Ducks top 20

Thanks for the write up Kevin....couple things though:

One, why no rankings (Ryan 8.5C ect), and, why are guys like Belesky and Tangradi, who had great years, still behind players like Mikkelson and MacMillan, guys who had mediocre to bad years?

Thanks for the write up Kevin....couple things though:

One, why no rankings (Ryan 8.5C ect), and, why are guys like Belesky and Tangradi, who had great years, still behind players like Mikkelson and MacMillan, guys who had mediocre to bad years?

I don't mean to speak for Kevin but what I have always taken from the top 20 is that they are ranked based on their potential futures with the Ducks. Belesky and Tangradi did have great years, Matt especially. But Mikkelson and MacMillan were drafted higher and have higher ceilings. Mikkelson and MacMillan could end up being top-4/top-6 performers while Belesky and Tangradi are more likely going to be bottom-6 guys.

I don't mean to speak for Kevin but what I have always taken from the top 20 is that they are ranked based on their potential futures with the Ducks. Belesky and Tangradi did have great years, Matt especially. But Mikkelson and MacMillan were drafted higher and have higher ceilings. Mikkelson and MacMillan could end up being top-4/top-6 performers while Belesky and Tangradi are more likely going to be bottom-6 guys.

Really? Judging from the performances so far I think Tangradi will be a top six guy while Belesky will be a Kunitz type and Mac more of a checking line center. Obviously things are very much subject to change but as of now that kind of looks like where the curves are headed, at least after this last year.

Really? Judging from the performances so far I think Tangradi will be a top six guy while Belesky will be a Kunitz type and Mac more of a checking line center. Obviously things are very much subject to change but as of now that kind of looks like where the curves are headed, at least after this last year.

Like I said, I think that's how Kevin ranks them. It's all about their ultimate potential. I mean Tangradi and Belesky could become top-6 guys but that would mean they'd have to exceed their potential and for Mac to be a checking center, fall below his. Personally I think Belesky will be a younger, shorter Travis Moen and Tangradi a less physical Sammy Pahlsson. I have no idea where MacMillan he going to end up.

MacMillan is too high, I'd have O'dell ahead of him for sure. MacMillan had a good run to the end of a season playing with Voracek, until he comes close to that level again it's hard to give him the benefit of the doubt.

hey guys
hopefully i'll be able to answer everything fully and explain the article a bit on monday
i honestly stepped directly on a plane right after sending the article in, i'm on the road for work

anyway, there are still some ratings (the letter and number grades) that have yet to go up (though the Top 20 looks to be done)

also, i'm about 2/3 done a complete update of all the Anaheim profiles

other then that, i'll be able to talk more on monday

Like I said, I think that's how Kevin ranks them. It's all about their ultimate potential. I mean Tangradi and Belesky could become top-6 guys but that would mean they'd have to exceed their potential and for Mac to be a checking center, fall below his. Personally I think Belesky will be a younger, shorter Travis Moen and Tangradi a less physical Sammy Pahlsson. I have no idea where MacMillan he going to end up.

No offense but Tangradi is not really comparable to Pahlsson at all. Tangradi is a powerforward who excels with a variety of moves to go along with his size and strength down low.

Now I'm not a prospect expert since I don't see any of them. But based on the fact that both Tangradi and MacMillan were drafted in the same year and that one had a good season while the other was disappointing in many aspects (conditioning, actual play, injury proneness) and never really had a good projected ceiling anyways, it's tough to believe that MacMillan really has a higher potential. Just compare Bob Murray's discussion of MacMilla (http://ducks.nhl.com/team/app/?service=page&page=NewsPage&articleid=367256)n as a guy who "could give you some offense" to his description of Tangradi (http://www.nhl.com/nhl/app/?service=page&page=NewsPage&articleid=368665) as a guy who "has a chance to be a real good one -- a top-six power forward." But whatever, I can understand that there should be a parachute effect so that someone doesn't get overhyped after 1 fluke year. But Kevin's a Q guy, so maybe he's seen enough of MacMillan to see
something we're all missing.

BTW, MacMillan seems to be a LW now?

Oh, and our Halifax hasn't been kind to us recently. Swan, then MacMillan.

No offense but Tangradi is not really comparable to Pahlsson at all. Tangradi is a powerforward who excels with a variety of moves to go along with his size and strength down low.

None taken. But from what I've seen of him, which granted that includes training camp and rookie conditioning camp, he reminds of a tough bottom-6 type center. Like Pahlsson, just less physical. But I've never seen him play in juniors and it's all speculation on my part. I hope for the best with this kid but it's unlikely that he'll be an offensive player at the NHL level. It could happen, it's just unlikely.

hey guys
hopefully i'll be able to answer everything fully and explain the article a bit on monday
i honestly stepped directly on a plane right after sending the article in, i'm on the road for work

anyway, there are still some ratings (the letter and number grades) that have yet to go up (though the Top 20 looks to be done)

also, i'm about 2/3 done a complete update of all the Anaheim profiles

other then that, i'll be able to talk more on monday

Kevin: One prospect that you may include and, who will clearly play a role on the Ducks next season as per his new contract is Andrew Ebbett. If you look at the contract renewals from the Portland Pirates the only one that stands out is Ebbett. He was their leading scorer and the only significant player from last year's team from the forward ranks to come back. Yes, Ebbett is a 1983 birthdate but if you check some of the quotes coming from the Duck's front office and the coach's (Carlyle), Ebbett will be a significant player in the future of the Ducks. Ebbett was the second best player on the Portland Pirates last season behind Bobby Ryan and part of the reason for Ryan's acsent as a prospect.

