Toggle sidebar

Chris Kreider remains top prospect for New York Rangers

HF Article

Registered User
Nov 16, 2005
12,505
3
​

The New York Rangers boast excellent forward depth, with the likes of Chris Kreider, J.T. Miller, and Mats Zuccarello all seeing some time on the NHL squad this season. The Rangers also have several other prospects who are close to making an impact in the NHL, including Christian Thomas, Jesper Fasth, and Dylan McIlrath.



Outside of the potential stars in the top of the ranking, the Rangers have decent depth at every position, however they are particularly deep on wing.

1. (1) Chris Kreider, LW, 8.0C
Drafted 1st round, 19th overall, 2009

Now in his first full season of professional hockey, Kreider is progressing, but not as quickly as some in the Rangers front office had hoped.… read more



More...
Click to read more...
 
Look*Luck at end of Kreider paragraph.

Don't agree about Chris being the top, but the rest looks pretty consistent with the consensus here.
 
I thought Kreider was going to be a Calder candidate this year after the playoffs he had last season.

Thought he'd be playing alongside Richards or Stepan and lighting things up, second line LW should have been his for the taking.

Shouldn't have had such high hopes based on a small # of games, but it was the playoffs and he looked like a game breaker and scored some awesome goals.

Now I just hope he's able to turn some things around and becomes an NHL top-6 winger and isn't the next Evgeny Grachev.
 
Nobody really stood out on the list as being too low or too high so i consider that a good list. Maybe Oscar a few spots higher.
 
Leslie, interesting take on Nieves who I see as a more natural center. Also on Yogan, I believe his play has picked up lately, no?

What would be your take on the new guy, Kantor?
 
Some interesting (if relatively minor) movement on grades:

Ceresnak from a 6.0 D to a 6.0 C. I'm surprised, since he looked pretty crappy to me this year. His stock didn't improve at all in my eyes. Noreau stayed flat at a 6.0 C. That's an inconsistency, I think, as Noreau actually showed improvement.

Lindberg stays at a 6.5 C. I feel like he deserves a B, if not the rare A rating. Other than maybe JT Miller, I feel like he's the most "sure thing" prospect we have in the system.

How on earth did Kyle Jean move from a 6.5 D to a 6.5 C? The guy had like 10 points his last 60 games or whatever. He was invisible. What caused his stock to go up in your eyes, Leslie?

I also think one could easily make the case for Talbot having a 7.0 rating (journeyman #1 goaltender in HF's system). He has continued to develop his skills and really has been the only constant on an up-and-down Hartford team.

Of course, I'm only mentioning the things I disagree with. In general, I think the list is solid (as usual). Thanks, Leslie.
 
I have to assume this was done before Moore was a Ranger. He should easily make the list.

Agree that Lindberg is too low and deserves a higher rating. Seems like many believe he's a defensive center and the offensive production is an anomaly. Not sure I agree with that assessment.
 
Trxjw said:
I have to assume this was done before Moore was a Ranger. He should easily make the list.

Agree that Lindberg is too low and deserves a higher rating. Seems like many believe he's a defensive center and the offensive production is an anomaly. Not sure I agree with that assessment.
Click to expand...

Regarding Moore, that must be. Though IIRC, they signed Hughes only a day or two before the dealine, and he's on the list.

I was never really sold on Lindberg's offensive upside, but the skills he has shown this year are legitimate. He's involved in everything, and he really has a nose for the net. That's something that should translate to any league--he has enough size. Even if he's more defensively oriented, he looks set to be more Max Talbot than Blair Betts.
 
Lindberg, Hrivik, Yogan are all underrated, maybe St. Croix too, depending on whether you value the upside or the odds of making the NHL more. Bourque and Mission should be there too.

Fogarty and McColgan are overrated.

Minor disagreements on others, but those are minor disagreements.

===============================================>

Couple disagreements explained:

1. I don't understand how Stajcer is on the list when Mission isn't. They are only a year apart. Mission is doing well in the AHL, and is arguably the most improved player on the team from the start of the year. Stajcer started slowly in the ECHL, then had a good run, then settled down to play average ECHL hockey, and as a result is now the backup for the playoffs. How is he superior to Mission?

2. Yogan has an above average shot, above average speed, above average size (all compared to NHLers) and his hockey sense isn't bad either. Why is he #19? He is a much better player than he's getting credit for in this report. I guess he's still punished for being sent down to the ECHL to start the season. How exactly is Jean ahead of him? Jean is the first choice of the Whale to get scratched when everyone is healthy, while Yogan is playing no matter what. He also has almost twice as many points per game, while playing more physical and more involved hockey. And let's not forget that Yogan is almost two years younger.

And seriously, McColgan over Yogan? McColgan is either not going to be signed or will go straight to the ECHL. Does anyone watch Whale or junior hockey here?

3. Bourque should be up there. He has the best shot in Hartford after Thomas, is quick and fast, always engaged. He's Hartford's Callahan. Sure he is small and gets injured, but to not put him in the top-20 is wrong.
 
Last edited:
I'm a little surprised that Bourque didn't make the top 20. He isn't putting up a lot of points, but the few things I've read of him this year have been positive.
 
nyr2k2 said:
Some interesting (if relatively minor) movement on grades:

Ceresnak from a 6.0 D to a 6.0 C. I'm surprised, since he looked pretty crappy to me this year. His stock didn't improve at all in my eyes. Noreau stayed flat at a 6.0 C. That's an inconsistency, I think, as Noreau actually showed improvement.

