News Article: Pronman has Rangers org ranked #1

[GeorgeKaplan]

Perfect example for what you mentioned was Boston's 2015 draft.

They had 3 top 15 picks and completely beefed 2 of them. They still walked out of that draft with DeBrusk and Carlo, who are regulars in their lineup now. It's much worse than it should have been, but when you look back its hard to call that draft a disaster (Though imagine if they had taken Connor and Barzal in addition to Debrusk and Carlo? Yeesh)

Regardless, my philosophy has always been that if you get 2 regular NHL players out of a single draft, you're doing pretty well. JG has done a pretty damn good job backfilling the system with prospects/players from the drafts where they didn't have a pick until basically the 100's. Look at the 2016 draft, we may end up having a half dozen NHL regulars from that draft alone, even if they don't all end up playing here. Only one of those guys was picked by the Rangers.

I'm pretty confident in saying that they'll get at least 2 regulars out of the 2017, 2018 and 2019 drafts if not more. Maybe they won't all play here, but those who do will become pretty key contributors and the ones who don't will most likely be moved for pieces we need.

I think they'll squeeze more than 2 per for most of these recent drafts if they go back to letting guys overcook in the minors, I get it's harder to do when there really isn't any depth at the NHL level, but I think that's how you turn some of the tweeners into legitimately good bottom sixers

 

[bl02]

Kind of wild what actually having draft picks does for a franchise

Now we just need them to really live up to their billing and more. I know we really have only started to accumulate draft picks since 2017 and some take a while to develop especially D men (Miller, Nils, Robertson, Jones etc) but so far the ones that really have serious contributions have been guys like Fox, ADA and Zibby were not our picks. I'm still very confident guys like Chytil, Kakko, Nils, Miller and even Robertson will impress.

 

[bl02]

How is NJ top 4 (especially pre 2020 draft rankings). I know they have 3 top 20 picks that should help.
Lafreniere and hopefully a contributor at 22 will solidify us at least top 2.

 

[ColonialsHockey10]

Michael St Croix must have bumped us into the top 4.

Pronman is an imbecile - we don’t need his seal of approval to know our prospect pool kicks ass.

 

[GoAwayPanarin]

How is NJ top 4 (especially pre 2020 draft rankings). I know they have 3 top 20 picks that should help.
Lafreniere and hopefully a contributor at 22 will solidify us at least top 2.

I guess Pronman really likes Jesper Bratt?

I think their roster talent that qualifies would include

Hughes
Hischer
Blackwood
Bratt
Boqvist
Anderson

That in and of itself isn't bad. Hughes still has massive potential, Nico is a good player even if not 1OA worthy, Bratt was a great late round find and Boqvist has good potential.

I don't think much of Anderson and Blackwood is really riding off of 7 game hot streak from this past season, his numbers before and after are otherwise pedestrian (though his team blows goats, so that counts for something.)

Their farm is painfully average pre-draft though. I imagine Pronman has a rubbery one for Smith who should be a good 2nd pair transition driving D in time but after that, I'm not seeing it. Foote has some intrigue because of the shot, but the feet are awful. The rest of the gang is as dime a dozen as you can get.

 

[nyr2k2]

I've advocated for years for just doing a 25-and-under list. I still think that's the way to go. No caveats or exceptions or anything.

 

[bl02]

I guess Pronman really likes Jesper Bratt?

I think their roster talent that qualifies would include

Hughes
Hischer
Blackwood
Bratt
Boqvist
Anderson

That in and of itself isn't bad. Hughes still has massive potential, Nico is a good player even if not 1OA worthy, Bratt was a great late round find and Boqvist has good potential.

I don't think much of Anderson and Blackwood is really riding off of 7 game hot streak from this past season, his numbers before and after are otherwise pedestrian (though his team blows goats, so that counts for something.)

Their farm is painfully average pre-draft though. I imagine Pronman has a rubbery one for Smith who should be a good 2nd pair transition driving D in time but after that, I'm not seeing it. Foote has some intrigue because of the shot, but the feet are awful. The rest of the gang is as dime a dozen as you can get.

I could see after their three picks in the top 20 but don't think their prospect pool is anything special right now. Yes Hughes and Hischier are talented but lot of roster holes to fill for sure.

 

[JCProdigy]

I can't wait to see what cap-room feels like.

I've advocated for years for just doing a 25-and-under list. I still think that's the way to go. No caveats or exceptions or anything.

