Dijock94
Registered User
- Apr 1, 2016
- 1,465
- 1,037
Prospect Info: Rangers Prospects Thread (Stats in Post #1; Updated 5.29.18)
- Thread starter nyr2k2
- Start date
- Status
Hajek is going to be a really good player. He skates well, moves the puck well, is smart and disciplined in his own end, can play with an edge and some real physicality, and he's got a really good motor. I think he's a high-end #3 at his peak. Very, very good prospect.
- Aug 5, 2010
- 13,898
- 9,525
To me it means someone who can carry 2nd line, step in as 1D for a length of time if needed or be a regular the “other” guy on a top line.
The Crypto Guy
Registered User
- Jun 26, 2017
- 29,254
- 38,964
A high end #3 is basically a low end #2, or at least can step into that role when asked at times.
NYR Viper
Registered User
I really like the skating ability of ALL of the defensemen Gorton has added. Pionk, ADA, Hajek, Lindgren all of these guys move well. Even O'Gara moves well for a guy his size.
Yeah, I agree. Glad you mentioned O'Gara, I know a lot of people forget he even plays for us, but I think he can become a useful player in a not-insane system.
NYR Viper
Registered User
I agree, I liked him towards the end of the year. He gets around well and his stick work is pretty good as well. If Staal were gone, he'd be my guy to replace him. They actually lay similar games at this point in their careers
Harbour Dog
Registered User
And Gilmour is a better skater than all four. We have a bunch of mobile defensemen ready to step into Quinn's system.
GeorgeKaplan
Registered User
The idea of having all of the defensemen who can skate really well being allowed to skate with the puck is actually really exciting
O'Gara seems more like a #7 to me at the moment but who knows how things will shake out
- Aug 5, 2010
- 13,898
- 9,525
BTW, Hajek had a very nice overall game yesterday, the GWG was just a cherry on the top. Physical, quick, able to get and move a puck out of danger and make transition outlet passes.
Last edited:
GeorgeKaplan
Registered User
Edge
Kris King's Ghost
He's a good prospect who scores high across multiple categories.
Not sure it all adds up to a first pairing guy, but it's definitely enough to have him as a legit NHL prospect.
I wonder, what does it take to be a "first pairing guy" these days? Would Hajek project as someone like Stralman perhaps? Would we consider Stralman a 1st pairing guy when paired with Hedman for example?
I guess I see the Rangers lacking that real #1 who can kind of "do it all" in terms of playing defense, moving the puck, putting up points, etc, but they maybe have some high end complementary pieces who could fill out that top pairing if we just had the #1. Hajek kind of sounds like he could be that high end complementing piece
Ghost of jas
Unsatisfied
This was my thought. It’s why getting that legit #1D who is also RH would be ideal.
Edge
Kris King's Ghost
I don't know if it's necessarily a one sized fits all description. Some guys will lean more shut down, some toward offense, some it's whether they perfectly compliment a star player, etc. etc. etc.
But generally speaking, I tend to view it as a guy who you are willing to consistently throw out there against the best in the league, or count on to lead you against the best in the league (because you don't necessarily always want your overall best going up against certain match ups).
I like Hajek, but I do tend to feel that this board is pushing him a little harder because he was the defenseman we got back in the McD trade and we know the Rangers like him. I think there's a little bit of this subconscious belief that he has to be a first pairing guy so that we can say we landed our replacement for the guy who was our first pairing guy.
Is he that guy? Maybe. But I'm not as sold on the concept as some.
Well there were reports we got from people that felt Hajek had a real high upside to his game, if he reached it, but yeah we tend to latch on to the most positive pieces and ignore other warning signs.
I can't say the Rangers have anyone right now that could form that backbone of a good top pairing and I don't know where they're going to get one, but I guess we cross our fingers that a draft pick works out or someone develops
I can't say the Rangers have anyone right now that could form that backbone of a good top pairing and I don't know where they're going to get one, but I guess we cross our fingers that a draft pick works out or someone develops
NYR Viper
Registered User
I'd be ecstatic if he turned himself into an Ekholm-like defender. And I don't consider Ekholm a 1st pairing defenseman. That's a home-run
You don't consider Ekholm a top pairing guy? I'd say he's EASILY a top 62 D-man in the League, i Think you can make an argument he's a top 31 D-man in the League.
