Prospect Info: Rangers Prospects Thread (Player Stats/Info in Post #1; Updated 6.27.19)
- Thread starter nyr2k2
- Start date
- Status
Nice to see Kjellberg in there. Special guy, worked as a copper part time even when he played in the SHL in Sweden, has all in all been employed by the police in Sweden for almost 25 years.
https://se.linkedin.com/in/patric-kjellberg-8a05a471
eco's bones
Registered User
Agree with most all of this though I think Claesson will be gone too--he's going to be blocking out Hajek, Rykov and Lindgren--maybe even Reunanen......and I don't see any reason why we'd want to retain Bergman's rights. He's had 4 years in the AHL and not made a whole lot of progress. I think the Rangers like Brickley and he might qualify as one of those good vets for the AHL team....but we'll see. His late season call up--when he played he played hard.
eco's bones
Registered User
On the subject of Virta--if his KHL/SHL numbers were better he might have got a contract. He's kind of small and he's an offensive oriented player--not a grinder who could maybe work out to be a 3rd or 4th liner. Trying to turn him into a grinder I don't think would work. Having numerous other and better top 6 options put him on the outside looking in.
It doesn't mean he won't become an NHL player some day but he's going to have to improve production either in the SHL/KHL and make an NHL team think he can play at least in a top 6 or 9 role. His numbers may go up this year or next and he might get a chance with someone else. There is a real question whether that's going to happen though and for the Rangers to give him a 3 year ELC to find out after a so so year didn't make a lot of sense to me. The only unsigned forward we have now that I'm that keen on is Morgan Barron. Another good year and he should get a contract. Pajuniemi and Hughes are very iffy. I'd prefer the Rangers to lean more towards forwards in the upcoming draft because we just don't have the depth there that we do on D.
It doesn't mean he won't become an NHL player some day but he's going to have to improve production either in the SHL/KHL and make an NHL team think he can play at least in a top 6 or 9 role. His numbers may go up this year or next and he might get a chance with someone else. There is a real question whether that's going to happen though and for the Rangers to give him a 3 year ELC to find out after a so so year didn't make a lot of sense to me. The only unsigned forward we have now that I'm that keen on is Morgan Barron. Another good year and he should get a contract. Pajuniemi and Hughes are very iffy. I'd prefer the Rangers to lean more towards forwards in the upcoming draft because we just don't have the depth there that we do on D.
- Sep 17, 2007
- 24,967
- 22,935
Claesson can sit in the press box though. That's not something we want any of the kids doing often. We don't know what's going to happen with any of the other vet dmen. Claesson can be signed for cheap and then waived or traded if necessary. If a kid earns a spot over him, the kid will get it.
Regarding Bergman, it costs us nothing to retain his rights, other than 1 of 90 spots on the reserve list. We're currently at 52 of 90 and I don't think we've ever come close to hitting 90, so really it costs us nothing.
eco's bones
Registered User
On Bergman--if we were to qualify him--which is to offer a contract and he signed though doesn't he take up a roster spot? I don't see an NHL player there or even a call up. Where he is as a player that's a wasted contract IMO--he's not what I would call one of the good vets that Davidson was referencing to help your kids develop either.
On Claesson--I'm thinking one of Rykov/Hajek will play regularly for us next year--if we can't dump Smith he can be the 7th D or even extra forward on occasion. Claesson IMO is spinning his wheels with the Rangers--should want to go somewhere else anyway.
bergman takes up a contract spot if he signs not a roster spot. he's going back to sweden. they could retain his rights but I doubt they care either way. The point of signing him would be to have a veteran in Hartford to help the kids.
as for claesson...we typically carry 8 dmen and there will no doubt be injuries. and I don't want a kid in the press box unless they can't go down. so I definitely wouldn't call it a need, but if we bring him back and have smith and claesson as the extras in the press box i'm not losing any sleep over it
edit--ADA and Pionk both require waivers...so if Adam Fox makes the team than 1 of the press box spots would go to whichever RHD isn't playing
eco's bones
Registered User
We carried 8 for most of last year. We don't typically carry 8--like most teams we've typically carried 7. Fox will almost certainly make the team and Rykov/Hajek should battle it out for another spot with competition from Lindgren, Reunanen and Bigras. Hartford does not need Bergman--right now it looks like Hartford will have Lindgren, Reunanen, Bigras, one of Rykov/Hajek, Raddysh, Keane, Day and Crawley and maybe I'm missing someone. I don't see where or how Bergman fits. I'd dump Bergman and let Claesson sign somewhere else.