You would think that would give the fullest picture of what we are all trying to find out right? Which teams has accumulated the most young talent that, if things pan out, puts them in future SC contention. I would go with 24 or 25 and under myself. That would mean, looking four years forward, as the draft year 18 yr olds become 22 yr olds entering the league the 24 year olds are 28-29 and still should be considered in their prime.

 

[egelband]

Rangers and Vancouver are top 2 in my opinion. There is no way the Devils and Toronto should be higher.

There an element of yearning with the TML choice.

 

[Alluckks]

I've advocated for years for just doing a 25-and-under list. I still think that's the way to go. No caveats or exceptions or anything.

You're arguably not covering the future of the organization anymore then. There are plenty of players have have their best season(s) done by the age of 25. Crosby, Gretzky, and Lemieux for example.

 

[GAGLine]

Maple Leafs 4, Canucks 3, so Rangers and devils are top 2.

I think the Rangers have to be #1.

 

[kovazub94]

I've advocated for years for just doing a 25-and-under list. I still think that's the way to go. No caveats or exceptions or anything.

The ranking for the most part will be dominated by the 22-25 yo’s so teams closer to the top would likely be those that drafted well 5-7 years ago. Not sure what this would accomplish.

 

[East Coast Bias]

All of this is strange with nhl players under 22 bc you gotta change how you view this entirely.

the Canucks give you EP and Quinn Hughes. Does it matter much beyond that? Would you take all of what the Devils over those 2 plus the farm?

 

[eco's bones]

Perfect example for what you mentioned was Boston's 2015 draft.

They had 3 top 15 picks and completely beefed 2 of them. They still walked out of that draft with DeBrusk and Carlo, who are regulars in their lineup now. It's much worse than it should have been, but when you look back its hard to call that draft a disaster (Though imagine if they had taken Connor and Barzal in addition to Debrusk and Carlo? Yeesh)

Regardless, my philosophy has always been that if you get 2 regular NHL players out of a single draft, you're doing pretty well. JG has done a pretty damn good job backfilling the system with prospects/players from the drafts where they didn't have a pick until basically the 100's. Look at the 2016 draft, we may end up having a half dozen NHL regulars from that draft alone, even if they don't all end up playing here. Only one of those guys was picked by the Rangers.

I'm pretty confident in saying that they'll get at least 2 regulars out of the 2017, 2018 and 2019 drafts if not more. Maybe they won't all play here, but those who do will become pretty key contributors and the ones who don't will most likely be moved for pieces we need.

If I remember Zboril made some sense at the time but Shenyshyn stunned everybody. The Bruins had this idea I think that Shenyshyn would turn into Chris Kreider--he's big and he skates well ='ed he's the next CK. That draft also had JFK, Jeremy Lauzon and Daniel Vladar (who might someday actually play goal for them). It's a good draft for them in a sense but a disastrous draft in another sense. They got good players but it could have been so much more. No Barzal, no Connor, no Chabot, no Aho either or Boeser or Konecny or Beauvillier.

 

[Fireonk]

Personally, I love using a certain age like 22 as a benchmark for these things. Always seemed like the purpose of ranking organizations like this should be to discuss which team has the most exciting future and not being able to include a guy like Kakko because they played a season in the NHL at 18 seemed ridiculous.

I do think 25 would be too old though, not only because many players will have hit their peak already, but because that would start to include players who would actually be very close to UFAs already and could potentially walk for free at that point in a couple years.

 

[nyr2k2]

The ranking for the most part will be dominated by the 22-25 yo’s so teams closer to the top would likely be those that drafted well 5-7 years ago. Not sure what this would accomplish.

25-and-under is just a uniform assessment of young talent in the system. Both young roster players and prospects. You don't need to do gymnastics about games played or how long ago they were drafted or anything like that. It's just a simple, consistent standard for classifying young talent.

I also like 25 because anything older than that and you're basically "middle-aged" in hockey years. It doesn't accomplish anything more than any other prospect or organization ranking other than being more simple and less arbitrary.

 

[NYSPORTS]

Personally, I love using a certain age like 22 as a benchmark for these things. Always seemed like the purpose of ranking organizations like this should be to discuss which team has the most exciting future and not being able to include a guy like Kakko because they played a season in the NHL at 18 seemed ridiculous.