Kevin: One prospect that you may include and, who will clearly play a role on the Ducks next season as per his new contract is Andrew Ebbett. If you look at the contract renewals from the Portland Pirates the only one that stands out is Ebbett. He was their leading scorer and the only significant player from last year's team from the forward ranks to come back. Yes, Ebbett is a 1983 birthdate but if you check some of the quotes coming from the Duck's front office and the coach's (Carlyle), Ebbett will be a significant player in the future of the Ducks. Ebbett was the second best player on the Portland Pirates last season behind Bobby Ryan and part of the reason for Ryan's acsent as a prospect.

I believe he's too old per hockey's future criteria. But he has to break the mold of being an AHL stud but non-NHL performer. He could but it remains to be seen if he will. He will undoubtably start the year in Iowa but should be the first center call-up. Provided of course that Marchant is traded. Because as it stands now the Ducks have six centers on their roster.

Oh yeah, I meant to touch on Ebbett. He's technically too old to be a prospect by the normal criteria (older than 24), but it also says that guys who sign their first contract 22 or older get 3 years. Ebbett's only been in pro hockey for 2 seasons, so shouldn't he still be on the list?

Ebbett - OOPS! I got caught looking at his age and thought he had another year of pro hockey under his belt. I've sent a message to my editor to see how to handle this. By HF's definitions, he's eligible and should fit into the Top 20, but once I hear back from her, I'll let you know.

MacMillan/Tangradi - I anticipated this would be a healthy conversation for sure. Obviously Tangradi exceeded expectations and MacMillan..well...we all know most of that story. I know that the message MacMillan got from Anaheim was that it was alright if the 2007-08 season was a "lost" year, given his problems and that they rather him make sure everything was alright and then continue from there as opposed to playing through it and causing more problems later on down the road. As we saw with Mikkelson, one bad year doesn't kill a career, even at an early age. I stand by MacMillan's ranking, if only due to the parachute effect like obobo say. Frankly, I like the prospect, like the kid and while that might cloud my judgement on him a bit, I do think he has what it takes to be an effective two-way forward. Although his offensive abilities did not take that expected next step, his game did improve last season, where he added a physical element to his game, playing with more of an edge, which, in my mind, improved his pro potential. Yes, I did move him to Left-Wing part-way through last season after he spent all year there and Anaheim listed him as a LW on their conditioning camp roster. Please note the ratings for both MacMillan and Tangradi, they are now both 7.5Cs. I would say that both have a lot to prove in this upcoming season: MacMillan needs to get back on track and Tangradi needs to prove that last season wasn't an anomaly.

It's hard to measure Beleskey/Mikkelson/MacMillan/Tangradi all by the same yardstick, because they're all at different places in their careers. That #4-#10 spot is pretty close and there's plenty of room for argument of some over others for sure.

O'Dell is an interesting one and might be a guy in Tangradi's position next year.

As you may have noticed, I didn't write the draft review, so this was my first time doing a lot of research on the 10 (ten!) picks that Anaheim selected, and I must say, there's definitely some guys worth watching there.

Ratings - I've updated everyone, including the 2008 picks not on the Top 20. See here for the updated ratings: http://www.hockeysfuture.com/teams/anaheim_ducks

Profiles - As mentioned, I'm working on updating all the profiles for all the Ducks prospects. Some of them are terribly out of date and it's my own fault that it got this bad. They should all be done by the end of September, hopefully sooner in fact.

Just looking back, here's the discussion thread from the Spring Top 20: http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=505703

Obviously a lot of questions about the draft, Mitera's 2008-09 season, signings and others have been answered now.

Thoughts about the top 20

-It would be nice if the prospect grades were built into the article. That way we could have an archive over time of how the prospects were graded. They used to have them a couple years back (look at summer 06), how come they've been taken out? Also, it would be even nicer if you put the previous grade for guys who have changed, just like how the previous ranking is up there.
-Levasseur dropped like a rock. What happened (both about JPL and in general)? I realize that a few newly drafted guys moved ahead of him, but why did a bunch of guys rocket above him (Tangradi, Mikkelson, Beleskey) when there weren't many (if any) games played between April 14 and now that would adjust the rankings? I guess my more general question is: why would the rankings really be any different from spring other than the addition of the drafted guys (and a few developments such as Platt leaving for Europe)?
-On the obscure side, but can someone compare our shut-down, non-offensive Dmen? What does de Gray have that puts him so much higher than Festerling? I realize that there's 2 years of difference compared to only 1 year of development (age difference compared to # of years in junior), but Festerling last season seemed to have just as good of a final junior season as de Gray. Possibly even better (Festerling's +/- was damn impressive, de Gray was only average compared to the rest of his team). From the descriptions, Festerling sounds even better defensively and more physical, although deGray obviously has the size and pedigree. Vancouver fans also talk about Festerling as having very good hockey sense and as mistake-free, two assets that I think are generally pretty underrated.
-About where do you think Ebbett should be if put on the list? I tended to think more highly of him than Platt, but I'm also kind of intrigued by Kampfer and Brittain. I'd think I'd put him where Platt is, and drop Platt off the list entirely.
-It's early, but that last draft and past year was huge. Before the season, we were sorely lacking in depth, with only like 4 guys who I personally thought had a decent chance to be top 6/top3 guys (Ryan, MacMillan, Mitera, Swan). Now it looks much stronger with Ryan, Mitera, Gardiner, Tangradi, Mikkelson (I've bought in), Beleskey, Deschamps, Salcido, O'Dell, maybe even Carter.
-We need some RWs, or Cs who might be able to convert to RW. Yikes. A G might be nice too (McNab?).

Oh, and to hound Kevin yet again, a little bit earlier you said you had some quotes from guys about Ducks players. From the Augusta coach way back when you did the last top 20 and some stuff Jeff Dahlia got about Gardiner and Deschamps. And that you would provide a digest of those quotes. Any chance that you have some time now that the top 20 is done? Or are you going to have to hypnotize me so I forget you ever mentioned it?

Schultz is a guy to watch..he's got the skating and hands to be really good, it's too bad he has to wait another year to get to college.

and this year will tell us alot about Tangradi now that'll be one of Bellevilles go to players

our prospects need to quit getting injuries so we aren't left to guess how they would have progressed, and how they will come back!

Schultz is a guy to watch..he's got the skating and hands to be really good, it's too bad he has to wait another year to get to college.

One of HF's writers from the West really raved about this guy when we were doing preliminary rankings. He's on a longer road for development, but the NCAA game is perfectly suited for that.
In a years time, Anaheim could have three defensemen in Wisconsin: Jake Gardiner, Justin Schultz and Nick Pryor. In the same breath, finding time for all of them may be a challenge as the Badger blue line could also feature Jamie McBain (CAR), Brendan Smith (DET), Ryan McDonagh (MTL) and Cody Goloubef (CLB).

and this year will tell us alot about Tangradi now that'll be one of Bellevilles go to players

Tangradi and O'Dell are both players to watch in the OHL. Not so much as having a lot to prove, more just having the chance to prove a lot, if that makes sense.


-It would be nice if the prospect grades were built into the article. That way we could have an archive over time of how the prospects were graded. They used to have them a couple years back (look at summer 06), how come they've been taken out? Also, it would be even nicer if you put the previous grade for guys who have changed, just like how the previous ranking is up there.


Agreed, I think there should be a way to do this in the profiles and passed that recommendation upwards. In the short term, I will add them back in the article. It's more a matter that I simply didn't put them in.


-Levasseur dropped like a rock. What happened (both about JPL and in general)? I realize that a few newly drafted guys moved ahead of him, but why did a bunch of guys rocket above him (Tangradi, Mikkelson, Beleskey) when there weren't many (if any) games played between April 14 and now that would adjust the rankings? I guess my more general question is: why would the rankings really be any different from spring other than the addition of the drafted guys (and a few developments such as Platt leaving for Europe)?


I wouldn't say Levasseur dropped like a rock. He did fall in the rankings, but his rating went from 7.5C to 7.0C. It's more a re-evaluation. I think I may have had him a bit too high previously and I think there are guys (specifically the ones you mentioned) who have overall showed a bit more then he did. There are clear separations on the list, there's a number one, then two, then probably eight, then another five, then the last three. Levasseur moves down in that group of eight, but comparatively, they're all very close.

Comparing goalies to skaters is like apples and oranges. As I said during the Spring Top 20, I like the timeline with Levasseur, but I think we need to temper that with the fact that timeline doesn't completely fit with the HF criteria for a prospect. Levasseur is still just 21 and he's likely going to be plateauing with Leneveu this upcoming season, which will prevent him from being thrown to the wolves so to speak. But Anaheim has developed just one goaltender prospect from draft to NHL, Bryzgalov (two if you count Tom Askey). Gerber and Shtalenkov were both veterans by the time they were drafted. Not saying the odds are against him, but his drop is more of an indication that the journey will be quite different from those around him.

I always feel like the Spring Top 20s are a bit stronger ranking, based more on what has happened so far, while the Fall Top 20 is a bit more projection based, looking ahead at the season.


-On the obscure side, but can someone compare our shut-down, non-offensive Dmen? What does de Gray have that puts him so much higher than Festerling? I realize that there's 2 years of difference compared to only 1 year of development (age difference compared to # of years in junior), but Festerling last season seemed to have just as good of a final junior season as de Gray. Possibly even better (Festerling's +/- was damn impressive, de Gray was only average compared to the rest of his team). From the descriptions, Festerling sounds even better defensively and more physical, although deGray obviously has the size and pedigree. Vancouver fans also talk about Festerling as having very good hockey sense and as mistake-free, two assets that I think are generally pretty underrated.


Festerling's last year of WHL hockey, he was 20/21. deGray's last season, he was 19/20. They're a year apart in that area, plus Festerling's another year ahead in terms of development/career. deGray is larger and plays in a more wide-open league, though his size leads him to get a few more obstruction type penalties. Festerling is average sized (I would say that the measures he's listed at are generous) and played in a tighter-checking Western league for a team that made it to the Memorial Cup two years in a row, but he's a better skater and can play the two-way game a bit better.

Festerling's +35 in 06/07 was impressive, but it was also on a team that had only one player who spent the whole season with the squad in the minus category. Hell, there were two other players with a +/- over 30 and another three with a rating over 20. This isn't even mentioning the flaws with plus/minus as a stat. You have to look at icetime (which we don't have), quality of opposition (which we don't have), and so on.

It's hard at this level to compare them evenly, but it is worth noting that it wasn't until Festerling was an over-ager that he was playing more then a third pairing role. At the 2006 Mem. Cup, for example, he was a number 5 defender. Meanwhile, deGray spent both his 18 year-old season and his 19 year-old season as one of, if not the top shutdown guy on his team.

If you roll back deGray's rating from the 6.5C that he is right now, you find that it drops down to a 5.5B, which is where Festerling was in the Spring of 2008. So this is more an indication that right now, deGray might have the potential to have a higher upside (due to the history of his career, etc), but is by no means head and shoulders above.


-About where do you think Ebbett should be if put on the list? I tended to think more highly of him than Platt, but I'm also kind of intrigued by Kampfer and Brittain. I'd think I'd put him where Platt is, and drop Platt off the list entirely.


My editor unfortunately would rather I not change an already published list. Ebbett would slot in around 15th, with a 7D ranking. Either way, I will move him back into the Other Notables section when I get the chance.
Kampfer is intriguing, but he's got a long way to come. Berenson said so much when I talked to him almost a year ago (he talked a lot more about Kampfer then Mitera which I think was telling). He's got potential, it's more putting it together, playing within his game and reducing mistakes.
Brittain is also very intriguing. As mentioned, this is my first time really looking deeply at the 2008 guys, and I like them. They all seem to have that glimmer of something more, so to speak.


-We need some RWs, or Cs who might be able to convert to RW. Yikes. A G might be nice too (McNab?).


At RW, Anaheim has Perry and Ryan for right now, both young and both likely to stick around for a while. In the bottom six, you're going to see more versatile players slot in wherever they are needed. Players like Beleskey, Tangradi and MacMillan have all played on either side of center (and in the case of the last two, also at the pivot position) and all have pro potential.

Check out the Prospect Tracker thread for some news on some new additions for Iowa (a defenseman and a forward), waiting for official word on the contract however.

McNab has been pretty unsuccessful with goaltenders. Remember Eddie Ferhi? How about David McKee? In both cases, I got caught up with the myth of McNab...



Oh, and to hound Kevin yet again, a little bit earlier you said you had some quotes from guys about Ducks players. From the Augusta coach way back when you did the last top 20 and some stuff Jeff Dahlia got about Gardiner and Deschamps. And that you would provide a digest of those quotes. Any chance that you have some time now that the top 20 is done? Or are you going to have to hypnotize me so I forget you ever mentioned it?

hahaha, I will, I will! I planned on adding them to this top 20, but due to word count restraints, time restraints(honestly got on a plane right after sending this in) and mere forgetfullness, I did not.

Now for the weepy stuff...

As I said a while back, I have been somewhat pulled off the Anaheim beat, to focus a bit more on the Q and try to make a better use of my limited time for writing (I'm currently writing this reply at the office...don't tell!). There are some mistakes in this Top 20 which I admitted above, or simple things I didn't include because I originally was not intending to write this article (though I campaigned for the powers that be to let me do it) and so I ended up with it anyway.

I'm not sure if I will be continuing in my present role until a replacement as Anaheim writer is found or if this was a one-shot article. Frankly, I don't want to ask, because I'm not sure what I would prefer as an answer.

I will say that doing this article was a lot of fun to do. More fun then I've had writing in quite a while.

There's been a lot of changes in the six years I've worked with HF, both visibly and behind the scenes and it's gone from being a fun hobby that I did when I was in high-school to being an actual freelance job that I sometimes struggle to find time for between happenings in my life.

You, the readers, deserve a more dedicated writer then I've been able to offer in the past year and a half or so, even if one with the familiarity that I have for this content isn't easily available. Until a candidate emerges, I only hope I can try to fit that role the best I can. But I can't guarantee that my name will continue to be at the top of the Ducks articles from this point going forward.

