Wow, Tampa at 10?  Showing a lot of love for a team that hasn’t been in the playoffs for a couple of seasons.

Posted by FF184 on 09/28/09 at 01:48 PM ET

Flyers are way, way too high. A two-line team with little discipline and a mentally unstable, average goaltender is not a recipe for a Cup.

Posted by cs6687 on 09/28/09 at 01:50 PM ET

I don’t understand how the opening rankings aren’t identical to the way the teams finished last season. Whatever!

Posted by Nathan from the scoresheet! on 09/28/09 at 01:54 PM ET

lightning #10.. omg.. I mean come on.. They finished 29th..

any power ranking to start the season cannot move a team up or down more than 10 spots from last years finish and be taken seriously…

and Im not a leaf lover.. but 27th? Id have them near 20…

the devils at 24? Id have them middle of the road around 15…

ok.. Ill stop now…

Posted by canesice on 09/28/09 at 01:59 PM ET

Nathan, it wouldnt be the same as they finished last year due to trades, free agent signings, players drafted or retirement..

Posted by Greg on 09/28/09 at 02:07 PM ET

Why are you even posting this drivel from ESPN when TSN’s rankings are out?

Tampa:
ESPN - 10
TSN - 27

Devils:
ESPN - 24
TSN - 8

Canucks:
ESPN - 17
TSN - 6

Bruins
ESPN - 8
TSN - 2

Hmmm… which of these sound more realistic?

Posted by Bobby Orrs Bastahd on 09/28/09 at 02:16 PM ET

Nathan, it wouldnt be the same as they finished last year due to trades, free agent signings, players drafted or retirement..

Thanks… I’m not that dense. My sarcastic point was that it’s a futile effort to judge teams on paper based on additions/subtractions. Sure, there are a few clubs that have markedly improved by most measures, or vice versa, but to put together a full power ranking is kind of asinine. Might as well wait till the 10 game mark.

Posted by Nathan from the scoresheet! on 09/28/09 at 02:19 PM ET

BOB, I don’t post rankings very often, you and I could do just as well with these types of things.

I figured the ESPN Rankings would draw some comments from KK readers.

Burnside knows his stuff, so let’s see how this shakes out.

Posted by Paul from Motown Area on 09/28/09 at 02:22 PM ET

I understand why you are doing it Paul… I am just moreso mystified by those rankings.  How is it possible for them to disagree SO drastically with TSN?

I mean, how can anyone justify Tampa at 10 and NJ at 24?!

Posted by Bobby Orrs Bastahd on 09/28/09 at 02:24 PM ET

I agree with Nathan from Jonny Ericsson’s ice cream truck. Should play a few regular season games for a real ranking but sportswriters need something to write about so they do their silly rankings to fill space and pretend they have a real job.

Posted by Bo from FL. on 09/28/09 at 02:34 PM ET

I like how they mention the playoffs as a reason the Canucks are ranked at #17, but discount them entirely when ranking San Jose at #2.

Also, the Capitals and Flyers combined would make for a good team (except in goal), but neither of those teams deserve to be as high as they are.  East Coast Bias is hard at work here ruining perspective.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 09/28/09 at 03:04 PM ET

In a related topic, Ken Campbell of THN lists teams on the rise and decline.

Posted by Paul from Motown Area on 09/28/09 at 03:14 PM ET

I like how they mention the playoffs as a reason the Canucks are ranked at #17, but discount them entirely when ranking San Jose at #2.

Yeah, I had to go back and read that a second time . WTF??

Posted by Lindas1st from New England on 09/28/09 at 03:23 PM ET

“Burnside knows his stuff”?

Burnside couldn’t find Canada on a labeled map - or the US, for that matter. Burnside, when he hears the word “puck”, thinks someone is cursing. Burnside thinks “goaltending” is a basketball penalty. Burnside would tell you that “icing” is a sugary substance you put on a cake.

I’ve seen less obviously biased garbage out of internet message forums. I mean, c’mon. Playoffs matter for Canucks but not San Jose? Tampa Bay at 10 based on, what, Ohlund and Hedman? St. Louis at 12 but Columbus at 23 and Dallas at 26? And New Jersey sandwiched in between those last two? Give me a break!

Posted by Viqsi on 09/28/09 at 03:35 PM ET

Its funny, how most pundits say the Canucks have improved this year with the additions of erhoff, schnieder, samuelson, luckowich.  The only notable players who left were sundin and Ohlund.  Also add to the fact that we have won 2 nw division crowns in the last 3 years, and i find it hard to believe that we will be 17th overall.  Furthermore, everyone in the NW got weaker this year.  Calgary improved a bit, by adding bouwmeester but lost about 40 goals when they lost cammerelli.

I find it hard to believe that he ranks, tampa, la , buffulo, st louis, carolina, florida and edmonton in front of the canucks.  Maybe, since espn hasn’t been actively showing hockey, they forgot what year it is.  Sorry, this isnt 1997.

Posted by Luongo-is-my-hero on 09/28/09 at 03:40 PM ET

In a related topic, Ken Campbell of THN lists teams on the rise and decline.

Hey look, another dumbass listing Kopecky as a significant loss.

Posted by Garth on 09/28/09 at 03:41 PM ET

  30     Avalanche   0-0-0   A once-great team in full decline.

Well, at least part of it is spot-on.

Heh.

Posted by TeamDub from The gratch. on 09/28/09 at 07:49 PM ET

I can see why tampa would be playoff bound at least on paper…in practice who knows.  A revamped defense will help Mike Smith be Mike Smith.

Oilers…definitely sleepers…Panthers as well.

Kings won’t make the playoffs nor will the Blues.

Real problem with the Nucks is that if Luongo get’s hurt they’re done.  That’s not speculation that’s a fact.

Sharks are too high…at least with the cup finals that should make detroit 2nd because they didn’t lose anyone great except hossa and they won the cup without him the year before with a similar lineup.

Posted by stoneman from Vegas on 09/29/09 at 06:30 AM ET