I do think 25 would be too old though, not only because many players will have hit their peak already, but because that would start to include players who would actually be very close to UFAs already and could potentially walk for free at that point in a couple years.

i think 22 is the benchmark too. 25 can be a bonafide star for years. McDavid won’t be 25 for two years.

 

[nyr2k2]

You're arguably not covering the future of the organization anymore then. There are plenty of players have have their best season(s) done by the age of 25. Crosby, Gretzky, and Lemieux for example.

I think the opposite it true. 25-and-under and you're capturing prospects who haven't made it, young guys who aren't close to their prime, and slightly more mature guys who will be entering their prime shortly (and maybe a few who are in their prime and we don't know it). The point isn't to look at who is best now or for next season, but who will will be the best in the next 3-5 years. I think if you look at 25-U you're looking at the next 3-5 years as when all the guys you're including will likely be participating to various degrees.

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

Personally, I’d go with 23 and under with carve outs for those 25 and under that haven’t played (many) NHL games yet, but honestly, that’s pretty close to Pronman’s current approach, so I don’t have a big problem with it.

 

[bl02]

Pretty surprised Vancouver wasn’t number 1 after the playoffs their young guys had.

 

[nyr2k2]

Personally, I love using a certain age like 22 as a benchmark for these things. Always seemed like the purpose of ranking organizations like this should be to discuss which team has the most exciting future and not being able to include a guy like Kakko because they played a season in the NHL at 18 seemed ridiculous.

I do think 25 would be too old though, not only because many players will have hit their peak already, but because that would start to include players who would actually be very close to UFAs already and could potentially walk for free at that point in a couple years.

If you did 22, that skews towards the speculative end. You're mainly evaluating guys who haven't made it or are in their first year or two (with some exceptions).

If you do 25, you know a lot more about where that team ACTUALLY stands as it incorporates players who have "made" it where you really know what you have.

It's true that looking at guys 24 and 25, they're closer to leaving potentially, but those teams with the best talent 22-U can just as easily trade some of that talent for mods established guys. So, it goes both ways.

I just think that if you look at the top ten teams in terms of talent 25-and-under, you're looking at the teams best-positioned for sustained success over the next several years. A list of the teams with the best 22-and-under, there's far more uncertainty and I'd bet those teams are just as likely to fizzle out than to step up into legitimate contender status.

 

[Fireonk]

If you did 22, that skews towards the speculative end. You're mainly evaluating guys who haven't made it or are in their first year or two (with some exceptions).

If you do 25, you know a lot more about where that team ACTUALLY stands as it incorporates players who have "made" it where you really know what you have.

It's true that looking at guys 24 and 25, they're closer to leaving potentially, but those teams with the best talent 22-U can just as easily trade some of that talent for mods established guys. So, it goes both ways.

I just think that if you look at the top ten teams in terms of talent 25-and-under, you're looking at the teams best-positioned for sustained success over the next several years. A list of the teams with the best 22-and-under, there's far more uncertainty and I'd bet those teams are just as likely to fizzle out than to step up into legitimate contender status.

Honestly, I think there is a place for both of those lists. For what I think Pronman is doing, the 22 works better, since his goal is the speculative side.

Really depends on if you are making a list to see which team is likely to have the best team in 3 years or which team could be the most improved in 3 years. Most prospect rankings I think aren't aiming for the former.

 

[Oscar Lindberg]

New Jersey has some lesser known prospects that fit what Pronman looks for like a glove. I’d have to imagine that’s helping their ranking.

Hughes and Hischier are good but I don’t have that duo ranked better than Pettersson and Hughes. So NJ’s 2nd and 3rd tier guys are def helping

 

[Chytilmania]

Well, whether he does 22, 23, 24 or 25, I think the Rangers would be at the top.

 

[kovazub94]

25-and-under is just a uniform assessment of young talent in the system. Both young roster players and prospects. You don't need to do gymnastics about games played or how long ago they were drafted or anything like that. It's just a simple, consistent standard for classifying young talent.

I also like 25 because anything older than that and you're basically "middle-aged" in hockey years. It doesn't accomplish anything more than any other prospect or organization ranking other than being more simple and less arbitrary.

I get where you're coming from but I still think your cut off point is way too high. There will be exceptions but onset of the "middle age" or when the prospects finally come into their own starts before 25. There is no perfect system but I'm fine with using 22 or 23 for the purposes of evaluating prospect pools and youth that hasn't fully realized yet.