As a fairly new Ducks fan (3years)
Kevin I want to thank you for the info that you have provided over my short time period here on the HF Boards. It has been nice to read and see where players in the other leagues compare. I follow the OHL closely but not so much of the rest of the CHL so it is nice to see where the OHL players stack up against the rest.
Thank you for your time and effort.:handclap:

I've watched these two in vancouver, and ive never understood why mikkelson is seen as such a better player then festerling. yes i do realize they are different players but in vancouver Festerling had a very solid confident year where as mikkelson seemed to struggle with defence and seemed like his feet were going too fast for his head a lot of the time. By memorial cup he was playing as the giants 6th man. Also I've heard that festerling had a very successful year in portland, improved his game and impressed burke and the anahiem brass with how much he improved over the year. So now he seems closer to making the big squad then ever and yet his grade goes down and he falls off the list? where as its been said even by anahiem brass that mikkelson had a very slow start and an average year at best in portland only scoring 16 pts (2 more then the defensive festerling) and yet he stays high on the list and his grade stays the same. Thanks for the input, good job on the list its nice to see where all these guys line up with other prospects

He did fall in the rankings, but his rating went from 7.5C to 7.0C. It's more a re-evaluation. I think I may have had him a bit too high previously and I think there are guys (specifically the ones you mentioned) who have overall showed a bit more then he did.
I guess the thrust of my question is what led you to finally re-evaluate JPL, compared to last spring. Has anything happened since then for you to change your mind a little?

Festerling's last year of WHL hockey, he was 20/21. deGray's last season, he was 19/20. They're a year apart in that area, plus Festerling's another year ahead in terms of development/career. deGray is larger and plays in a more wide-open league, though his size leads him to get a few more obstruction type penalties. Festerling is average sized (I would say that the measures he's listed at are generous) and played in a tighter-checking Western league for a team that made it to the Memorial Cup two years in a row, but he's a better skater and can play the two-way game a bit better.

Festerling's +35 in 06/07 was impressive, but it was also on a team that had only one player who spent the whole season with the squad in the minus category. Hell, there were two other players with a +/- over 30 and another three with a rating over 20. This isn't even mentioning the flaws with plus/minus as a stat. You have to look at icetime (which we don't have), quality of opposition (which we don't have), and so on.

It's hard at this level to compare them evenly, but it is worth noting that it wasn't until Festerling was an over-ager that he was playing more then a third pairing role. At the 2006 Mem. Cup, for example, he was a number 5 defender. Meanwhile, deGray spent both his 18 year-old season and his 19 year-old season as one of, if not the top shutdown guy on his team.

If you roll back deGray's rating from the 6.5C that he is right now, you find that it drops down to a 5.5B, which is where Festerling was in the Spring of 2008. So this is more an indication that right now, deGray might have the potential to have a higher upside (due to the history of his career, etc), but is by no means head and shoulders above.
That looks like a key to me. But I have to say, I've been kind of taken by what the Vancouver fans were saying. How Festerling was even better than Mikkelson. How he's the error-free type. I just appreciate that a lot more than pure physical skill. Which is a big reason why I'm a huge Pahlsson fan.
At RW, Anaheim has Perry and Ryan for right now, both young and both likely to stick around for a while. In the bottom six, you're going to see more versatile players slot in wherever they are needed. Players like Beleskey, Tangradi and MacMillan have all played on either side of center (and in the case of the last two, also at the pivot position) and all have pro potential.
It's good to know that. Any chance you can add a little mention of that in those prospect pages? I dunno, it just seems like useful information.

McNab has been pretty unsuccessful with goaltenders. Remember Eddie Ferhi? How about David McKee? In both cases, I got caught up with the myth of McNab...
Ha. Ferhi was a McNab signing? Yoiks. Well that's interesting, because I would think that college/undrafted Euro FA would be a great way to get goaltenders. The extra years should really help to get a better sense of how good they are, compared to who drafting goalies tends to be such a crap-shoot. It's just that with the lowered UFA years, drafting 17 year old goalies really doesn't seem like such a good idea to me.

But thanks for the work Kevin. End of an era and such. I feel like you've done quite a good job over the years in terms of getting the player projections down. No ridiculous overhype like some other hf writers, and most have been spot on. Except for maybe a couple I can think of (Popovic, Holmqvist).

edit: ha. See, that's exactly what I was talking about with the Vancouver Giants fans. They're so much higher on Festerling than Mikkelson. Oh, and speaking of our prospects, how come our Bolt is so slow? A guy with that name is just made to be fast (Usain is insane), but why is ours ironically named like all the "Tiny"s in the world?

I've watched these two in vancouver, and ive never understood why mikkelson is seen as such a better player then festerling. yes i do realize they are different players but in vancouver Festerling had a very solid confident year where as mikkelson seemed to struggle with defence and seemed like his feet were going too fast for his head a lot of the time. By memorial cup he was playing as the giants 6th man. Also I've heard that festerling had a very successful year in portland, improved his game and impressed burke and the anahiem brass with how much he improved over the year. So now he seems closer to making the big squad then ever and yet his grade goes down and he falls off the list? where as its been said even by anahiem brass that mikkelson had a very slow start and an average year at best in portland only scoring 16 pts (2 more then the defensive festerling) and yet he stays high on the list and his grade stays the same. Thanks for the input, good job on the list its nice to see where all these guys line up with other prospects

I haven't seen either of them aside from training camp so this is merely speculation. But from what I can gather, Festerling and Mikkelson each have skill sets that are very different from each other. Brett is a very responsible, defensive-defenseman whereas Mikkelson is smooth skating offensive-minded d-man. Now I'm no scout but I'm sure the Ducks scouts see qualities in Mikkelson that should translate to the pro game better than Festerling's. I can tell you from what I've seen of the two of them in the last two training camps, Mikkelson is definitely the better player. He fits much better with the team than Festerling.

Also what I hear is that Mikkelson had a strong finish and particularly strong playoffs. According to Bob Murray, Mikkelson may be the Duck d-man prospect that is closest to making the big club. I'm really looking forward to this year's camp. Should be a good one.

in vancouver Festerling had a very solid confident year where as mikkelson seemed to struggle with defence and seemed like his feet were going too fast for his head a lot of the time. By memorial cup he was playing as the giants 6th man.

it's late here in NS and I have to work in the morning, but before I turn in, I did want to make the note that at the Memorial Cup, Mikkelson was named one of the two defenders on the Tournament All-Star team.

Not bad for the Giants 6th man.

I haven't seen either of them aside from training camp so this is merely speculation. But from what I can gather, Festerling and Mikkelson each have skill sets that are very different from each other. Brett is a very responsible, defensive-defenseman whereas Mikkelson is smooth skating offensive-minded d-man. Now I'm no scout but I'm sure the Ducks scouts see qualities in Mikkelson that should translate to the pro game better than Festerling's. I can tell you from what I've seen of the two of them in the last two training camps, Mikkelson is definitely the better player. He fits much better with the team than Festerling.

Also what I hear is that Mikkelson had a strong finish and particularly strong playoffs. According to Bob Murray, Mikkelson may be the Duck d-man prospect that is closest to making the big club. I'm really looking forward to this year's camp. Should be a good one.
That reminds me. In the offseason thread I posted some stuff that I found interesting from the Duck site, including the season preview http://ducks.nhl.com/team/app/?service=page&page=NewsPage&articleid=381073. Now that article appears to be down now, but in it they actually say the exact opposite. That "Mikkelson is a smooth-skating defensive defenseman." Maybe we'd better temper our point expectations out of him.

thanks for all the responces. And you are right, mikkelson did make the all star team, I just felt that the festerling and blum combo in that memorial cup logged by far the most minutes, prob due to +37 and +35 ratings during the season. It would be nice to hear an opinion from some one that watched them all season in portland. Itll be interesting to see how they do in camp this year, hopefully some one keeps camp updates.

I guess the thrust of my question is what led you to finally re-evaluate JPL, compared to last spring. Has anything happened since then for you to change your mind a little?


The natural starting point for each edition of the Top 20 is the previous Top 20, so I took a look at that, took a step back, looked at the feedback I received, both from you guys and the HF staff and also looked at my reasoning for why the previous Top 20 was set up as it was.

Levasseur stuck out a bit, because we had some guys like Tangradi and Beleskey who really took their game to unexpected levels in the 07-08 season, whereas Levasseur continued along the same even-keel developmental curve. Since, as I said when I released the Spring Top 20, there was a clump of players close together in that second/third tier of prospects, this second look made me want to raise Beleskey and Tangradi over Levasseur. Then with Mikkelson looking to be in the mix for a roster spot thanks to his strong playoff, he became another one where the argument could be made. Then I had to factor in the 2008 draftees. It all becomes a bit muddled when you also factor in that Levasseur is a goalie (oh, how I hate ranking goalies vs. skaters) and thus his NHL path is so vastly different.

Basically, I think I over-rated Levasseur a bit and a critical second-look made that clearer to me. Is he still one of Anaheim's top prospects? Yes. Is he still a viable prospect? Yes. Is he still Anaheim's best bet at a future between the pipes after Giguere and Hiller? Yes. His drop is more of a balance of my love for butterfly goaltenders.

Also his rating dropped, as did the rating of a number of prospects, which is less to do with him and more to do with me. Nothing major for most, just a half-point here or a letter grade there. I always try to compare ratings with other teams and writers to see what their thoughts are on particular "classes" of players and such. So since the last Top 20, I've had a few conversations on rating prospects that border on near-philosophy (the Tao of predicting the future) and currently I've been thinking a lot about the boil down method (by definition a 7.0C is roughly the same as a 6.0B as a 5.0A etc.) as a way to figure out where guys fit in and so on.
I'm not perfect at the ratings, but I try to be realistic. I don't want to point fingers (and thankfully a lot of this stuff is picked up and corrected by the rest of the staff during the proposed list stage), but there have been teams where if you boil down the rankings, they're saying they have 20 or so for sure NHLers in the prospect system. That's completely insane.
I also try to get away from rating everyone as a 6.5C or a 6.0C as that always strikes me as lazy.
I'm slowly becoming less afraid of the F score and trying to call it more as a see it (there's more Ds then ever as well), but on the other side of the spectrum, I have a hard time calling anyone a sure deal. The argument could be made that Carter is already a 6.5A and you know, that's probably valid.
Odd anecdote: I was watching CSI last night and there was this story about an oddsmaker in Vegas and he has this little talk about how he does things, where he says at the end of the day, there's a number inside of what he's looking at (in this case, a sports game). So he factors in everything important, from the quarterback's meal to the wide receiver's divorce and sloughs away whatever isn't relevant or meaningful and then the number just reveals itself.
This might be pulling the curtain away a bit, but this is sort of how I approach the ratings, I look at history, opportunity, talent, what other's are saying and so on and in the end, you get your number and then you temper that with the likelihood to reach that number.

That looks like a key to me. But I have to say, I've been kind of taken by what the Vancouver fans were saying. How Festerling was even better than Mikkelson. How he's the error-free type. I just appreciate that a lot more than pure physical skill. Which is a big reason why I'm a huge Pahlsson fan.


Sure Festerling is error free and extremely reliable defensively (getting the same reports from people who watched Portland last year) but it's all context.

Festerling was out there primarily in defensive situations, facing the opponents offensive weapons and reducing their effectiveness, playing a simple game that minimizes the chances the other team gets. I think he was paired primarily with Jay Leach, another defensively oriented player. It's hard to compare to the way Anaheim handles their current defenders, because guys like Niedermayer and Pronger play in every situation, but imagine the pairing of Leach and Festerling to be similar to Carney and Sauer back in the day.

Mikkelson's game is a not as focused as just playing solid and safe in his own zone. He's a three zone defenseman, who sees time in all situations (reports from Portland laud his play on the penalty kill) and use his skating ability and puck skills to spur the offensive attack. He sees time more with some of Portland's top offensive weapons. He would play a role similar to what Niclas Havelid did maybe? I wanted to say Ozolinsh, but that more fits with Salcido. Playing a more high-risk and adventurous style will naturally lead to more errors. But there's more tangible results as well.


It's good to know that. Any chance you can add a little mention of that in those prospect pages? I dunno, it just seems like useful information.


I'll make a note to do that.


Ha. Ferhi was a McNab signing? Yoiks. Well that's interesting, because I would think that college/undrafted Euro FA would be a great way to get goaltenders. The extra years should really help to get a better sense of how good they are, compared to who drafting goalies tends to be such a crap-shoot. It's just that with the lowered UFA years, drafting 17 year old goalies really doesn't seem like such a good idea to me.

Anaheim has historically not been successful with developing goaltenders (something else I've started to consider with Levasseur, unfortunately burdening him with the failures of the past).

Except for maybe a couple I can think of (Popovic, Holmqvist).

Yeah, but they did end up playing in the NHL, at least. I haven't been too too bad with any complete busts to mar my name. David McKee, Joel Stepp.
I think if you look back, it's pretty clear where my biases are and what qualities I would look for in a player if I were a GM. But most of the guys I favoured or touted have at least had a taste of the show, which is remarkable, really.
I also like how we almost predicted the Stanley Cup win by watching the impressive growth of resources from the 2002 and 2003 drafts come to fruition.
I take a lot of pleasure watching the careers of these guys as they follow their dreams (although at times it's easy to have a bit of a jaded approach, when you consider the negative side of what is happening to a lot of these boys).


speaking of our prospects, how come our Bolt is so slow? A guy with that name is just made to be fast (Usain is insane), but why is ours ironically named like all the "Tiny"s in the world?
From what I've heard, it's conditioning.

Now I'm no scout but I'm sure the Ducks scouts see qualities in Mikkelson that should translate to the pro game better than Festerling's. I can tell you from what I've seen of the two of them in the last two training camps, Mikkelson is definitely the better player. He fits much better with the team than Festerling.


I wouldn't say translate to the NHL better. In fact, I don't think Festerling is too far off being able to fill in at the NHL level in a Joey DiPenta-like role. But Mikkelson has a more...full-featured game and that leads to a higher upside. Festerling and Mikkelson probably aren't too far off from one another in NHL preparedness, but Mikkelson gets the edge (and probably the earlier start to his NHL career) because his ceiling is higher. In fact, I think Festerling might be more prepared to handle the jump to NHL right now, but I can understand why Mikkelson would be preferred.

That "Mikkelson is a smooth-skating defensive defenseman."

If it's the same article I'm thinking of, I think that might be a mistake (the one where they also called Mitera "Murray"). Mikkelson is clearly a two-way guy.


Holy crap, I ramble a lot.

Kevin, the comparable that's been shaping up in my head for a while now with everything that I've heard about Mikkelson is Kevin Haller.

Beautiful skater, lanky guy, the kind of defender that would use his skills to make a decent first pass and his speed to cover his mistakes but never put it all together at the pro level in a way that people thought was possible. Is that accurate?

