Is our Prospect Pool that Bad?
- Thread starter Section32
- Start date
-
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
I don't have the bandwidth and brain power to analyze the prospect pool for all NHL teams, which I'd need to do in order to compare to the rest of the NHL, but I think overall people are excited about a few players as well as the core of players on this team that should allow them to be competitive for the foreseeable future. Because they have not really had many top 10 picks in the last four years, and have traded #1s here and there, the perception would be a not-so-great pool since your #1 picks will typically be your best prospects. Time will tell. Not having that sure-fire #1 line centerman and winger hurts the perception.
Beacon
Embrace the tank
- May 28, 2007
- 13,676
- 1,454
Prospect pools get judged by the count of top draftees a team got the last three years. By that count, we suck. But we have a deep pool and quantity has a quality of its own.
For instance, if we had just Butcher as a high scoring prospect, I wouldn't be excited since he can bust. But we have Butcher, Duke and St. Croix, and that makes it pretty safe that one makes it as a scoring top 6 forward.
Hrivik alone doesn't excite me. But Hrivik, Bourque, Kristo, Nejezchleb, McCarthy and Haggerty will give us at least one bottom 6 winger.
Nieves alone doesn't excite me, but Nieves, Tambellini, Iverson and Fogarty will give us a bottom 6 center.
Graves alone isn't much, but Graves, Mantha, Noreau and Donnay are likely to produce a big NHL defenseman.
Bodie isn't special, but Bodie, Zamorsky, Andersson or Walcott may give us a nice puck mover for the third pair.
Then there are safer kids like Skjei, McIlrath, Allen, Fast, Lindberg, Miller,etc.
For instance, if we had just Butcher as a high scoring prospect, I wouldn't be excited since he can bust. But we have Butcher, Duke and St. Croix, and that makes it pretty safe that one makes it as a scoring top 6 forward.
Hrivik alone doesn't excite me. But Hrivik, Bourque, Kristo, Nejezchleb, McCarthy and Haggerty will give us at least one bottom 6 winger.
Nieves alone doesn't excite me, but Nieves, Tambellini, Iverson and Fogarty will give us a bottom 6 center.
Graves alone isn't much, but Graves, Mantha, Noreau and Donnay are likely to produce a big NHL defenseman.
Bodie isn't special, but Bodie, Zamorsky, Andersson or Walcott may give us a nice puck mover for the third pair.
Then there are safer kids like Skjei, McIlrath, Allen, Fast, Lindberg, Miller,etc.
Last edited:
AlternateSideParking
Registered User
- Dec 11, 2005
- 21,599
- 5,135
The only things the Rangers have going for them internally are:
1) history of developing d-men regardless of draft position
2) history of finding gems by FA or later picks.
Both the 2012 and 2014 runs were fueled by home grown guys who weren't lottery picks or even 1sts altogether.
The problem is that experts won't acknowledge how good the Rangers have been at player development.
I know I'm biased but Gortons/Clarks analysis hold more weight than most organizations.
Anybody can pluck a star in the top-5 if they have the pick.
Most prospects lists are riddled with guys from the bottom-10 teams in the league. History says the Rangers will develop NHL talent regardless where they're drafted.
Still, the cupboard is almost bare. They need to beef it up.
1) history of developing d-men regardless of draft position
2) history of finding gems by FA or later picks.
Both the 2012 and 2014 runs were fueled by home grown guys who weren't lottery picks or even 1sts altogether.
The problem is that experts won't acknowledge how good the Rangers have been at player development.
I know I'm biased but Gortons/Clarks analysis hold more weight than most organizations.
Anybody can pluck a star in the top-5 if they have the pick.
Most prospects lists are riddled with guys from the bottom-10 teams in the league. History says the Rangers will develop NHL talent regardless where they're drafted.
Still, the cupboard is almost bare. They need to beef it up.
without a few number one picks in a few years, they do lower their chances. Need to be shrewd in the trade market too.
Raspewtin
Stay at home defenseman hater
- May 30, 2013
- 44,300
- 21,901
They keep trading away higher picks. It's pretty much the exclusive reason they are ranked where they are usually.
Also, until lately (2013-2014) the Rangers drafted the same kind of players. The system was redundant. You see them now taking chances on HRHR offensive defensemen, boom or bust forwards, etc. It's not like the Rangers didn't draft these players before, but they have very much gotten the message that our prospect pool largely lacks diversity.
