Rangers Prospect Poll (Summer 2018): #3 Prospect

[Edge]

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

And that last part is what particularly intrigues me.

As I've said, Kravstov has the skill to be a first line player.

But it's also interesting to me to watch how we've kind of doubled and tripled down on Kravtsov since the draft.

I am intrigued by just how deep we've jumped in, in such a short period of time, without any changes other than the fact that the Rangers drafted him.

Even some of Kravtsov supporters, weren't nearly this gung-ho prior to the draft.

They liked the talent. Thought he could be an option at 9, maybe even wanted him at 9.

But comparing that to now is noticeably different. And while 42 people prefer Kravtsov to Andersson, I'm still not feeling that resounding "yes" as to whether they liked him on this level prior to him being a Ranger.

Thus my curiosity remains.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

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.

There are different reasons for someone being a reach and I think most Rangers fans would prefer it being due to a higher risk (but also a higher ceiling) than due to a lower ceiling (but lower risk).

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

Voted Andersson by accident. Doesn't look like I can change it. My vote is for Kravtsov.

Add Rykov.

 

[Edge]

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.

^^^^ - This.

I'm looking back at lists and discussions and Kravtsov was very much a peripheral name in those discussions.

We've done far more to sell this pick post-draft than we did pre-draft. I mean it's almost night and day.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Not seeing the contraction.

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

You said we wouldn't have traded Andersson for Kravtsov prior to the draft but then say that we're hard on Andersson. Unless you think that would just would have had a really low opinion on Kravtsov prior to the draft, there seems to be a bit of a contradiction.

 

[Harbour Dog]

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?

Ah, I misunderstood your question from before.

Goalie development is so fickle, that taking one in a round where there are still high quality skater prospects just seems so wasteful. We got Hank and Shesty both outside the third round and we signed Georgiev as an UDFA. That's our top 3 goalies right now, and we never had to sacrifice a top 90 pick for either one.

Those of us who hated that pick, hated it because of the strategy behind it, not the player we took.

 

[redwhiteandblue]

Had to go with Ders. His last year of competition and how he performed was just too good. He will surely catch up to the NHL game and his only issue seemed to be his skating and decision making on how to utilize his skating ability. All teachable/workable stuff.

I'd say Krav is pretty much a close #4 though.

 

[Edge]

You said we wouldn't have traded Andersson for Kravtsov prior to the draft but then say that we're hard on Andersson. Unless you think that would just would have had a really low opinion on Kravtsov prior to the draft, there seems to be a bit of a contradiction.

Not really.

I think we are harsh on Andersson, and yet still wouldn't have picked Kravstov over him prior to the draft.

In the months, weeks, days and even hours leading to the draft, Kravtsov wasn't even one of the main players in our pre-draft conversations. Outside of a handful of people, he really wasn't on the tips of a lot of tongues on here. Some, but not a lot.

You'd think that a kid who we're now saying was consensus option for the top 10, and is being voted by a pretty big margin as a better prospect than Andersson, would've generated a lot of conversations similar to this prior to the draft.

After all, we debated the merits of Kotkaniemi, Farabee, Wise, Lundestrom, and a slew of players who weren't seen as being nearly as promising as Kravtsov is now more widely viewed. In actuality, there were more requests for scouting reports and observations on Kravtsov because people didn't know a lot about him.

Again, it's just ironic that his upside is now more widely talked about and praised than it was just a few days ago.

If nothing else, it's certainly...quite the turnabout.

 

[redwhiteandblue]

Nominate Rykov.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Not really.

I think we are harsh on Andersson, and yet still wouldn't have picked Kravstov over him prior to the draft.

In the months, weeks, days and even hours leading to the draft, Kravtsov wasn't even one of the main players in our pre-draft conversations. Outside of a handful of people, he really wasn't on the tips of a lot of tongues on here. Some, but not a lot.

You'd think that a kid who we're now saying was consensus option for the top 10, and is being voted by a pretty big margin as a better prospect than Andersson, would've generated a lot of conversations similar to this prior to the draft.

After all, we debated the merits of Kotkaniemi, Farabee, Wise, Lundestrom, and a slew of players who weren't seen as being nearly as promising as Kravtsov is now more widely viewed. In actuality, there were more requests for scouting reports and observations on Kravtsov because people didn't know a lot about him.

Again, it's just ironic that his upside is now more widely talked about and praised than it was just a few days ago.

If nothing else, it's certainly...quite the turnabout.

Maybe there was less known about Kravtsov. Plus he was a riser. I assumed he was a later pick because before the playoffs he was and when he had his nice playoffs Rangers fans were wondering if we'd get him late in the first. But it seems a few outlets had him ranked slightly later than he was taken. If you read the Kravtsov thread in the prospect board he was seen by almost everyone as a top 15 or top 10 pick. The fact that he wasn't mentioned with better know 10-15 type picks is not surprising to me. Not everyone will get mentioned and those that will will be higher profile guys.

 

[Edge]

Maybe there was less known about Kravtsov. Plus he was a riser. I assumed he was a later pick because before the playoffs he was and when he had his nice playoffs Rangers fans were wondering if we'd get him late in the first. But it seems a few outlets had him ranked slightly later than he was taken. If you read the Kravtsov thread in the prospect board he was seen by almost everyone as a top 15 or top 10 pick. The fact that he wasn't mentioned with better know 10-15 type picks is not surprising to me. Not everyone will get mentioned and those that will will be higher profile guys.

Totally get that, and I think he's a hell of a talent who certainly has a shot to be our best forward.

But for all the reasons you just mentioned, I really don't think this many people saw him as better than Andersson a few days ago.

So either there's been a fountain of information and observations since Friday at approximately 9:15 p.m., or we're basing this more on him being the "latest and greatest" acquisition.

Based on the reasons we've discussed (and I've really enjoyed this discussion BTW), and the general history of the board (in which the names change, but the leanings tend to remain), I tend to go with the latter half what I said above.

For me, there were three prospects whose potential and track records to this point would've made it very difficult for any prospect we selected 9th to eclipse (not just Kravstov). And those three prospects were Shestyorkin, Chytil and Andersson.

 

[Inferno]

Lias for sure. Add lindgren

 

[NYR Viper]

Andersson, add Lindgren

 

[nyr2k2]

Totally get that, and I think he's a hell of a talent who certainly has a shot to be our best forward.

But for all the reasons you just mentioned, I really don't think this many people saw him as better than Andersson a few days ago.

So either there's been a fountain of information and observations since Friday at approximately 9:15 p.m., or we're basing this more on him being the "latest and greatest" acquisition.

Based on the reasons we've discussed (and I've really enjoyed this discussion BTW), and the general history of the board (in which the names change, but the leanings tend to remain), I tend to go with the latter half what I said above.

For me, there were three prospects whose potential and track records to this point would've made it very difficult for any prospect we selected 9th to eclipse (not just Kravstov). And those three prospects were Shestyorkin, Chytil and Andersson.

Agreed with all of this. For me, it's Chytil, Andersson, Shestyorkin, and Kravtsov. In that order. The first three are guys who have the upside and the track record, particularly Shestyorkin. If by mid-season Kravtsov is tearing up the KHL and Andersson or Chytil are slogging through an AHL campaign or something, I would certainly consider changing my vote. But Kravtsov really wasn't on my radar at 9 and I just don't think he's done enough to justify a spot ahead of the others. Yet, anyway.

 

[pblawr]

Ah, I misunderstood your question from before.

Goalie development is so fickle, that taking one in a round where there are still high quality skater prospects just seems so wasteful. We got Hank and Shesty both outside the third round and we signed Georgiev as an UDFA. That's our top 3 goalies right now, and we never had to sacrifice a top 90 pick for either one.

Those of us who hated that pick, hated it because of the strategy behind it, not the player we took.

Thanks for the thoughtful replies.

That makes sense. I can get on board with the idea that the development concerns about Lindbom don't apply to Shesty, or are at least much smaller in his case.

Personally, I have some skepticism about the value of goalies relative to skaters also. I'd be curious in your thoughts on that issue if you don't mind sharing them too.

 

[Dijock94]

Lundkvist

 

[Edge]

Agreed with all of this. For me, it's Chytil, Andersson, Shestyorkin, and Kravtsov. In that order. The first three are guys who have the upside and the track record, particularly Shestyorkin. If by mid-season Kravtsov is tearing up the KHL and Andersson or Chytil are slogging through an AHL campaign or something, I would certainly consider changing my vote. But Kravtsov really wasn't on my radar at 9 and I just don't think he's done enough to justify a spot ahead of the others. Yet, anyway.

I out Kravtsov at 4th AINEC.

No one challenges him for the fourth spot.

I just need to see more out of him --- consistency, a larger role, whether he can maintain and continue his second half improvements, before I am comfortable slotting him above players with very good upside and who have continued to build upon their accomplishments since being drafted.

Come January, if Kravtsov is growing and progressing, then I feel like we can say his ranking constitutes upside and even more evidence of improvement.

Like I've said repeatedly, Kravtsov has potential, but he's not quite there --- yet. Unless a talent is undeniably better than what is in place --- either through performance or clear-cut potential, I have a harder time ranking them ahead of existing strong performances and (somewhat) underrated upsides.

I'd make that same statement for Wahlstrom, Farabee, Dobson, Bouchard, Kotkaniemi and many other popular names we've tossed around in connection to the draft.

 

[007]

In these lists, I'm a go for the closer to surefire NHL'er type of guy, ergo, I went for Andersson.

 

[Edge]

Ah, I misunderstood your question from before.

Goalie development is so fickle, that taking one in a round where there are still high quality skater prospects just seems so wasteful. We got Hank and Shesty both outside the third round and we signed Georgiev as an UDFA. That's our top 3 goalies right now, and we never had to sacrifice a top 90 pick for either one.

Those of us who hated that pick, hated it because of the strategy behind it, not the player we took.

In a similar vein, we've had a number of flops with many of the goalies we've drafted over the years --- including Halverson and Lafleur in the second rounds.

 

[Fitzy]

Apparently we wont need a tiebreaker considering no one has voted for anyone else.

 

[nyr2k2]

Lafleur was the worst. Two bad years in PEI post-draft, we don't offer him a deal, and he retires. He didn't even try his hand at CIS or whatever they call it these days.

 

[Mikos87]

Add Nils

 

[Gardner McKay]

Kravtsov. The more I read about this kid the more I love the pick. I probably should have went with Andersson because he has a higher floor but Kravtsovs potential is exciting.

Add Lindgren

@The Crypto Guy Can you add the % that each player won with? Good to see who was a consensus at each position and who was a toss up.

 

[WeRa]

Vitali ... add Nils

 

[Fireonk]

I went with Kravtsov. The voting looks a bit lopsided but I think for a lot of us Kravtsov and Andersson are neck and neck, and for me at least, tie goes to the guy with the higher upside. To answer Edge's question, two things I think propelled Kravtsov on top here:

1. Andersson, even though he had a great season, was overshadowed by Chytil and didn't look as ready for the NHL as some of the spin was making it seem. Not his fault on either of these things, just is what it is.

2. We are voting from a lens of being pretty void on high end talent. If these two were going head to head on a prospect ranking for a different team - say Tampa - it could be a different result here.