.0 / Potential 9.0 (Offensive Potential – 736 / Defensive Potential - 706) – AGING = 11 -> 14
YEAR ONE – Manchester Monarchs (AHL) – Ability 5.0/ Potential 9.0 (No change)
YEAR TWO - Manchester Monarchs (AHL) / Los Angeles Kings (NHL), 46 GP, 4 G, 17 Points, -21 – Ability 5.5/ Potential 9.0 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR THREE - Manchester Monarchs (AHL) / Los Angeles Kings (NHL), 76 GP, 18 G, 36 Points – Ability 5.5/ Potential 9.0 (No change)
YEAR FOUR – Buffalo Sabres (NHL), 82 GP, 6 G, 9 Points, -9 (Traded to Buffalo in August) – Ability 6.0/ Potential 9.0 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR FIVE – Buffalo Sabres (NHL), 82 GP, 14 G, 38 Points, -3 – Ability 6.5/ Potential 9.0 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR SIX – Buffalo Sabres (NHL), 76 GP, 21 G, 45 Points, -2 – Ability 8.0 / Potential 9.0 (+1.5 Ability)
YEAR SEVEN – Buffalo Sabres (NHL), 82 GP, 24 G, 58 Points, +1 – Ability 8.5 / Potential 9.0 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR EIGHT – Buffalo Sabres (NHL), 82 GP, 37 G, 98 Points, +44– Ability 8.5 / Potential 9.0 (No change)
YEAR NINE – Buffalo Sabres (NHL), 82 GP, 35 G, 73 Points, +10– Ability 8.5 / Potential 9.0 (No change)
YEAR TEN - Buffalo Sabres (NHL), 73 GP, 28 G, 53 Points, -3– Ability 8.5 / Potential 9.0 (No change)
16. Philippe Gordon, RW, Kemptville 73’s (CCHL) – Ability 4.0 / Potential 8.5 (Offensive Potential – 786 / Defensive Potential - 762) – AGING = 13-> 14
YEAR ONE – Charlotte Checkers (AHL) – Ability 4.0/ Potential 8.5 (No change)
YEAR TWO - Charlotte Checkers (AHL) – Ability 4.5/ Potential 8.5 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR THREE – Florida Everblades (ECHL) / Charlotte Checkers (AHL) – Ability 4.5/ Potential 8.5 (No change)
YEAR FOUR – Florida Everblades (ECHL) – Ability 4.5/ Potential 8.5 (No change)
YEAR FIVE – Charlotte Checkers (AHL) – Ability 5.0/ Potential 8.5 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR SIX – Charlotte Checkers (AHL) – Ability 5.5/ Potential 8.5 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR SEVEN – St. Johns IceCaps (AHL) / Winnipeg Jets (NHL), 46 GP, 6 G, 8 Points, -14 – Ability 6.0/ Potential 8.5 (+.5 Ability) RELEASED/UFA
YEAR EIGHT – Winnipeg Jets (NHL), 75 GP, 14 G, 32 Points, +2 – Ability 6.0/ Potential 8.5 (No change)
YEAR NINE – St. Johns IceCaps (AHL) / Winnipeg Jets (NHL), 62 GP, 21 G, 32 Points, -14 – Ability 6.0/ Potential 8.5 (No change)
YEAR TEN - St. Johns IceCaps (AHL) / Winnipeg Jets (NHL), 47 GP, 10 G, 16 Points, -3 – Ability 6.0/ Potential 8.5 (No change)
17. Dominic Foster, LD/RD, Brandon Wheat Kings (WHL) – Ability 4.0 / Potential 8.0 (Offensive Potential – 685 / Defensive Potential - 729) – AGING =12
YEAR ONE – Brandon Wheat Kings (WHL) – Ability 4.5/ Potential 8.0 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR TWO - Brandon Wheat Kings (WHL) – Ability 5.0/ Potential 8.0 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR THREE – South Carolina Stingrays (ECHL), No games played – Ability 5.0/ Potential 8.0 (No change)
YEAR FOUR – South Carolina Stingrays (ECHL), No games played – Ability 5.5/ Potential 8.0 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR FIVE – Hershey Bears (AHL) – Ability 6.0/ Potential 8.0 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR SIX – Hershey Bears (AHL) – Ability 6.0/ Potential 8.0 (No change)
YEAR SEVEN – Washington Capitals (NHL), 27 GP, 2 G, 7 Points, +11 – Ability 7.0/ Potential 8.0 (+1 Ability)
YEAR EIGHT – Washington Capitals (NHL), 68 GP,1 G, 8 Points, -17 – Ability 7.0/ Potential 8.0 (No change)
