Prospect Info: Rangers Prospects Thread (Player Stats/Info in Post #1; Updated 6.27.19)

[Edge]

Goalies meaningful minutes are 60 per game

@Edge what should you call using a high pick with an off the consensus board goaltender in a weak goaltender draft at the beginning of a rebuild?

Personally, I just view them as picks. Once you get past the top guys, I’m not sure there really is a consensus. I think we get caught up in that stuff and it cuts both ways. We can go with the “off the board” approach, but then we’d have to go the other direction with guys who worked out. It gets messy.

With regards to Lindbom, he wouldn’t have been my pick. Having said that, I don’t know if he would’ve necessarily been on the board when the Rangers came up at 70 either. And that was a factor in the Rangers taking him where they did.

I think the Rangers tend to get the guys they want, where they think they can get them, and move on. The “consensus” only comes into play when it comes to evaluating potential interest around the league, or trying to determine value.

Sometimes that may mean Lindbom in the second. Sometimes that might mean Kravtsov with a pick in the single digits, or rolling the dice on an overaged player in the fourth, or taking the kid ranked 64th by ISS with the 21st pick of the first round.

 

[Bluenote13]

@Edge if they really thought it would be the end of the world if they missed out on Libdbom at 70 I don't know what to say. You win some, you lose some, but I ain't losing sleep over a consensus 3rd round goalie not making it to round 3. Someone made that call, cant say as a fan it makes me feel good, even though I understand the logical reason of just getting the guys they like.

The original point was about any meaningful discussion on this pick, but there's really nothing to say after a wasted year due to injury.

 

[Edge]

@Edge if they really thought it would be the end of the world if they missed out on Libdbom at 70 I don't know what to say. You win some, you lose some, but I ain't losing sleep over a consensus 3rd round goalie not making it to round 3. Someone made that call, cant say as a fan it makes me feel good, even though I understand the logical reason of just getting the guys they like.

The original point was about any meaningful discussion on this pick, but there's really nothing to say after a wasted year due to injury.

I don’t think it was the end of the word per se; they just liked him in that spot.

Personally, I probably would’ve taken Drury.

 

[Bluenote13]

I don’t think it was the end of the word per se; they just liked him in that spot.

Personally, I probably would’ve taken Drury.

Me too. Him or Addison.

Oh well... my next question - do you think Chris Drurys presence played any part in that? I mean, thats a thin line if he presses for his nephew, No?

 

[Edge]

Me too. Him or Addison.

Oh well... my next question - do you think Chris Drurys presence played any part in that? I mean, thats a thin line if he presses for his nephew, No?

My guess is that he simply excused himself from any conversations, kind of like when a board member for an organization has a conflict of interest.

 

[eco's bones]

I teach math. I've forgotten more about math then you will ever know. If you know anything about the NHL, when you start paying guys 8 million, you run into cap nonsense and that can't be disputed. You just wasted a ton of time typing nonsense.

Well you don't seem to get that on a 23 man roster with an almost $90 mil cap ceiling--that that's pretty close to a $4 mil per average right there. So when you bring up your example of someday having 7 or 8 guys maybe making $4 mil each as if it's some kind of serious problem and a reason not to sign or trade for better but more expensive players I find it kind of laughable.

So I think you should give yourself a refresher course in multiplication.

 

[nyr2k2]

@Edge if they really thought it would be the end of the world if they missed out on Libdbom at 70 I don't know what to say. You win some, you lose some, but I ain't losing sleep over a consensus 3rd round goalie not making it to round 3. Someone made that call, cant say as a fan it makes me feel good, even though I understand the logical reason of just getting the guys they like.

The original point was about any meaningful discussion on this pick, but there's really nothing to say after a wasted year due to injury.

Yeah, I'm all for going out and getting your guy, but you still need to make sure you're getting him at an appropriate value. The second round, particularly the top half, is basically the last spot where you can realistically hope to get an actual impact player. Beyond there, chances drop dramatically. So to take Lindbom there, even if they really liked him, seems like bad value and a bad pick. But I'm over it. Much like I got over McIlrath and began evaluating him as a player and not as a guy picked at #10, I will do the same with Lindbom.

I will never get over Kjellberg.

 

[Ranger Ric]

Edge: I think you are exactly right that the Rangers felt Lindbolm would not be there at 70. I think the key is that the Rangers originally thought they could trade 26 and a third rounder to move up to get Miller. If that had happened I think they would have made Lindbolm the second second round pick. But Ottawa played hardball and the Rangers had to use that second round pick to move up for Miller. That resulted in the Rangers having picks 39 and 70 rather than 39 and I think 48 and 70.

Personally, I just view them as picks. Once you get past the top guys, I’m not sure there really is a consensus. I think we get caught up in that stuff and it cuts both ways. We can go with the “off the board” approach, but then we’d have to go the other direction with guys who worked out. It gets messy.

With regards to Lindbom, he wouldn’t have been my pick. Having said that, I don’t know if he would’ve necessarily been on the board when the Rangers came up at 70 either. And that was a factor in the Rangers taking him where they did.

I think the Rangers tend to get the guys they want, where they think they can get them, and move on. The “consensus” only comes into play when it comes to evaluating potential interest around the league, or trying to determine value.

Sometimes that may mean Lindbom in the second. Sometimes that might mean Kravtsov with a pick in the single digits, or rolling the dice on an overaged player in the fourth, or taking the kid ranked 64th by ISS with the 21st pick of the first round.

 

[Anzi]

Was listening to Blueshirts Breakaway and they were talking about how Lundkvist at his best is our 4th best RHD. They put him behind Hajek and Rykov. Sounds absolutely insane to me. Are people really that low on Lundkvist?

 

[Edge]

Was listening to Blueshirts Breakaway and they were talking about how Lundkvist at his best is our 4th best RHD. They put him behind Hajek and Rykov. Sounds absolutely insane to me. Are people really that low on Lundkvist?

Well if they're including Hajek and Rykov as RHD, there's already an inherent problem...

Kidding aside, it's not really out of line if you take everyone into consideration at the moment.

Trouba and Fox would be ahead of him. ADA is at the moment. So that leaves him fourth in terms of RHD.

If we're talking all defensive prospects, aka guys who qualify as rookies in the NHL, I'd put him third behind Miller and Fox; second among RHDs.

But none of that is a negative reflection him. It's a positive reflection on depth, and representative of guys being further along right now. But that could very well be fluid as the younger players gain more experience.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

Was listening to Blueshirts Breakaway and they were talking about how Lundkvist at his best is our 4th best RHD. They put him behind Hajek and Rykov. Sounds absolutely insane to me. Are people really that low on Lundkvist?

People who haven't seen Lundkvist, probably

 

[Anzi]

Obviously he's not on that level yet due to lack of experience but they sounded eager to trade him because of his supposed limited upside. Surprised me a bit since I've thought that Lundkvist has a pretty good chance to be a top 4 defensemen and they were talking like he might not even play in the NHL.

Well if they're including Hajek and Rykov as RHD, there's already an inherent problem...

Kidding aside, it's not really out of line if you take everyone into consideration at the moment.

Trouba and Fox would be ahead of him. ADA is at the moment. So that leaves him fourth in therms of RHD.

If we're talking all defensive prospects, aka guys who qualify as rookies in the NHL, I'd put him third behind Miller and Fox; second among RHDs.

But none of that is a negative reflection him. It's a positive reflection on depth, and representative of guys being further along right now. But that could very well be fluid as the younger players gain more experience.

 

[GeorgeKaplan]

Obviously he's not on that level yet due to lack of experience but they sounded eager to trade him because of his supposed limited upside. Surprised me a bit since I've thought that Lundkvist has a pretty good chance to be a top 4 defensemen and they were talking like he might not even play in the NHL.

They only say that because they want to be good now

 

[Levitate]

Obviously he's not on that level yet due to lack of experience but they sounded eager to trade him because of his supposed limited upside. Surprised me a bit since I've thought that Lundkvist has a pretty good chance to be a top 4 defensemen and they were talking like he might not even play in the NHL.

He wasn't a real sexy name at the time of the draft and there seems to be some confusion about his style of play and he's been pigeon-holed as a "small, two way defenseman who doesn't excel at offense or defense", and it's easy to pass off his play in the SEL as not noteworthy at this point.

 

[Edge]

Obviously he's not on that level yet due to lack of experience but they sounded eager to trade him because of his supposed limited upside. Surprised me a bit since I've thought that Lundkvist has a pretty good chance to be a top 4 defensemen and they were talking like he might not even play in the NHL.

Without listening to the show (I don't follow any Rangers websites or pods (other than the one produced by Steven and Greg), my response would be that a disagree with their take and their suggested strategy.

 

[UnSandvich]

He wasn't a real sexy name at the time of the draft and there seems to be some confusion about his style of play and he's been pigeon-holed as a "small, two way defenseman who doesn't excel at offense or defense", and it's easy to pass off his play in the SEL as not noteworthy at this point.

How dare you say any variation of Lundkvist/Lundqvist isn't a sexy name. Look at Hank!

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

He wasn't a real sexy name at the time of the draft and there seems to be some confusion about his style of play and he's been pigeon-holed as a "small, two way defenseman who doesn't excel at offense or defense", and it's easy to pass off his play in the SEL as not noteworthy at this point.

Offensively, he was better than Karlsson at the same age. Defensively, it's tougher to compare but he played 18-20 minutes a game near the end of the season on a top team in the 3rd best league in the world

 

[Ranger Ric]

Wait. Are you suggesting that people actually should see players in action before making comments about them?

People who haven't seen Lundkvist, probably

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

Wait. Are you suggesting that people actually should see players in action before making comments about them?

Hence why I refrain from commenting on guys like Caufield, Turcotte etc

 

[The Crypto Guy]

Wait. Are you suggesting that people actually should see players in action before making comments about them?

Um...I've watched at LEAST 2-3 minutes of highlight footage on Youtube on most of the potential first rounders, I'm bascially an expert when it comes to this draft. Ask away!

 

[kovazub94]

Obviously he's not on that level yet due to lack of experience but they sounded eager to trade him because of his supposed limited upside. Surprised me a bit since I've thought that Lundkvist has a pretty good chance to be a top 4 defensemen and they were talking like he might not even play in the NHL.

Would bet they determined his "limited upside" based on the stats, specifically points totals. Lundkvist is legit. Given his age and experience to date his upside is VERY high.

 

[kovazub94]

Edge: I think you are exactly right that the Rangers felt Lindbolm would not be there at 70. I think the key is that the Rangers originally thought they could trade 26 and a third rounder to move up to get Miller. If that had happened I think they would have made Lindbolm the second second round pick. But Ottawa played hardball and the Rangers had to use that second round pick to move up for Miller. That resulted in the Rangers having picks 39 and 70 rather than 39 and I think 48 and 70.

This. More broadly the Rangers went into the draft with a plan and a draft strategy that included prospects they wanted to draft. Would it be more acceptable if they got Keane in the 2nd and Lindbolm in the 3rd?

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

Would bet they determined his "limited upside" based on the stats, specifically points totals. Lundkvist is legit. Given his age and experience to date his upside is VERY high.

And the point totals are even impressive.

 

[kovazub94]

And the point totals are even impressive.

If you add context. : )

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

If you add context. : )

It's all about context. better offensive numbers than Erik Karlsson.