Prospect Info: Rangers Prospect Thread (Player Stats/Info in Post #1; Updated 5.12.20)

[Ola]

Player by player is the only way to evaluate this imo.

Gallant Says Schmidt And Theodore Play Best On Right Side; Where's That Leave Coghlan And Whitecloud? - SinBin.vegas

(setting myself up for the Gallant was fired so what does he know, though Theodore still plays the right iirc)

Whatever exception there might be just confirm the rule.

But seriously though, my impression is that I’ve seen so many players really regress when they are put on the wrong side.

I saw Jonas Brodin play for Minny the other night. People had been hyping him before the deadline. I mean, he was really really solid. This guy was used as an example of someone that could play on the wrong side. It almost destroyed him. He was a wreck for many years. Look what happened to Gostisberre after his rookie year. Will he be able to rescue his career after getting moved to the wrong side? Sergachev should be entering his prime. Everyone, him included, said that he was — better — on the wrong side. He can’t play there and is back on the left.

There are of course pros and cons. But in a few areas it puts the defender in a really tough situation, and teams take advantage of that. Dump the puck in on the D playing the wrong side and hammers him when he has to turn up ice with the back against the ice. There will also be more ugly mistakes that gets to the confidence when you try to stop pucks along the board with the back hand.

This is an issue in the NHL due to how fast the game is. It’s not an issue to the same extent in college and juniors or Europe.

 

[cwede]

... This team is looking to contend next year....

Maybe not so soon.
Another developing year.
Get the Hank/Staal/Shatty/Smith Cap hits behind them, another full year for Fox, Kakko, Fil, Lindgren,

Begin seriously going for it all, again, beginning fall'21

 

[mas0764]

And how do you address how badly you just weakened the team?

I'm not addressing it. I'm acknowledging it.

I'm saying we might be better long term that way. Yeah, DeAngelo is a 60-point defender and I've been in his corner, but if we are stuck with Trouba, and Fox is also a 40+ point defender, and Lundkvist is also a 40 point defender, well, maybe we are better off swinging the 60 point defender for a 70 point forward.

Yes, those are ifs, but that is the nature of projecting your team moving forward.

Who is riding in on a white horse to replace the production that you just gave away with nothing back but future considerations?

Spare me the condescension please. I'm sorry you are so insulted that some might be trying to brainstorm ways to improve our favorite team. I can assure you that I'm not trying to sabotage anything.... we are on the same team.

"Nothing but future considerations" is an extreme bit of hyperbole and some of this board's posters continue to astound me at their dismissiveness of top prospects again and again. The draft is not a crapshoot no matter how many times it is repeated or how many posters repeat it; it is an inexact science that is full of risk but nonetheless one that can be educated and well-predicted. Jeff Gorton has made a career on guessing which players are gonna work out, be stars, etc, and he's got an excellent track record of it. I trust him to find a top-line or at least top-6 player if he was picking in the top-5 of this draft.

To literally answer your question: Next year, no one is replacing that production. Or, should I say, whatever other defensive prospect we have coming up will replace, what, 20 points of it? Then some will be replaced by increased minutes from Trouba and Fox, and the rest will go relatively unreplaced, but it's not as simple as saying "Oh, drat, now we are short 60 points." Some of it MAY come out in the wash, so to speak, but yes, assuredly, we will feel and experience the loss of that player in the short term.

But these decisions need to be made about more than the short term. I'm suggesting that it is worth considering that DeAngelo plus a replacement forward we have in the pipeline somewhere (say, Karl Henriksson), and with Lundkvist traded, may not be a better outcome for us than Lundkvist plus Byfield/Stutzle, with DeAngelo traded.

For anyone to say unequivocally that one is better than the other is absurd at this point.

All I'm saying is, you have to consider it.

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

Maybe not so soon.
Another developing year.
Get the Hank/Staal/Shatty/Smith Cap hits behind them, another full year for Fox, Kakko, Fil, Lindgren,

Begin seriously going for it all, again, beginning fall'21

Agreed, but they should be making moves to set up those subsequent Cup runs starting now.

 

[mas0764]

Agreed, but they should be making moves to set up those subsequent Cup runs starting now.

If you accept the reality that someone one our D corps is likely to have to get moved, then it's a question of what is the best combination.

It all depends on what you project each player to be.

If Lundkvist is a 60 point player himself, then you have really no issue moving DeAngelo at all. Or, if Lundkvist could bring you back a top-line forward prospect, then there is no reason not to move him.

The hypothetical we are discussing is if we KNOW that DeAngelo fetches a top-line forward prospect and don't know what Lundkvist brings back, do you make that gamble?

I would have to consider it. I feel good enough about Fox and Lundkvist being 40+ point defenders, not even really that much of a long shot that they end up as 50+ point defenders, really, to pull the trigger on that.

If it's essentially DeAngelo for Byfield now, or Lundkvist for a Chytil-level prospect later, well, I think as a roster we may be better off adding the top end center now.

 

[mas0764]

I mean, this is the crazy thing. Yeah, we haven't had a player like DeAngelo in forever.

But Fox might be better than him. That's not wishcasting or making wild projections. Fox is on pace for 46 points as a 21 year old rookie. A time when DeAngelo was playing half a season and scoring 14 points.

DeAngelo is great, I am a fan, I am not one of these anti-DeAngelo guys (there are some on here, or were). But the simple fact is ... he might be the second best RD we have on this team in a year... for the long term.

How can you not consider turning that into a #1 Center type, if the offer is available?

You have to think about it.

 

[True Blue]

This is fair, I suppose – but I disagree.

I don't think a move is imminent necessarily, but I think the wisest course is to trade from your position of underutilized strength to upgrade a weakness, and then maximize utilization of your superior pieces across the board. (Or ice, as the case may be. )

I get the thought process. I just do not see it coming. I see Trouba, Lindgren, DeAngelo & Fox here for a long time. I just do not believe that what you get in return for DeAngelo will be nearly enough for what you are giving up.

 

[True Blue]

Maybe not so soon.
Another developing year.
Get the Hank/Staal/Shatty/Smith Cap hits behind them, another full year for Fox, Kakko, Fil, Lindgren,

Begin seriously going for it all, again, beginning fall'21

I didn't mean going for it all. I mean contending for playoffs. Several steps ahead of where they are now.

 

[mas0764]

I get the thought process. I just do not see it coming. I see Trouba, Lindgren, DeAngelo & Fox here for a long time. I just do not believe that what you get in return for DeAngelo will be nearly enough for what you are giving up.

What if the trade was Kaapo Kakko for Tony DeAngelo?

What if it was Jack Hughes?

Still no on your part?

The issue is whether you feel safe with the gamble... this idea that it's a bad risk to give up "proven" players for "unproven" prospects falls apart when you consider that at one point, any superstar was an unproven prospect.

 

[TheDirtyH]

Whatever exception there might be just confirm the rule.

But seriously though, my impression is that I’ve seen so many players really regress when they are put on the wrong side.

I saw Jonas Brodin play for Minny the other night. People had been hyping him before the deadline. I mean, he was really really solid. This guy was used as an example of someone that could play on the wrong side. It almost destroyed him. He was a wreck for many years. Look what happened to Gostisberre after his rookie year. Will he be able to rescue his career after getting moved to the wrong side? Sergachev should be entering his prime. Everyone, him included, said that he was — better — on the wrong side. He can’t play there and is back on the left.

There are of course pros and cons. But in a few areas it puts the defender in a really tough situation, and teams take advantage of that. Dump the puck in on the D playing the wrong side and hammers him when he has to turn up ice with the back against the ice. There will also be more ugly mistakes that gets to the confidence when you try to stop pucks along the board with the back hand.

This is an issue in the NHL due to how fast the game is. It’s not an issue to the same extent in college and juniors or Europe.