I most certainly don't think the system sucks or anything, I think it's okay. There are a lot of pieces to like, and a lot of players that are potential NHL'ers (what they are in the NHL is different however). Not a lot of high end talent obviously, but with very few top picks, what can you do?
I really like what they've done the last two drafts.
Also, until lately (2013-2014) the Rangers drafted the same kind of players. The system was redundant. You see them now taking chances on HRHR offensive defensemen, boom or bust forwards, etc. It's not like the Rangers didn't draft these players before, but they have very much gotten the message that our prospect pool largely lacks diversity.
I most certainly don't think the system sucks or anything, I think it's okay. There are a lot of pieces to like, and a lot of players that are potential NHL'ers (what they are in the NHL is different however). Not a lot of high end talent obviously, but with very few top picks, what can you do?
I really like what they've done the last two drafts.
Hunter Gathers
The Crown
Machinehead
HFNYR MVP
I wouldn't call it deplorable. I would call it boring and painfully average.
There's NHL'ers down there for sure, but outside of Duclair I don't see anything that's gonna be more than a 3rd liner or a #4 D-man.
Take JT Miller who is widely regarded as our best prospect. The problem with our farm system is not that JT Miller sucks, the problem is that JT Miller's ceiling is Brandon Dubinsky. At least half the league is going to have one of those in their system.
Now HF has us 23rd, which I think is a bit harsh. But we're around 18-20. It's not great.
There's NHL'ers down there for sure, but outside of Duclair I don't see anything that's gonna be more than a 3rd liner or a #4 D-man.
Take JT Miller who is widely regarded as our best prospect. The problem with our farm system is not that JT Miller sucks, the problem is that JT Miller's ceiling is Brandon Dubinsky. At least half the league is going to have one of those in their system.
Now HF has us 23rd, which I think is a bit harsh. But we're around 18-20. It's not great.
Really good post. I think we have some depth, but no real firepower. I do like Duclair and hope Buchnevich can surprise.
Lacking in high-end talent (which is really what most rankings focus on), but pretty good in depth. I wouldn't say the system is bad. Slightly below average, taking everything into account. We have a couple guys who, if they take a step forward, could make the system look substantially better than it does now.
Fortunately for us, we've been great in the player development area. That helps.
Fortunately for us, we've been great in the player development area. That helps.
I'm too lazy to look, but I'll guess where they have a team like the Oilers ranked, and then I'll look at where the Oilers have finished in the standings for tge better part of the last decade.
Pronman and whatever other self proclaimed expert can put down the Rangers system all they want. But here is a fact: The Rangers consistently churn out NHL players that contribute, no matter how they acquired the player, via draft, trade, or UDFA. And, the Rangers have consistently been competitive and recently have been contenders.
Tell me again how weak a system can be when they are one if only a handful of teams that have gone as far as the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th rounds repeatedly over the last few years while getting major contributions from their own system.
Brady Skjei is a better defenseman than anything a lot of teams have in their systems. Being arguably the top shut-down defenseman in one's age group with the potential to develop offense, means nothing aparently.
Duclair was a 1st round quality player that dropped. He will be looked at as one of the top players for Canada at the WJC.
Buchnevich is one of the top young players in Russia.
Lindberg, only a year ago, was one of the top young players in Sweden. And didn't have a shabby rookie AHL season, either.
J.T. Miller is one of the top American prospects in the game. He helped lead several if his international teams to gold medals. And at age 21 is competing for a permanent position on his NHL roster.
Without having a top 5 pick year after year, i would say the system is impressive in its own right. And I have yet to see any evidence that a great system of a bottom feeder like Edmonton is going to translate into winning at the NHL level.
Pronman and whatever other self proclaimed expert can put down the Rangers system all they want. But here is a fact: The Rangers consistently churn out NHL players that contribute, no matter how they acquired the player, via draft, trade, or UDFA. And, the Rangers have consistently been competitive and recently have been contenders.
Tell me again how weak a system can be when they are one if only a handful of teams that have gone as far as the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th rounds repeatedly over the last few years while getting major contributions from their own system.
Brady Skjei is a better defenseman than anything a lot of teams have in their systems. Being arguably the top shut-down defenseman in one's age group with the potential to develop offense, means nothing aparently.
Duclair was a 1st round quality player that dropped. He will be looked at as one of the top players for Canada at the WJC.
Buchnevich is one of the top young players in Russia.
Lindberg, only a year ago, was one of the top young players in Sweden. And didn't have a shabby rookie AHL season, either.
J.T. Miller is one of the top American prospects in the game. He helped lead several if his international teams to gold medals. And at age 21 is competing for a permanent position on his NHL roster.
Without having a top 5 pick year after year, i would say the system is impressive in its own right. And I have yet to see any evidence that a great system of a bottom feeder like Edmonton is going to translate into winning at the NHL level.
I previously said that our prospect pool among guys on the brink actually is pretty good. Miller, Fast and Lindberg up front, we could also mention Kristo and one or two more names, and Allen and McI on defense.
The pro's with that group -- that shouldn't be underrated -- is that its a list with several really low maintainance players on it (in relation to so many other prospects higher regarded), that we know that we will get players from it that is capable on playing for a contender. I mean there are so many other prospects out there that can or cannot become hockey players, but no matter what only will get to the level where you give them strong minute on a contender at best in like 5+ years. IE projects. Many might have higher potential in some senses, but that could also be debateable really. I think Miller will become a good top 9, I think one of Fasth/Lindberg will become a strong bottom 6, and I think one of Allen/McI will become a solid NHL D -- at like "worst", or like I don't know how to put it, maybe not at worst, but at keeping a prediction at a very safe level.
So I think that group is perfectly OK. One that you might rank around 17-22 probably even. Seriously. I don't at all think it will be hard to look back and in hindsight find a number of franchises that had farms of prospects on the brink that will produce less than that. Look at Ottawa for example, I like our guys on the brink better etc.
BUT, its after these guys on the brink that I think have been a bit vary about our situation. Skjei possibly. And then a lot of long-shots who also have looked to be a bit of project types all of the.
But Duclair and Buchnevich's recent development has also helped us a lot there. I don't think its a lock that these kids will come in and play for sure, both are scorer types and need to be darn good to play, but odds are still good odds to live with.
HatTrick Swayze
Just Be Nice
Like everyone has hit on, this is not surprising. It's a direct result of dealing away high picks.
The top end isn't there relative to other teams. I will say that the depth through 20 is actually pretty promising since I've been really following prospects.
Additionally - these lists can matter, but they are still based on hype and perceived worth. How long have the Isles, Oilers, Panthers topped these rankings? Sure the Avs, Blues, and Kings have at various points as well. It matters but only if the ayers are developed well.
Finally - not impressed with Pronman's assessments at all. Way too "hipster" to me. Trying so hard to be bold and different. See - his pimping of St Croix over Miller as late as 2012. Kirill Kabanov over Kreider in his 2012 top-100.
The top end isn't there relative to other teams. I will say that the depth through 20 is actually pretty promising since I've been really following prospects.
Additionally - these lists can matter, but they are still based on hype and perceived worth. How long have the Isles, Oilers, Panthers topped these rankings? Sure the Avs, Blues, and Kings have at various points as well. It matters but only if the ayers are developed well.
Finally - not impressed with Pronman's assessments at all. Way too "hipster" to me. Trying so hard to be bold and different. See - his pimping of St Croix over Miller as late as 2012. Kirill Kabanov over Kreider in his 2012 top-100.
CommaSynapse
Registered User
- Nov 2, 2013
- 5,172
- 2,828
I wouldn't say deplorable by any means--just lacking in potential top-6 talent outside of Duclair and Butcher.
That said, I like a lot of the guys in the farm, and I think the guys we are developing have the potential to be good bottom-6 character guys.
Lindberg could be a Dom Moore, and Fast is developing into a player who could fit right in to a 3rd-line spot. If Miller truly steps up, he'll fit into the 3rd line as well. I'd even suggest Hrivik, Kantor, and Yogan could be our future fourth liners. Defensively, Skjei, Allen, and McIlrath are very promising. There's always the chance (Slim, sure) that they exceed expectations.
In terms of goaltending, Halverson's stick handling is something that excites me a great deal.
Overall, I think we have good depth, but what kills us is the lack of potential top-6 and top-2 talent, but that's entirely expected with having given up so many 1st and 2nd round picks.
The Rangers have developed a lot of good players recently. Maybe not superstar 1st-liners, but we've done incredibly well with what we have.
That said, I like a lot of the guys in the farm, and I think the guys we are developing have the potential to be good bottom-6 character guys.