Lindberg stays at a 6.5 C. I feel like he deserves a B, if not the rare A rating. Other than maybe JT Miller, I feel like he's the most "sure thing" prospect we have in the system.

How on earth did Kyle Jean move from a 6.5 D to a 6.5 C? The guy had like 10 points his last 60 games or whatever. He was invisible. What caused his stock to go up in your eyes, Leslie?

I also think one could easily make the case for Talbot having a 7.0 rating (journeyman #1 goaltender in HF's system). He has continued to develop his skills and really has been the only constant on an up-and-down Hartford team.

Of course, I'm only mentioning the things I disagree with. In general, I think the list is solid (as usual). Thanks, Leslie.
Click to expand...

Thanks to everyone for their comments thus far.

First, our prospect criteria only includes players with up to 65 games in the NHL. Therefore, neither Moore nor Palmieri, both of whom would otherwise be on the list, appear in the article.

Also, the letter grade--it indicates our current feeling of whether the player will reach potential and how far off they are currently (so the probability of success). So, a 6.0 we see as a third line forward or a third pairing D-man. A movement of letter does not mean a player has improved--what it means is that there is a change in where HF believes that a player will wind up.

Right now, I believe that both Ceresnak and Noreau are unlikely to have long NHL careers, but most likely will be good minor league blueliners. So, its not strictly about how each has improved--its about where they are likely to wind up, whether they are signed to an ELC or not. Which goes for the list too. So a player with high potential, but is really not doing well and may not even be signed, may appear higher on the list than someone who will be signed but has a lower upside.

As for a couple of specific players--Jean, he was not used to the longer season and got burned out early. I do believe that he will bounce back--we did not move his letter up because he improved his play during the season--we just had a better feel for where he will wind up.

Stajcer lost pretty much a full season of hockey, so while his age is close to the same as Missiaen, he is behind in development. We think that they are very close and because Stajcer lost time in development, I made the decision to put him in the top 20.

Lindberg, who I saw play in person this season, is an interesting case and I am stumped as to why folks who have not seen him play in person are showing consternation. We have him as a top 9 player--somewhere between a second and third line forward. Just like we still think that Hagelin is mostly a defensive player (who can sometimes generate offense and puts up some numbers), Lindberg is not expected to be a big offensive producer in the NHL. Arguably, he could be a "B", which would move him up on the list, but I am surprised that some on these boards think of Lindberg as a more offensive player.

Lastly, you should know, and most around here do, that I have seen all of these prospects in person at least once this season and most many times more than that.
 
If I were to make a top 20 it would go like this--keeping in mind I'm leaving out both Hughes and Allen as I don't very much about.

1. Kreider
2. Miller
3. McIlrath (if Moore counts as a prospect he'd go in this slot and Dylan would drop down to No. 4).
4. Zuccarello--very impressed with him this time around--he's making me into a believer.
5. Fasth
6. Lindberg
7. Skjei
8. Thomas
9. Nieves
10. Hrivik
11. Talbot--IMO he'd make a decent backup on a lot of NHL teams.
12. St. Croix
13. Yogan
14. Missiaen
15. Fogarty
16. Andersson
17. Noreau
18. Jean--world beater the first month of the season--since then where's he gone?
19. Mashinter
20. Bourque--hard to believe he'll ever make it with his size and his injury history but he does keep on plugging.
 
Leslie Treff said:
Also, the letter grade--it indicates our current feeling of whether the player will reach potential and how far off they are currently (so the probability of success). So, a 6.0 we see as a third line forward or a third pairing D-man. A movement of letter does not mean a player has improved--what it means is that there is a change in where HF believes that a player will wind up.

Right now, I believe that both Ceresnak and Noreau are unlikely to have long NHL careers, but most likely will be good minor league blueliners. So, its not strictly about how each has improved--its about where they are likely to wind up, whether they are signed to an ELC or not. Which goes for the list too. So a player with high potential, but is really not doing well and may not even be signed, may appear higher on the list than someone who will be signed but has a lower upside.
Click to expand...

I understand all the ranking criteria, but it's still somewhat puzzling to me. Ceresnak had what I feel was a crappy season, and hasn't really done much developing, but now we see that HF views him as more likely than before to become a third pairing defenseman? Based on his season and lack of progression, I'd say he's less likely to become an NHL player than he appeared to be one year ago. So I would expect his D ranking to have stayed constant, or even down to an F.

As for a couple of specific players--Jean, he was not used to the longer season and got burned out early. I do believe that he will bounce back--we did not move his letter up because he improved his play during the season--we just had a better feel for where he will wind up.
Click to expand...

Jean got burned out after three weeks? That's hardly a promising sign.
 
Hard to argue with Leslie considering I don't get to see prospects in person, but with the glowing reviews about Lindberg I am surprised he ranks at 9. He would be 6th on my list, after the 5 others Leslie listed 1-5.

Other than that I agree 100%.
 
I understand he made some mistakes, but he didnt even get a legit shot this year. With a guy that young, you're going to experience growing pains.
 
Lundsanity30 said:
I understand he made some mistakes, but he didnt even get a legit shot this year. With a guy that young, you're going to experience growing pains.
Click to expand...

It is literally impossible to figure out who you are referring to and where he didn't get a chance to play. Maybe Kreider , but the last few posts aren't about him.
 
Green Blob said:
Ehhh, lets not go that far yet ;)

But I would say out of all our prospects, he definitely took the biggest leap in his development this season.
Click to expand...

Don't see how Kreider is the better prospect. Doesn't have the hockey IQ that Linberg possess. Winning SEL playoff MVP (Mens League) as a 20 year old puts him in good company.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom