Rangers Prospect Poll (Summer 2018): #3 Prospect

[NYR Viper]

I will never understand the lack of excitement over Andersson here. I think it's because he isn't 'flashy' but who the hell knows. The guy had a VERY GOOD D+1 year. He scored almost a goal a game in the WJC, tied for points with Petersson who people rave about, all while playing at least a game with a partially separated shoulder and carrying the defensive load as well from the center position.

He put up good numbers in the AHL after coming back from that injury and IMO had a good showing in his limited time in the NHL at the end of the year.

I'm very excited for Kravtsov but until he has a D+1 year like either Chytil or Andersson he is below both of those guys. The potential is there but both Andersson and Chytil have already delivered a full year of excellent improvement from when they were drafted.

 

[Harbour Dog]

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.

That's an excellent point, and one that I tend to forget.

The relative value of goalies certainly doesn't measure up to that of skaters. A top 10 goalie in the league wouldn't fetch nearly the same return as a top 10 centre, defenseman, or winger. And the potential league value of a player should be the deciding factor when a team is determining what the BPA is for their pick.

We do have quite possibly the best goalie coach in the league, and I would be surprised if other teams aren't very aware when they're trying to acquire an Allaire-trained goalie, but on the surface, I think this would only be a very slight notch on the "draft a goalie early" post.

Edge's point below adds more creedence to using later picks on them. As anecdotal as one team's experiences may be, they have been surprisingly consistent in our case.

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.

 

[Edge]

I will never understand the lack of excitement over Andersson here. I think it's because he isn't 'flashy' but who the hell knows. The guy had a VERY GOOD D+1 year. He scored almost a goal a game in the WJC, tied for points with Petersson who people rave about, all while playing at least a game with a partially separated shoulder and carrying the defensive load as well from the center position.

He put up good numbers in the AHL after coming back from that injury and IMO had a good showing in his limited time in the NHL at the end of the year.

I'm very excited for Kravtsov but until he has a D+1 year like either Chytil or Andersson he is below both of those guys. The potential is there but both Andersson and Chytil have already delivered a full year of excellent improvement from when they were drafted.

It's interesting because while Kravtsov is generally viewed more favorably on these boards than elsewhere, including other sites and among other outside observers, Andersson is almost viewed in the reverse manner.

Other sites and observers have listed him in their top 10 or 20 prospects in the NHL based on what he's done since between drafted, and on here we're ranking him behind a prospect who was probably in the same 10-20 range for just his own draft class.

And instead of being excited that other areas are as high on our prospect as we are (or should be), we almost kind of gloss over it and move on to a different subject.

There's a reason why the whole "Yeah, he's clearly a bust" thing became a joke when talking about Andersson --- because it was pretty prevalent.

While it's mostly faded as a result of his D-1 season, there's still that element of hedging.

 

[Harbour Dog]

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.

This could be a big part of it. All of my voting is done in a vacuum, but taking specific strengths and weaknesses of our system into account, I would possibly of voted Kravtsov as well.

 

[Edge]

This could be a big part of it. All of my voting is done in a vacuum, but taking specific strengths and weaknesses of our system into account, I would possibly of voted Kravtsov as well.

I think Gardner McKay's post probably sums it up best (and I'm not saying this to pick on him or anyone else).

Those who voted Kravtsov tend to like what they've read about him and what he could accomplish.

Those who voted Andersson tend to like what they've seen from him and what he has accomplished.

For me, that's just not really a path I would be comfortable with, though it doesn't quite pertain to me as someone who has seen both play over the last few years.

My prospect rankings tend to favor the application of said skills, while factoring in the promise and potential. In cases where upsides are both higher, application and accomplishments tend to take on greater value.

But I think once someone gets it into their imagination what they think a player looks like or will be, either through reading a favorable review or a highlight reel, it's incredibly difficult to shake that image from their head.

 

[Vinny DeAngelo]

Neal pionk being this high and ADA not is a travesty considering both their ceilings

 

[SnowblindNYR]

I think Gardner McKay's post probably sums it up best (and I'm not saying this to pick on him or anyone else).

Those who voted Kravtsov tend to like what they've read about him and what he could accomplish.

Those who voted Andersson tend to like what they've seen from him and what he has accomplished.

For me, that's just not really a path I would be comfortable with, though it doesn't quite pertain to me as someone who has seen both play over the last few years.

My prospect rankings tend to favor the application of said skills, while factoring in the promise and potential. In cases where upsides are both higher, application and accomplishments tend to take on greater value.

But I think once someone gets it into their imagination what they think a player looks like or will be, either through reading a favorable review or a highlight reel, it's incredibly difficult to shake that image from their head.

I'm not a fan of putting a prospect at a disadvantage because he happened to have a later birth date.

 

[Thordic]

Honest questions for the people who went with Kravtsov.....

I think so. Kravtsov has a higher ceiling, and with prospects you want to vote for potential. The barrage of comparisons to Kuznetsov works in his favor, especially after the Caps Cup run.

I think Lias is a much safer bet but if they both hit their ceiling Kravtsov is the better player.

 

[Edge]

I'm not a fan of putting a prospect at a disadvantage because he happened to have a later birth date.

Fair enough.

I'm not a fan of putting a prospect higher with a 20 game sample sizes over a prospect with five times the sample size.

 

[Ghost of jas]

Neal pionk being this high and ADA not is a travesty considering both their ceilings

ADA no longer qualifies.

 

[Thordic]

Neal pionk being this high and ADA not is a travesty considering both their ceilings

Pionk won over a lot of fans last season, and ADA was hurt. I agree with you but Pionk has shown more at the NHL level. (I know that a lot of people also trashed Pionk's play last year but whether or not he was actually good last season vs. how most fans viewed his play is a different discussion).

 

[Profet]

I think Gardner McKay's post probably sums it up best (and I'm not saying this to pick on him or anyone else).

Those who voted Kravtsov tend to like what they've read about him and what he could accomplish.

Those who voted Andersson tend to like what they've seen from him and what he has accomplished.

For me, that's just not really a path I would be comfortable with, though it doesn't quite pertain to me as someone who has seen both play over the last few years.

My prospect rankings tend to favor the application of said skills, while factoring in the promise and potential. In cases where upsides are both higher, application and accomplishments tend to take on greater value.

But I think once someone gets it into their imagination what they think a player looks like or will be, either through reading a favorable review or a highlight reel, it's incredibly difficult to shake that image from their head.

I think it comes to poll mentality.

Is the poll:

Which prospect has the most upside?

or is it:

Which prospect has the best chance of reaching their ceiling?

In reality, its probably somewhere between the two.

Kravtsov has the bigger upside in my opion, but Andersson is far far far more likely to achieve his ceiling.

I just feel like if we're prospecting, we're talking about ceiling.

If the poll is which young player is currently better? The answer is Andersson.

 

[Edge]

I think so. Kravtsov has a higher ceiling, and with prospects you want to vote for potential. The barrage of comparisons to Kuznetsov works in his favor, especially after the Caps Cup run.

I think Lias is a much safer bet but if they both hit their ceiling Kravtsov is the better player.

Personally, I want to factor potential and probability.

But let's focus on potential for a second.

What's the general opinion on Kratsov's ceiling --- 30-35 goals and 60-70 points?

What's the general opinion on Andersson's ceiling --- 20-25 goals and 50-60 points?

So based on pure offensive numbers, the ceiling clearly favor Kravtsov.

But let's go a little beyond that.

If we're reasonably in agreement with those numbers, how do we value defense, deployment and other factors? Kind of the Mittelstadt argument, what's the exchange rate? When does straight production trump other facets of the game? Does the advantage shift to Andersson if they're seperate by 5 goals and 10 points, or does it become more of an issue if its 10 goals and 20 points?

Likewise, what value do we place on probability. Is a 50 percent chance at a 70 point ceiling worth more than a 55 percent chance at a 60 point ceiling? How about if it goes up to a 60 percent chance at a 60 point ceiling?

All interesting questions for me.

 

[Thordic]

By all reports though, Kravtsov is a fairly well-rounded player. I agree that Andersson seems like he could be a heart-and-soul, play-in-all-situations, intangibles type player. If Kravstov was touted as a pure scorer, and there's a 10-point difference in potential, I'd likely swing my vote. But Kravstov's game was touted as well-rounded, and from what I read he nailed every interview he had at the combine. So he seems to be a fairly intelligent player, and not just a lot of flash and points.

 

[Fireonk]

Personally, I want to factor potential and probability.

But let's focus on potential for a second.

What's the general opinion on Kratsov's ceiling --- 30-35 goals and 60-70 points?

What's the general opinion on Andersson's ceiling --- 20-25 goals and 50-60 points?

So based on pure offensive numbers, the ceiling clearly favor Kravtsov.

But let's go a little beyond that.

If we're reasonably in agreement with those numbers, how do we value defense, deployment and other factors? Kind of the Mittelstadt argument, what's the exchange rate? When does straight production trump other facets of the game? Does the advantage shift to Andersson if they're seperate by 5 goals and 10 points, or does it become more of an issue if its 10 goals and 20 points?

Likewise, what value do we place on probability. Is a 50 percent chance at a 70 point ceiling worth more than a 55 percent chance at a 60 point ceiling? How about if it goes up to a 60 percent chance at a 60 point ceiling?

All interesting questions for me.

When comparing numbers you also have to consider that Kravtsov is more of a creator of offense, while Andersson is more of a finisher/dirty areas type guy. For me at least, someone with the potential to do that, which I believe to be a bit more rare of a skill, is what puts him above Andersson for me.

 

[Edge]

When comparing numbers you also have to consider that Kravtsov is more of a creator of offense, while Andersson is more of a finisher/dirty areas type guy. For me at least, someone with the potential to do that, which I believe to be a bit more rare of a skill, is what puts him above Andersson for me.

True.

However, said creation is really more hypothetical than actual right now.

So we have some very good, but somewhat inconsistent play in the MHL against his peers, and then a very high peak mixed with some lesser play in the KHL because of the way that league is. Even if we dismiss the relatively small sample size in the KHL, this wasn't necessarily who came out of the MHL smoking. He was very good, but he wasn't a kid anyone was talking about as being a world beater either. In other words, it's not just a matter of KHL politics and preferences. The conversation has always been about what Kravtsov is seen as being capable of doing.

Unfortunately we don't have a lot of international or WJC samples to flesh out the picture either. Again, we can give reasons for that, and they have some validity to them, but the fact remains they don't exist.

So we're right back to the reality that our sample sizes are still based primarily on what could be, more than a sustained track record of what is. Because if we're basing it off what is, the majority of his KHL and MHL play does not elevate him above some of our other players. That kind of brings me back full circle to some of my comments prior to the draft --- there's a lot of projecting you have to do with Kravtsov. Probably more than most prospects you'd consider to be in your top 3.

 

[Harbour Dog]

I think Gardner McKay's post probably sums it up best (and I'm not saying this to pick on him or anyone else).

Those who voted Kravtsov tend to like what they've read about him and what he could accomplish.

Those who voted Andersson tend to like what they've seen from him and what he has accomplished.

For me, that's just not really a path I would be comfortable with, though it doesn't quite pertain to me as someone who has seen both play over the last few years.

My prospect rankings tend to favor the application of said skills, while factoring in the promise and potential. In cases where upsides are both higher, application and accomplishments tend to take on greater value.

But I think once someone gets it into their imagination what they think a player looks like or will be, either through reading a favorable review or a highlight reel, it's incredibly difficult to shake that image from their head.

That is pretty bang on, yeah.

I've also only seen highlights and read scouting reports of Kravtsov, but I tend to taper expectations a little more than most, I think.

And as you insinuate, there's a point where results outweigh potential. I would say Lias has surpassed that point between these two comfortably enough. He's silenced concerns about his offense and skating already; Kravtsov has his own set of concerns to confront (consistency and smarter decisions with the puck are the two that seemed most commonly mentioned).

Kravtsov is the new hottie that's flirting with us left and right; Lias is the reliable (and still beautiful) age-appropriate woman that we take a little for granted.

 

[Edge]

That is pretty bang on, yeah.

I've also only seen highlights and read scouting reports of Kravtsov, but I tend to taper expectations a little more than most, I think.

And as you insinuate, there's a point where results outweigh potential. I would say Lias has surpassed that point between these two comfortably enough. He's silenced concerns about his offense and skating already; Kravtsov has his own set of concerns to confront (consistency and smarter decisions with the puck are the two that seemed most commonly mentioned).

Kravtsov is the new hottie that's flirting with us left and right; Lias is the reliable (and still beautiful) age-appropriate woman that we take a little for granted.

I think where I more concern than most with Kravtsov, while still recognizing his talent, is that even before the KHL there was a sense of what "could" be.

He was very good in the MHL, but there was a lot of up and down play. The end result, which was impressive, is a testament to natural ability.

But we still don't really have a reasonably clear picture of how that ability will play it, even by the standards of most 17 and 18 year olds.

The peaks in the MHL and KHL have been great. The play outside the peaks, at both levels, has been wanting.

We're unable to supplement that with tournaments or other settings, so it's still relatively unknown whether it's a matter of maturing or whether he's just that kind of player --- capable of great things, but also a lot of nothing.

It's all based around small sample sizes and the hope that he's going to be more the player he is in spurts, and not the player he is in stretches.

Talent aside, I'm not quite sure this board fully grasps that.

No one posts highlight videos of Kravtsov skating around like it's open ice night at the local rink or getting knocked off the puck by someone less talented and smaller than him. Those don't make for very exciting videos or sales pitches. But those concerns are legit and I don't know if we're really acknowledging them.

 

[eco's bones]

I think where I more concern than most with Kravtsov, while still recognizing his talent, is that even before the KHL there was a sense of what "could" be.

He was very good in the MHL, but there was a lot of up and down play. The end result, which was impressive, is a testament to natural ability.

But we still don't really have a reasonably clear picture of how that ability will play it, even by the standards of most 17 and 18 year olds.

The peaks in the MHL and KHL have been great. The play outside the peaks, at both levels, has been wanting.

We're unable to supplement that with tournaments or other settings, so it's still relatively unknown whether it's a matter of maturing or whether he's just that kind of player --- capable of great things, but also a lot of nothing.

It's all based around small sample sizes and the hope that he's going to be more the player he is in spurts, and not the player he is in stretches.

Talent aside, I'm not quite sure this board fully grasps that.

No one posts highlight videos of Kravtsov skating around like it's open ice night at the local rink or getting knocked off the puck by someone less talented and smaller than him. Those don't make for very exciting videos or sales pitches. But those concerns are legit and I don't know if we're really acknowledging them.

Reading your posts on this today has kind of convinced me you're right on this but I think it's a little late to change--so my vote is what it is. All that being said there's not one of these lists from year to year that I don't have a lot of difference of opinion over. Generally before they're over I come up with my own list and quite often I share it and especially if others are sharing theirs.

 

[Edge]

Reading your posts on this today has kind of convinced me you're right on this but I think it's a little late to change--so my vote is what it is. All that being said there's not one of these lists from year to year that I don't have a lot of difference of opinion over. Generally before they're over I come up with my own list and quite often I share it and especially if others are sharing theirs.

IAG.

At the end of the day I’d rather debate Andersson vs. Kravtsov as the number 3 or 4prospect than Graves vs. Gropp, or whatever the debate was this time in 2016.

 

[eco's bones]

Neal pionk being this high and ADA not is a travesty considering both their ceilings

Pionk is a lot better defender right now than DeAngelo is. DeAngelo did not show all that much offense this year either which is the strongest part of his game. Pionk even beat him there--14 points in 28 games to 8 points in 32. They are pretty much the same age and the same size and I would very easily choose Pionk over DeAngelo.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

Isn't it great that we are having a debate who is our 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th ranked prospect? Look at our pool. It's so refreshing!

 

[eco's bones]

IAG.

At the end of the day I’d rather debate Andersson vs. Kravtsov as the number 3 or 4prospect than Graves vs. Gropp, or whatever the debate was this time in 2016.

The Rangers have maybe their deepest prospect pool that I can remember in almost forever. I am a big fan of Andersson's. Right now I see him more as a 2nd line type because his skills aren't spectacular but there is a dogged determination and enough hockey IQ to his game that he reminds me a bit of Steve Larmer. His skating is kind of average and gaining another step would help him a lot IMO. Still he finds ways to contribute. I also see real leadership capability--he could be our captain one day.

But yeah--we're still working on picks 3 and 4 and we'll still have 3 pretty good first rounders after them + Hajek, Pionk, Lindgren and Georgiev. This poll ain't going to be perfect. And I'm not sure how good Meskanen and Lindqvist really are or how exactly they'll place here.

 

[Edge]

The Rangers have maybe their deepest prospect pool that I can remember in almost forever. I am a big fan of Andersson's. Right now I see him more as a 2nd line type because his skills aren't spectacular but there is a dogged determination and enough hockey IQ to his game that he reminds me a bit of Steve Larmer. His skating is kind of average and gaining another step would help him a lot IMO. Still he finds ways to contribute. I also see real leadership capability--he could be our captain one day.

But yeah--we're still working on picks 3 and 4 and we'll still have 3 pretty good first rounders after them + Hajek, Pionk, Lindgren and Georgiev. This poll ain't going to be perfect. And I'm not sure how good Meskanen and Lindqvist really are or how exactly they'll place here.

There are a number of names that will almost certainly not appear in our top 10, who could very well have decent NHL careers.

 

[Let Blaine Die]

Andersson, add Lundkvist.