Prospect Info: Rangers Prospect Thread (Player Stats/Info in Post #1; Updated 1.27.20)

[Irishguy42]

Lindbom is a good goalie prospect

Lindbom was also a bad pick.

Both are true.

 

[TheWhiskeyThief]

Yeah, I am a big size guy with goalies. I wouldn’t mind taking a big guy with skill early.

But OTOH, I’ve heard many that are really high on Lindbom. Basically saying that as good as he was for Sweden in the U18 WJCs, it’s as good goaltending as we ever had.

But I don’t know, OTOH I am not an expert on goalies.

If I could fake my birth certificate, I’d have looked great behind that Sweden lineup. He was wildly inconsistent in J20(didn’t stand out when I saw him.)

It just amazes me how in this modern world where almost everything is available for streaming that so much emphasis is based on 2 tourneys at either end of the season while discounting the bulk of the season.

Because in any large sample size, he’s a.908 gaa kind of guy in his cohort, which is not really #1 goalie type.

 

[GeorgeKaplan]

If I could fake my birth certificate, I’d have looked great behind that Sweden lineup. He was wildly inconsistent in J20(didn’t stand out when I saw him.)

It just amazes me how in this modern world where almost everything is available for streaming that so much emphasis is based on 2 tourneys at either end of the season while discounting the bulk of the season.

Because in any large sample size, he’s a.908 gaa kind of guy in his cohort, which is not really #1 goalie type.

Not to get into this with you again, but with how shitty goalie stats are, you can’t just look at his stats and say he’s a good or bad goalie

 

[usekakkorightquinn]

Honesty, if Barron turns out to be the player I think he will be, I won't give a crap about the Lindbom pick.

 

[TheWhiskeyThief]

Not to get into this with you again, but with how ****ty goalie stats are, you can’t just look at his stats and say he’s a good or bad goalie

Obviously YMMV, but it has worked for me as a pretty good analog for the last 25 years and actually watching them usually confirms the numbers. Hank is one of the outliers.

 

[pld459666]

When is Rykov back?

 

[Cag29]

My issue wasn't that they picked Lindbom. My issue was that they picked a goalie in the 2nd round. 3 reasons:

1. Goalies are the least valuable/important to a team's lineup. And by that I mean this: The difference in impact on a season between an elite goalie and a good goalie is much smaller than the difference between an elite and good center/winger/D-man.
2. On top of that, the value of a non-elite goalie is, at best, a 2nd round pick. There's no value to be had in picking a goalie in the 2nd round. At best, you get back what you paid for it.
3. Lastly, goalies are long-term projections and you can easily find goalies in the 5th and 6th round.

To me, there's just no justification to pick a goalie in the 1st, 2nd or 3rd round. Even if that goalie is Askarov, Knight, Vasilevsky or Price. You do not build a team around a goalie if you want to win a Cup

Say that to Ken Dryden,

 

[nyr2k2]

Say that to Ken Dryden,

Yes, because team construction in the 1970s is very relevant to today.

 

[Barnaby]

When you have as much depth as we do, go Boom or Bust. I get wanting a player that has a chance to become an NHL player, but in the mid-late rounds I prefer to see us swing for the fences.

Not sure Lindbom is that pick. Especially when you factor in what we already had in the system.

The only saving grace here, is arguably the best goalie coach, really wanted Lindbom. That makes me feel a little better because I have total trust in Benoit Allaire. When Shesty is 29, Lindbom will be 25, so there's that too.

I’ve heard about Allaire loving a few goalies who turned into awful picks. I realize it’s not a full proof system. I just don’t think the value was there in the 2nd unless you REALLY believed he had star potential.

 

[Barnaby]

My issue wasn't that they picked Lindbom. My issue was that they picked a goalie in the 2nd round. 3 reasons:

1. Goalies are the least valuable/important to a team's lineup. And by that I mean this: The difference in impact on a season between an elite goalie and a good goalie is much smaller than the difference between an elite and good center/winger/D-man.
2. On top of that, the value of a non-elite goalie is, at best, a 2nd round pick. There's no value to be had in picking a goalie in the 2nd round. At best, you get back what you paid for it.
3. Lastly, goalies are long-term projections and you can easily find goalies in the 5th and 6th round.

To me, there's just no justification to pick a goalie in the 1st, 2nd or 3rd round. Even if that goalie is Askarov, Knight, Vasilevsky or Price. You do not build a team around a goalie if you want to win a Cup

I disagree a little bit, although I mostly agree about not taking goalies early. There are exceptions to every rule though. I’d certainly rather have Vasilevsky than Skjei for example, but if you take a goalie in the top 50 then you’d really better be right. The odds are probably greater selecting a quality position player. The value of a young quality positional player is likely significantly greater then a borderline NHL starter. Goalies also generally take longer to develop so you aren’t getting the value of pre-UFA/arbitration for as long. I feel like it’s a star or a bust selecting that early.

 

[FIRE DRURY]

I’ve heard about Allaire loving a few goalies who turned into awful picks. I realize it’s not a full proof system. I just don’t think the value was there in the 2nd unless you REALLY believed he had star potential.

Agreed. Despite the Allaire factor, I absolutely despise the pick. But, it’s some food for thought.

 

[Barnaby]

I’m pretty sure I remember hearing that he loved Al Montoya and Antoine Lafleur as well but hopefully the Rangers prove us all wrong.

Kinda interesting how Lundqvist is a star. Huska, Wall, and Shesterkin are good prospects. Talbot and Georgiev were shrewd undrafted signings. Even Raanta were a great trade target.

Meanwhile Montoya, Halverson, and Lafleur were all drafted a lot higher and appear to be busts. Montoya had an NHL career at least but he was a journeyman who def didn’t perform to his draft spot.

 

[UAGoalieGuy]

I’m pretty sure I remember hearing that he loved Al Montoya and Antoine Lafleur as well but hopefully the Rangers prove us all wrong.

Kinda interesting how Lundqvist is a star. Huska, Wall, and Shesterkin are good prospects. Talbot and Georgiev were shrewd undrafted signings. Even Raanta were a great trade target.

Meanwhile Montoya, Halverson, and Lafleur were all drafted a lot higher and appear to be busts. Montoya had an NHL career at least but he was a journeyman who def didn’t perform to his draft spot.

Just like all other positions you won't hit on them all. When looking at all the goalies drafted, from what I have seen of the recent picks/signings and from what I remember from the more historical picks, they have a very similar skill set. Very sound positionally and above average lateral movement.

One thing for sure is in recent history the Rangers haven't had luck drafting goalies in the first 2 rounds (Blackburn/Montoya/Lafleur/Halverson).

 

[eco's bones]

FWIW Montoya was a very early 1st rounder but he didn't come out of a great draft. If I'm remembering correctly after he turned pro he had an issue with popping groins that kept setting him back. Rangers also had Dan Blackburn who was forced to retire at a very young age because of a shoulder issue. He was also a pretty early draft pick. But back to Montoya when he finally did make it he became a fairly decent backup. A 67-49-24 career record with a career 2.65 GAA and .908 save % and a lot of the teams he played for weren't great so his career record really isn't awful.

 

[usekakkorightquinn]

I thought Blackburn could have been a franchise goalie. Still ticked over what happened to him.

 

[Ola]

FWIW Montoya was a very early 1st rounder but he didn't come out of a great draft. If I'm remembering correctly after he turned pro he had an issue with popping groins that kept setting him back. Rangers also had Dan Blackburn who was forced to retire at a very young age because of a shoulder issue. He was also a pretty early draft pick. But back to Montoya when he finally did make it he became a fairly decent backup. A 67-49-24 career record with a career 2.65 GAA and .908 save % and a lot of the teams he played for weren't great so his career record really isn't awful.

Yeah, and I think the big picture here was that Slats with Maloney and Renney concluded that they needed find a top goalie top become respectable again. And we worked hard towards that. Lundqvist ended up being the one that panned out, but we drafted Blackburn and Montoya with two of the highest picks this franchise ever had, 8th and 10 overall. We brought in many high quality goalies to HFD; Johan Holmqvist, Labarbarera, Valley, Labbe and a few others -- many of these guys were top AHL goalies -- and we traded for Dunham and co., giving up some assets for sure.

The argument is certainly valid that there can be factors that result in that its better to invest in other positions before you invest in your goalie. Like only the top skaters in the world can perform at the highest level, but an average goalie can skate of the ice after 60 minutes having saved everything thrown at him.

But if you want to find a top goalie -- drafting them, trading for them, signing UFAs -- exploring all venues will of course improve your odds of doing it.

 

[Cag29]

Yes, because team construction in the 1970s is very relevant to today.

Goalie is just as important as all the other positions.