Lindberg could be a Dom Moore, and Fast is developing into a player who could fit right in to a 3rd-line spot. If Miller truly steps up, he'll fit into the 3rd line as well. I'd even suggest Hrivik, Kantor, and Yogan could be our future fourth liners. Defensively, Skjei, Allen, and McIlrath are very promising. There's always the chance (Slim, sure) that they exceed expectations.
In terms of goaltending, Halverson's stick handling is something that excites me a great deal.
Overall, I think we have good depth, but what kills us is the lack of potential top-6 and top-2 talent, but that's entirely expected with having given up so many 1st and 2nd round picks.
The Rangers have developed a lot of good players recently. Maybe not superstar 1st-liners, but we've done incredibly well with what we have.
Made Dan
Registered User
I definitely think we have a lot of future NHL'ers in our pool. I really can't see any scenario in which Skjei, Allen, Miller and Lindberg are not solid NHL regulars. Same can be said for pretty much every team's prospect pool, though. Another big part of it is that our only prospects with any semblance of high-end potential are probably universally perceived as long shots to achieve what they're capable of, IE Duclair and Buchnevich. Just based on draft pedigree alone. That certainly plays a large part in their league-wide perception, fair or not.
Beacon
Embrace the tank
- May 28, 2007
- 13,676
- 1,454
This farm will produce around 10 NHLers, including at least 3 top-6F/top-4D. That's more than most teams.
In a couple of seasons, we will have depth coming out of our ears. Even if we make a couple quantity-for-quality trades, we will still maintain thus depth for years to come.
Everyone, including myself, has complained about our depth issues. I think in the next two years, we add Skjei, McIlrath and at least one of Allen/Bodie/Zamorsky on defense, Miller and Lindberg at center, and at least 2 (maybe 4) wingers, including Fast.
That's more players than spots. We may trade some guys (Staal, Klein, Moore on defense; Brass at center) or fail to re-sign some vets (Stemp, Lombardi), and not only run a competent team, but have no cap issues.
Package Staal with Brassard and you can get a hell of a forward back.
The point is: our prospect pool is a lot better than it appears at first sight because it is more deep than top heavy.
In a couple of seasons, we will have depth coming out of our ears. Even if we make a couple quantity-for-quality trades, we will still maintain thus depth for years to come.
Everyone, including myself, has complained about our depth issues. I think in the next two years, we add Skjei, McIlrath and at least one of Allen/Bodie/Zamorsky on defense, Miller and Lindberg at center, and at least 2 (maybe 4) wingers, including Fast.
That's more players than spots. We may trade some guys (Staal, Klein, Moore on defense; Brass at center) or fail to re-sign some vets (Stemp, Lombardi), and not only run a competent team, but have no cap issues.
Package Staal with Brassard and you can get a hell of a forward back.
The point is: our prospect pool is a lot better than it appears at first sight because it is more deep than top heavy.
NYR Viper
Registered User
The Rangers continue their MO of being able to pump out quality d-men and 2nd/3rd line forwards. Fast, Miller, Lindberg, Duclair, Buchnevich, Kristo all look to be in that forward mold. Possibly Bourque, Haggerty and Tambellini can continue to progress. McIlrath, Skjei and Allen all look to have NHL futures
JESSEWENEEDTOCOOK
Twenty f*ckin years
- Oct 8, 2010
- 80,070
- 17,710
No. It's nothing incredible, but I find it fairly solid, especially considering our recent lack of high picks.
- Sep 1, 2010
- 10,036
- 8,007
cripes don't sweat the ratings, they're never turn out to be very accurate, the various rankers disagree.
to me the real value of the lists is just the preview of the names that may be more likely to make a name for themselves.
But it ends up being as much about luck, commitment and opportunity as talent.
Just like on our team , where after the top 4-6 guys (not that there is consensus beyond Skjei and Miller who is in our top 6) the next 10-12 guys are almost interchangeable to forecast, these rankings rely mostly on hunches to differentiate next 200-300 prospects after the most likely top 25
we have depth at multiple positions, we shored up Goalie this draft, the biggest challenge is an elite big or scoring center
to me the real value of the lists is just the preview of the names that may be more likely to make a name for themselves.
But it ends up being as much about luck, commitment and opportunity as talent.
Just like on our team , where after the top 4-6 guys (not that there is consensus beyond Skjei and Miller who is in our top 6) the next 10-12 guys are almost interchangeable to forecast, these rankings rely mostly on hunches to differentiate next 200-300 prospects after the most likely top 25
we have depth at multiple positions, we shored up Goalie this draft, the biggest challenge is an elite big or scoring center
Raspewtin
Stay at home defenseman hater
- May 30, 2013
- 44,300
- 21,901
Well Pronman's articles aren't biblical. He can be wrong. And very often is wrong.
