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

[GeorgeKaplan]

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

Nils Lundkvist and Sweden will play Pajuniemi and Finland today at 9:45 AM EST

 

[UAGoalieGuy]

Nanne had an assist.

Zac Jones had three assists.

Wall stopped 24/27.

Kjellberg was scoreless.

Barron of course had the two goals.

Miller had a goal.

Ciccolini had an assist.

Jones continues to impress!

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

Jones continues to impress!

Ranked 2nd among freshman D now in the NCAA

 

[ColonialsHockey10]

Love that goal. Smart little fake before letting the shot go.

 

[Ola]

Saw the start between Sweden and Finland. I like Pajuniemi a lot. Good skater. Works hard. Nifty with the puck. Unfortunately he went out with looked to be a bad concussion and I would be surprised if he returned.

Nils has been really solid for Sweden.

 

[Ranger Ric]

Scott Wheeler of the Athletic has been ranking each team's prospects starting from 31. This morning his review was of the Rangers of whom he ranked as having the 4th best prospects. His definition of prospect does not include any NHL players so Kakko, Fox, Lindgren, Chytil and Shesterkin are not considered.

Wheeler says the Rangers have the best defensive prospect group. He ranked the defenseman among all of the prospects as follows:

1. Lundqvist
3. Miller
4. Jones
5. Keane
6. Robertson
10. Rykov
11. Hajek
12. Skinner
13. Reunanen
18. Ragnersson
20. Day

So 11 of his top 20 prospects are defensemen including 5 of the top 6. I know Amazing K will get angry if I discuss Deangelo in the prospect thread but I will just say given the depth of Ranger defensive prospects I don't see how the Rangers will decide to pay him big money rather than trying to trade him for a forward.

For goalies he had Wall 15 and Lindbolm 17. No Huska.

His forward ranking was as follows:

2. Kravtsov
7. Barron
8. Pajuniemi
9. Henriksson
14. Aaltonen
16. Gettinger
19. Elmer
HM. Anderson

Since the Athletic has a paywall I don't want to provide more detail about his analysis but if you subscribe you should review the article.

A personal note about Andersson. I was at the Toronto game and we sat next to a 30-40 year old Swedish couple who were in New York for a vacation and wanted to see the Rangers -- interestingly the man wanted to see Shesterkin not Lundquist. We were talking about the Rangers Swedish prospects and I asked him about Andersson. He took a deep breadth and said he needed to grow up and earn his role. I am not saying this is a typical response from a Swedish hockey fan but I found it interesting that he had this position on Andersson. Wheeler goes into some depth about Andersson including his play so far in Sweden.

 

[TheWhiskeyThief]

Susan Ouellette: “The characteristic of hardiness is based in an existential theory of personality and is defined as a person’s basic stance towards his or her place in the world that simultaneously expresses commitment, control and readiness to respond to challenge.”

Not sure where Lias falls in the hardiness spectrum.

 

[nyrage]

The Athletic's rankings as mentioned above and the explanation of tiers: The way I (Wheeler) see it, the Rangers have three prospects who project to play in the top half of an NHL lineup at their ceilings, a second tier with five potential middle-six/middle-pairing options, and some intriguing depth options before the pool drops off into long shots at No. 15.

 

[Ola]

From Wheelers piece:
“When I talk about Kravtsov as someone who projects to a 50-6o point ceiling, that’s high praise for a 6-foot-4 winger in today’s NHL. ”

Size, in having a lot of it, has officially become a flaw in the NHL. I took a lot of heat for saying that 2-3 years ago, but it’s hard for bigger guys to keep up.

 

[UnSandvich]

Other stuff from the Wheeler article:

"This year, that has changed with more than 175 shot attempts across more than 750 shifts, which has helped him to 23 goals (second in the league). Believe it or not, despite his high goal totals relative to his assists, Pajuniemi has actually been unlucky this season, with a .987 PDO while playing at a team-high 49.9 CF percentage on a mediocre team."- This actually gives me more confidence on Pajuniemi

I agree with his stuff about Lias:
"It felt weird to rank Andersson because it’s not yet clear whether he will ever play for the Rangers again, but it also felt disingenuous to not include him given that they still own his rights and he’s not going to play anywhere in the NHL without their say-so in the matter. So Andersson becomes an honourable mention of sorts. Though he never should’ve gone seventh-overall in 2017 (we had him 13th at Future Considerations that year and I believed that was too high), I still think Andersson has the tools needed to become a decent third-line player at the NHL level. He plays fast, he can play on the inside, he holds his own physically and he’s responsible defensively with slightly above average skill."

I think he's too low on Rykov, too high on Keane

 

[UnSandvich]

From Wheelers piece:
“When I talk about Kravtsov as someone who projects to a 50-6o point ceiling, that’s high praise for a 6-foot-4 winger in today’s NHL. ”

Size, in having a lot of it, has officially become a flaw in the NHL. I took a lot of heat for saying that 2-3 years ago, but it’s hard for bigger guys to keep up.

Yeah, that's something that confused me a bit. Kravtsov's not a Day-level skater, but he's very good, and his skating is a + asset

 

[Ola]

The Athletic's rankings as mentioned above and the explanation of tiers: The way I (Wheeler) see it, the Rangers have three prospects who project to play in the top half of an NHL lineup at their ceilings, a second tier with five potential middle-six/middle-pairing options, and some intriguing depth options before the pool drops off into long shots at No. 15.

I would go with this order for the skaters:
1. Miller
2. Kravy
3. Nils
4. Reunanen
5. Pajuniemi
6. Rykov
7. Hajak
8. Keane
9. Hajak
10. Henriksson
11. Robertson
12. Aaltonen
13. Barron

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

I would go with this order for the skaters:
1. Miller
2. Kravy
3. Nils
4. Reunanen
5. Pajuniemi
6. Rykov
7. Hajak
8. Keane
9. Hajak
10. Henriksson
11. Robertson
12. Aaltonen
13. Barron

What has Miller done to be ranked ahead of Kravtsov and Lundkvist?

 

[Oscar Lindberg]

Omission of Huska is odd but aside from that it’s a good list. Lundkvist has done enough this year to overtake the top spot.

This summers draft will probably push them back into the top 2 prospect pool

 

[bobbop]

What struck me most about this article is how well the Rangers have drafted from the second half of the first round on. A lot of the Gordie Clark criticism dies here. He’s done a great job maximizing the draft choices available.

 

[Ola]

Yeah, that's something that confused me a bit. Kravtsov's not a Day-level skater, but he's very good, and his skating is a + asset

What is a little confusing to me is that I thought his skating was much better his D-1 season in the KHL. But after that he grew 2 inches and haven’t quite caught up.

But I hope that he can take another step considering how he looked at 17. And get to like closer to a Kuznetsov.

One thing that he doesn’t get credit for is that he is a pretty strong skater. Even late in shifts, he can pick up a puck at the blueline in the defensive zone and drive up ice to get it deep.

I think Kravy is a heck of a talent and I don’t agree with Wheeler on his potential. But I think he needs time. However, DQ and co are seeing what we are seeing and I am fairly certain that he will get time. And that a lot of it I will come in a good position in NY, which is what he needs.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

What struck me most about this article is how well the Rangers have drafted from the second half of the first round on. A lot of the Gordie Clark criticism dies here. He’s done a great job maximizing the draft choices available.

Gordie Clark isn't bad at drafting. I'd say he's above average if you account for draft position.

 

[LaffyTaffy]

I think we are quite decent at drafting, but we simply dont have the experience and tools with which to analyze high end talent. After being a playoff team for so long, these past few years being in the top 10 were new world for our staff. I think this year will be interesting to see what we do.

 

[Ola]

What struck me most about this article is how well the Rangers have drafted from the second half of the first round on. A lot of the Gordie Clark criticism dies here. He’s done a great job maximizing the draft choices available.

At the bottom line, I just have a hard time calling out Clarke. I think we really overrate the value of high picks — probably because we haven’t had any in forever — and ultimately it’s about getting players. I think we could do a lot worse than Clarke. Could we do better? Who knows, of course hard to rule out. But I don’t think Clark is doing a bad job.

 

[Irishguy42]

I think we are quite decent at drafting, but we simply dont have the experience and tools with which to analyze high end talent. After being a playoff team for so long, these past few years being in the top 10 were new world for our staff. I think this year will be interesting to see what we do.

No.

Your scouting staff doesn't suddenly lose the ability or tools to scout/recognize Top 5 talent in a draft simply because the team that hires them is a Cup contender for a few years. Nor are they starting over and having to regain "experience" in scouting said talent.

If your scouting staff is THAT poor, fire them and hire better scouts.

This is not a video game.

"Congrats! You have reached Level 5 Scouting! You have unlocked [Airplanes]! You can now access the World Map and travel to Europe to scout the leagues there!"

"You have won the 3rd overall pick in the draft! Unfortunately, because of your Scouting Level is too low, you cannot see the players available at this pick level. Try trading down to be able to see your selection possibilities, or level up your Scouting!"

 

[LaffyTaffy]

No.

Your scouting staff doesn't suddenly lose the ability or tools to scout/recognize Top 5 talent in a draft simply because the team that hires them is a Cup contender for a few years. Nor are they starting over and having to regain "experience" in scouting said talent.

If your scouting staff is THAT poor, fire them and hire better scouts.

This is not a video game.

"Congrats! You have reached Level 5 Scouting! You have unlocked [Airplanes]! You can now access the World Map and travel to Europe to scout the leagues there!"

"You have won the 3rd overall pick in the draft! Unfortunately, because of your Scouting Level is too low, you cannot see the players available at this pick level. Try trading down to be able to see your selection possibilities, or level up your Scouting!"

What i mean is that when it comes to the top 10, our scouts galaxy brain it because they arent in familiar territory. They know what the kids have, they just dont know how to decide in that scenario with that much talent on the board. Later they have their targets, hence the boldness of trading up for Miller.

 

[Oscar Lindberg]

The team is relatively good at finding value in the later rounds.

They’re not as good with picking in the top 10.

There’s probably multiple factors that go into that, but I’d rather not go into it

 

[Ola]

The team is relatively good at finding value in the later rounds.

They’re not as good with picking in the top 10.

There’s probably multiple factors that go into that, but I’d rather not go into it

At the same time, all scouting staffs can surely fail in the top 10.

 

[Oscar Lindberg]

At the same time, all scouting staffs can surely fail in the top 10.

I’m just saying I don’t necessarily disagree with the assertion that the team overthinks or believes they’re smarter than everyone else

But you’re right