Prospect Info: Rangers Prospect Poll: #16

[cwede]

Lakatos add Rambo. Getting difficult for me now, I like a few not listed guys better than the choices (Rambo, leedahl, crawled, letter, ...

 

[Matz03]

Did you ever play hockey against someone much smaller than you? Given any level of skill, you can just abuse them. All they can do is take a penalty to try to stop you. That's why big men are so coveted in the NHL. The problem stems from someone who are able to dominate Junior kids physically, but won't have enough size advantage to make up for the lack of skill in the AHL, much less the NHL. A big guy without much skill facing highly skilled average-sized guys looks like an orange cone on a highway.

Yes, 30 goals is nice, but if they came from bulldozing kids in the garbage areas rather than real skill, it won't translate well to the pros.

I think the jury is still very much out on him and he did have a nice season, he also doesn't really score his goals by being some net front bull so a bit of an unfair generalization on the big guy. He's not really that physical and scores off transition, breaking up passes with long reach, putting him self in open spots.

I do agree he won't make it unless he keeps improving his skills, speed, skating, he's just not a mean or imposing player to make it as some enforcer.

 

[eco's bones]

We're at the point where there are question marks on everyone. For me Kovacs has dropped quite a bit because of two reasons:

1. a not very good rookie AHL season.

2. a question over what happens now after his off season role in the racing accident that led to the death of his best friend--whatever legal ramifications--whatever remorse, depression what not that might come out of that and frankly I'm not really counting on much out of him this year. Some times you need to take a step back and IMO he might need to take one.

I like what I've seen out of Pedrie so far. End of the year in Hartford he was involved. 5 assists in 9 games--lots of shots on goal from the blue line. Ola pointed out his play in development camp. Smooth skater--lots of poise carrying and handling the puck. Managed forecheckers really well. So far it's a small sample. Of the six we're choosing his game right now is closest to that of an NHL player.

Sjalin looks like a great pick as well for a lot of the same reasons and he's 4 years younger than Pedrie or thereabouts.

I like the Lakatos pick as well but I'm definitely more intrigued by Sjalin.

Reunanen's been dealing with injury issues. He might turn out to be a great player.

I chose Gettinger--he earned a contract with a good year in juniors. His numbers went up. His team used him in all situations. He made good progress last year--he still has a long way to go but so do the rest of the players we're choosing from now.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

Gettinger sucks. He can get some Junior points just by dominating little kids physically, but it won't work in the pros. Not that his stats are good in the Juniors, they're still pretty terrible, and more terrible still because he gets them by being 40-70 pounds bigger than 17-year-old kids, an advantage that will be vastly reduced as soon as he hits the pros. Look for him to start in the ECHL a year from now.

This stuff is such nonsense. You're so hilariously biased. Try watching the guy play.

 

[ManUtdTobbe]

Gettinger sucks. He can get some Junior points just by dominating little kids physically, but it won't work in the pros. Not that his stats are good in the Juniors, they're still pretty terrible, and more terrible still because he gets them by being 40-70 pounds bigger than 17-year-old kids, an advantage that will be vastly reduced as soon as he hits the pros. Look for him to start in the ECHL a year from now.

Some more expert analysis after watching a few highlight clips.

Gettinger made significant progress this season, he was picked as a project and improved quite a lot, especially defensively.

Your comments on his play just proves you've not watched him at all, you truly are pathetic with these comments.

Did you ever play hockey against someone much smaller than you? Given any level of skill, you can just abuse them. All they can do is take a penalty to try to stop you. That's why big men are so coveted in the NHL. The problem stems from someone who are able to dominate Junior kids physically, but won't have enough size advantage to make up for the lack of skill in the AHL, much less the NHL. A big guy without much skill facing highly skilled average-sized guys looks like an orange cone on a highway.

Yes, 30 goals is nice, but if they came from bulldozing kids in the garbage areas rather than real skill, it won't translate well to the pros.

That's really not how he scored most of his goals though.

 

[Don Chytil]

Gettinger, add Fontaine

 

[nyr2k2]

Just ignore Bacon's "analysis." It does no one any good to get all riled up over what is literally nothing.

 

[Edge]

For me, Kovacs has to re-establish himself after last season. There's just no way around it.

