Prospect Info: Rangers Prospect Rankings: (Fall 2020) - #17

[Cag29]

Pajuniemi hasn't been at a training camp yet, I don't believe.

I think he hurt his quad. Out a month or so.

 

[Harbour Dog]

I think he hurt his quad. Out a month or so.

That would make sense. He definitely should have been there.

He's had some poorly timed injuries. After his WJSS performance, he was a lock for the WJC; then got injured and forgotten about.

 

[Harbour Dog]

I'll be giving this poll to exactly 8pmEST. As it stands now, Berard or Vierling need to get ahead by 3 to avoid a tie-break.

 

[n8]

add skinner

 

[Edge]

Vierling based on upside and being further along than Berard.

Those are my picks for 17 and 18.

 

[Jxmarts]

Tarnstrom. Add Skinner.

I will never understand how players drafted in later rounds just weeks earlier get more votes than players drafted in higher rounds. But it happens every year. I suppose it proves what we all know... we are much smarter than the scouts!

 

[nyr2k2]

Tarnstrom. Add Skinner.

I will never understand how players drafted in later rounds just weeks earlier get more votes than players drafted in higher rounds. But it happens every year. I suppose it proves what we all know... we are much smarter than the scouts!

I talked about this in another round. Yes, where a player was drafted does matter, because it shows how our scouts feel about players. And that IS important.

Are our scouts infallible? No. Are we sometimes right and they are wrong? Yes. Would this ranking even be worth doing if we restricted ourselves to where players were drafted?

I liked Zac Jones better than Henriksson. Keane better than Lindbom and Ragnarsson. Barron over Lakatos and Crawley. Duclair and Buchnevich over Tambellini. And on and on. I feel pretty good about how I had those guys initially.

I mean I've also been wrong, plenty, and the draft order was right. But that's not a given, and honestly I think this would be a dull exercise if I came in here saying, "Well Vierling has to go before Berard so I can't pick Berard even though I like him the most. Oh and Tärnström has to go before both of them. Oh shit, and Garand also has to go before both of them and he's not even on the list! Richards it is."

I don't think I'm smarter or better than the scouts. I just see things differently sometimes and vote accordingly.

 

[Good Intentions]

He was at our prospect camp, but not our training camp.

Reunanen was at our prospect camp and looked fantastic. He was one of the last cuts.

And honestly, from what (little) I've seen of Pajuniemi, I don't get a Zucc vibe. But if he IS that adaptable of a player, that would be fantastic. And it would help explain away how he seems to have played more passive in Liiga than he did against his peers as a junior: just adapting to a strategy that worked at that level.

Prospect camp, yes.

Very high-energy, undersized - and didn't care to back down, got a 'not afraid' vibe. Very aggressive first step, quick to the puck. I did like the little that I saw over 90 minutes.

 

[Jxmarts]

I talked about this in another round. Yes, where a player was drafted does matter, because it shows how our scouts feel about players. And that IS important.

Are our scouts infallible? No. Are we sometimes right and they are wrong? Yes. Would this ranking even be worth doing if we restricted ourselves to where players were drafted?

I liked Zac Jones better than Henriksson. Keane better than Lindbom and Ragnarsson. Barron over Lakatos and Crawley. Duclair and Buchnevich over Tambellini. And on and on. I feel pretty good about how I had those guys initially.

I mean I've also been wrong, plenty, and the draft order was right. But that's not a given, and honestly I think this would be a dull exercise if I came in here saying, "Well Vierling has to go before Berard so I can't pick Berard even though I like him the most. Oh and Tärnström has to go before both of them. Oh shit, and Garand also has to go before both of them and he's not even on the list! Richards it is."

I don't think I'm smarter or better than the scouts. I just see things differently sometimes and vote accordingly.

I was mostly being facetious. I understand exactly what you're saying.

The professionals are far from infallible. The draft is always a bit of a crap shoot. As much as you may have watched and studied a player, he is not a finished product. Your evaluation is largely a projection of how that prospect will develop, and ultimately your guess is as good as mine on that.

That's what makes the draft interesting. You like someone, and then you wait to see how it plays out. Late picks do sometimes turn out to be better than first rounders. Nobody's opinion is ever absolutely wrong, and I'd never deny a fan the right to have fun with it.

In forums like these, however, it sometimes goes a little far. Our 5th rounders were passed on, not just by the Rangers, but by every other NHL team throughout the 4th round. Yet we're overwhelmingly ranking them higher than our 3rd & 4th rounders almost immediately after the draft. They may turn out to be better players in the near future, but that value hasn't been realized yet.

It happens almost every year, and often with a huge consensus among us. I just chuckle and wonder why that is.