Rangers Prospect Poll (Summer 2018): #3 Prospect

[Ghost of jas]

There are a handful of people on here who I know legitimately love(d) Kravtsov and have been high on him for a while. I get that, there's a lot to like.

I think I'm more interested in the psychology of how we vote and respond on here --- mainly because I've lived it for 20 some odd years.

For all the talk about people hating the Jessiman, Sanguinetti and McIlrath picks, there was a lot of love and justification for those picks immediately after they were made. Once the shine wore off and reality set it, people quickly distanced themselves from the picks. But coming up with lengthy and plausible defenses of Ranger picks is not entirely a new concept.

Now, let me be clear, in no way am I comparing Kravtsov to Jessiman or McIlrath. The skill is beyond compare in those scenarios.

What I am more curious about is that very, very few people were this "up" about Kravtsov less than a week ago. We keep talking about upside and yet none of the concerns that were there prior to this kid being a Ranger are present. To a lesser extent, we're doing the same with Miller. It doesn't detract from them being good prospects, but it does give me pause as to how much we might be trying to sell ourselves on certain concepts.

I’m actually the opposite. I loved the pick of Kravtsov, (and the first round in general). And, Kravtsov probably is the prospect with the highest upside. But, there is no denying that Andersson is much more advanced. Next at this time, things could look dramatically different.

 

[Fitzy]

My comparable for Andersson is Steve Rucchin. Love to have him on the team, but I'll take Kravtsov's first line upside. Best wing prospect the team has had since Cherepanov.

 

[Irishguy42]

Kravstov, add Lundkvist

 

[The Crypto Guy]

I think it's safe to say we won't need a vote for our 4th prospect.

Haha yea, the runner up will get the 4th spot.

As for the shiny toy syndrome, i'm definitely a bit guilty of this as well. We just drafted a player and once we draft him the hype train for the players goes in full effect. Videos, high end potential talk, and chatter how amazing he did in the playoffs...it's fresh on everyones mind so there is definitely a bit biasm(is that a word?) toward the new player.

Truthfully, I could have voted either Kravtsov or Lias...I went with Kravtsov today and on another day i might have went with Lias. Lias is almost a sure lock NHLer, almost guaranteed 3rd line player that will do everything (Callahan-type), with a ceiling of a 2nd liner that is definitely reachable. Kravtsov is more of a long shot but his ceiling is of a 1st line player, but he could be a boom/bust player because if his offense doesn't pan out to the NHL, he likely won't be on a bottom 6 role. I went with the potential for this vote.

 

[Harbour Dog]

I agree that Lias should be #3.

But just to play devil's advocate; at the time of their respective drafts, Kravtsov was considered the better player.

He was a borderline top 10 guy in a deeper draft than one in which Lias was ranked closer to 15th in the consensus.

Does Lias' production/progression this year move him ahead of Kravtsov? I would say yes, but if Kravtsov has a strong WJC and proves himself to be an effective top 6 KHLer as an 18/19 year old (two outcomes well within the realm of possibility), then what?

The gap between the two is much closer than it appears.

 

[Edge]

I’m actually the opposite. I loved the pick of Kravtsov, (and the first round in general). And, Kravtsov probably is the prospect with the highest upside. But, there is no denying that Andersson is much more advanced. Next at this time, things could look dramatically different.

Personally, I would not be surprised if Kravtsov indeed passes a few guys --- with time. But that's not as close to a given as we've been saying in the last 72 hours or so.

Gotta give it more time to shake out first.

 

[Ghost of jas]

Personally, I would not be surprised if Kravtsov indeed passes a few guys --- with time. But that's not as close to a given as we've been saying in the last 72 hours or so.

Gotta give it more time to shake out first.

It’s okay...next year at this time, Alex Turcotte will top the poll.

 

[pblawr]

Just out of curiosity, is there anyone who voted for Shestyorkin in the last round that dislikes the Lindbom pick? If so, I would be curious if someone can explain how they reconcile those two things.

 

[will1066]

Kould Cravtsov pass Khytil?

 

[Rangers in 7]

kravtsov only because his ceiling is so high, add lundkvist

 

[Ori]

Voted on Vitali Kravtsov add Henrik L. - defender.

 

[Edge]

My comparable for Andersson is Steve Rucchin. Love to have him on the team, but I'll take Kravtsov's first line upside. Best wing prospect the team has had since Cherepanov.

I respectfully disagree. Rucchin was nowhere near the player that Andersson was at this stage. Which says nothing about style differences. I think Andersson went into the corners and more dirty areas in the AHL last season than Rucchin probably did over several year increments.

When you look at Andersson's trajectory to this point, since being drafted, he looks a lot closer to the RORs and Horvats of the hockey world than the Rucchins.

The reaction to Andersson has always been strange on these boards, and almost exclusively to these boards. If any other player posted 6 goals in 7 games at the WJC and served as the captain, we'd be all over it.

If any other player played in three professional men's leagues, across two continents, as a 19 year old, we'd be all over it.

This kid has been held to a different standard on here since the minute his name was called. Doesn't matter how good the offense is against his peers, doesn't matter that he did what maybe a handful of guys have done in the last several DECADES, the burden of proof is always higher for him.

We've never hedged our bets on any first round prospect I can remember in recent memory, like we have on Andersson. Whereas we normally inflate every single uptick our prospects make, there's this tendency, sometimes even unintentionally, to downplay what Andersson does.

 

[Harbour Dog]

Just out of curiosity, is there anyone who voted for Shestyorkin in the last round that dislikes the Lindbom pick? If so, I would be curious if someone can explain how they reconcile those two things.

Shesty was a 4th round pick

 

[Edge]

I agree that Lias should be #3.

But just to play devil's advocate; at the time of their respective drafts, Kravtsov was considered the better player.

He was a borderline top 10 guy in a deeper draft than one in which Lias was ranked closer to 15th in the consensus.

Does Lias' production/progression this year move him ahead of Kravtsov? I would say yes, but if Kravtsov has a strong WJC and proves himself to be an effective top 6 KHLer as an 18/19 year old (two outcomes well within the realm of possibility), then what?

The gap between the two is much closer than it appears.

But that's the thing, Kravtsov really wasn't mentioned as a borderline top 10 guys by a ton of people prior to the draft. We was there on some lists, but we're really kind of revising what was there prior to Friday.

He was actually much closer to the 15 mark that we so commonly point out with Andersson.

But I'm not even sure that argument really withstands the obvious counter-argument.

Andersson was labeled as a reach at 7, as opposed to the mid-teens in a draft that is generally viewed as being weaker.

But Kravtsov isn't a reach (post-draft) when taken at 9, after being widely considered to a mid-teens pick in a draft that is generally viewed as being stronger?

So if both guys were roughly viewed as being in the same general, mid-teens range prior to the draft, wouldn't it actually be a slightly more risky pick in the deeper draft?

But even if we throw that out for a moment, there's still two things that stand out for me:

1. We still seem to downplay Andersson's D-1 season.

2. We still don't have a straight answer as to the surge in popularity that wasn't there less than 100 hours ago.

I still can't figure a scenario in which twice as many people would've preferred Kravstov to Andersson prior to the draft. Yes, there would be some. But nearly twice as many? The math doesn't add up.

 

[pblawr]

Shesty was a 4th round pick

But if you think Shesty is more valuable than Kravstov or Andersson, why would taking a prospect with that kind of potential value in the 2nd round bother you?

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Honest questions for the people who went with Kravtsov.

5 days ago, would you have voted him ahead of Andersson, or traded Andersson for the chance to pick him? Likewise, if he went to the Islanders instead of the Rangers, would you still vote him ahead of Andersson?

I ask mainly because Kravtsov was nowhere near this popular five days ago, and considering he hasn't played any games between now and last week, I am genuinely curious as to the popularity surge. Did everyone suddenly see things they like or buy into the potential? Do the risks that were expressed suddenly seem less concerning?

The answers would probably yes for some people on here. But at a 2-to-1 ratio?

Hmmm...

I don't think, you wouldn't trade X for Y necessarily means X is better. One factor is that trading X for Y, particularly when we don't know enough about X or Y you're not only looking to maximize value but also minimize risk. Imagine if we traded Lias for Kravtsov and Kravtsov busts considering we gave up someone that we had, that would be more painful than if we were given the choice to take Kravtsov over Lias. You have to take qualitative factors into account when analyzing things this way.

 

[Edge]

Shesty was a 4th round pick

And that draft was a very different landscape.

 

[Edge]

I don't think, you wouldn't trade X for Y necessarily means X is better. One factor is that trading X for Y, particularly when we don't know enough about X or Y you're not only looking to maximize value but also minimize risk. Imagine if we traded Lias for Kravtsov and Kravtsov busts considering we gave up someone that we had, that would be more painful than if we were given the choice to take Kravtsov over Lias. You have to take qualitative factors into account when analyzing things this way.

Okay, so let's even take trade out of the equation.

Last Thursday, this board has a choice between Andersson, everything he did up to that point, and his potential,

or Kravtsov, everything he did up to that point, and his potential.

Twice as many people pick Kravstov because his upside is seen as being so incredibly high and his risk reasonably low?

I'm just having a really hard time buying that based on the conversations going on around here prior to the draft.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

I respectfully disagree. Rucchin was nowhere near the player that Andersson was at this stage. Which says nothing about style differences. I think Andersson went into the corners and more dirty areas in the AHL last season than Rucchin probably did over several year increments.

When you look at Andersson's trajectory to this point, since being drafted, he looks a lot closer to the RORs and Horvats of the hockey world than the Rucchins.

The reaction to Andersson has always been strange on these boards, and almost exclusively to these boards. If any other player posted 6 goals in 7 games at the WJC and served as the captain, we'd be all over it.

If any other player played in three professional men's leagues, across two continents, as a 19 year old, we'd be all over it.

This kid has been held to a different standard on here since the minute his name was called. Doesn't matter how good the offense is against his peers, doesn't matter that he did what maybe a handful of guys have done in the last several DECADES, the burden of proof is always higher for him.

We've never hedged our bets on any first round prospect I can remember in recent memory, like we have on Andersson. Whereas we normally inflate every single uptick our prospects make, there's this tendency, sometimes even unintentionally, to downplay what Andersson does.

It's not hard to understand why. We traded for the highest pick we had since 2004. We haven't had an elite player since Jagr (Gaborik and Nash were too inconsistent) and Rangers fans were hoping to finally get that with the #7 pick. To get a guy that almost no one sees his ceiling to be that high was disappointing for many. I think Rangers fans are just tired of 50-60 point pretty good players that are not good enough to win it all with.

 

[Edge]

Haha yea, the runner up will get the 4th spot.

As for the shiny toy syndrome, i'm definitely a bit guilty of this as well. We just drafted a player and once we draft him the hype train for the players goes in full effect. Videos, high end potential talk, and chatter how amazing he did in the playoffs...it's fresh on everyones mind so there is definitely a bit biasm(is that a word?) toward the new player.

Truthfully, I could have voted either Kravtsov or Lias...I went with Kravtsov today and on another day i might have went with Lias. Lias is almost a sure lock NHLer, almost guaranteed 3rd line player that will do everything (Callahan-type), with a ceiling of a 2nd liner that is definitely reachable. Kravtsov is more of a long shot but his ceiling is of a 1st line player, but he could be a boom/bust player because if his offense doesn't pan out to the NHL, he likely won't be on a bottom 6 role. I went with the potential for this vote.

And to be clear, I'm not mocking people's choice or making fun of their choice.

I'm legitimately curious to the thought process. (And at least a little curious as to the identity of some of the voters voting for Kravstov --- I don't know if I've ever seen half those names until after the draft.)

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Okay, so let's even take trade out of the equation.

Last Thursday, this board has a choice between Andersson, everything he did up to that point, and his potential,

or Kravtsov, everything he did up to that point, and his potential.

Twice as many people pick Kravstov because his upside is seen as being so incredibly high and his risk reasonably low?

I'm just having a really hard time buying that based on the conversations going on around here prior to the draft.

I find it interesting how in some of your posts you're making this argument but in other posts and making the argument about how hard we are on Andersson. I feel like in one post I'm responding and saying "this is why we would take Andersson over Kravtsov" in one post and in another "this is why Rangers fans are so hard on Andersson". Seems like two arguments that are somewhat contradictory, no?

 

[Edge]

It's not hard to understand why. We traded for the highest pick we had since 2004. We haven't had an elite player since Jagr (Gaborik and Nash were too inconsistent) and Rangers fans were hoping to finally get that with the #7 pick. To get a guy that almost no one sees his ceiling to be that high was disappointing for many. I think Rangers fans are just tired of 50-60 point pretty good players that are not good enough to win it all with.

And yet, we struggled as board to name that elite player and seem to downplay when the guy we took either out-performs or at least holds his own with said players that we couldn't agree on.

I get the initial response, but when some posters consistently downplay the accomplishments of a prospect after year of performances that we would normally be all over, it gets harder to take it seriously. If we're struggling to find Ranger draft prospects with the kind of D-1 seasons that Chytil and Andersson had, it's probably a pretty good indication that they did something pretty unique and special.

At that point it's not about the prospect, or about not having elite players to win it all, it's about throwing a temper tantrum because we didn't get what we wanted.

 

[Edge]

I find it interesting how in some of your posts you're making this argument but in other posts and making the argument about how hard we are on Andersson. I feel like in one post I'm responding and saying "this is why we would take Andersson over Kravtsov" in one post and in another "this is why Rangers fans are so hard on Andersson". Seems like two arguments that are somewhat contradictory, no?

Not seeing the contraction.

Could we not be harder on Andersson and softer on Kravtsov?

 

[Harbour Dog]

But that's the thing, Kravtsov really wasn't mentioned as a borderline top 10 guys by a ton of people prior to the draft. We was there on some lists, but we're really kind of revising what was there prior to Friday.

He was actually much closer to the 15 mark that we so commonly point out with Andersson.

But I'm not even sure that argument really withstands the obvious counter-argument.

Andersson was labeled as a reach at 7, as opposed to the mid-teens in a draft that is generally viewed as being weaker.

But Kravtsov isn't a reach (post-draft) when taken at 9, after being widely considered to a mid-teens pick in a draft that is generally viewed as being stronger?

So if both guys were roughly viewed as being in the same general, mid-teens range prior to the draft, wouldn't it actually be a slightly more risky pick in the deeper draft?

But even if we throw that out for a moment, there's still two things that stand out for me:

1. We still seem to downplay Andersson's D-1 season.

2. We still don't have a straight answer as to the surge in popularity that wasn't there less than 100 hours ago.

I still can't figure a scenario in which twice as many people would've preferred Kravstov to Andersson prior to the draft. Yes, there would be some. But nearly twice as many? The math doesn't add up.

Kravtsov was on all of our radars at 9, whereas Lias, was on none of our radars at 7. Saying they were ranked similarly is probably not accurate, even before we take into account the depth of each draft class. I haven't got time right now to scour sets of rankings and find out, but I will later on out of curiosity.

I don't think anybody here considered Kravstov a reach at 9 in the slightest. For me, he was my third preference behind Wahlstrom and Dobson.

As for your numbered points, and subsequent observation; I fully agree. I would say it's a combination of taking what Lias did this year for granted and having a flashy new toy filled with potential, that has pushed the vote the way that it has.

And it is quite on point to question how many of us would have traded Andersson for Kravtsov a day before the draft

 

[nyr2k2]

Okay, so let's even take trade out of the equation.

Last Thursday, this board has a choice between Andersson, everything he did up to that point, and his potential,

or Kravtsov, everything he did up to that point, and his potential.

Twice as many people pick Kravstov because his upside is seen as being so incredibly high and his risk reasonably low?

I'm just having a really hard time buying that based on the conversations going on around here prior to the draft.

Prior to the draft, a lot of people were putting together their "Wish List" of guys that they hoped we'd pick at 9. Most of those lists had a few names of guys that we hoped would fall, like Wahlstrom, and then a bunch of guys who were assumed would be available at 9. Very few of those lists, from my recollection, contained Kravtsov's name. I think the "consensus" that Kravtsov was a mid-round pick is supported by the fact that our own posters basically created lists of guys they thought would be around 7-15 or so and generally didn't include Kravtsov. And yet, now, he's by a 2-to-1 margin a better prospect than Andersson. I don't get it, won't get it.

Whatever, it is what it is. If there's such a thing as Shiny New Toy Syndrome there's surely a Dull Old Beloved Toy Syndrome, which I suffer from. I like my established guys that have done more, more so than the brand new guys who haven't shown as much.