Kovac, and Halverson probably come into this season with more to prove then just about anyone in the Rangers system.

 

[Beacon]

Just ignore Bacon's "analysis." It does no one any good to get all riled up over what is literally nothing.

Cool. But despite me asking when i was wrong about a prospect after taking a strong position, you still could not come up with an answer. This despite the fact that you know my position on all prpspects for about a decade. The response is a claim that I can't be right if i am not a $30k/year scout.

As you know, every year I go "off-the-board" on prospects. Every year I am told I have no clue. Then from Grachev to Jensen it later turns out that I was right all along, but by then you moved on to the next set of bad predictions, conveniently forgetting that I was right, and denying that it was possible that I was right because I am not a scout. Every year, my "off-the-board" predictions turn out right, but sure, I have no clue.

I am sure one of these years I will get someone wrong and you will loudly celebrate that one miss forever, ignoring dozens of correct off-the-board calls. You almost had it with JAM when his development took a little longer and you made sure to bring him up regularly. Then he became an NHLer and one that I said he will be.
Tough luck there.

Also, every time Fogarty strung together points in 2-3 games in a row in college, you and a couple others loudly cheered, always alluding how wrong I turned out to be. Then he became an AHL 4th liner on a terrible team.

But yes, one day you will be right and I will be wrong, and you will make sure to remind me of it ever other post about that prospect for the rest of my life, as you tried to do with JAM. Until then, stick with, "don't bother reading Beacon" since if they do, someone might realize 1-3 years later which of us consistently gets it right and which consistently gets it wrong when we disagree.

For me, Kovacs has to re-establish himself after last season. There's just no way around it.

Yet another prospect I knew nothing about 12 months ago when I wrote repeatedly that he will be borderline AHL/ECHL player as a rookie lucky to stick in Hartford in 2016-17. The consensus was that he will be a great AHL player who may challenge for an NHL spot, but once again 12 months ago Beacon was saying dumb $h!t about Kovacs.

 

[nyr2k2]

I could talk about St. Croix and plenty of other guys you've been wrong about, but I'm not looking to go tit-for-tat or get into a ****-measuring contest. You provide overly-simplistic analysis of players that is wrong and annoying. I'm just telling others to ignore it like I do. You do you, man, by all means. The fact that you're patting yourself on the back for calling the failures of marginal prospects is entertainment and nothing more. Not worth getting upset about.

As far as celebrating you being wrong, again, no, I don't care enough. It's an internet message board and I can't keep track of who liked who when and how. I also don't care.

 

[Beacon]

I never pimped St. Croix, that was a guy from Edmonton. I never voted for him in our top 10, but usually around 15-20 I wanted him up there along with lesser prospects after all decent ones got placed. It always - literally every time - came along with a statement that he's an extreme risk, even compared to other midround picks, 90% of whom do not make it.

2. My analysis is simplistic and wrong when I go off the board and everyone disagrees. Then 1-3 years go by and it turns out to be an accurate prediction, but by then you moved on to the next target. Who remembers Nejeschjleb or even Tambellini anymore? I gave simplistic and wrong analysis about them, analysis so stupid you told people to ignore that stupidity too.

3. Your claim that I am right only about predicting who will fail is wrong, and you know it. JAM, Talbot, others left for dead were pimped by me when nobody bothered to pay any attention to them.

4. It is likewise not true that you do not care enough as evidenced by a regular stream of celebratory/mocking posts that i was wrong about JAM when he took a little longer to develop.

 

[Beacon]

Let's leave out cases like Stepan where everyone knew after WJC2010 that we had a special prospect and cases like Troy Donnay whom all of us knew was crap. Let's look at cases where I went alone against the consensus.

Do you still remember the giddiness here over Halverson winning 40+ games when I made stupid, wrong and simplistic predictions that he will be an ECHLer or a crappy AHLer, outraging everyone?

How about that Shesterkin is amazing and you arguing I have no clue, I don't know the VHL, it is a beer league (your actual quote until I pointed put that beer leagues don't pay salaries above the AHL), that I am only paying attention to Shesterkin's stats.

Again, when going against the consensus, you're bound to look stupid at first since everyone agrees on something, while you're denying it and the mob concludes, "you have no clue." What matters is how things turned out, but by then you moved on to the next group of prospects, again concluding that non-consensus ideas are stupid since 1 person is seeing something different than the rest.

 

[nyr2k2]

I never pimped St. Croix, that was a guy from Edmonton. I never voted for him in our top 10, but usually around 15-20 I wanted him up there along with lesser prospects after all decent ones got placed. It always - literally every time - came along with a statement that he's an extreme risk, even compared to other midround picks, 90% of whom do not make it.

2. My analysis is simplistic and wrong when I go off the board and everyone disagrees. Then 1-3 years go by and it turns out to be an accurate prediction, but by then you moved on to the next target. Who remembers Nejeschjleb or even Tambellini anymore? I gave simplistic and wrong analysis about them, analysis so stupid you told people to ignore that stupidity too.

3. Your claim that I am right only about predicting who will fail is wrong, and you know it. JAM, Talbot, others left for dead were pimped by me when nobody bothered to pay any attention to them.

4. It is likewise not true that you do not care enough as evidenced by a regular stream of celebratory/mocking posts that i was wrong about JAM when he took a little longer to develop.

This is hilarious.

You didn't "pimp" St. Croix, but I pimped Fogarty? Are you kidding? You're making it sound like I'm banging the drum for these obscure prospects to be at the top of our lists. I'm the guy who says "don't completely write off player X because his stats aren't great." Fogarty, I've maintained that his game should translate well to the pros and that he has fourth line center potential. My outlook hasn't changed.

How are guys like Nejezchleb and Tambellini coming into the conversation? I was willing to give Nejezchleb a year of pro hockey before completely writing him off and I never liked Tambellini. Did you call them correctly? I don't remember having any discussions about them, but if you did, again, congrats on calling the failure of fringe prospects a year before everyone else was willing to give up. I feel like at this point you're confusing me with someone else or just making things up. Like why bring up Grachev? I was never a huge Grachev fanboy. I've consistently maintained Jensen had bottom six potential and still do. And yet you're...accusing me of being wrong on them or something? I don't even know.

Talbot? Again, are you kidding me? I was right there along with you. I was effusive in my praise. From day ****ing one with him. You're being disingenuous. Not only do I get blame for being wrong on guys I wasn't wrong on, I don't even get credit when I'm right. Love it!

For the record, there has never been a stream of celebratory posts from me regarding JAM, you being wrong, or anyone else being wrong. That is a bald-faced lie and I would challenge you to find any evidence of this. I'm wrong about players all the time and have no problem owning up to it (Zuccarello, Girardi, Filip Novak being my worst examples). I'm not here to rub **** in anyone's face.

 

[Beacon]

You did jump on the Talbot train early, but that does not detract from me being first when several others (not you) wondered why he's even discussed.

Nej and especially Tambellini were NOT viewed as marginal prospects. Well, Nej was seen as mediocre by some, by Rambo was almost universally pimped. At the time, nobody viewed him as marginal.

As for JAM, there were a bunch of posts with you mocking me for saying he'll make the NHL when he didnt do so immediately. You know full well you threw it in my face many times.

I brought up Grachev because I called him as a crap prospect when everyone was voting for him as our #1 guy, above McDonagh and Stepan. Maybe not you, don't remember. But that statement was not about you, it was about me. I brought up Grachev to show that I wasn't merely crapping on low-end busts, but even on our #1 prospect at the time when we had our strongest prospect pool since 1988 (Leetch, Richter, Amonte). That's a pretty big call to make.

Finally, lol about Fogarty having 4th line potential, unless you mean AHL 4th line.

 

[nyr2k2]

Let's leave out cases like Stepan where everyone knew after WJC2010 that we had a special prospect and cases like Troy Donnay whom all of us knew was crap. Let's look at cases where I went alone against the consensus.

Do you still remember the giddiness here over Halverson winning 40+ games when I made stupid, wrong and simplistic predictions that he will be an ECHLer or a crappy AHLer, outraging everyone?

No, I don't really remember anything close to "giddiness." I remember you (and many others) correctly pointing out that on a stacked team his underlying numbers were not indicative of a great season, and the reasonable among us acknowledging that.