Of course it may be true more often than not, but then it's worth exploring particularly in garbage time whether DeAngelo can slide over and be as effective. He's a lot more similar a player to Ghost than Brodin, but then again, he's more similar to Schmidt and Theodore than either of them.

Tony has the skillset to play the offside better than like Brendan Smith for example. He's quick, he's not particularly committed to defense in the corners, and he's got great vision.

 

[True Blue]

I'm not addressing it. I'm acknowledging it.

I'm saying we might be better long term that way. Yeah, DeAngelo is a 60-point defender and I've been in his corner, but if we are stuck with Trouba, and Fox is also a 40+ point defender, and Lundkvist is also a 40 point defender, well, maybe we are better off swinging the 60 point defender for a 70 point forward.

Yes, those are ifs, but that is the nature of projecting your team moving forward.

I do not get it. You are actively acknowledging that you are weakening the team? Why would any GM want to do that?

As of today, Lundqvist is exactly nothing. He has yet to step a top onto North American ice. And now we feel safe to trade a 60 point defender because we have a prospect in Sweden?

I understand about projections. But I also understand what is tangible and what is wishing.

Spare me the condescension please. I'm sorry you are so insulted that some might be trying to brainstorm ways to improve our favorite team. I can assure you that I'm not trying to sabotage anything.... we are on the same team.

There is no condescension. And I am not at all insulted. I simply pointed out that all you did is remove a 60 point defenseman that helps run a top-5 power play. As this team will be looking to contend next year, why would any GM do that? I can assure you that at this point, granted I do not know him personally, but Jeff Gorton is not making trades based on promises. If he is moving production, he will want production in return.

"Nothing but future considerations" is an extreme bit of hyperbole and some of this board's posters continue to astound me at their dismissiveness of top prospects again and again. The draft is not a crapshoot no matter how many times it is repeated or how many posters repeat it; it is an inexact science that is full of risk but nonetheless one that can be educated and well-predicted. Jeff Gorton has made a career on guessing which players are gonna work out, be stars, etc, and he's got an excellent track record of it. I trust him to find a top-line or at least top-6 player if he was picking in the top-5 of this draft.

Come again? You should check my posting history regarding prospects and being protective of our own. But I also know that it is folly to wish cast. You have someone who has a very, very slim chance of being able to reproduce what DeAngelo is doing RIGHT NOW. And not as a 28 year old. As a 24 year old. And when you have a team that is going to try to contend, Gorton is not simply going to subtract 60 points from the back end and hang his hopes on a prospect that may or may not help in another 3 years.

I trust him too. I also trust that he is going to operate in the right way for this team.

To literally answer your question: Next year, no one is replacing that production. Or, should I say, whatever other defensive prospect we have coming up will replace, what, 20 points of it? Then some will be replaced by increased minutes from Trouba and Fox, and the rest will go relatively unreplaced, but it's not as simple as saying "Oh, drat, now we are short 60 points." Some of it MAY come out in the wash, so to speak, but yes, assuredly, we will feel and experience the loss of that player in the short term.

The bold is why I believe it has absolutely no chances of happening. 60 points are not being replaced in wash. Sure, you can get 20, but you are still woefully short. While also weaking your special teams (no, the PP does not look the same with Fox running it), which has been a major contributor as to why this team is even having playoff dreams.

But these decisions need to be made about more than the short term. I'm suggesting that it is worth considering that DeAngelo plus a replacement forward we have in the pipeline somewhere (say, Karl Henriksson), and with Lundkvist traded, may not be a better outcome for us than Lundkvist plus Byfield/Stutzle, with DeAngelo traded.

I understand the theory. But also believe that both management and the coaching staff has absolutely zero point zero interest in making a strength a great weakness for next year. And rightfully so.

For anyone to say unequivocally that one is better than the other is absurd at this point.

You are looking to compete. Loosing 60 points and your PP QB is looking fairly absurd from this point.

All I'm saying is, you have to consider it.

I get it. And respect the viewpoint Just believe that it is only being considered by some fans on this board.

 

[True Blue]

What if the trade was Kaapo Kakko for Tony DeAngelo?

What if it was Jack Hughes?

Still no on your part?

I do not need to trade Kakko. And have already stated that were I Gorton, I would only consider this if the #1 overall pick was offered.

The issue is whether you feel safe with the gamble... this idea that it's a bad risk to give up "proven" players for "unproven" prospects falls apart when you consider that at one point, any superstar was an unproven prospect.

The theory is fine. But do not believe that young contending teams will make such a gamble.

 

[mas0764]

I do not get it. You are actively acknowledging that you are weakening the team? Why would any GM want to do that?

I acknowledge I'm weakening the team next year.... to strengthen the team in the future.

GMs do that literally all the time.

As of today, Lundqvist is exactly nothing. He has yet to step a top onto North American ice. And now we feel safe to trade a 60 point defender because we have a prospect in Sweden?

That's not the only calculus. We also have a player in Fox who is likely to put up very, very strong numbers, if not even better numbers than DeAngelo some day. We also have Trouba on an already very large contract, and he's gonna eat minutes as well, by necessity. DeAngelo will always be probably SOMEWHAT underutilized here vis a vis his absolute potential, simply because we have other RDs who are here and are just as entrenched as he is that he will have to share the ice with.

And on top of it, there's a line a mile long behind him of guys who all seem to be projecting into quality NHLers.

And on top of THAT.... we could really use another top center or top winger. I'd go so far as to say it's a downright need, frankly. I think, personally, anyone who is saying that our Cup-winning top-6 is set in stone with Panarin-Mika-Kakko and Kreider-Chytil-Kravtsov, is reaaaaaallllly stretching it into the realm of unlikelihood. Unlikely that all those guys are still at the top of their game when all the pieces have come together, unlikely that they all reach the top of their game, unlikely that we can afford all of them at once, unlikely that even those two lines are enough to win multiple cups (ie, we need a third line with some studs on it as well).

I understand about projections. But I also understand what is tangible and what is wishing.

At this point, I don't think it's "wishing" to project a guy like Lundkvist as a future NHLer or even as a future top-4 guy. There is always uncertainty of course. But when he was drafted in 2018, that was "wishing" maybe. He's proven a good bit with his play since then and his projection has become significantly more certain.

It's not FULLY certain, of course, but again, if you wait too long, you get trapped in a bad situation too. You might miss a window.

Again, this is all hypothetical, but if Anaheim is offering 2OA this summer.... well, you may never get that type of offer again, either for DeAngelo OR Lundkvist. Your hand is forced: You are gonna have to make a decision now.

I do not need to trade Kakko. And have already stated that were I Gorton, I would only consider this if the #1 overall pick was offered.

Well, maybe the disconnect is the level of certainty you feel about the prospects then. Because if DeAngelo for Lafrieniere makes sense, I'm not sure why DeAngelo for Byfield or Stutzle wouldn't.

Granted.... I'm not saying Byfield or Stutzle are absolutely equivalent to Lafrieniere.... but they are in a high enough tier that they are similar to Kakko as prospects. No one is can't miss.... but.... these guys are gonna be very good absent something really unforeseen.

 

[cheech70]

I do not need to trade Kakko. And have already stated that were I Gorton, I would only consider this if the #1 overall pick was offered.

The theory is fine. But do not believe that young contending teams will make such a gamble.

or as a center piece for Eichel

 

[eco's bones]

Whatever exception there might be just confirm the rule.

But seriously though, my impression is that I’ve seen so many players really regress when they are put on the wrong side.

I saw Jonas Brodin play for Minny the other night. People had been hyping him before the deadline. I mean, he was really really solid. This guy was used as an example of someone that could play on the wrong side. It almost destroyed him. He was a wreck for many years. Look what happened to Gostisberre after his rookie year. Will he be able to rescue his career after getting moved to the wrong side? Sergachev should be entering his prime. Everyone, him included, said that he was — better — on the wrong side. He can’t play there and is back on the left.

There are of course pros and cons. But in a few areas it puts the defender in a really tough situation, and teams take advantage of that. Dump the puck in on the D playing the wrong side and hammers him when he has to turn up ice with the back against the ice. There will also be more ugly mistakes that gets to the confidence when you try to stop pucks along the board with the back hand.

This is an issue in the NHL due to how fast the game is. It’s not an issue to the same extent in college and juniors or Europe.

Kind of what I think. Let's just move this guy over. For instance should Fox or DeAngelo move to the left side to make room for Lundkvist?----and I'm thinking no. You're either on your backhand and/or with your back turned to the forecheck too much. Rangers tried this with McDonagh in an emergency situation once and he was injured and knocked out of action for a while in his second game getting plowed by someone he didn't see coming his way.

The other thing is with moving Fox or DeAngelo is don't fix things that aren't broke. They're doing great just the way they are.

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

or as a center piece for Eichel

In theory. Although as others have pointed out, Buffalo is (ostensibly) swimming in RHD.

 

[Edge]

Don't see the Rangers going the pick trade route.

Maybe if they can find a match and bring in a similarly aged LD. But I'm not sure this team's objective right now is to get younger, or to push back the date on prime performance from guys on the roster.

Now, you could have a scenario where they pick 10th, grab a guy like Lundell and he steps in sooner rather than later. But I don't know if they're doing to actively move established talent to get a young talent like that.

As for playing a RHD on the left side, I really don't think that's going to be their long-term approach.

 

[True Blue]

I acknowledge I'm weakening the team next year.... to strengthen the team in the future.

GMs do that literally all the time.

I do not think that GMs of competing teams weaken them today to take chances on the future.

That's not the only calculus. We also have a player in Fox who is likely to put up very, very strong numbers, if not even better numbers than DeAngelo some day. We also have Trouba on an already very large contract, and he's gonna eat minutes as well, by necessity. DeAngelo will always be probably SOMEWHAT underutilized here vis a vis his absolute potential, simply because we have other RDs who are here and are just as entrenched as he is that he will have to share the ice with.

Fox should put up good numbers. The chances of him coming close to DeAngelo's numbers are miniscule.

And on top of it, there's a line a mile long behind him of guys who all seem to be projecting into quality NHLers.

The chances of them being the next Tim Erixon are greater than the chances of them equaling DeAngelo's production. The chances of them all being NHL caliber players is even less than that.

And on top of THAT.... we could really use another top center or top winger. I'd go so far as to say it's a downright need, frankly. I think, personally, anyone who is saying that our Cup-winning top-6 is set in stone with Panarin-Mika-Kakko and Kreider-Chytil-Kravtsov, is reaaaaaallllly stretching it into the realm of unlikelihood. Unlikely that all those guys are still at the top of their game when all the pieces have come together, unlikely that they all reach the top of their game, unlikely that we can afford all of them at once, unlikely that even those two lines are enough to win multiple cups (ie, we need a third line with some studs on it as well).

Between Kreider, Strome, Panarin, ZBad, that is a pretty good start. Throw in someone like Kakko or even Buchnevich and I am not sure of what else you are looking at as far as top two lines go. The bottom two lines need to have better support players added to it, sure. But I would not use DeAngelo to bring him back.

At this point, I don't think it's "wishing" to project a guy like Lundkvist as a future NHLer or even as a future top-4 guy. There is always uncertainty of course. But when he was drafted in 2018, that was "wishing" maybe. He's proven a good bit with his play since then and his projection has become significantly more certain.

Of course it is wishcasting. Can he play a single minute in North America first before we say that he is definitively a future top-4 guy? Is he a good prospect? Sure. Will he probably play in the NHL? Probably. But that's it. The promise of that is not enough to get to move a 24 year old, 60 point defenseman.

It's not FULLY certain, of course, but again, if you wait too long, you get trapped in a bad situation too. You might miss a window.

Or you make a move and discover that you have traded the knob that helps crank the window open and you have been looking for such a long time for for another knob that does not work and now you need to start to search for the piece again.

Again, this is all hypothetical, but if Anaheim is offering 2OA this summer.... well, you may never get that type of offer again, either for DeAngelo OR Lundkvist. Your hand is forced: You are gonna have to make a decision now.

Then my decision is "no".
Well, maybe the disconnect is the level of certainty you feel about the prospects then. Because if DeAngelo for Lafrieniere makes sense, I'm not sure why DeAngelo for Byfield or Stutzle wouldn't.

Granted.... I'm not saying Byfield or Stutzle are absolutely equivalent to Lafrieniere.... but they are in a high enough tier that they are similar to Kakko as prospects. No one is can't miss.... but.... these guys are gonna be very good absent something really unforeseen.

I feel a lot better about the consensus #1 overall pick in a draft than others. But that is just me which is why I differentiate my criteria and say what only I would do or not do.

 

[mas0764]

Don't see the Rangers going the pick trade route.

Maybe if they can find a match and bring in a similarly aged LD. But I'm not sure this team's objective right now is to get younger, or to push back the date on prime performance from guys on the roster.

Now, you could have a scenario where they pick 10th, grab a guy like Lundell and he steps in sooner rather than later. But I don't know if they're doing to actively move established talent to get a young talent like that.

As for playing a RHD on the left side, I really don't think that's going to be their long-term approach.

Booooo

 

[Ghost of jas]

Don't see the Rangers going the pick trade route.

Maybe if they can find a match and bring in a similarly aged LD. But I'm not sure this team's objective right now is to get younger, or to push back the date on prime performance from guys on the roster.

Now, you could have a scenario where they pick 10th, grab a guy like Lundell and he steps in sooner rather than later. But I don't know if they're doing to actively move established talent to get a young talent like that.

As for playing a RHD on the left side, I really don't think that's going to be their long-term approach.

Yes, but, it's possible they could, right? Even though it's pretty much understood the Rangers are not likely to go that route, it's important to remember that they could. So we can continue to talk about it as a possibility and debate the possibility, even though, more than likely the Rangers are not going to use their assets in that fashion, because, you know, they could trade up.

 

[Edge]

Yes, but, it's possible they could, right? Even though it's pretty much understood the Rangers are not likely to go that route, it's important to remember that they could. So we can continue to talk about it as a possibility and debate the possibility, even though, more than likely the Rangers are not going to use their assets in that fashion, because, you know, they could trade up.

Could they? Yes. Are they likely to? Probably not.

At the end of the day, the more intriguing debate might be who would they move those picks for, or what assets they package for established talent.

 

[Fitzy]

Don't see the Rangers going the pick trade route.

Maybe if they can find a match and bring in a similarly aged LD. But I'm not sure this team's objective right now is to get younger, or to push back the date on prime performance from guys on the roster.

Now, you could have a scenario where they pick 10th, grab a guy like Lundell and he steps in sooner rather than later. But I don't know if they're doing to actively move established talent to get a young talent like that.

As for playing a RHD on the left side, I really don't think that's going to be their long-term approach.

It would blow my mind if they traded one of the big 4 RHD, assuming Lundkvist pans out.

Maybe if ADA gets bridged, but then we better get one hell of a return once he's dealt.

 

[GoAwayPanarin]

JMO, but I don’t think Nils plays a game for the Rangers.

 

[dshea19]

Not a single decision needs to be made on ADA/NL until at the earliest a few months into next season and only if Nils is tearing up the AHL. Otherwise, play ADA, see how his second full season is and see how Fox is progressing in his second season. No reason to trade anyone unless it is a can't refuse offer.

 

[Mikos87]

I think you have 2 more years until you have to think about moving an RHD. Why?

Fox contract. At that time all 3 current RHD will be making bank, that's when you explore options. Until then, you can afford to wait.