Prospect Info: Rangers Prospect Rankings: (Fall 2020) - #11

[True Blue]

I think at they are fairly close when you aggregate out the rankings, but at this point Vierling has a clearer path, and more track record under his belt.

Two weeks ago no one here was talking about Brett Berard. Vierling did come up a bit more. But I suspect Marchand was name dropped a few times and people's ears perked up.

I would suspect that you are right. That said, when I think of Berard, Todd Marchant comes to mind more. If all goes well.

 

[Kendo]

I really want to go Cuylle, who I love. I also have mild concerns about Reunanen after he was benched/saw his role reduced for supposedly not being committed to defense last year. But, I will go with Tarmo.

Add Berard. I know both Tarnstrom and Vierling were picked ahead of him, but if we just ranked guys by where they were drafted there wouldn't be much to these things. I thought Berard would go in the second or early third. Vierling in the third or so. IDK much about Tarnstrom but I know lots of places didn't rank him. So I could just go with the Rangers' scouts, or my preference. I mean we're also entirely excluding Garand.

I liked Barron better than Crawley, Sjalin, or Lakatos. I liked Duclair and Buchnevich better than Tambellini. Fast more than Yogan or Wilson. That one guy went a round or two higher in a just-concluded draft does not persuade me.

My MO is to keep the fresh picks in order for the fall rankings, and try and fit everyone else around them. I start shuffling newly drafted prospects around in the winter rankings based on risers/fallers.
But that's just me.

 

[nyr2k2]

My MO is to keep the fresh picks in order for the fall rankings, and try and fit everyone else around them. I start shuffling newly drafted prospects around in the winter rankings based on risers/fallers.
But that's just me.

Yeah I mean I don't think it's "bad" to consider where they were just picked when doing these rankings. It's a good barometer of how our scouts felt about these guys, which is certainly not without value. Just, for me, most drafts I have some sort of idea of 75 guys or so and where I would take them and where I think they will go. Berard I saw, and I saw his rankings, and I really expected him to be gone multiple rounds before where we picked him. Someone like Tarnstrom, I know little about, and what little I did know led me to believe that he'd be selected much later, if at all. I actually only knew anything about him from reading an article about guys in the draft who had NHL relatives. So, for me to put Tarnstrom ahead of Berard, I'd be entirely reliant on draft position, which for me isn't fun.

It's all very subjective, though. While I weight certain things differently, I don't claim to be "better" at this than others, or that my way is the best or whatever.

 

[n8]

Add Khondorenko

 

[B17 Apricots]

I think at they are fairly close when you aggregate out the rankings, but at this point Vierling has a clearer path, and more track record under his belt.

Two weeks ago no one here was talking about Brett Berard. Vierling did come up a bit more. But I suspect Marchand was name dropped a few times and people's ears perked up.

For me I gotta say I think its becoming a real theme here, the USHL and DP seem to be a damn near feeder league for guys slipping through the cracks late in the draft and after. Im at work so I'm not going too crazy now but check out the Penguins, Rust, Guentzel, Marino, Aston-Reese, Zucker... hell for us we got had Fox and Pionk. Theres a lot of guys that seem to slip through there

 

[Edge]

For me I gotta say I think its becoming a real theme here, the USHL and DP seem to be a damn near feeder league for guys slipping through the cracks late in the draft and after. Im at work so I'm not going too crazy now but check out the Penguins, Rust, Guentzel, Marino, Aston-Reese, Zucker... hell for us we got had Fox and Pionk. Theres a lot of guys that seem to slip through there

This is true and Berard is a good prospect. I could easily see him flip-flopping with Vierling in a few months. But for right now, I do think Vierling's IQ and accomplishments against better competition gives him the edge.

 

[PuckLuck3043]

Outstanding top 10 prospect list. Who has better? Maybe Ottawa?

 

[Harbour Dog]

Will start the next thread in ~45 minutes!

 

[Fitzy]

This is true and Berard is a good prospect. I could easily see him flip-flopping with Vierling in a few months. But for right now, I do think Vierling's IQ and accomplishments against better competition gives him the edge.

The second management got Vierling in the 5th after reaching for Tarnstrom in the 3rd I knew it was gonna be one of those situations where we, the fans swap them in our prospect ranking.

Had Vierling gone in the 3rd and Tarnstrom in the 5th I don't think anyone would have noticed.

 

[Edge]

The second management got Vierling in the 5th after reaching for Tarnstrom in the 3rd I knew it was gonna be one of those situations where we, the fans swap them in our prospect ranking.

Had Vierling gone in the 3rd and Tarnstrom in the 5th I don't think anyone would have noticed.

Tarnstrom is a bit of a dark horse.

In terms of abilities and flashes, he’s not that far off from players with similar “projections” in Mercer, Amirov and even Holloway.

The difference is that there’s less certainty there because he wasn’t in a featured spot like some of those guys, and he still has some cooking to do physically and developmentally.

As such, Tarnstrom could be someone who really closes the gap in his D+1 and D+2 seasons, or he could be a guy who never breaks through and becomes an afterthought.

 

[kovazub94]

...As such, Tarnstrom could be someone who really closes the gap in his D+1 and D+2 seasons, or he could be a guy who never breaks through and becomes an afterthought.

This statement really is applicable to all three of these prospects we’re discussing.

 

[egelband]

Voted Reunanen. Hajek could be here too.

Add Vierling

P.S. Who’s Hayek?

 

[nyr2k2]

This statement really is applicable to all three of these prospects we’re discussing.

I feel like the statement boils down to, "He could be good, or he could be not good," which applies to half of the guys we've voted for and a lot of the guys left. The majority of these guys that are 18, 19, it's just too early to how they'll develop. Cuylle could have a repeat of last season and then you'd have two seasons with no substantial progression and his stock would fall significantly. Or, he could go out and have a 40-30 season and jump up the list. Henriksson could notch 20 points in the SHL or find himself scratched. Jones could improve upon last season, or he could struggle and then we'll talk about his size and skating and he'll fall. Etc. I mean it's a valid point, but with guys that young I think most people recognize the inherent uncertainty of what they'll become. You have to look at what their projection is if things go right, but also, what is the likelihood that progression occurs?

 

[kovazub94]

I feel like the statement boils down to, "He could be good, or he could be not good," which applies to half of the guys we've voted for and a lot of the guys left. The majority of these guys that are 18, 19, it's just too early to how they'll develop. Cuylle could have a repeat of last season and then you'd have two seasons with no substantial progression and his stock would fall significantly. Or, he could go out and have a 40-30 season and jump up the list. Henriksson could notch 20 points in the SHL or find himself scratched. Jones could improve upon last season, or he could struggle and then we'll talk about his size and skating and he'll fall. Etc. I mean it's a valid point, but with guys that young I think most people recognize the inherent uncertainty of what they'll become. You have to look at what their projection is if things go right, but also, what is the likelihood that progression occurs?

Sure but in my mind I isolate these late birthdays even more because they are even more of the unknown vs other draftees that were closer to 19 (particularly this year because our prospects could “catch-up” by simply gaining extra 5-10 lbs that higher picked 19-yo already gained).

 

[Edge]

This statement really is applicable to all three of these prospects we’re discussing.

Some more than others.

Some guys have very clear paths --- it's more a matter of whether they can keep developing and take that path all the way to the NHL. Those guys include Cuylle, Vierling, Hajek, etc.

Others have more moving parts and are still kind of working out their path and what types of players they'll be. That includes guys like Berard, Tarnstrom, etc.

The first group has an established role, type, level of competition, exposure, etc.

The second group isn't as clear in many of those categories.

 

[Edge]

I feel like the statement boils down to, "He could be good, or he could be not good," which applies to half of the guys we've voted for and a lot of the guys left. The majority of these guys that are 18, 19, it's just too early to how they'll develop. Cuylle could have a repeat of last season and then you'd have two seasons with no substantial progression and his stock would fall significantly. Or, he could go out and have a 40-30 season and jump up the list. Henriksson could notch 20 points in the SHL or find himself scratched. Jones could improve upon last season, or he could struggle and then we'll talk about his size and skating and he'll fall. Etc. I mean it's a valid point, but with guys that young I think most people recognize the inherent uncertainty of what they'll become. You have to look at what their projection is if things go right, but also, what is the likelihood that progression occurs?

I think it's more nuanced than that. You also look for what type of player a guy is trending toward and how the player compares to other players on similar paths, or who are filling a role at the higher levels.

So sometimes the gauge isn't just progression, so much as projected role and forming that identity.

For example, with Vierling you're looking to see if he can keep getting more comfortable shooting and continue to grow in an offensive role. The two-way game is already there.

With Tarnstrom you're waiting for him to reach that level of comfort level before you'd expect him to grow from that plateau. We're trying to see if he sticks at LW or Center, and seeing if he can have a season like Vierling did last year and is moved into a more offensive like Vierling was last season.

 

[True Blue]

Some more than others.

Some guys have very clear paths --- it's more a matter of whether they can keep developing and take that path all the way to the NHL. Those guys include Cuylle, Vierling, Hajek, etc.

Others have more moving parts and are still kind of working out their path and what types of players they'll be. That includes guys like Berard, Tarnstrom, etc.

The first group has an established role, type, level of competition, exposure, etc.

The second group isn't as clear in many of those categories.

I think that while that first group has a clear path, they also have potential to be come more. Take Cuyelle. Yes, he can be a third line physical, nasty presence. But he also has it in him to become a nasty presence on the second line.

 

[Edge]

I think that while that first group has a clear path, they also have potential to be come more. Take Cuyelle. Yes, he can be a third line physical, nasty presence. But he also has it in him to become a nasty presence on the second line.

For me, it's probably a mixed bag.

I think Berard and Tarnstrom both have top six upside, there's just more mystery there right now and maybe the belief that some of the "less than ideal" results might not be quite as appealing.

 

[True Blue]

For me, it's probably a mixed bag.

I think Berard and Tarnstrom both have top six upside, there's just more mystery there right now and maybe the belief that some of the "less than ideal" results might not be quite as appealing.

I view it as whereas "less than ideal" results for the first group may well mean that they can still carve out positions in the NHL (as you pointed out, they have a clear path) whereas the other group may not be in the league with those results.

 

[Edge]

I view it as whereas "less than ideal" results for the first group may well mean that they can still carve out positions in the NHL (as you pointed out, they have a clear path) whereas the other group may not be in the league with those results.

Exactly, and that is something I try to factor into my approach (some times better than other times).