Edge
Kris King's Ghost
I think it depends on how we view high upside, and how we view odds.
I think when most fans/posters hear high upside, they tend to elevate that to more of a star like level. The reality is that there are a number of highly paid, important core players on defense who aren't necessarily star, first pairing defenseman.
Again, that's not to say Hajek will not or cannot hit that level. I just think there are certain expectations for guys, especially those who are on our radar, where the expectation can quickly start to outpace the development. And the more we want a guy to succeed, the more we seek those nuggets from quotes, or subtly increase our expectations.
Could it happen? Yes. I'm just not sure that I personally see it as likely as maybe other people who love Hajek. Personally, I liked Howden's inclusion in the deal a bit more. Other people would probably view Howden how I view Hajek, and that's cool with me.
Funny you mention the "first,second pair etc" analysis, I've always thought that was a bit unfair. i get it's probably the most relatable way to express one's opinion of a prospects potential outside of a direct player comparison. As it relates to Libor, i get what most are saying, essentially a great piece to have in your org, but don't expect a dominant alpha franchise guy. i dont disagree, i think thats the most reasonable expectation at this point.
It's just when it comes to filling out an actual nhl roster lines/pairings are as much about roster fit and mgmt as anything else. Outside the Crosby/Mcdavid/Doughty/Karlsson generational types, there's a lot of variance on what teams top 3 lines look like. Chris kunitz is no one's definition of a first liner, but he was a perfect compliment for crosby for a few years. Does anyone think jake guentzel puts up the numbers he does playing next to kevin hayes or ryan spooner? What i'm getting at is saying somebody has x line/pair potential takes all context away from the rest of the roster, you have to put a team on the ice. ironically enough i'm actually ok with using this method for evaluating prospects, because its being used to express thoughts on potential - i just saw this mentioned and decided to finally throw my thoughts out here. i get more bothered when its about guys already in the nhl, ie "chris kreider is a 2nd/3rd liner". In a vacuum, sure, reasonable place to slot him. but if he went to edm and put up 40 next to mcdavid, is he now a first liner? benoit pouliot was a "bust" who came here and became a "2nd liner" that got him PAID, and then he disappeared. if the rangers end up w/ say boqvist or dobson (assuming they do become franchise guys) and libor ends up being the perfect compliment to whichever on a dominant pairing, is he now a first pair guy? i don't mean to be critical of what anyone has said or used this method of valuation, this is just a thought i've always had when players are pegged as x and wanted to put it out there for discussion.
Edge
Kris King's Ghost
And that's really it. I'm more focused on potential pairings and systems. You get the right defenseman, and he clicks with Hajek, well there you go --- Hajek is playing and succeeding in a first pairing role. That's a good thing for the Rangers.
But is Hajek the guy who is necessarily takes someone else and makes them a first pairing defenseman? Ehhhhhh, probably not.
Not sure if that makes sense.
- Jul 28, 2011
- 17,522
- 12,454
Kind of a tangent but...
I think Guentzel is a really good player who could be a 1st line player in his own right if he keeps developing, but yeahhhhhh man you see how much he benefits from the stuff that Crosby does and I can't believe it when I see people say "no way he'd be this awesome even without Crosby". Guentzel is great at putting away chances that Crosby creates and he benefits from space that Crosby commands. He doesn't have the monster playoffs he just did if he's not riding shotgun with Crosby.
Not that he's a bad player solely living off of Crosby, but how can you play next to one of the best to play the game and not vastly benefit from it.
Nah I totally agree. That's pretty much what I was trying to say though not really saying it and why I mentioned Stralman, who isn't someone I think makes or breaks a 1st pairing defenseman, or is one himself, but can certainly play up on that level with the right partner
- Status
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
GDT: 2025 Trade Deadline | Y’all Got Anymore of Them Trades?- Latest: Bill Peckerskull
