Prospect Info: Rangers Prospect Thread (Player Stats/Info in Post #1; Updated 5.24.21)

[Heckler81]

If Jones and Lundkvist both somehow make it, that would give us 3 defensemen under 6 foot, 190lbs. Lindgren is barely 6 foot.

You feel like the show is gonna drop with a trade before that happens. I don't have all the data but that would be well smaller than league average. 80% of regular defensemen at 6' or taller. 78% are 190lbs or above

Size isn’t everything. So you’re saying you rather want Paul Mara over Lindgren? Lindgren is tough as nails and plays physical. His size is fine.

 

[Leetch3]

Trevor Zegras

no chance he's available but i love the thought

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

no chance he's available but i love the thought

That is the type of player you target in exchange for Lundkvist. I think LA is a better trade partner for a center in this case. Maybe Lundkvist for Turcotte.

 

[Leetch3]

That is the type of player you target in exchange for Lundkvist. I think LA is a better trade partner for a center in this case. Maybe Lundkvist for Turcotte.

agreed 100%...and with LA's center depth he might be a more realistic target. but on board with the level of target

 

[Ola]

I really like Turcotte’s wheels, even if he has had some issues the last year or so. It’s always a challenge to take that last step and establish yourself at the next level, but I think it’s much more likely that someone will him will be able to do it because his engine always makes him relevant.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

I really like Turcotte’s wheels, even if he has had some issues the last year or so. It’s always a challenge to take that last step and establish yourself at the next level, but I think it’s much more likely that someone will him will be able to do it because his engine always makes him relevant.

Looking at how Miller performs despite his "less than desirable" season in Wisconsin, I am confident Turcotte could do something similar.

I'd prefer Zegras, and I don't think the value is off in a 1-for-1 trade for Lundkvist, but Anaheim is probably less likely to trade away a center prospect, which sucks because Zegras is exactly what this team needs, and a kid the organization identified as their target before winning the lottery in 2019

 

[Mac n Gs]

Looking at how Miller performs despite his "less than desirable" season in Wisconsin, I am confident Turcotte could do something similar.

I'd prefer Zegras, and I don't think the value is off in a 1-for-1 trade for Lundkvist, but Anaheim is probably less likely to trade away a center prospect, which sucks because Zegras is exactly what this team needs, and a kid the organization identified as their target before winning the lottery in 2019

They also took Jamie Drysdale last year, and I can't imagine they'd trade from one position of weakness for another. I do agree though that Nils would have similar value to what you're suggesting.

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

Trevor Zegras

Looking at how Miller performs despite his "less than desirable" season in Wisconsin, I am confident Turcotte could do something similar.

I'd prefer Zegras, and I don't think the value is off in a 1-for-1 trade for Lundkvist, but Anaheim is probably less likely to trade away a center prospect, which sucks because Zegras is exactly what this team needs, and a kid the organization identified as their target before winning the lottery in 2019

Yeah, I'd love it, but I can't see Anaheim parting with their future #1C, American-born, top prospect for anyone outside the NHL, no matter how good Nils is.

That said, definitely down to explore something like Turcotte with LA.

 

[NYSPORTS]

Apologize if this has already been discussed

hearing rumblings the 21 draft might be pushed back a year b/c fewer kids have played? Sirius NHL mentioned this. We could see two back to back drafts featuring the 21 draft and 22 draft classes?

How crazy would that be? A so/so 21 draft class in which the whole class is older vs the loaded 22 class. What kind of trades would occur then with an assumed flat cap?

Thoughts?

 

[True Blue]

That is the type of player you target in exchange for Lundkvist. I think LA is a better trade partner for a center in this case. Maybe Lundkvist for Turcotte.

I would agree. If you are trading Lundqvist, unless he is in a deal for a young veteran player, and are targeting an asset for an asset, that is the type of asset you target.

Funny though, you never really see such deals made.

 

[True Blue]

Yeah, I'd love it, but I can't see Anaheim parting with their future #1C, American-born, top prospect for anyone outside the NHL, no matter how good Nils is.

That said, definitely down to explore something like Turcotte with LA.

In all seriousness, I cannot recall such an asset for asset trade. Do I just operate under a rock or have such trades never really happened?

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

I would agree. If you are trading Lundqvist, unless he is in a deal for a young veteran player, and are targeting an asset for an asset, that is the type of asset you target.

Funny though, you never really see such deals made.

Jones for Johansen is the closest thing to it, I feel

 

[True Blue]

Jones for Johansen is the closest thing to it, I feel

Yeah, not much to go on. Unfortunately, while such moves make sense, they are not really made.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

Yeah, not much to go on. Unfortunately, while such moves make sense, they are not really made.

The potential backlash of a trade like that is enormous.

 

[Fitzy]

Size isn’t everything. So you’re saying you rather want Paul Mara over Lindgren? Lindgren is tough as nails and plays physical. His size is fine.

Not in a vacuum but my point is that NHL GMs are unlikely to assemble a defensive unit with 3 undersized blueliners.

Whether it would work we don't really know, because it's never been tried.

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

Yeah, not much to go on. Unfortunately, while such moves make sense, they are not really made.

The potential backlash of a trade like that is enormous.

Yeah, Jones for Johansen was possible because both had made the NHL and shown what they could do. Both GMs had cover that they were acquiring proven, arguably equal level talent. If you move high-profile prospects, you expose yourself to the chance that the one you acquire could still bust while the one you traded away blossoms into the star he's projected to be. And that'd be career suicide for a GM. Which is a shame.

 

[True Blue]

Yeah, Jones for Johansen was possible because both had made the NHL and shown what they could do. Both GMs had cover that they were acquiring proven, arguably equal level talent. If you move high-profile prospects, you expose yourself to the chance that the one you acquire could still bust while the one you traded away blossoms into the star he's projected to be. And that'd be career suicide for a GM. Which is a shame.

Guess we can stop fanaticizing about trading Lundkvist for Zegras now.

 

[kovazub94]

Not in a vacuum but my point is that NHL GMs are unlikely to assemble a defensive unit with 3 undersized blueliners.

Whether it would work we don't really know, because it's never been tried.

Wasn't Preds D corp a few years ago relatively small while being one of the best in the NHL?

 

[kovazub94]

Jones for Johansen is the closest thing to it, I feel

Yeah, not much to go on. Unfortunately, while such moves make sense, they are not really made.

Yeah, Jones for Johansen was possible because both had made the NHL and shown what they could do. Both GMs had cover that they were acquiring proven, arguably equal level talent. If you move high-profile prospects, you expose yourself to the chance that the one you acquire could still bust while the one you traded away blossoms into the star he's projected to be. And that'd be career suicide for a GM. Which is a shame.

I mean we're talking about much less prominent names here. On a scale where Jones for Johansen is at one spectrum and Keane for Gauthier is on the other, Lundkvist for Turcotte would be somewhere in between, and I'm sure there's a lot more of these lesser profile moves that have been made across the NHL.

 

[True Blue]

I mean we're talking about much less prominent names here. On a scale where Jones for Johansen is at one spectrum and Keane for Gauthier is on the other, Lundkvist for Turcotte would be somewhere in between, and I'm sure there's a lot more of these lesser profile moves that have been made across the NHL.

Sure, but trades like Lundkvist for a Zegras or Turcotte do not really happen

 

[kovazub94]

Sure, but trades like Lundkvist for a Zegras or Turcotte do not really happen

Nor do J for J for that matter.

NHL is a lot more conservative when it comes to pulling a trigger on a trade.

 

[True Blue]

Nor do J for J for that matter.

NHL is a lot more conservative when it comes to pulling a trigger on a trade.

Think that it's as AK & BRF said,; just cannot take a chance on your top prospect blossoming elsewhere while the other top prospect that you took back does not.

 

[kovazub94]

Think that it's as AK & BRF said,; just cannot take a chance on your top prospect blossoming elsewhere while the other top prospect that you took back does not.

It's not just prospects issue. Any trade comes with this risk of the asset you trade away overperforming while the asset you obtain - underperforming.

 

[nyr2k2]

Lindbum, hot off his astonishing 18-save shutout, allowed 4 goals on 13 shots and was pulled after the first period.

On the plus side, Ragnarsson scored his first goal of the season today.

Pajuniemi has an assist, early third.

 

[True Blue]

It's not just prospects issue. Any trade comes with this risk of the asset you trade away overperforming while the asset you obtain - underperforming.

I understand that. But there are reasons that trades of a certain type get made and trades that involve nothing but top prospects for top prospects do not.