 

[nyr2k2]

Goalie is just as important as all the other positions.

The point is that it's harder to find top-tier skaters than it is to find quality goaltending. And/or that top-tier skaters have more of an impact on the game relative to average skaters than top-tier goalies do relative to average goalies. So with your high picks, say picks in the top sixty, you'll find better value if you focus on skaters than if you try to draft a goalie.

I say this as a goalie. It's a super-important position but premium picks should be focused elsewhere.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

Goalie is just as important as all the other positions.

It's easier to find quality goalies late in the draft, than it is to find quality forwards or defensemen late in the draft.

And that doesn't even factor in the cap hit and how to construct a team

 

[Leetch3]

to me saying that goalies are easier to find in later rounds is a completely different argument than saying that goalies are less important...we've been spoiled by hank for 15 years and I think that many here don't remember or have never experienced truly bad goaltending...

sit thru a few years of Johan Holmqvist, Vitali Yeremeyev, Jamie Ram, and Jason Muzzatti and then tell me that goalies aren't important

 

[TheWhiskeyThief]

The difference between the best goalie in the league and the worst starter is like 30 goals.

Even real deal Vasilevsky is performing at a league average rate.

Too much variation from year to year not enough of a spread to value any goalie that high.

 

[Leetch3]

The difference between the best goalie in the league and the worst starter is like 30 goals.

Even real deal Vasilevsky is performing at a league average rate.

Too much variation from year to year not enough of a spread to value any goalie that high.

where are you getting this difference of 30 goals stat from? last year the top goalie had a GAA of 1.89, the 31st ranked guy was at 2.90...assuming that all 31 of those guys were starters making that the best and worst starting goalies. that is a difference of 1 goal/game or 82 goals over a full season.

 

[Leetch3]

the flaw in the 'goalies aren't important' argument is that people cherry-pick the top goalies in a given year with no consideration about how good or bad the guy is in other years. this isn't fantasy hockey where you can change your goalie going into every season. how many goalies are consistently good year after year after year?

yeah sure in any given year any goalie can have a monster year and be a vezina candidate...but if i'm building a team and looking at my goalie for the next decade. I have literally zero interest in the guy that might get lucky one year and win the vezina but than be mediocre and miss the playoffs in others. I want the guy who is consistently good year in and year out. give me the guy who gives my team a legit shot to contend 9 out of 10 years but is never a finalist for the vezina, over the guy that has a random great year but you aren't consistently a contender.

 

[Barnaby]

FWIW Montoya was a very early 1st rounder but he didn't come out of a great draft. If I'm remembering correctly after he turned pro he had an issue with popping groins that kept setting him back. Rangers also had Dan Blackburn who was forced to retire at a very young age because of a shoulder issue. He was also a pretty early draft pick. But back to Montoya when he finally did make it he became a fairly decent backup. A 67-49-24 career record with a career 2.65 GAA and .908 save % and a lot of the teams he played for weren't great so his career record really isn't awful.

As for Blackburn, his injury destroyed his career. To this day, I think he was the real deal.

As for Montoya, the 2004 draft did suck outside the top 5 picked. With that said, there were other quality NHL players taken throughout the 1st round. If you’re a goalie taken 6th overall and you are never considered a teams starter then you’re a bust. In the 5th round, hey, great value pick.

 

[Barnaby]

the flaw in the 'goalies aren't important' argument is that people cherry-pick the top goalies in a given year with no consideration about how good or bad the guy is in other years. this isn't fantasy hockey where you can change your goalie going into every season. how many goalies are consistently good year after year after year?

yeah sure in any given year any goalie can have a monster year and be a vezina candidate...but if i'm building a team and looking at my goalie for the next decade. I have literally zero interest in the guy that might get lucky one year and win the vezina but than be mediocre and miss the playoffs in others. I want the guy who is consistently good year in and year out. give me the guy who gives my team a legit shot to contend 9 out of 10 years but is never a finalist for the vezina, over the guy that has a random great year but you aren't consistently a contender.

Saying goalies aren’t valuable is a bit strong. I remember the post Richter before Henrik years and they were brutal. Goalies are very important in a game.

With that said, if you pick a goalie in the first two rounds then you have no excuses if they bust sans injury. The value just isn’t there for them in regards to market value unless your 23 year old Carey Price or Henrik. If you aren’t sure then just get a guy with a much better chance of being a valuable asset trade-wise, contract wise etc...