How about that Shesterkin is amazing and you arguing I have no clue, I don't know the VHL, it is a beer league (your actual quote until I pointed put that beer leagues don't pay salaries above the AHL), that I am only paying attention to Shesterkin's stats.

Don't remember that either. I've always been a fan of Shesterkin. I remember this thread where I outlined what the MHL and VHL were (nothing about a beer league in there...) and actually made the point to you that I was totally okay with Shesterkin playing the year in the VHL or MHL as a starter rather than as a backup in the KHL, because, you know, they're decent leagues.

Could you find that beer league quote for me? I'd really like to see it. I always criticize those who marginalize the lesser European leagues. The last time I got into a discussion with someone denigrating the quality of play in a European league, ironically and amusingly, was with you when you called Mestis "marginally above beer league." Maybe you're confusing me with you in your post?

Again, when going against the consensus, you're bound to look stupid at first since everyone agrees on something, while you're denying it and the mob concludes, "you have no clue." What matters is how things turned out, but by then you moved on to the next group of prospects, again concluding that non-consensus ideas are stupid since 1 person is seeing something different than the rest.

I'm all for going against the consensus, and doing so doesn't necessitate looking stupid. I'll say, though, in many instances when you think you're the only one taking a position on a guy, you're far from it.

You did jump on the Talbot train early, but that does not detract from me being first when several others (not you) wondered why he's even discussed.

Okay, YOU WERE THE FIRST!

Nej and especially Tambellini were NOT viewed as marginal prospects. Well, Nej was seen as mediocre by some, by Rambo was almost universally pimped. At the time, nobody viewed him as marginal.

I killed Tambellini after his first year, split between NCAA and WHL. I was luke warm on him his next year and disliked him as an AHL rookie.

As for JAM, there were a bunch of posts with you mocking me for saying he'll make the NHL when he didnt do so immediately. You know full well you threw it in my face many times.

Nah. I actually wasted my ****ing time to prove a point on the internet and looked for this ****. I found likerally one post, from 2014, where I mockingly called him a "phenom" and said how unfortunate it was that we "missed out" on him. That was literally it. I'd apologize for the unyielding cruelty, but in the end, as you said, you won that one and got the last laugh.

I brought up Grachev because I called him as a crap prospect when everyone was voting for him as our #1 guy, above McDonagh and Stepan. Maybe not you, don't remember. But that statement was not about you, it was about me. I brought up Grachev to show that I wasn't merely crapping on low-end busts, but even on our #1 prospect at the time when we had our strongest prospect pool since 1988 (Leetch, Richter, Amonte). That's a pretty big call to make.

Finally, lol about Fogarty having 4th line potential, unless you mean AHL 4th line.

TBH I only think we've had serious divergence on a few guys--Zaborsky (remember him?), JAM, Fogarty, maybe someone like Daniel Walcott, St. Croix, I think Ryan Bourque? I generally agree with your conclusions, but not how you arrive at them (or present them).

 

[Beacon]

FYI, the reason I brought up Grachev and Talbot isn't about you. They were the 2 biggest surprises in the last 10-12 years, probably since Brendl and Lundqvist were prospects. Talbot was the worst nobody who became a real somebody. Grachev was the biggest blue chipper in our system to become an utter bust. In both cases, I got it right. So your suggestion that what I say is so stupid it needs to be ignored may not hold water based on these 2 calls alone, not to mention all the lesser calls that I make literally every year against a united or near-united consensus that thinks I'm nuts until 1-3 years later it turns out I was right all along.

As for the VHL=beer league, that one comment prompted multiple posts in the prospect that threat I know you read about VHL salaries (compared to other leagues), success of VHL players in the KHL, etc. This was a big long discussion for weeks.

 

[CHGoalie27]

Kovacs is the **** in my NHL 17 EA Sports video game. Got him on line 1 with me on be a pro mode. He's always going to the net when I need him to!

 

[nyr2k2]

As for the VHL=beer league, that one comment prompted multiple posts in the prospect that threat I know you read about VHL salaries (compared to other leagues), success of VHL players in the KHL, etc. This was a big long discussion for weeks.

Just for the record.

The VHL obviously isn't a beer league and only a few posters have said that it is.

I retract my earlier comment re: Beacon's analyses. Everyone feel free to subscribe to whatever and whomever they like.

/end stupid internet argument

 

[eco's bones]

It's amazing how some people get so worked up over differences of opinion over who our 16th best prospect is. Some people might be more knowledgeable than others. No one really is an expert.

One of either Kovacs or Gettinger is going to win this one--it's not that big of a deal. No one is going to die because of this.

 

[nyr2k2]

It's amazing how some people get so worked up over differences of opinion over who our 16th best prospect is. Some people might be more knowledgeable than others. No one really is an expert.

One of either Kovacs or Gettinger is going to win this one--it's not that big of a deal. No one is going to die because of this.

Beacon and I aren't even arguing about this poll, just our own personal nonsense that goes back years. It's all probably OT at this point.

 

[ManUtdTobbe]

I don't care if you (Beacon) are high or low on a prospect, what i do mind is the insanely lazy and inaccurate "analysis" you add to your opinions.

Your analysis is always way off base and show that you watch 0 (it ain't much more atleast) minutes a season of these prospects.

You pump up any prospect you want or the other way, but atleast read up on them and watch them if you're going to offer any kind of in depth analysis, which you attempt to.

Good job nyr2k2 for calling him on his ******** btw, only person i remember calling a league a "beer league" is Beacon calling Mestis a beer league when talking Reunanen and saying all kinds of weird stuff.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

I don't care if you (Beacon) are high or low on a prospect, what i do mind is the insanely lazy and inaccurate "analysis" you add to your opinions.

Your analysis is always way off base and show that you watch 0 (it ain't much more atleast) minutes a season of these prospects.

You pump up any prospect you want or the other way, but atleast read up on them and watch them if you're going to offer any kind of in depth analysis, which you attempt to.

Good job nyr2k2 for calling him on his ******** btw, only person i remember calling a league a "beer league" is Beacon calling Mestis a beer league when talking Reunanen and saying all kinds of weird stuff.

While Beacon might make a lot of sweeping generalizations, he's probably right about prospects more often than those who watch them play to make judgements.

Its easy to watch someone like Day or Gettinger or whoever and like what you see, but Beacon is using a strategy in his analysis that probably will figure out the correct level of a player more accurately.

And fans always overestimate their own prospects. Always happens. Some of these guys people talk up will not be NHL'ers, and they will not be as good as fans think. That usually happens way more than a player who no one thought would be good ending up good.

So I kind of agree with him about CHL'ers. If you are aren't playing really good or dominating the CHL, I'm not sure what that says about you. Of course you gotta adjust for the situation, maybe a player is younger than another, maybe injuries, maybe a terrible team or great team, but if a player is only an average performer in a junior league, why should anyone think they'll play a big role in the NHL? You can rattle off the list of players who were very impressive in the CHL who didn't come close to making the NHL. The list of those who were only average in the CHL becoming NHL'ers probably has a lot less names.

 

[ManUtdTobbe]

I disagree, i don't think he has a strategy other then just looking at P/GP without any other context and making super broad statements, it's moronic imo.

Edit: Yes, i like the Ronning and Fontaine picks, doesn't mean i think they'll for sure be NHLers, i think the most likely outcome is that they don't play 50+ games in the NHL together.
Doesn't mean they weren't good late round picks though, they both have skills that should translate well to the pros and they are both progressing nicely since they got picked.

The context here is that they were picked later then #150, any player picked there is a long shot at best. Ronning was also on arguably one of the worst teams in the CHL, he still had better numbers, both raw numbers and underlying numbers while improving his overall game aswell. He's an excellent forechecker, relentless is a word i'd use, and a good skater, both things that translates well to the next level.

Fontaine on the other hand was on one of the best teams in the CHL, but he was used in a defensive role and still put up some decent offensive numbers. He's a great skater and he reads the plays well, he also has his office right in the slot, all things that should translate well...

I'm not talking up these 2 players because i think they'll be world beater, but because i think they were good picks who are progressing.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

What strategy? What analysis? The guy doesn't watch the players at all. He's remarkably similar to someone on the prospects board years ago who was trying to write for some site without seeing the players play.

Because prospects are a crap shoot, even a guy who has no clue about them like Beacon can have some hits and misses with his "analysis".