Kevin, the comparable that's been shaping up in my head for a while now with everything that I've heard about Mikkelson is Kevin Haller.

Beautiful skater, lanky guy, the kind of defender that would use his skills to make a decent first pass and his speed to cover his mistakes but never put it all together at the pro level in a way that people thought was possible. Is that accurate?

I never really liked comparisons, even when I did my own in that previous post, it was more talking about roles played as opposed to actual playing style.
But yeah, that sounds like an accurate description of what Mikkelson brings to the table, obviously the jury is still out on his NHL potential.

Also his rating dropped, as did the rating of a number of prospects, which is less to do with him and more to do with me. Nothing major for most, just a half-point here or a letter grade there. I always try to compare ratings with other teams and writers to see what their thoughts are on particular "classes" of players and such. So since the last Top 20, I've had a few conversations on rating prospects that border on near-philosophy (the Tao of predicting the future) and currently I've been thinking a lot about the boil down method (by definition a 7.0C is roughly the same as a 6.0B as a 5.0A etc.) as a way to figure out where guys fit in and so on.
I'm not perfect at the ratings, but I try to be realistic. I don't want to point fingers (and thankfully a lot of this stuff is picked up and corrected by the rest of the staff during the proposed list stage), but there have been teams where if you boil down the rankings, they're saying they have 20 or so for sure NHLers in the prospect system. That's completely insane.
I also try to get away from rating everyone as a 6.5C or a 6.0C as that always strikes me as lazy.
I'm slowly becoming less afraid of the F score and trying to call it more as a see it (there's more Ds then ever as well), but on the other side of the spectrum, I have a hard time calling anyone a sure deal. The argument could be made that Carter is already a 6.5A and you know, that's probably valid.
This might be pulling the curtain away a bit, but this is sort of how I approach the ratings, I look at history, opportunity, talent, what other's are saying and so on and in the end, you get your number and then you temper that with the likelihood to reach that number.
Yeah I certainly agree that Cs, Ds and Fs should be more common. There's just guys who are really risky, and if they bust they are unlikely to make it in a different role. Look at say a Shannon. If he panned out, he could be a high scorer. Maybe a 7 or 7.5 or something. Maybe even an 8. But the thing with him is if he's not that, it's not like he could be a Marchant. If anything, I'd prefer even more numbers. Sort of like a "high end + likeliness-most likely endpoint-low end" thing. But that could get a little unwieldy.
It's hard to compare to the way Anaheim handles their current defenders, because guys like Niedermayer and Pronger play in every situation, but imagine the pairing of Leach and Festerling to be similar to Carney and Sauer back in the day.
It's funny you should mention Carney, because that's exactly why I was asking about Festerling and de Gray. I think the team needs a defensive, reliable, physical guy. Carney might be a little ambitious, but I would like an O'Donnell type, as in a complementary type. I think hitting, size, and defensive ability is a little lacking in the farm system, although Mitera should be able to be the top-pairing version of that.
If it's the same article I'm thinking of, I think that might be a mistake (the one where they also called Mitera "Murray"). Mikkelson is clearly a two-way guy.
No it's not the NHL.com prospects article written by some random dude. It's actually a Ducks.com season preview. It appears to be working now. In the section where they talk about our D corps and how rookies like Mikkelson and Salcido might step in to fill Schneider's roster spot. There's no byline, but I assume it's Brady.

edit: OK I take it back. Turns out it's the season preview from NHL.com, written by the same John Kreiser who wrote that prospect thing.

Anaheim has historically not been successful with developing goaltenders (something else I've started to consider with Levasseur, unfortunately burdening him with the failures of the past).
Here's an interesting point I think deserves some more pondering. Why hasn't Anaheim done well with developing goalies? It's especially odd since we have a top-notch goalie coach who's helped the beginning and end stages of many notable goalies (Roy, Hebert, Gerber, Bryzgalov, Giguere, Hiller).

Why haven't we been able to do the middle development of our drafted guys? Askey, Gagnon (who?), Karpenko, Russell, Vaillancourt (who?), Andersson, Bouthillete, or even McKee? And how come Allaire couldn't help some guys not suck (Roussel, Shields)?

Here's an interesting point I think deserves some more pondering. Why hasn't Anaheim done well with developing goalies? It's especially odd since we have a top-notch goalie coach who's helped the beginning and end stages of many notable goalies (Roy, Hebert, Gerber, Bryzgalov, Giguere, Hiller).

Why haven't we been able to do the middle development of our drafted guys? Askey, Gagnon (who?), Karpenko, Russell, Vaillancourt (who?), Andersson, Bouthillete, or even McKee? And how come Allaire couldn't help some guys not suck (Roussel, Shields)?

Perhaps because we've never really needed to? If you think about it we've had two bonafide number one goalies since our first season and for the last 5 years we've had a solid back-up. Not to mention Hebert has Shtelankov(sp?) for several years. I mean, New Jersey hasn't developed any goalies in the last decade either.