They have had 6 1sts or 2nds in the last four years. That's about normal. They kept their first every year except 2013 which was traded in the Carter deal. That's the key, they still have their shiny 1st round picks, which are much higher regarded than an accomplished lower-drafted player.
If the Rangers had 1sts these last two years, 80% chance they'd be ranked above LA. But it doesn't matter.
Last edited:
+1
As usual in Rangerland many things are taken to extremes. This is yet another example. Pretty certain we'll get a real gem or two out of this group.
SlapshotTheMovie
Registered User
- Jan 18, 2013
- 3,101
- 1,174
Our Prospect Pool is exactly where it needs to be. Our team is very young with spots going to filler players.
Stepan Brassard Zuc Haglin Krieder Miller all have roaster spots for as long as we keep them on the rangers. All under 27. We have Nash locked up for i think 4 more years. Whats left is MSL spot and bottom 6 guys who are cheaper to develop from within but always available in free agency. Plus we have Haggerty, Duclair, Kristo, Linberg, Fast, and Bourque who could all take a 3rd line roll in the next 2-3 seasons.
Defensibly We have Ryan Mac Marc Staal and John moore all under 27. Giardi is signed for forever and Klein has a couple years left on a contract with Boyle. Staal's spot is the only one possibly opening up in the next season and we have a few guys in the d pool who could take a roster spot or go to FA to find a replacement. Top 4 Dmen are a lot easier to find then top 2.
Goal tending i don't think we have a decent 3rd goalie. If hank or cam get injuried this year it will be concerning.
Other then not having to many places for prospects to go (you don't want to waste them on the 4rth line. Yes our 4rth line last year played 10 minutes a game but more then half that was on the pk and you wont see AV putting prospects on the pk in their 1st year so they will only play 4-5 minutes a game) we also don't have the cap space to upgrade much. The benefit of having a lot of prospects and no roaster spots is you can take a prospect and pair them with a roaster player in a trade to upgrade that roaster players spot. In order to upgrade though you usually have to take on more cap and we can't do that right now. Our prospect pool is where it needs to be for a team that is win now and close to the cup. Look at the Ryan Hayes situation. Dude is a close to if not NHL ready prospect on a team with no use for him so he is wasting away in college. He isn't resigning with them and they just lost their 2010 1st round draft pick for nothing. managing prospect depth is important and i think we are actually in a better spot then a lot of teams.
Stepan Brassard Zuc Haglin Krieder Miller all have roaster spots for as long as we keep them on the rangers. All under 27. We have Nash locked up for i think 4 more years. Whats left is MSL spot and bottom 6 guys who are cheaper to develop from within but always available in free agency. Plus we have Haggerty, Duclair, Kristo, Linberg, Fast, and Bourque who could all take a 3rd line roll in the next 2-3 seasons.
Defensibly We have Ryan Mac Marc Staal and John moore all under 27. Giardi is signed for forever and Klein has a couple years left on a contract with Boyle. Staal's spot is the only one possibly opening up in the next season and we have a few guys in the d pool who could take a roster spot or go to FA to find a replacement. Top 4 Dmen are a lot easier to find then top 2.
Goal tending i don't think we have a decent 3rd goalie. If hank or cam get injuried this year it will be concerning.
Other then not having to many places for prospects to go (you don't want to waste them on the 4rth line. Yes our 4rth line last year played 10 minutes a game but more then half that was on the pk and you wont see AV putting prospects on the pk in their 1st year so they will only play 4-5 minutes a game) we also don't have the cap space to upgrade much. The benefit of having a lot of prospects and no roaster spots is you can take a prospect and pair them with a roaster player in a trade to upgrade that roaster players spot. In order to upgrade though you usually have to take on more cap and we can't do that right now. Our prospect pool is where it needs to be for a team that is win now and close to the cup. Look at the Ryan Hayes situation. Dude is a close to if not NHL ready prospect on a team with no use for him so he is wasting away in college. He isn't resigning with them and they just lost their 2010 1st round draft pick for nothing. managing prospect depth is important and i think we are actually in a better spot then a lot of teams.
Latest posts
-
-
-
GDT: Game 59: New York Rangers @ New York Islanders, 7:30 ET, MSG- Latest: Chalfdiggity3
-
-
