Toggle sidebar

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

  • Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
Status
Not open for further replies.
RangerBoy said:
Most of the college kids are 3 year players. Hagelin was a 4 year player. I like Nieves. The Rangers shouldn't give up on him. Michigan put him on left wing and then moved him back to center. The Rangers signed Lindberg and Fast to ELCs. Both of them were loaned back to the teams in Sweden. The Rangers can do the same thing with Andersson.
Click to expand...

Nieves can cook for 2 more years after this. Better to reserve judgement till later since he really doesn't have trade value.

On Anderson, I'm going to need to count on our European posters out there to know more about his game, but imo he's a better ELC spot than a Kyle Jean or Kyle Beach at this point. Send him back to Sweden or groom him from the 3rd pair in the AHL. Nice options to have.
 
Mikos87 said:
On Anderson, I'm going to need to count on our European posters out there to know more about his game, but imo he's a better ELC spot than a Kyle Jean or Kyle Beach at this point. Send him back to Sweden or groom him from the 3rd pair in the AHL. Nice options to have.
Click to expand...


Hindsight is 20/20.

At the time layers are signed, you don't know who will turn into a Girardi and who will turn into a Jean. At first Girardi was sent down to the ECHL, while Jean was a leading Hartford scorer.

If you don't sign a bunch of UDFSs and reclamation projects, you won't get any "free" players that don't get paid UFA salaries. But this necessarily involves having many players become terrible minor leaguers.

Losing some of the 50 NHL contract spots is a small price to pay. You have 23 actual NHLers and another dozen legitimate prospects (who are already signed and not yet in the NHL, so it excludes guys like Talbot and Buchnevich) gets you to about 35 contracts. On top of that you have a few vets who play in the AHL and get called up when injuries hit (Asham, Powe, Haley).

That still leaves you with 10-12 spots to take shots with. Most of these will turn into Missiaen, Grant and other crappy minor leaguers, but the only way to effectively use these 10-12 spots is on players that will usually go bust, but hopefully one of them becomes a valuable NHLer.
 
There are a very small number of players in the NHL who weren't producing regularly (at least .5 ppg) by the end of their sophomore years.

That said, Nieves isn't so horribly off the pace that I think he has bustaroony-doonied just yet. Not holding out any hope on Fogarty, though. I can't exactly rip on these guys for lack of NCAA offensive production, though.
 
Bird Law said:
I couldn't care less. By far the least important skill for a goaltender.
Click to expand...

With the amount of game's hes likely to play in NY with Lundqvist here, his bench door-opening skill will be about the most important.
 
Fitzy said:
With the amount of game's hes likely to play in NY with Lundqvist here, his bench door-opening skill will be about the most important.
Click to expand...


Skapski is more than 12 years younger than Lundqvist. If Skapper ever becomes good enough to be a #1 goalie, it won't happen for at least 4-6 years. For one, goalies take longer to develop. Two, almost nobody hits his potential in his rookie year. By then Lundqvist will be in his late 30s and maybe for a couple of years the two goalies can share responsibility for a couple of years, after which Skapski would still be in his 20s while Lundqvist will be 40.

The age gap between Lundqvist and Skapski is only a year less than between Brodeur and Schneider.

Again, I'm not saying that Skapski will ever be a #1 goalie, but if he does, he won't be blocked by Lundqvist because the age gap is so wide.
 
Considering the trapezoid was brought in because Brodeur was too good at handling the puck, I'd say that skill is important. Also, who doesn't wish that Lundqvist could handle the puck like Talbot can? I bet defensemen prefer a good puck moving goalie. Finally, if Skapski is good like Talbot in that department, it increases his chances of being a valuable asset one day.

But, other than that, yeah, it's the least important skill for a goalie. /no s
 
Puckhandling ability is a goaltender skill that could be a tremendous plus, but not too much of a minus. If a goalie can't handle the puck well, it's not that big of a deal--you can still be otherwise excellent at the position. However, if you CAN handle the puck well, that can be a real asset in helping to control the play. Goalies that are excellent puckhandlers can really neutralize opponents that want to dump and chase, among other things.
 
If you were too yung to remember of too old that you forgot I'll remind you - Hextall and Brodeur made alot of mistakes paying too much attention to the paddle early in their careers. Our first game vs Hextall was a Saturday matinee or evening game in Philly on WWOR 9, Sam started going into how good Hextall is at playing the puck, a few seconds later he had given it up in front of his net and the Rangers scored. I never forgot that call and subsequent goal.

I wouldn't say it's a non factor in looking at goalies. You have to have good athleticism to be good with a goalstick on that level. I always go with the guy that utilizes the stick to make the best saves, then its rebound control. Puckhandling is good but not a make or break weapon.
 
Bluenote13 said:
If you were too yung to remember of too old that you forgot I'll remind you - Hextall and Brodeur made alot of mistakes paying too much attention to the paddle early in their careers. Our first game vs Hextall was a Saturday matinee or evening game in Philly on WWOR 9, Sam started going into how good Hextall is at playing the puck, a few seconds later he had given it up in front of his net and the Rangers scored. I never forgot that call and subsequent goal.

I wouldn't say it's a non factor in looking at goalies. You have to have good athleticism to be good with a goalstick on that level. I always go with the guy that utilizes the stick to make the best saves, then its rebound control. Puckhandling is good but not a make or break weapon.
Click to expand...

That's absolutely right. I think puckhandling for a goalie is akin to free throw shooting ability for a basketball center: you're not expected to be good at it, and it's at the bottom of the priority list, but if you're good at it it's a big bonus.
 
nyr2k2 said:
That's absolutely right. I think puckhandling for a goalie is akin to free throw shooting ability for a basketball center: you're not expected to be good at it, and it's at the bottom of the priority list, but if you're good at it it's a big bonus.
Click to expand...

Yeah, in the end give me a guy who makes the saves and plays the puck with more confidence than panic.
 
nyr2k2 said:
Puckhandling ability is a goaltender skill that could be a tremendous plus, but not too much of a minus. If a goalie can't handle the puck well, it's not that big of a deal--you can still be otherwise excellent at the position. However, if you CAN handle the puck well, that can be a real asset in helping to control the play. Goalies that are excellent puckhandlers can really neutralize opponents that want to dump and chase, among other things.
Click to expand...

If so many NHL coaches weren't old-schoolers who don't every like to change policies, the NHL's best goaltenders when it comes to puck handling could do even more than they do. How many times do you see a blueliner give the puck away while retreating or ice it, when he could have easily just passed the puck back to his goaltender? How many breakaways could Lundqvist have prevented if he had the confidence to come out and play the puck?

So I do agree it is useful. The gap between the good and bad puck handlers is huge now because of the lack of emphasis on it in the European schools of goaltending.
 
I'd much rather have a goalie have good skating than good puck handling. Good skating would allow Lundqvist to come out. All he'd have to do is whack the puck around the boards.
 
Too bad for Stajcer. I'd wager it's a hip injury, as he's had at least two surgeries on his hips in his short career.
 
With Miller called up, there is a good chance he graduates as a prospect. This would be our top 20 in my mind:

1. Fast
2. Duke (may become #1)
3. MCI
4. Skjei
5. Allen
6. Lindberg
7. Butcher
8. Kristo
9. Hrivik
10. Tambellini
11. Skapski (trending)
12. Nieves
13. St. Croix
14. Yogan
15. Kantor
16. Bourque
17. Graves
18. Donnay
19. Hughes
20. Noreau

The list is not as impressive as it was in the past. Maybe if The Duke becomes a blue chipper and we acquire some prospects for Girardi, Cally and/or Boyle, we would be ok, but as of now this list looks rather weak.

Hartford will be particularly empty of prospects a year from now.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom