NYR Prospect Poll: #12 TIE-BREAKER
- Thread starter Beacon
- 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
Beacon
Embrace the tank
- May 28, 2007
- 13,676
- 1,454
Voted Hrivik. He's a good, well-rounded player with good size, speed, defense. He had an off-year offensively, but mostly because coach Kenny G mismanaged him and played him with total bums. His goals per game was actually a little higher this year than last, but he got very few assists from playing with career minor leaguers, half of whom belong in the ECHL.
Tamb is overrated because people think getting over a point per game in juniors is some achievement. It's not. He was on pace for about 15 points less than St. Croix had in the same league at the same age. They are different types of players, but having 90-point per season pace in the WHL is not some offensive miracle, it just shows that he's a solid, but unspectacular prospect.
Neither Hrivik nor Tambellini has a ceiling above the third line, but Hrivik is far more likely to reach that ceiling.
Tamb is overrated because people think getting over a point per game in juniors is some achievement. It's not. He was on pace for about 15 points less than St. Croix had in the same league at the same age. They are different types of players, but having 90-point per season pace in the WHL is not some offensive miracle, it just shows that he's a solid, but unspectacular prospect.
Neither Hrivik nor Tambellini has a ceiling above the third line, but Hrivik is far more likely to reach that ceiling.
Raspewtin
Stay at home defenseman hater
- May 30, 2013
- 44,300
- 21,901
Brooklyn Rangers Fan
Change is good.
"Solid, but unspectacular prospect" who, according to recent reports has gone from a spindly 6'4" when he was drafted last year to a much more solid 6'4" when he came to prospect camp last week.
Again, I've been a fan of Marek's for a while, but he took a step back last year and, as you say, probably has always topped out at a 3rd liner. Going with Tambo based on upside. Granted it was the third round, but there was a reason the team picked him 10 spots ahead of Buchnevich and 15 ahead of Duclair...
eco's bones
Registered User
n8
WAAAAAAA!!!
Hunter Gathers
The Crown
Beacon
Embrace the tank
- May 28, 2007
- 13,676
- 1,454
That's correct. A point per game in juniors is NOT a sign of offensive skill. It's a sign that you can kind of keep up in the NHL offensively if your other skills are good enough.
I've made this argument with Grachev the season he got 80 in 60, only to be told that I have no idea about prospects. I will make it again with Tambourine. To truly impress offensively, you should be over 1.5 ppg, maybe even 1.7.
Raspewtin
Stay at home defenseman hater
- May 30, 2013
- 44,300
- 21,901
Well that's just complete BS evaluation on your part.
Tambellini had one half a year with people he's never played with, and was considered one of their best players throughout the year, and their best in the playoffs. Why is it his PPG ratio isn't high enough to impress you? I'm not saying to love him as a prospect but your criteria for a good prospect is just stupid.
Beacon
Embrace the tank
- May 28, 2007
- 13,676
- 1,454
This is the opposite of the reality on this forum. People look at his numbers, see that it's above a point per game and conclude that he was some sort of a beast in juniors. I then cite the fact that scoring ppg in juniors means little to nothing. This is reality based on actually reviewing past prospects - most of these ppg players go on to be minor leaguers. Scoring at a 1.25 points per game pace proves absolutely nothing in and of itself. If a player scores 1.7 points per game like Duclair just did, it is somewhat extraordinary and even Duclair is a high-risk project. Scoring almost half a point less per game than Duclair (and 15% less than St. Croix) is not at all extraordinary, it's not even particularly impressive.
When this is pointed out, people respond with, "but you can't say that just because he scored 1.25 points per game, he's not going to be a star." True and many kids go above and beyond expectations. But what else is the high hope of him having top-6 potential based on? His 0.25 points per game in college?
Even at the lower levels like BCHL and AMHL, his numbers were solid, but he never ripped them apart. He's a nice prospect, but what are we basing the top-6 projection on except the mistaken view that point per game in juniors means top-6 NHL potential?
He came to camp more built? Wonderful, but what does that have to do with having top-6 potential? He was drafted in the third round? Great, but how many third rounders wind up top-6 players? One or two per draft?
Again, I will repeat myself: the only reason people jumped on the Tambellini train is that they confuse having a point per game in juniors to be a major accomplishment. Unfortunately, it is not.
Zil
Shrug
- Feb 9, 2006
- 5,559
- 43
Nobody's basing anything off his junior scoring. They're basing it off scouting reports and the fact that they drafted him as a super skinny long-term project. You can't cap his upside because of 31 games in juniors. That's ridiculous. I'm not saying he's a sure thing, but he definitely has the ceiling of a top six player.
Raspewtin
Stay at home defenseman hater
- May 30, 2013
- 44,300
- 21,901
Well, for one thing, he's got top 6 potential because he's very skilled with a great frame to go into. Pretty simple. A player not having wonderful junior stats doesn't always tell the full story, just like a player having terrific stats doesn't tell the full story. James Neal didn't hit a PPG in juniors until his fourth year, and now he's one of the best goal scorers in the league.
It's very significant that he came to camp bigger and better built, because the huge knock on him was that he was a friggin toothpick when he was drafted. 6' 3" but he was like 165 pounds. That's a very hard frame to grow into considering Tambellini was already 19. It was speculated that he'd need a full four years at NoDak to grow into a decent frame.
You do realize top 6 skillsets are in every round of the draft, right? But it's not as simple as "they have a good skillset, so they'll be a top 6 player". As the rounds go on, players have considerably larger holes, or considerably lower ceilings. I don't know why I had to explain that.
And according to you this entire board is hockey-inept because I haven't seen ANYBODY going "Whoa! Tambellini got over a PPG? A star is born!" Literally no one has said that. It's just you.
The question in this thread is who is the more valuable prospect... Hrivik or Tambellini? It isn't whether Tambellini is a can't miss prospect because I think we all agree he isn't nearly that just yet.
It would seem to me that Tambellini would be more valuable as a prospect simply because he is just one year removed from being a 3rd round pick (picked ahead of both Buchnevich & Duclair) and produced relatively well in his half season debut in major junior. He won't turn 20 until November.
While it's true that there are many 19 year olds who score 1.25 a ppg rate in Junior who never make it beyond the AHL, the fact that Tambellini accomplished it does not negate his upside. Nobody is claiming that he's a sure thing. Far from it. But the reasonable claim to be made is that the potential is there for Tambellini to take the next step. And while the 1.25 ppg rate is not uncommon, when it comes from a player who is 6 foot 3, it's noteworthy.
Hrivik is 3 years older, and appears to have maxed out as a 3rd liner in the AHL. Could he be a call up who sees time on the 4th line in the NHL someday? Perhaps. Is that a more likely scenario than Tambellini scoring 25 goals for the Rangers. Probably. But 4th liners are a dime a dozen. If you value your prospects by the likelihood they fill the last spots on an NHL roster, then your player development is not going to be very good.
I'd much rather put my faith in a younger player with more upside like Tambellini because the potential reward is so much greater than that of a probable 4th liner.
It would seem to me that Tambellini would be more valuable as a prospect simply because he is just one year removed from being a 3rd round pick (picked ahead of both Buchnevich & Duclair) and produced relatively well in his half season debut in major junior. He won't turn 20 until November.
While it's true that there are many 19 year olds who score 1.25 a ppg rate in Junior who never make it beyond the AHL, the fact that Tambellini accomplished it does not negate his upside. Nobody is claiming that he's a sure thing. Far from it. But the reasonable claim to be made is that the potential is there for Tambellini to take the next step. And while the 1.25 ppg rate is not uncommon, when it comes from a player who is 6 foot 3, it's noteworthy.
Hrivik is 3 years older, and appears to have maxed out as a 3rd liner in the AHL. Could he be a call up who sees time on the 4th line in the NHL someday? Perhaps. Is that a more likely scenario than Tambellini scoring 25 goals for the Rangers. Probably. But 4th liners are a dime a dozen. If you value your prospects by the likelihood they fill the last spots on an NHL roster, then your player development is not going to be very good.
I'd much rather put my faith in a younger player with more upside like Tambellini because the potential reward is so much greater than that of a probable 4th liner.
Last edited:
Zil
Shrug
- Feb 9, 2006
- 5,559
- 43
I usually hesitate to link to snyrangersblog because all they do is aggregate content. But this is a smorgasbord of Tambellini scouting reports: http://snyrangersblog.com/prospects...llini-has-an-nhl-shot-and-solid-hockey-sense/
His ceiling is higher than that of a third liner. He's a long shot to reach that ceiling, but it's definitely there.
His ceiling is higher than that of a third liner. He's a long shot to reach that ceiling, but it's definitely there.
Beacon
Embrace the tank
- May 28, 2007
- 13,676
- 1,454
Jxmarts,
1. Hrivik does not have a ceiling as a team's worst forward. He can develop into a legitimate third liner. He is a well-rounder player.
2. To suggest that he "maxed out as a third liner in the AHL" is flat out wrong. He is easily a top-6 AHL player already and has looked much better on the first line than on the third.
3. Hrivik is only 1 inch shorter than Tambellini. This is not even noticeable to a naked eye. On top of that, Hrivik is much stronger.
4. At the same age, Hrivik scored 1.33 points per game vs. Tambellini's 1.25, and Hrivik is a superior defensive player.
5. Since the juniors, Hrivik established himself as a top-6 AHLer, a fact that is being held against him. But he's done what Tambellini is hoping to do some day. Tambellini, meanwhile, had a very difficult time against college kids. That may be due to his weight issues, but whatever it was, showing that you can play on the first line in the AHL is a lot more impressive than failing to make the top-9 in college, a much lower league.
Granted, Hrivik is 3 years older. But who can honestly say that the reasonable expectation for Tambellini for the next 3 years is more than to score 1.3 ppg in juniors, then be a top-6 AHLer for a couple of seasons? If he follows Hrivik's path, our scouts will be happy. The idea that he would do more, while not impossible, doesn't fall under "reasonable expectation of the most likely result."
1. Hrivik does not have a ceiling as a team's worst forward. He can develop into a legitimate third liner. He is a well-rounder player.
2. To suggest that he "maxed out as a third liner in the AHL" is flat out wrong. He is easily a top-6 AHL player already and has looked much better on the first line than on the third.
3. Hrivik is only 1 inch shorter than Tambellini. This is not even noticeable to a naked eye. On top of that, Hrivik is much stronger.
4. At the same age, Hrivik scored 1.33 points per game vs. Tambellini's 1.25, and Hrivik is a superior defensive player.
5. Since the juniors, Hrivik established himself as a top-6 AHLer, a fact that is being held against him. But he's done what Tambellini is hoping to do some day. Tambellini, meanwhile, had a very difficult time against college kids. That may be due to his weight issues, but whatever it was, showing that you can play on the first line in the AHL is a lot more impressive than failing to make the top-9 in college, a much lower league.
Granted, Hrivik is 3 years older. But who can honestly say that the reasonable expectation for Tambellini for the next 3 years is more than to score 1.3 ppg in juniors, then be a top-6 AHLer for a couple of seasons? If he follows Hrivik's path, our scouts will be happy. The idea that he would do more, while not impossible, doesn't fall under "reasonable expectation of the most likely result."
Zil
Shrug
- Feb 9, 2006
- 5,559
- 43
Tambellini has only played half a season in juniors. Hrivik spent three seasons in juniors and his scoring didn't even improve in his last year in the Q. They are two very different cases. To judge Tambellini on his ppg rate in a small sample size makes no sense, especially when the kid spent the year growing into his frame. You can't just look at junior point totals without context.
Ail
Based and Rangerspilled.
Hrivik deserves to keep falling. We thought he had a chance to crack the roster 2 seasons ago, and he has never even come close. Every year other players are getting call-ups over him.
I think he is a very good AHL player and will hopefully play with the 'Pack for awhile, but I no longer see his upside as an NHL player.
Edit: Not saying it isn't possible, but at this point it feels like he just keeps getting overlooked.
I think he is a very good AHL player and will hopefully play with the 'Pack for awhile, but I no longer see his upside as an NHL player.
Edit: Not saying it isn't possible, but at this point it feels like he just keeps getting overlooked.
Hrivik is three years older than Tambellini. Why is there any comparison at all?
Can't see any argument that would indicate Hrivik becoming anything at the NHL level at this point, and to rip into Tambellini who is only 19, to justify an argument makes no sense.
Hrivik won't even be an afterthought to the Rangers if he can't start producing at the pro level. He is going into his 4th season with professional experience. With guys like Miller, Lindberg, Fast, Kristo, all out producing him already, and Duclair and Buchnevich knocking on the door, if Hrivik can't start producing he won't be long for the Rangers organization.
Tambellini has a few years until a better decision on his future can be made.
Can't see any argument that would indicate Hrivik becoming anything at the NHL level at this point, and to rip into Tambellini who is only 19, to justify an argument makes no sense.
Hrivik won't even be an afterthought to the Rangers if he can't start producing at the pro level. He is going into his 4th season with professional experience. With guys like Miller, Lindberg, Fast, Kristo, all out producing him already, and Duclair and Buchnevich knocking on the door, if Hrivik can't start producing he won't be long for the Rangers organization.
Tambellini has a few years until a better decision on his future can be made.
eco's bones
Registered User
To be honest I see faults in both Hrivik and Tambellini. Is it conceivable that one or even both of them will be NHL players one day? Yes.
Hrivik came out of juniors on an ATO and put up something like 8 goals in 10 AHL playoff games. The Rangers signed him off of that. He's had some injuries but 12-13 his point production was pretty decent for a rookie AHL'er. His goal scoring touch of the previous years playoff didn't seem to be there though and 13-14 his numbers just went down. It was a crap team for half a year anyway but conversely Ryan Bourque's numbers started improving. Hrivik has an NHL body--he doesn't strike me as a particularly aggressive player. To make the Rangers he would pretty much be 4th liner/spare for a while. He would have to prove himself on the penalty kill and checking up and down his wing--chipping in points. If he can't do that then he's just another Taylor Pyatt. I don't see him as a guy who pots many goals at the NHL level.
Tambellini comes from a family of highly drafted underachievers. For all the attention spent on blood lines both his brother Jeff and his father Steve were disappointments for their respective teams throughout their hockey careers. I don't know what Adam's problems were at North Dakota U. but the one time I saw him he looked absolutely lost. It's a tougher world in Division 1 college hockey than it is in the CHL and Adam couldn't hack it. He did seem to play well in the WHL. Putting weight on and getting stronger is good. There are those bloodlines. You can take a positive view of it--both his father and brother were NHL players--or a more negative one--they were more like NHL passengers on their respective teams.
Hrivik came out of juniors on an ATO and put up something like 8 goals in 10 AHL playoff games. The Rangers signed him off of that. He's had some injuries but 12-13 his point production was pretty decent for a rookie AHL'er. His goal scoring touch of the previous years playoff didn't seem to be there though and 13-14 his numbers just went down. It was a crap team for half a year anyway but conversely Ryan Bourque's numbers started improving. Hrivik has an NHL body--he doesn't strike me as a particularly aggressive player. To make the Rangers he would pretty much be 4th liner/spare for a while. He would have to prove himself on the penalty kill and checking up and down his wing--chipping in points. If he can't do that then he's just another Taylor Pyatt. I don't see him as a guy who pots many goals at the NHL level.
Tambellini comes from a family of highly drafted underachievers. For all the attention spent on blood lines both his brother Jeff and his father Steve were disappointments for their respective teams throughout their hockey careers. I don't know what Adam's problems were at North Dakota U. but the one time I saw him he looked absolutely lost. It's a tougher world in Division 1 college hockey than it is in the CHL and Adam couldn't hack it. He did seem to play well in the WHL. Putting weight on and getting stronger is good. There are those bloodlines. You can take a positive view of it--both his father and brother were NHL players--or a more negative one--they were more like NHL passengers on their respective teams.
slipknottin
Registered User
Brooklyn Rangers Fan
Change is good.
There are way too many absolutes in this thread.
I like Hrivik. He plays a solid, strong, basic game with flashes of some nice skill. His development has been stunted by injuries. He was on an awful team for most of last year. Kenny G, in yet another example of his masterful coaching acumen, played him on the Pack 3rd line with plugs for most of the year. All of this worked against his offensive development, I'm afraid - but he continued to play his extremely solid 2-way game and, despite being a kid who could probably bolt to Europe, has remained committed to reaching the NHL. I think he bounces back and eventually has a career as an NHL 3rd liner.
Tambellini is a very different case. I actually think his family bloodlines may have worked against him in a "boy who cried wolf" kind of way. He was drafted as an absolute stick - you see different reports of his weight at the time, but if you look at his picture, he looks like Ichabod Crane. Meanwhile, the reports on his skills were glowing. You see things like "toolsy", "NHL level shot", "above average speed". The consensus was that he had top 6 talent... IF he could put on weight. He has trouble at NoDak and we're all down on him. He goes to the WHL and scores at a 1.25 ppg pace in a pretty small sample size. During the WHL playoffs he was tied for the team lead with 9 pts in 6 games (1.5 ppg obviously), so we start to have some cautious optimism.
Then he comes to camp last week and Leslie's reported that he's noticeably bigger. Twitter reports during the scrimmage say guys are "bouncing off of him" and he puts in a "dirty goal" that he basically forced into the net with brute strength. These are encouraging signs that he may be undergoing the kind of physical evolution that they were rolling the dice on seeing when they drafted him. But, he's still young, needs to keep growing and then we need to see what happens when he plays against men.
So, it's a classic case of a player who's close to reaching the NHL in a limited role vs. a guy with a longer shot at a bigger role. It's a balance obviously, but all things being equal I generally go with the latter - and in this case, where the first player trended down last year (even if it was not all his fault) and the second is trending up... Tambellini is the choice for me right now. Like a lot of our prospects after the top grouping, both of these guys could move as many as 6-8 spots in either direction by the midseason ranking.
I like Hrivik. He plays a solid, strong, basic game with flashes of some nice skill. His development has been stunted by injuries. He was on an awful team for most of last year. Kenny G, in yet another example of his masterful coaching acumen, played him on the Pack 3rd line with plugs for most of the year. All of this worked against his offensive development, I'm afraid - but he continued to play his extremely solid 2-way game and, despite being a kid who could probably bolt to Europe, has remained committed to reaching the NHL. I think he bounces back and eventually has a career as an NHL 3rd liner.
Tambellini is a very different case. I actually think his family bloodlines may have worked against him in a "boy who cried wolf" kind of way. He was drafted as an absolute stick - you see different reports of his weight at the time, but if you look at his picture, he looks like Ichabod Crane. Meanwhile, the reports on his skills were glowing. You see things like "toolsy", "NHL level shot", "above average speed". The consensus was that he had top 6 talent... IF he could put on weight. He has trouble at NoDak and we're all down on him. He goes to the WHL and scores at a 1.25 ppg pace in a pretty small sample size. During the WHL playoffs he was tied for the team lead with 9 pts in 6 games (1.5 ppg obviously), so we start to have some cautious optimism.
Then he comes to camp last week and Leslie's reported that he's noticeably bigger. Twitter reports during the scrimmage say guys are "bouncing off of him" and he puts in a "dirty goal" that he basically forced into the net with brute strength. These are encouraging signs that he may be undergoing the kind of physical evolution that they were rolling the dice on seeing when they drafted him. But, he's still young, needs to keep growing and then we need to see what happens when he plays against men.
So, it's a classic case of a player who's close to reaching the NHL in a limited role vs. a guy with a longer shot at a bigger role. It's a balance obviously, but all things being equal I generally go with the latter - and in this case, where the first player trended down last year (even if it was not all his fault) and the second is trending up... Tambellini is the choice for me right now. Like a lot of our prospects after the top grouping, both of these guys could move as many as 6-8 spots in either direction by the midseason ranking.
Last edited:
