Prospect Info: 2013-2014 Rangers Prospects Thread *Part III* (Player Stats in Post #1; Updated 4/8)

[Beacon]

It kills me knowing that we could have had Fowler who was NHL ready from when he was drafted. I really hope Mcilrath makes the team next year and proves he was worthy of where he was drafted. If he doesn't make the team are we going to make up more excuses claiming he needs more years in Hartford as we have for the past years?

He probably won't make it out of camp, though he likely will mid-season. Allen, also a right defenseman, is older and closer to being NHL ready. I suspect the day MCI gets sent down to Hartford during the preseason, the naysayers on this forum will just explode.

He really should work on his puck control and balance. He significantly improved both over the last 12 months since he joined Hartford, but I don't think it's good enough for the NHL. He also needs a little more time in the minors to speed up

On a side note how has Kristo been playing? He seems to be doing really good considering he's tied for the team lead in points. Is there any chance we see him as a call up this season?

No, there isn't unless we get badly hit by injuries. You should go to the Hartford thread, he is discussed extensively there.

Other prospects regularly discussed there: McIlrath, Fast, Lindberg, with Bourque, Hrivik and Yogan a little less.

 

[Trxjw]

The antonym of success is failure.

Case I: If the 1st round pick the Rangers used to pick McIlrath was made with the intention of drafting a boom or bust project with a lot of upside and McIlrath meets or exceeds those expectations, the pick was a success. If he doesn't, then the pick was a failure.

Case II: If the 1st round pick the Rangers used to pick McIlrath was made with the intention of drafting a mid pairing, tough, shutdown defenseman and McIlrath meets those those expectations, the pick was a success. If he doesn't, the pick was a failure.

The problem right now is that Case II appears to be the best case scenario given his current development, and 1st round picks shouldn't be used for the intent laid forth in Case II. Furthermore, two current NHL players that were alluded to in the McIlrath comparison were Zdeno Chara, who was drafted 3/56 in 1996, and Shea Weber, who was drafted 2/49 in 2003, are perfect examples of why teams shouldn't pick a huge project with the 10th overall pick.

Without assigning any pejorative statements to the Mcilrath pick, Merriam-Webster seems to indicate that if Case I was the intent, then the pick was a failure, and if Case II was the intent, then the pick was not a failure. Instead Case II, the more likely scenario, was a poor use of a very important asset, the 10th overall pick in the draft.

What is so hard to understand about this?

It's not hard to understand at all. The problem isn't the difficulty of comprehension, the problem is that the premise is fundamentally wrong. Success when evaluating hockey prospects isn't boolean. It's not pass or fail. A true failure of a pick is a player who never has any level of NHL success. Setting expectations for a player doesn't dictate success or failure. If McIlrath becomes a #5 defender who fights, then surely he's a disappointment, but he's certainly not a failure.

In addition, the "failure stamp" is thrown around more often than not based on what other players have done, not by what McIlrath has or has not accomplished. If success is judged by the fact that players you passed on are having a better go of it than the guy you picked, then it's pretty damn hard to have a successful draft pick.

Brandon Gormley was rated ahead of McIlrath, so where's the outrage about him? There isn't any because he's not a flashy prospect and because he hasn't had NHL success yet. Same goes for Austin Watson who saw his name thrown around here as well. Point being, the vast majority of people aren't upset because McIlrath is doing badly (because he isn't). They're pissed because the name they saw thrown around the most isn't the name that the Rangers went with. Now that the name they wanted is having NHL success before McIlrath, people are up in arms about the failure of the Rangers scouting department. It's absurd.

I would have hated to see the reaction of this board to Ryan McDonagh if we had been the team to spend a 12th overall pick on him.

 

[Jim Ramsay]

It's funny to me too, because you can go back on here the past two years and people were bashing Cam Fowler....terrible plus/minus and looked weak defensively with not much offense to speak of....and now everyone is lamenting the fact that we didn't get him instead


moral of the story is, let time play out and give McIlrath a chance before we totally right him off.

Right now, physically he seems like a man amongst boys in the AHL, if this translates to the NHL this will be a good pick.

I'm rooting for the guy, rooting for the team, that's what I do, I'm a fan

 

[nyr2k2]

Trxjw is the early frontrunner for Post of the Year.

I hated the McIlrath pick. I'm high on him now because he's developing well. We should be able to discuss the latter without dwelling on the former.

 

[Beacon]

I would have hated to see the reaction of this board to Ryan McDonagh if we had been the team to spend a 12th overall pick on him.

That's because he's a bust. The proof of it is the fact that he got sent down to Hartford at the age of 21.

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

Trxjw is the early frontrunner for Post of the Year.

I hated the McIlrath pick. I'm high on him now because he's developing well. We should be able to discuss the latter without dwelling on the former.

I protest! This is clearly mod/former mod nepotism.

 

[Trxjw]

I protest! This is clearly mod/former mod nepotism.

Infraction inbound.

 

[Mikos87]

It's a big picture thing with McIlrath. When he was drafted, everyone knew he was 4 years away. For him to play that type of game against men, he needs to mature physically.

Outside of the knee injury, there hasn't been anything to suggest he has been off-track in his development. He is going to be a Matt Greene type of crease clearing defenseman.

The type of D this team hasn't had in over a decade, and one of the hardest players to find because they hardly ever become available without being overpaid for as an UFA.

Is Brooks Orpik worth $4M on his stats? Hell no.
Is he worth $4M because he helps his team win? Hell yeah.

With McIlrath you are looking at an Orpik, Greene type of defenseman. If he gives you 20 min a night, then great. If its 17, then that's okay too.

It's not like Kevin Klein is costing the team wins by playing a steady defensive game... sure the guy isn't bringing offense.. same with Stralman.

What Dylan will provide over those guys is that he can win battles against the Lucic's of the world. In addition to bringing in element of intimidation that this soft team lacks.

Does Brad Stuart elbow Nash in the head if he has to face McIlrath? Maybe.. maybe not.

Does Brad Stuart elbow Nash in the head if he has to face Dorsett? You betcha.

 

[Mikos87]

That's because he's a bust. The proof of it is the fact that he got sent down to Hartford at the age of 21.

Yeah I mean 2007's 12th overall pick didn't become a top 4 defenseman until the turn of the calendar in 2011. He was in the minors 3.5 years after his draft year but he was shinier toy to the fanbase since he was part of the org since 2009.

The Rangers need to start rubbing baby oil and Vaseline on all their prospects to preserve the shine on their toys before the fanbase turns on them.

Somebody grease up Duclair before he goes 2 games without scoring.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Does Brad Stuart elbow Nash in the head if he has to face McIlrath? Maybe.. maybe not.

Does Brad Stuart elbow Nash in the head if he has to face Dorsett? You betcha.

I never got this. Does a guy change his split second decision because he has to fight a good fighter? I doubt Brad Stuart woke up that morning and thought "I will injure Rick Nash tonight, not to mention get suspended, because I can get away with it since no one will punch me". Even if it was a premeditated act, these guys are big tough hockey players, not girl scouts. Do you really think that McIlrath's superior punches would deter Brad Stuart if he really wanted to hurt Nash? I mean, he'll get punched a few times, big ****ing deal.

 

[Beacon]

I never got this. Does a guy change his split second decision because he has to fight a good fighter? I doubt Brad Stuart woke up that morning and thought "I will injure Rick Nash tonight, not to mention get suspended, because I can get away with it since no one will punch me". Even if it was a premeditated act, these guys are big tough hockey players, not girl scouts. Do you really think that McIlrath's superior punches would deter Brad Stuart if he really wanted to hurt Nash? I mean, he'll get punched a few times, big ****ing deal.

Yes, there's a direct correlation between punishment (both how tough it will be and how likely someone is to administer it) and violation of rules. You get your teeth knocked out, next time in that split second you start to hesitate.

Somebody grease up Duclair before he goes 2 games without scoring.

Say what? Duclair isn't allowed to go two games without scoring. He already had his one scoreless game for the month of February, he isn't allowed anymore until March.

 

[ReggieDunlop68]

It's not hard to understand at all. The problem isn't the difficulty of comprehension, the problem is that the premise is fundamentally wrong. Success when evaluating hockey prospects isn't boolean. It's not pass or fail. A true failure of a pick is a player who never has any level of NHL success. Setting expectations for a player doesn't dictate success or failure. If McIlrath becomes a #5 defender who fights, then surely he's a disappointment, but he's certainly not a failure.

In addition, the "failure stamp" is thrown around more often than not based on what other players have done, not by what McIlrath has or has not accomplished. If success is judged by the fact that players you passed on are having a better go of it than the guy you picked, then it's pretty damn hard to have a successful draft pick.

Brandon Gormley was rated ahead of McIlrath, so where's the outrage about him? There isn't any because he's not a flashy prospect and because he hasn't had NHL success yet. Same goes for Austin Watson who saw his name thrown around here as well. Point being, the vast majority of people aren't upset because McIlrath is doing badly (because he isn't). They're pissed because the name they saw thrown around the most isn't the name that the Rangers went with. Now that the name they wanted is having NHL success before McIlrath, people are up in arms about the failure of the Rangers scouting department. It's absurd.

I would have hated to see the reaction of this board to Ryan McDonagh if we had been the team to spend a 12th overall pick on him.

It is pass/fail based on the premise. If the premise is we will use our top 10 pick to obtain a player with an huge upside under the assumption of a huge risk, and the player never makes the nhl, the pick was a failure. It doesn't mean the player is a failure, it means the pick was a failure.

If the top 10 pick makes the NHL but at a much lesser impact than the possible upside impact, then the pick is not a failure. Instead this type of pick would be a mismanagement of a valuable asset because a risk could have been taken with a less valuable pick.

 

[jniklast]

Yes, there's a direct correlation between punishment (both how tough it will be and how likely someone is to administer it) and violation of rules. You get your teeth knocked out, next time in that split second you start to hesitate.

Did Cooke ever get his teeth knocked out after a dirty hit? You can't be forced to fight anyway and most dirty players would simply turtle instead of fighting s heavyweight. What stops players like Cooke are suspensions and nothing else.

 

[HFsNumber1Heel]

Makes me sad that people are so down on Boo.

Yes he's had a bad year. But many factors. Maybe he gained too much weight. Maybe he didn't train right. Maybe Michigan as a whole just isn't that good.

He's in no hurry and is a four year project. Give him time. if he regresses next season, we have a real problem. He's also very skinny. May need time to add muscle properly to his body.

 

[Fitzy]

Michigan is just fine (14-7-3), and their offense is spearheaded by the guy I wanted in the 2013 draft.

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

Michigan is just fine (14-7-3), and their offense is spearheaded by the guy I wanted in the 2013 draft.

Compher? It's not like we would have been able to draft him even if we had kept our 2nd rounder.

(Which is not to say I liked the Clowe deal - I didn't.)

 

[Matt4776]

Michigan is playing good hockey right now. Compher is playing extremely well. I wanted him as well, although I probably wanted him more as a bias since I knew he was coming to Michigan (as a student and STH).

Boo isn't playing poorly. He's not playing great. He's playing better than he did last year (his extreme hot streak notwithstanding) and is definitely playing a better all around game. He's having awful puck luck and has like a 2.9% shooting percentage. He's just not being relied on like he was at the end of last year.

He is a smart player. I'm not at all concerned for his development. I see a very good 2nd/3rd line tweener out of Boo.

 

[surf]

Did u see Evander Kane TKO him?

Did Cooke ever get his teeth knocked out after a dirty hit? You can't be forced to fight anyway and most dirty players would simply turtle instead of fighting s heavyweight. What stops players like Cooke are suspensions and nothing else.

 

[BlueshirtBlitz]

I love watching talented guys like Marleau, Thornton and Pavelski get injured by guys like Rupp and Bickel.

Give me a break, I can't believe some people advocate stuff like this.

What does this have to do with 2013-2014 Rangers prospects? Can this please go to one of the other unnecessary threads about fighting?

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

Boston is widely regarded as the toughest team and they lose players to injuries on questionable hits fairly regularly. Correlation does not imply causation.

Came to post the same thing. Boston is pretty much the baddest ass, meanest, scariest, beat-the-****-out-of-you-est team in the league. And yet they've had some of the worst injuries from headshots, blindside hits, etc. Deterrent against injury argument torpedoed right there.

Just because a certain element of the fanbase enjoys "frontier justice" and wants to indulge their desire for physical retribution - and wants this to be okay for reasons other than (the reality of) "hey, that guy hit my guy so I want someone to go beat his ass!" - doesn't make it so.

Look, I admit that I take a certain primal enjoyment out of a good tilt between two guys who can play the game who get into it in the heat of the moment. But the idea that having tough MFs on your team protects your players is ********, plain and simple. Guys play the way they play regardless of who's on the ice.



Also - and I think this gets lost in the argument sometimes - the fact that the deterrent argument is invalid, does not invalidate the value of having big, tough legitimate hockey players to make it uncomfortable to go in the crease/in the corners.

 

[Mikos87]

Correlation does not imply causation.

In the soft science of psychology yes... but in hockey it's a little different. That Boston team has won a cup and been to the finals in 2 out the last 3 years. I'll attribute their toughness and depth as the correlation that lead to their success.

Hockey isn't a game for the squeamish. Humanitarian causes and sensitivity towards violence is great for humanity no doubt, but I don't know of any cup champs that didn't sacrifice their bodies during a 2 month cup run.

I don't follow Boston enough to see how many headshots they take, but I know they aren't a team that counts on Shanny to police the ice on their behalf.

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

In the soft science of psychology yes... but in hockey it's a little different. That Boston team has won a cup and been to the finals in 2 out the last 3 years. I'll attribute their toughness and depth as the correlation that lead to their success.

Hockey isn't a game for the squeamish. Humanitarian causes and sensitivity towards violence is great for humanity no doubt, but I don't know of any cup champs that didn't sacrifice their bodies during a 2 month cup run.

I don't follow Boston enough to see how many headshots they take, but I know they aren't a team that counts on Shanny to police the ice on their behalf.

I think you and I posted at about the same time - read what I wrote above.

I COMPLETELY agree about their toughness being an element in why they've done well playing the actual game of hockey.

But it has NOT provided ANY protection for their players against injury. To answer your question, they have had some of the absolute worst dirty plays against them of any team in the league over the last 5 years.

 

[Mikos87]

I think you and I posted at about the same time - read what I wrote above. I completely agree about their toughness being an element in why they've done well playing the actual game of hockey.

But it has NOT provided ANY protection for their players against injury. To answer your question, they have had some of the absolute worst dirty plays against them of any team in the league over the last 5 years.

Totally agree with you. Violence begets more violence, always has and always will... no arguments there. But I'd rather have a team that pushes back, rather than a bunch of emos that bend over and take it.

 

[haveandare]

In the soft science of psychology yes... but in hockey it's a little different. That Boston team has won a cup and been to the finals in 2 out the last 3 years. I'll attribute their toughness and depth as the correlation that lead to their success.

Hockey isn't a game for the squeamish. Humanitarian causes and sensitivity towards violence is great for humanity no doubt, but I don't know of any cup champs that didn't sacrifice their bodies during a 2 month cup run.

I don't follow Boston enough to see how many headshots they take, but I know they aren't a team that counts on Shanny to police the ice on their behalf.

That's actually something said in regard to statistics, or there's where I've come across it at least.

I agree that having a big, tough team is useful in many ways, but acting as a deterrent for careless or malicious hits isn't one of them.

 

[Mikos87]

That's actually something said in regard to statistics, or there's where I've come across it at least.

I agree that having a big, tough team is useful in many ways, but acting as a deterrent for careless or malicious hits isn't one of them.

It's with regard to statistical significance. In sciences such as chemistry and physics, results can be replicated in experiments.

When dealing with fluid results, such as in psychology or behavioral finance, the results aren't black or white, so it is measured in terms of correlations rather than causation, as causation cannot be proven when results can't be replicated on a 1:1 scale so it cannot be claimed as fact or a direct cause.

If you ever come across a scatter plot graph, the results are always in terms of correlations.