YEAR NINE – Washington Capitals (NHL), 63 GP, 0 G, 13 Points, -19 – Ability 7.5/ Potential 8.0 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR TEN - Washington Capitals (NHL), 82 GP, 1 G, 18 Points, -13 – Ability 7.5/ Potential 7.5 (-.5 Potential)
18. Justin Langan, RD, Blainville-Boisbriand Armada (QMJHL) – Ability 5.5 / Potential 9.0 (Offensive Potential – 689 / Defensive Potential - 725) – AGING = 8
YEAR ONE - Blainville-Boisbriand Armada (QMJHL) – Ability 6.0/ Potential 9.0 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR TWO – Winnipeg Jets (NHL), 82 GP, 3 G, 9 Points, +4 – Ability 7.0/ Potential 9.0 (+1 Ability)
YEAR THREE - Winnipeg Jets (NHL), 69 GP, 2 G, 20 Points, +3 – Ability 7.5/ Potential 9.0 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR FOUR – Winnipeg Jets (NHL), 76 GP, 5 G, 30 Points, 119 PIM, +14 – Ability 7.5/ Potential 9.0 (No change)
YEAR FIVE – Winnipeg Jets (NHL), 80 GP, 2 G, 21 Points, 150 PIM, +2 – Ability 8.0/ Potential 8.0 (+.5 Ability, -1 Potential)
YEAR SIX – Winnipeg Jets (NHL), 82 GP, 14 G, 50 Points, 68 PIM, +29 – Ability 8.0/ Potential 8.0 (No change)
YEAR SEVEN – Winnipeg Jets (NHL), 76 GP, 8 G, 27 Points, -5 – Ability 7.5/ Potential 7.5 (-.5 Ability, -.5 Potential)
YEAR EIGHT – Winnipeg Jets (NHL), 82 GP, 7 G, 47 Points, +10 – Ability 7.5/ Potential 7.5 (No change)
YEAR NINE – Winnipeg Jets (NHL), 73 GP, 4 G, 27 Points, +4 – Ability 7.5/ Potential 7.5 (No change)
YEAR TEN - Winnipeg Jets (NHL), 51 GP, 2 G, 19 Points, -9 – Ability 7.0/ Potential 7.0 (-.5 Ability, -.5 Potential)
19. Vitaly Solovyov, C, Serebryanie LVI St. Petersburg (YHL) – Ability 4.5 / Potential 9.5 (Offensive Potential – 730 / Defensive Potential - 676) – AGING = 15
YEAR ONE - Serebryanie LVI St. Petersburg (YHL) - Ability 4.5 / Potential 9.5 (No change)
YEAR TWO – Yunior Kurgan (YHL) - Ability 5.0 / Potential 9.5 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR THREE - Zauralie Kurgan (VHL) - Ability 5.0 / Potential 9.5 (No change)
YEAR FOUR – Zauralie Kurgan (VHL) - Ability 5.5 / Potential 9.5 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR FIVE – Zauralie Kurgan (VHL) - Ability 5.5 / Potential 9.5 (No change)
YEAR SIX – Neftyanik Almetievsk (VHL) - Ability 6.0 / Potential 9.5 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR SEVEN – Neftyanik Almetievsk (VHL) - Ability 6.0 / Potential 9.5 (No change)
YEAR EIGHT – Neftyanik Almetievsk (VHL) - Ability 6.5 / Potential 9.5 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR NINE – Neftyanik Almetievsk (VHL) - Ability 6.5 / Potential 9.5 (No change)
YEAR TEN - Neftyanik Almetievsk (VHL) - Ability 6.5 / Potential 9.5 (No change)
20. Paul Houck, LD/RD, Gatineau Olympiques (QMJHL) – Ability 4.5 / Potential 9.5 (Offensive Potential – 712 / Defensive Potential - 755) – AGING = 9
YEAR ONE – Toronto Maple Leafs (NHL), 3 GP, 0 G, 0 Points – Ability 5.0 / Potential 9.5 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR TWO – Gatineau Olympiques (QMJHL) – Ability 5.5 / Potential 9.5 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR THREE – Toronto Marlies (AHL) – Ability 6.0 / Potential 9.5 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR FOUR – Toronto Marlies (AHL) / Toronto Maple Leafs (NHL), 3 GP, 1 Assist – Ability 6.5 / Potential 9.5 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR FIVE – Toronto Maple Leafs (NHL), 61 GP, 1 G, 22 Points, +22 – Ability 7.0 / Potential 9.5 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR SIX –Montreal Canadiens (NHL), 77 GP, 3 G, 17 Points, -12 (Traded to Montreal in September) – Ability 7.0 / Potential 7.0 (- 2.5 Potential)
YEAR SEVEN – Montreal Canadiens (NHL), 76 GP, 2 G, 25 Points, -3 – Ability 7.5 / Potential 7.5 (+.5 Ability, +.5 Potential)
YEAR EIGHT – Montreal Canadiens (NHL), 73 GP, 3 G, 26 Points, +11 – Ability 7.5 / Potential 7.5 (No change)
YEAR NINE – Montreal Canadiens (NHL), 82 GP, 4 G, 27 Points, -7 – Ability 7.5 / Potential 7.5 (No change)
YEAR TEN - Montreal Canadiens (NHL), 71 GP, 3 G, 12 Points, -3 – Ability 7.0 / Potential 7.0 (-.5 Ability, -.5 Potential)
21. Damon McKnight, LW, Windsor Spitfires (OHL) – Ability 4.0 / Potential 9.5 (Offensive Potential – 732 / Defensive Potential - 722) – AGING = 8
YEAR ONE – Windsor Spitfires (OHL) – Ability 4.5 / Potential 9.5 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR TWO – Hershey Bears (AHL) – Ability 5.0 / Potential 9.5 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR THREE - Hershey Bears (AHL) – Ability 5.0 / Potential 9.5 (No change)
YEAR FOUR – Reading Royals (ECHL) / Hershey Bears (AHL) – Ability 5.5 / Potential 9.5 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR FIVE – Utica Comets (AHL) / Vancouver Canucks (NHL) , 62 GP, 6 G, 22 Points, +2 – Ability 5.5 / Potential 5.5 (-4 Potential) RELEASED/UFA
YEAR SIX – Utica Comets (AHL) / Vancouver Canucks (NHL), Four games played, -5 – Ability 5.5 / Potential 5.5 (No change)
YEAR SEVEN – Worcester Sharks (AHL) / Springfield Falcons (AHL) / San Jose Sharks (NHL), 44 GP, 9 G, 20 Points, +8 (Signed as free agent by San Jose, Traded to Columbus in February) – Ability 5.5 / Potential 5.5 (No change)
YEAR EIGHT – Springfield Falcons (AHL) – Ability 5.5 / Potential 5.5 (No change)
YEAR NINE – Springfield Falcons (AHL) – Ability 5.5 / Potential 5.5 (No change)
YEAR TEN – Gwinnett Gladiators (ECHL) – Ability 5.0 / Potential 5.0 (-.5 Ability, -.5 Potential)
22. Matt Davison, RD, Brockville Braves (CCHL) – Ability 4.0 / Potential 7.5 (Offensive Potential – 697 / Defensive Potential - 725) – AGING = 7
YEAR ONE – Idaho Steeleads (ECHL) / Texas Stars (AHL) – Ability 4.5 / Potential 7.5 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR TWO - Idaho Steeleads (ECHL) – Ability 4.5 / Potential 7.5 (No change)
YEAR THREE - Idaho Steeleads (ECHL) – Ability 5.0 / Potential 7.5 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR FOUR – Lake Erie Monsters (AHL) / Colorado Avalanche (NHL), 4 GP, 1 Assist – Ability 5.5 / Potential 5.5 (+.5 Ability, -2 Potential)
YEAR FIVE – Lake Erie Monsters (AHL) (Traded to Tampa Bay in June) – Ability 5.0 / Potential 5.0 (-.5 Ability, -.5 Potential)
YEAR SIX – Syracuse Crunch (AHL) – Ability 5.0 / Potential 5.0 (No change)
YEAR SEVEN – Syracuse Crunch (AHL) – Ability 5.5 / Potential 5.5 (+.5 Ability, +.5 Potential)
YEAR EIGHT – Syracuse Crunch (AHL) – Ability 5.0 / Potential 5.0 (-.5 Ability, -.5 Potential)
YEAR NINE – Syracuse Crunch (AHL) – Ability 5.0 / Potential 5.0 (No change)
YEAR TEN – Saryarka Karaganda (VHL) – Ability 4.5 / Potential 4.5 (-.5 Ability, -.5 Potential)
23. Miroslav Agnet, C, HC Kosice J20 – Ability 4.0 / Potential 9.0 (Offensive Potential – 734 / Defensive Potential - 748) – AGING = 10
YEAR ONE – Severstal Cherepovets (KHL) – Ability 4.0 / Potential 9.0 (No change) RELEASED
YEAR TWO – EHC Bad Tolz (Oberliga) – Ability 4.5 / Potential 9.0 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR THREE – Lizards Erfurt (Oberliga) – Ability 4.5 / Potential 9.0 (No change)
YEAR FOUR – EHC Riessersee (DEL2) – Ability 5.0 / Potential 9.0 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR FIVE – EHC Riessersee (DEL2) – Ability 5.0 / Potential 9.0 (No change)
YEAR SIX – EHC Riessersee (DEL2) – Ability 5.5 / Potential 9.0 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR SEVEN – EHC Riessersee (DEL2) – Ability 5.5 / Potential 5.5 (-4.5 Potential)
YEAR EIGHT – Heilbronner Spatzen (DEL2) – Ability 6.0 / Potential 6.0 (+.5 Ability, +.5 Potential)
YEAR NINE – Heilbronner Spatzen (DEL2) – Ability 5.5/ Potential 5.5 (-.5 Ability, -.5 Potential)
YEAR TEN – EC Redbull Salzburg Red Bulls (EBEL) – Ability 5.5/ Potential 5.5 (No change)
24. Harnam Unknown, LD, Calgary Mustangs (AJHL) – Ability 3.5 / Potential 7.0 (Offensive Potential – 694 / Defensive Potential - 752) – AGING = 11
YEAR ONE – Albany Devils (AHL), No games played – Ability 4.0 / Potential 7.0 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR TWO - Albany Devils (AHL), No games played – Ability 4.0 / Potential 7.0 (No change)
YEAR THREE - Albany Devils (AHL), No games played – Ability 4.5 / Potential 7.0 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR FOUR – Albany Devils (AHL), No games played – Ability 5.0/ Potential 7.0 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR FIVE – Hartford Wolf Pack (AHL) (Traded to New York In January) – Ability 5.5/ Potential 7.0 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR SIX – Hartford Wolf Pack (AHL) / New York Rangers (NHL), One game played – Ability 6.0/ Potential 7.0 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR SEVEN – Hartford Wolf Pack (AHL) / New York Rangers (NHL) / Vancouver Canucks (NHL) / Arizona Coyotes (NHL), 43 GP, 2 G, 10 Points, -3 (Claimed off waivers by Vancouver in February, Traded to Arizona two weeks later) – Ability 6.5/ Potential 7.0 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR EIGHT – Arizona Coyotes (NHL) / Toronto Maple Leafs (NHL), 63 GP, 3 G, 20 Points, +17 (Traded to Toronto in December) – Ability 6.5/ Potential 7.0 (No change)
YEAR NINE – Toronto Maple Leafs (NHL), 75 GP, 2 G, 21 Points, -25 – Ability 6.5/ Potential 6.5 (-.5 Potential)
YEAR TEN – Toronto Marlies (AHL) / Toronto Maple Leafs (NHL), 25 GP, 1 G, 12 Points, +6 – Ability 6.5/ Potential 6.5 (No change)
25. Aleksandr Lapchenkov, RW, Ladia Togilatti (YHL) – Ability 3.0 / Potential 7.0 (Offensive Potential – 733 / Defensive Potential - 700) – AGING = 11 -> 14
YEAR ONE – Ladia Togilatti (YHL) – Ability 3.5 / Potential 7.0 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR TWO – Lokomotiv Yaroslavl (KHL) / Salavat Yulayev Ufa (KHL) – Ability 4.0 / Potential 7.0 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR THREE - Salavat Yulayev Ufa (KHL) – Ability 4.0 / Potential 7.0 (No change)
YEAR FOUR – Salavat Yulayev Ufa (KHL) – Ability 4.0 / Potential 7.0 (No change)
YEAR FIVE – Salavat Yulayev Ufa (KHL) – Ability 4.5 / Potential 7.0 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR SIX – Salavat Yulayev Ufa (KHL) – Ability 5.0 / Potential 7.0 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR SEVEN – Salavat Yulayev Ufa (KHL) – Ability 5.0 / Potential 7.0 (No change)
YEAR EIGHT – Salavat Yulayev Ufa (KHL) – Ability 5.0 / Potential 7.0 (No change)
YEAR NINE – Salavat Yulayev Ufa (KHL) – Ability 5.0 / Potential 7.0 (No change)
YEAR TEN – Utica Comets (AHL) (Signed by Vancouver as free agent in July)– Ability 5.0 / Potential 7.0 (No change) RELEASED/UFA
26. Artie O’Gallwan, LW, Cedar Rapids RoughRiders (USHL) – Ability 4.5 / Potential 8.5 (Offensive Potential – 705 / Defensive Potential - 647) – AGING = 14
YEAR ONE – Syracuse Crunch (AHL) – Ability 4.5 / Potential 8.5 (No change)
YEAR TWO - Syracuse Crunch (AHL) – Ability 5.5 / Potential 8.5 (+1 Ability)
YEAR THREE - Syracuse Crunch (AHL), One game played / Tampa Bay Lightning (NHL), 6 games played – Ability 6.0 / Potential 8.5 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR FOUR – Tampa Bay Lightning (NHL), 66 GP, 6 G, 21 Points, +10 – Ability 6.0 / Potential 8.5 (No change)
YEAR FIVE – Tampa Bay Lightning (NHL), 82 GP, 18 G, 34 Points, -13 – Ability 6.5 / Potential 8.5 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR SIX – Tampa Bay Lightning (NHL), 50 GP, 17 G, 39 Points, +1 – Ability 7.0 / Potential 8.5 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR SEVEN – Tampa Bay Lightning (NHL), 82 GP, 25 G, 72 Points, -6 – Ability 7.0 / Potential 8.5 (No change)
YEAR EIGHT – Tampa Bay Lightning (NHL), 74 GP, 14 G, 40 Points, -18 – Ability 8.5 / Potential 8.5 (+1.5 Ability)
YEAR NINE – Tampa Bay Lightning (NHL), 80 GP, 20 G, 54 Points, +3 – Ability 8.5 / Potential 8.5 (No change)
YEAR TEN - Tampa Bay Lightning (NHL), 68 GP, 20 G, 52 Points, +8 – Ability 8.5 / Potential 8.5 (No change)
27. Daniel Malm, C, Stockholm U18 – Ability 4.5 / Potential 8.5 (Offensive Potential – 726 / Defensive Potential - 659) – AGING = 13 -> 15
YEAR ONE – Worcester Sharks (AHL) / Lake Erie Monsters (AHL) (Traded to Colorado in February) – Ability 5.0 / Potential 8.5 (+.5 Ability) RELEASED
YEAR TWO – Salavat Yulayev Ufa (KHL) / Brynas IF (Allsvenskan) – Ability 5.0 / Potential 8.5 (No change)
YEAR THREE – Skelleftea AIK (SHL) – Ability 5.5 / Potential 8.5 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR FOUR – Skelleftea AIK (SHL) – Ability 5.5 / Potential 8.5 (No change)
YEAR FIVE – Skelleftea AIK (SHL) – Ability 6.0 / Potential 8.5 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR SIX – Skelleftea AIK (SHL) – Ability 6.5 / Potential 8.5 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR SEVEN – Skelleftea AIK (SHL) – Ability 6.5 / Potential 8.5 (No change)
YEAR EIGHT – Skelleftea AIK (SHL) – Ability 7.0 / Potential 8.5 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR NINE – Skelleftea AIK (SHL) – Ability 7.0 / Potential 8.5 (No change)
YEAR TEN - Skelleftea AIK (SHL) – Ability 7.0 / Potential 8.5 (No change)
28. Syarhey Asipovich, LW, Lokomotiv Yaroslavl (KHL) – Ability 4.5 / Potential 8.5 (Offensive Potential – 704 / Defensive Potential - 643) – AGING = 12 -> 15
YEAR ONE – Lokomotiv Yaroslavl (KHL) – Ability 5.0 / Potential 8.5 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR TWO - Lokomotiv Yaroslavl (KHL) – Ability 5.5 / Potential 8.5 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR THREE - Lokomotiv Yaroslavl (KHL) – Ability 6.0 / Potential 8.5 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR FOUR – Lokomotiv Yaroslavl (KHL) – Ability 6.0 / Potential 8.5 (No change)
YEAR FIVE – Lokomotiv Yaroslavl (KHL) – Ability 6.5 / Potential 8.5 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR SIX – Dinamo Minsk (KHL) – Ability 6.5 / Potential 8.5 (No change)
YEAR SEVEN – Dinamo Minsk (KHL) – Ability 7.0 / Potential 8.5 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR EIGHT – Dinamo Minsk (KHL) – Ability 7.0 / Potential 8.5 (No change)
YEAR NINE – Dinamo Minsk (KHL) – Ability 7.0 / Potential 8.5 (No change)
YEAR TEN - Dinamo Minsk (KHL) – Ability 7.0 / Potential 8.5 (No change)
29. Pier-Luc Benoit, C, Victoriaville Tigers (QMJHL) – Ability 5.0 / Potential 8.0 (Offensive Potential – 673 / Defensive Potential - 632) – AGING = 11 -> 12
YEAR ONE – Edmonton Oilers (NHL), 72 GP, 3 G, 10 Points, -4 – Ability 5.5/ Potential 8.0 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR TWO - Edmonton Oilers (NHL), 82 GP, 5 G, 34 Points, +1 – Ability 6.0/ Potential 8.0 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR THREE - Edmonton Oilers (NHL), 62 GP, 15 G, 35 Points, +3 – Ability 6.0/ Potential 8.0 (No change)
YEAR FOUR – Edmonton Oilers (NHL), 80 GP, 17 G, 52 Points, +8 – Ability 6.5/ Potential 8.0 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR FIVE – Edmonton Oilers (NHL), 80 GP, 18 G, 51 Points, +19 – Ability 8.0 / Potential 8.0 (+1.5 Ability)
YEAR SIX – Los Angeles Kings (NHL), 82 GP, 26 G, 69 Points, +14 (Traded to Los Angeles in June) – Ability 8.0 / Potential 8.0 (No change)
YEAR SEVEN – Los Angeles Kings (NHL), 82 GP, 24 G, 72 Points, 101 PIM, +16 – Ability 8.0 / Potential 8.0 (No change)
YEAR EIGHT – Los Angeles Kings (NHL), 82 GP, 12 G, 46 Points, +9 – Ability 8.5 / Potential 8.0 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR NINE – Los Angeles Kings (NHL), 82 GP, 15 G, 64 Points, +20 – Ability 8.5 / Potential 8.5 (+.5 Potential)
YEAR TEN - Los Angeles Kings (NHL), 82 GP, 14 G, 44 Points, -7 – Ability 8.0 / Potential 8.0 (-.5 Ability, -.5 Potential)
30. Iisakki Viiru, C, Northern Finland U18 – Ability 4.5 / Potential 7.0 (Offensive Potential – 682 / Defensive Potential - 714) – AGING = 8 -> 9
YEAR ONE – Hamilton Bulldogs (AHL) - Ability 5.0/ Potential 7.0 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR TWO – Tappara Tampere (SML) - Ability 5.5/ Potential 7.0 (+.5 Ability) RELEASED
YEAR THREE - Tappara Tampere (SML) - Ability 5.5/ Potential 7.0 (No change)
YEAR FOUR – Tappara Tampere (SML) - Ability 6.0/ Potential 7.0 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR FIVE – Tappara Tampere (SML) - Ability 6.5/ Potential 7.0 (+.5 Ability)
YEAR SIX – Tappara Tampere (SML) - Ability 6.5/ Potential 7.0 (No change) (Changed to 6.5 / 6.5 after his 24th birthday)
YEAR SEVEN – Tappara Tampere (SML) - Ability 6.5/ Potential 6.5 (-.5 Potential)
YEAR EIGHT – Tappara Tampere (SML) - Ability 6.5/ Potential 6.5 (No change)
YEAR NINE – Montreal Canadiens (NHL), 67 GP, 4 G, 26 Points - Ability 6.0/ Potential 6.0 (-.5 Ability, -.5 Potential)
YEAR TEN – Hamilton Bulldogs (AHL) - Ability 6.0/ Potential 6.0 (No change)
___________________________
NOTES/OBSERVATIONS
- Jeff Miller, one of the six players I had manipulated in the draft, was released by the team that drafted him one year after the draft. It’s as if the AI has different hard-set philosophies for drafting and roster management. There’s the one side that can read the players “true” potential during the draft and select the best player available, statistics and scouts be damned. There’s another side that hoards up every player that it can possibly get its grubby little hands on.
It doesn’t matter the nationality, age or position. If they’re a player in the database, they will be signed. I also have been noticing unplayable leagues, like Austria’s EBEL, Italy’s Serie A and Poland’s elite league, unable to get to their minimum roster limits, probably because the larger teams are gobbling up everything in sight).
And then there’s the side of roster management that completely ignores age and potential, simply looking at current ability to make roster decisions (like cutting players).
The man had the potential to be an absolute stud at the NHL level, with proper development. Every single team would be chomping at the bit to get that kind of player into their prospect pool. Instead, the AI cuts him (and no other team is interested in him besides a team in a non-major Finnish League) because they simply see “Current Ability: 3.0” and no other variables (like, perhaps, the 10.0 potential the game has accurately portrayed him as having). Meanwhile, a 36-year-old European player with no experience playing in North America (whom should have no business having an NHL contract, let alone being deemed better than a young prospect) is deemed a greater asset to the NHL club because the AI sees “Current Ability: 5.0” instead of looking at his age, his declining attributes and the fact that he has no playing experience in North America.
- It looks like, despite manipulating the potential ability to 1000, none of the players came even close to their potential. The only player who even ended up becoming an NHL regular was the goaltender, Mikhailov. Everybody else barely developed at all; some players not playing a single game for years on end (Many Bears, Olsson and Nemeth) and one player retiring at the ripe old age of 23 (Fullerton). It’s good that every single player doesn’t reach their potential in this game, but the way the game goes about it is odd. There’s no true variety to player development. If you rush the player to the professional leagues (NHL, KHL, etc.), the player has a FAR greater chance of reaching his full potential (Players like Khafipour, Clark, Benoit, Langan, and Santi come to mind). If the player uses a more conventional route to develop (i.e. playing in the NCAA, European minor league system, AHL/ECHL, etc.), it’s like the kiss of death: The player will usually not develop, for whatever reason (lack of coaching or the fact that most of those leagues are non-playable).
Once again, it just seems weird that the AI is rewarded for rushing its prized prospects to the professional level while those that take a cautious, meticulous approach (giving them quality playing time in a non-playable league) are mostly punished by having the development of their prospects stagnate.
- Another thing that is very strange is the amount of young players who didn’t get playing time at one point or another. It mostly happened with the six players I manipulated, but there were other players that suffered the same fate (Clark had one year where he didn’t play at all, Unknown didn’t play a single game for four years, Lacroix, Houck and Santi spent the first year of their careers rotting on an NHL bench, and Foster spent several years on a reserve roster in the ECHL). It’s like the AI doesn’t take potential ability into consideration when arranging their lines (as in, let’s give the players with what we perceive to have the best potential quality ice time in the hopes that they will reach their potential), but simply goes on overall ability (a 5.5 rated 32-year-old is rated better than a 5.0 19-year-old player). The worst part about this is that most of these players weren’t affected by the lack of playing time or being on the bench, but developed at or close to their full potential.
- I’m also noticing a lot of young players being traded ad nauseum. Lacroix and Drobny got traded in their second year, the second overall pick Murray got traded in the middle of the first season. And then there’s Daniel Malm, who was also traded during his first season, but had the distinction of being released by the Avalanche several months after they traded for him (once again, great asset management by the AI). It just seems odd how the AI will play “hot potato” with a good amount of players before they turn 20. I don’t know if the other AI teams are recognizing the player’s potential when they are trading for them, but the teams that have the prospects shouldn’t be giving them up without a substantially high return in the first place (probably higher than their trade value, since they offer more to the team in potential value than they do in a trade).
- I’m getting a decent bit of crashes when I try to look at certain player contracts (a minority of them, doesn’t matter if they’re in juniors, in free agency or in a professional league). I can’t find any rhyme or reason to it, which is odd. All I know is I try clicking on their contract tab in the player page, and then the game crashes.
________________________
AGING ATTRIBUTE
- Jason Fullerton had his aging attribute at 6 and his potential fell to where his current ability was in year three, which shows me that the game sees him as reaching his peak or that he’s just stopped all forms of development at the age of 21. If it’s the former, then development speed needs to be much faster (or start with their abilities higher when they’re created in the database) on guys with a low aging attribute. If it’s the latter, then it’s just completely unrealistic. From what I’ve seen, the aging attribute appears to symbolize when a player’s potential falls off of a cliff (I see some development from players after this drop, but it’s minimal) at certain ages:
1 –Player peaks/stops developing at age 16
2- Player peaks/stops developing at age 17
3- Player peaks/stops developing at age 18
4- Player peaks/stops developing at age 19
5- Player peaks/stops developing at age 20
6- Player peaks/stops developing at age 21
7-Player peaks/stops developing at age 22 *PHYSICAL PEAK AGE HARD-CODED AT 22*
8- Player peaks/stops developing at age 23
9- Player peaks/stops developing at age 24
10- Player peaks/stops developing at age 25 *PLAYER PEAK AGE HARD-CODED AT 25*
11- Player peaks/stops developing at age 26
12- Player peaks/stops developing at age 27
13- Player peaks/stops developing at age 28
14- Player peaks/stops developing at age 29
15- Player peaks/stops developing at age 30
16- Player peaks/stops developing at age 31
17- Player peaks/stops developing at age 32
18- Player peaks/stops developing at age 33
19- Player peaks/stops developing at age 34
20- Player peaks/stops developing at age 35
I’m looking at past posts in this thread and was mentioning that the players whose potential “mysteriously” dropped before the age of 25 were beginning to suffer attribute decline. It looks like the aging attribute stops the player from developing and begins regression (or the chances of attributes regressing). This is especially prevalent for a player’s physical attributes (happening way too often and way too early. I’m seeing some players starting to decline at the ages of 23 and 24…)
I understand the idea in theory, when a player should be at or simply stopping player development entirely (thus beginning a player’s “peak”) There are a few giant issues with it though:
1. The development of a player automatically stops when a player hits his birthday (and it’s visible to the AI and human eye as the players potential plummets after it hits this arbitrary mark)
2. The peak, in a majority of cases, is WAY too short. Players do not simply decline once they hit their peak (It looks like a lot of players follow the Jonathan Cheechoo development curve. Have one big year then start regressing gradually until they become obsolete. The “Cheechoo” model is extremely rare and shouldn’t be the norm in the game). Let’s say the average player plays at peak performance for about five years. During that time, there may be some fluctuation in attributes (but mostly by one or two points, give or take), but they don’t begin wholesale regression of attributes, making them reserve roster fodder by the time they hit 30-31.
You might need another attribute to signify the beginning of when a player should start suffering player decline (let’s call this “decline”) and an attribute to signify the speed in which they decline (let’s call this one “aging”). In theory, let’s say Oakley Murray, the second pick in the draft, has three hidden attributes which will “guide” his development curve:
Development peak: I’m considering this “peak” what the aging attribute already signifies, so he’ll start at 11.
Decline: When the player will begin to risk attribute decline (1-20 attribute. 1 signifying he’ll begin decline at 22-23 [and no, the development shouldn’t stop when a player simply turns 22 or 23], 20 signifying he’ll begin decline at 41-42.) For consistency purposes, let’s put this at 11 as well.
Aging: Signifies the speed (or chances) in which a player will lose attributes (1-20 again. 1 signifying he will fall off the face of the map [Think going from 8.5 to 5.5 in one year], 20 signifying the extremely rare “ageless wonder”). Once again, let’s put this one at 11.
What this will mean is that Murray will stop developing (whether or not he reaches peak potential) at the age of 25-26; he’ll remain at peak level until he begins his chances to start declining at the age of 32-33. With the 11 decline attribute, this will probably mean that he’ll steadily regress until he’s out of the league by the time he’s 36-38, depending on how well he does in his player “rolls.”
I know, I don’t want to get all carried away in theory, so I’ll stop there. It’s just interesting what I see, is all.
- One thing I seemed to notice is that, for certain players, the aging attribute (which I honestly thought was static) improved for some players, with a couple improving the attribute by several points (like Holbert, Murray and Khafipour) while I noticed one player’s attribute had declined (Mikulchik) by one, which I am assuming was due to a severe injury. This is pretty cool, if that’s the case. I’d like to see the effect of an injury be more pronounced though (instead of losing simply one point in aging, perhaps a chance of losing multiple points in aging and attributes in areas affected by the knee, such as reflexes, blocker and skating), but that’s a bit more complex. I’m just trying to figure out if there are any other things that increase the aging attribute besides simply staying healthy, in some respects.
- The one thing that continues to irk me is the idea of a flat player (and physical) peak age. In a sense, it’s counter-intuitive to the aging attribute that is currently built into the game. Suppose someone has an aging attribute over 10 (meaning they should peak AFTER the age of 25). The game is probably reading the hard-coded player peak age (25) instead of allowing the player to organically grow (or regress) at his own rate. I’m noticing a lot of players who don’t reach their potential (and I know it’s their true potential because the ability ratings are near-pinpoint) because it seems like, no matter what, most players start declining at the age of 25 (some before that, if the aging attribute is below ten). It hurts the game for one obvious reason: By hard-coding one singular peak age, you defeat the purpose of an aging “attribute” and stunt the already-limited talent pool of the database (by causing a majority of players to simply stop developing once they hit the age of 25, regardless of the aging attribute).
And now I just hope they look the stuff I’m mentioning immediately. Yeah, I’m some “new guy” with less than 50 posts whose coming in like a hot shot writing glorified “essays” about how this game is a mess, but I was an avid player of EHM back in the day (in fact I was a beta tester for EHM 07, under a different username) and the idea of player development has fascinated me, so I (hopefully) have some idea of what I’m talking about. Otherwise the only thing I can really do right now is analyze stat leaders (and that could very well be a mess in itself… not too eager to dive back in right now). I need a drink or fifteen.
Last edited by Ciccarelli; 10-17-2013 at 08:23 PM.
|