I appreciate the kind words. When discussing prospects it's always a challenge to determine what exactly constitutes one. For the purpose of the article I based my criteria loosely on Hockey's Futures', so any player who played over 65 games and was over the age of 25 was exempt--that's why I included Hags. As for the rankings of the others, it's tough to decide if player potential or progression status is more important than the other. I respect your opinion and appreciate you reading the piece and dropping me a line. Cheers.