Joey Bones
***** 2k16
Honestly don't see the point to qualify Bergman. If I'm not mistaken if he were to be qualified, he'd be put on NYR reserve list which only holds a certain amount of players on it. I think I'd rather leave that spot open for some potential prospects that could be traded to NYR once moves start getting made. Bergman never really showed anything special to really garner a qualifying offer, IMO, to begin with.
Edge
Kris King's Ghost
He’s one of those players who had enough intrigue in his draft year, and subsequent seasons, but it’s never quite come together.
IMO, he represents an area of prospect watching that can be particularly addictive — the almost.
Guys who show enough that you can envision a promising future, but for whom the pieces never quite align.
- Sep 17, 2007
- 24,967
- 22,935
The reserve list can have up to 90 players on it. We are currently at 52. There's no chance we will even get close to 90, with or without Bergman.
Qualifying him is nothing more than a paper transaction to retain his rights. He isn't going to sign it:
Julius Bergman Returning To Sweden
His rights aren't likely to ever be worth anything, but why give them away if you don't have to? It's like with Jensen, who's still on our reserve list BTW.
Speaking of Jensen, has he signed a new contract in the KHL? He originally signed a 1 year deal with Jokerit, with a 1 year option. That was 2 years ago. I haven't heard anything about him possibly trying to come back to the NHL.
39 points in 48 games last year. 37 in 54 the year before. Big kid. Still only 26. There could be a spot for him.
Joey Bones
***** 2k16
Oh dope!! For some reason I thought the reserve list was 60 players, lolol....
Edge
Kris King's Ghost
I don’t see any reason why the Rangers wouldn’t qualify him at this point.
The Rangers under Gorton, for the most part, don’t seem to have a problem making minimal investments in scenarios — even if the odds are long.
I could be wrong but I don't remember a time in recent years that we carried 14 forwards and 7 dmen...we've done 13 & 7 to have 1 less guy against the cap. but either way I see use carrying 13 forwards & 7 dmen plus smith who can be a 14th forward or 8th dman
as for bergman. he won't be in hartford so it doesn't matter. I was just saying if he was brought back that would be the reason, nothing to do with his future with the rangers...that said man thats a real nice looking young d in hartford. not sure if tarmo plays down there or gets loaned back but still very excited to see that group. I believe Bigras plays the right side eventhough he's a lefty. so between him and raddysh thats 2 good vets on the right to pair with a young LHD. not as much experience on the left to pair with Keane. day and crawley are wild cards for me not sure what to expect from them but overall thats exciting depth. really hope we get the right coaches in place to develop those guys
- Sep 1, 2010
- 10,042
- 8,021
I believe this says he re-signed for 2 years
NYR rights to him should expire, he turns 27 in March
https://www.jokerit.com/lisaa-maaleja-luvassa-nicklas-jensen-jatkaa-joukkueessa
Amazing Kreiderman
Registered User
- Apr 11, 2011
- 45,075
- 40,935
They would retain his rights by giving him a QO. He doesn't have to sign it for the rights to be retained
looking at the blueline depth combine with the possibility of them looking to bring in another veteran blueliner to help establish the winning culture that JD was talking about and help the kids develop, we really shouldn't be surprised if tarmo gets sent back to Lukko where he can hopefully get top pair minutes vs what he'd likely get in hartford with so many guys. hopefully people don't freak out over it that much...if thats even possible for fans
Zero reason to continue to include claesson in our future plans. He’s not going to be here no need
My rationale with Claesson was that he's a fine 6/7 and that's something of value until he is actually forced out by a kid. Not just forced out on paper. And when that happens you waive him and he's either claimed or goes to Hartford.
The other scenario is maybe you find a team desperate for a guy to plug into their 5/6 spot with some experience and some upside, and you get a sixth or a seventh. I know it seems mostly unlikely with Claesson but who would have thought that Mazanec, who was not even close to as good at his job as Claesson is at his, would return a seventh? It's good to have as many cheap assets as possible, because they always have the potential, slim as it may be, to become something else. That's why I think they should and will keep Claesson.
Bergman, it's just a matter of there's really no reason not to qualify him. He won't sign so I don't think he'd count against the 50 limit since he's not actually under contract, and the 90 reserve limit is irrelevant as no team ever gets even close to that number.
I don't actually think Bergman will ever play in the NHL, but he was once a very promising prospect. If we can retain his rights for essentially nothing, why give them up? I mean, we could have renounced the rights to Pashnin (different mechanism since he's in the KHL, but same situation) but we've held onto them, and now he's 30. We did that with Ilya Gorokhov until he was like 32 or something. We'll keep Jensen's rights until we no longer can because we don't want him signing with another NHL team. There's just no reason to let a guy like Bergman, who may still have potential, enter UFA status if we can retain his rights. I would assume the Rangers planned for this when acquiring him, otherwise his inclusion in the deal would have been truly pointless.
The other scenario is maybe you find a team desperate for a guy to plug into their 5/6 spot with some experience and some upside, and you get a sixth or a seventh. I know it seems mostly unlikely with Claesson but who would have thought that Mazanec, who was not even close to as good at his job as Claesson is at his, would return a seventh? It's good to have as many cheap assets as possible, because they always have the potential, slim as it may be, to become something else. That's why I think they should and will keep Claesson.
Bergman, it's just a matter of there's really no reason not to qualify him. He won't sign so I don't think he'd count against the 50 limit since he's not actually under contract, and the 90 reserve limit is irrelevant as no team ever gets even close to that number.
I don't actually think Bergman will ever play in the NHL, but he was once a very promising prospect. If we can retain his rights for essentially nothing, why give them up? I mean, we could have renounced the rights to Pashnin (different mechanism since he's in the KHL, but same situation) but we've held onto them, and now he's 30. We did that with Ilya Gorokhov until he was like 32 or something. We'll keep Jensen's rights until we no longer can because we don't want him signing with another NHL team. There's just no reason to let a guy like Bergman, who may still have potential, enter UFA status if we can retain his rights. I would assume the Rangers planned for this when acquiring him, otherwise his inclusion in the deal would have been truly pointless.
- Aug 5, 2010
- 13,881
- 9,514
I agree with your take on Claesson and so I’d figure he’s signed but if he’s forced out either by a kid or a number of D the Rangers decide to carry - he’s waived and comes to Hartford or not (if claimed). Easy.
I think the only way Claesson stays is if we move at least two of Smith, Staal and Shatty.
HFsNumber1Heel
FKA Roo Returns...Still A Contrarian Apparently
A little bummed about Virta but they obviously have their reasons. I was hoping he'd be that magic late round pick who turns into a 20-30 goal scorer like an Arvidsson, that would accelerate this rebuild. They have a lot of new prospects so competition is going to be fierce. Maybe he comes over to Prospect Camp. Who knows.
One guy who I hope is doing his HW this summer is Gettinger. If he can improve his explosiveness even just a little, he could have a very successful career as a cycler for 5-7 years.
One guy who I hope is doing his HW this summer is Gettinger. If he can improve his explosiveness even just a little, he could have a very successful career as a cycler for 5-7 years.
Brooklyn Rangers Fan
Change is good.
Thing is with Virtanen: at his size, he needed to show that he IS that late round goal scoring steal before getting a contract. Gettinger DID receive a contract because he showed progress toward being the player you describe.
Totally understand your reasoning but I think it’s more likely that he is brought back and none are moved then 2 get moved. Be happy to be wrong though
- Status
Latest posts
-
GDT: San Jose Sharks @ Toronto Maple Leafs, March 3, 2025, 7:30pm, Prime Time- Latest: Jimmy Firecracker
-
Ad
Upcoming events
-
-
Props Alex Ovechkin to Record 895th Career Goal During 2024/25 Regular SeasonWagers: 11Staked: $20,983.00Event closes - 6 days from now- Updated: