Thirty One
Safe is safe.
- Dec 28, 2003
- 28,981
- 24,357
I don't like Wheeler at all but I think there's sometimes an unreasonable desire for all lists to read like a consensus list.
Prospect Info: Rangers Prospects Thread (Stats in Post #1; Updated 8.7.18)
- Thread starter nyr2k2
- Start date
- Status
AlternateSideParking
Registered User
- Dec 11, 2005
- 21,635
- 5,178
Scott Wheeler covers ALL teams prospects. He travels to all types of games -- AHL, CHL, IIHF -- and gives his reports.
The truth is that fanbases massively overrate their own prospects and usually live in a bubble. I uderstand being protective, but a dose of reality never hurts.
Andersson is not viewed as an elite prospect outside of NY and Sweden. People have to accept the fact that he has two things against him -- Ranger draft history and others from his draft class jumping over him. Good, solid NHL upside and a top-six type. Don't see him as all star type.
Strome was dominant in Tuscon. Wire to wire. He is superior to most forward prospects and improved his foot speed. Elite vision and playmaking. Deadly shot. Still a top-line possibility.
The more you watch other teams' prospects play, the more objective you become and rationalize any ranking or list.
Andersson is not in my top 50. Chytil, Kravtsov and Shestyorkin are. There are 31 teams and only 50 slots. Nuts get clipped.
The truth is that fanbases massively overrate their own prospects and usually live in a bubble. I uderstand being protective, but a dose of reality never hurts.
Andersson is not viewed as an elite prospect outside of NY and Sweden. People have to accept the fact that he has two things against him -- Ranger draft history and others from his draft class jumping over him. Good, solid NHL upside and a top-six type. Don't see him as all star type.
Strome was dominant in Tuscon. Wire to wire. He is superior to most forward prospects and improved his foot speed. Elite vision and playmaking. Deadly shot. Still a top-line possibility.
The more you watch other teams' prospects play, the more objective you become and rationalize any ranking or list.
Andersson is not in my top 50. Chytil, Kravtsov and Shestyorkin are. There are 31 teams and only 50 slots. Nuts get clipped.
"Rangers draft history" is a pretty poor and subjective reason to dock a guy. Andersson wouldn't be better or worse if he were drafted by a team with a better history in the first.
I mean I don't really care, I don't read your stuff either, but that's a pretty ridiculous way to evaluate a player.
I mean I don't really care, I don't read your stuff either, but that's a pretty ridiculous way to evaluate a player.
Amazing Kreiderman
Registered User
- Apr 11, 2011
- 45,075
- 40,935
This is quite ironic. While I do agree with some of this, there's enough to criticize in this top-50
AlternateSideParking
Registered User
- Dec 11, 2005
- 21,635
- 5,178
I never said that played into the ranking. It's just reality. Jesus. If that's the case then why the hell would I rank Kravtsov, who also was a top-10 pick?
What played into the ranking is that I think there are 50 better prospects from the combined draft years between 2012 and 2018.
Last edited:
AlternateSideParking
Registered User
- Dec 11, 2005
- 21,635
- 5,178
And by history meaning the Rangers' last few top-10 picks:
McIlrath
Montoya
Blackburn
Brendl
Lundmark
Malhotra
Sundstrom
More
Again, it had nothing to do with keeping Andersson out of the top 50. Just saying the Rangers gave had horrid luck with their top 10 picks. Like the Jets with QBs or the Knicks with PG's.
McIlrath
Montoya
Blackburn
Brendl
Lundmark
Malhotra
Sundstrom
More
Again, it had nothing to do with keeping Andersson out of the top 50. Just saying the Rangers gave had horrid luck with their top 10 picks. Like the Jets with QBs or the Knicks with PG's.
In the top quote from you, I highlighted the point where you said that the Rangers' drsft history is working against him. We're talking in the context or prospect rankings. I think any normal and reasonable person would infer from your quote that Andersson gets docked because he was drafted by the Rangers. I don't know if you meant by you, or by others, and I don't really care. I just saw that statement and thought it was completely absurd.
The second point I bolded makes me even more confused. You're saying that you never factored it into rankings, but it's just reality. What is just reality? Again, this seems to be implying that "it's just reality" that Andersson being a first round pick of the Rangers works against him. Which, again, whatever, I don't care, I just think that's an amateurish way to evaluate a player, even if it's just a small part of the evaluation.
As you can imagine, I'm quite familiar with the Rangers' track record in round one. However, the fact that those guys sucked literally has no bearing on Andersson. Surely you understand that.
Again, you can rank Andersson 209th. Not really concerned about it. I just think your statement about Andersson and being a Rangers pick was pretty silly (though maybe you didn't mean it...or say it...I'm not sure what the reality is).
Last edited:
NYRFANMANI
Department of Rempe Safety Management
The past doesn't matter, the supply of talent has drastically changed. With the game itself too, accommodating.
Consider the overall growth of the game in the past couple years. The league is being flushed with young talent the way I see it. Drafting is automatically getting better because of the given supply. Look at Finland, they have been churning out so many talents lately. They must have invested quite a bit into their youth facilities, considering this rise in quantity and quality. Their international record in the U20s is a statement.
This doesn't diminish the talent being brought up anywhere else. Look at the veterans going back to some places, bring the capital and make the game grow (Finland). It's all a gradual process with a bright future I hope. The US is having a resurgence too in the rookie department, a golden generation maybe, like the Fins. Russia and Canada will simply culturally produce talent. It's all good.
I'm saying the probability of picking great talent is rising, simply because of the quantity of the supply. Doesn't mean a team can't make a bad draft choice. Look at the 2nd round in 2018, there was so much talent available still. Let's see if next year confirms a trend.
Consider the overall growth of the game in the past couple years. The league is being flushed with young talent the way I see it. Drafting is automatically getting better because of the given supply. Look at Finland, they have been churning out so many talents lately. They must have invested quite a bit into their youth facilities, considering this rise in quantity and quality. Their international record in the U20s is a statement.
This doesn't diminish the talent being brought up anywhere else. Look at the veterans going back to some places, bring the capital and make the game grow (Finland). It's all a gradual process with a bright future I hope. The US is having a resurgence too in the rookie department, a golden generation maybe, like the Fins. Russia and Canada will simply culturally produce talent. It's all good.
I'm saying the probability of picking great talent is rising, simply because of the quantity of the supply. Doesn't mean a team can't make a bad draft choice. Look at the 2nd round in 2018, there was so much talent available still. Let's see if next year confirms a trend.
Sorry for a really long post, but I have a few thoughts about Wheeler's rankings as it relates to our top prospects.
It seems to me like Kravstov just flew under Wheeler's radar as a late riser halfway around the world who wasn't at any of the big international tournaments. Wheeler even called him Kravtson. It's not like he had anything bad to say about him.
I would have Chytil higher than Wheeler does, but from a practical perspective I don't think the difference between someone's #10 and #23 ranked prospect is that big. I think Chytil is in the group of the top 15-20 prospects after Dahlin, Pettersson, Svechnikov, Tolvanen, and Heskanen, and his placement within that group is largely subjective.
I do think the significance of Chytil's age gets underappreciated by some analysts. He missed being in this year's draft by 10 days. In terms of his development, he's way closer to Quinn Hughes or Brady Tkachuk than he is to Cale Makar or Casey Mittlestadt. I think analysts who anchor on draft year under-appreciate how much runway for improvement Chytil has.
I also think that, as good as Chytil's production was last year, it seemed to me like he underperformed his skill level. There are plays where you watch him blow by or play keepaway from pro defensemen and it looks like he's a man playing against kids. AHL defensemen should not be able to defend him. But he only asserts himself like that occasionally. I wonder if he's overlearned to play conservatively from being a kid in men's leagues so much. That's part of the reason I'd like to see him stay in the AHL until he dominates before he gets called up to the Rangers. If Chytil learns how good he can be and starts to assert himself more often, I think he can improve his production substantially and a lot of people will re-evaluate his skill level.
I don't think Lias has elite upside the way that Mittelstadt or Vilardi do, but I'm fine with the pick.
I'm in the group that thinks Mittelstadt is overhyped. Obviously he is very skilled and stood out in a small sample size at the WJC, but his production in the NCAA over the course of a full-season wasn't that good (which should be more meaningful than 7 strong games). For me, his relatively unexceptional production against more physically developed players in the NCAA reinforces concerns about his ability to handle the NHL physically. Before the draft, there were reports that he struggled to win puck battles in high school games. I think there's a risk that Mittelstadt is like Erik Christensen, who was very skilled but struggled to handle the NHL physically and never was much better than an average NHL player.
Similarly, Vilardi has been dominant in the OHL, but he's a bad skater. I think there's a risk he's like the Stromes, who all dominated the OHL, but were bad skaters and have struggled to produce in the NHL.
So I can understand if Clarke felt like Mittelstadt or Vilardi were too risky to take 7th overall. Almost every other team passed on Tolvanen, so it's tough to fault Clarke for that. While I don't think that Lias has the offensive upside that Mittelstadt or Vilardi do, I think he certainly has the skill to be a very valuable offensive player and he doesn't carry as much risk. For what it's worth, Lias's draft + 1 year AHL production is pretty similar to what what Anisimov, JT Miller, and Zibanejad did in their draft + 2 years, so Lias still profiles as a better offensive player than those guys. On top of that, he's excellent defensively and I think his leadership ability has real value. I don't think there's anything wrong with taking a player like Lias when you lack confidence in the other guys who are available and then picking high-upside guys like Chytil and Kravstov when you do have confidence in them. I also think it's noteworthy that when Clarke has targeted high-upside guys at the top of the draft (we reportedly targeted Keller and Pettersson and had Barzal in our top 5), his judgment has been very good.
EDIT: I think it's notable that Andersson's AHL production came while he was recovering from a separated shoulder too.
It seems to me like Kravstov just flew under Wheeler's radar as a late riser halfway around the world who wasn't at any of the big international tournaments. Wheeler even called him Kravtson. It's not like he had anything bad to say about him.
I would have Chytil higher than Wheeler does, but from a practical perspective I don't think the difference between someone's #10 and #23 ranked prospect is that big. I think Chytil is in the group of the top 15-20 prospects after Dahlin, Pettersson, Svechnikov, Tolvanen, and Heskanen, and his placement within that group is largely subjective.
I do think the significance of Chytil's age gets underappreciated by some analysts. He missed being in this year's draft by 10 days. In terms of his development, he's way closer to Quinn Hughes or Brady Tkachuk than he is to Cale Makar or Casey Mittlestadt. I think analysts who anchor on draft year under-appreciate how much runway for improvement Chytil has.
I also think that, as good as Chytil's production was last year, it seemed to me like he underperformed his skill level. There are plays where you watch him blow by or play keepaway from pro defensemen and it looks like he's a man playing against kids. AHL defensemen should not be able to defend him. But he only asserts himself like that occasionally. I wonder if he's overlearned to play conservatively from being a kid in men's leagues so much. That's part of the reason I'd like to see him stay in the AHL until he dominates before he gets called up to the Rangers. If Chytil learns how good he can be and starts to assert himself more often, I think he can improve his production substantially and a lot of people will re-evaluate his skill level.
I don't think Lias has elite upside the way that Mittelstadt or Vilardi do, but I'm fine with the pick.
I'm in the group that thinks Mittelstadt is overhyped. Obviously he is very skilled and stood out in a small sample size at the WJC, but his production in the NCAA over the course of a full-season wasn't that good (which should be more meaningful than 7 strong games). For me, his relatively unexceptional production against more physically developed players in the NCAA reinforces concerns about his ability to handle the NHL physically. Before the draft, there were reports that he struggled to win puck battles in high school games. I think there's a risk that Mittelstadt is like Erik Christensen, who was very skilled but struggled to handle the NHL physically and never was much better than an average NHL player.
Similarly, Vilardi has been dominant in the OHL, but he's a bad skater. I think there's a risk he's like the Stromes, who all dominated the OHL, but were bad skaters and have struggled to produce in the NHL.
So I can understand if Clarke felt like Mittelstadt or Vilardi were too risky to take 7th overall. Almost every other team passed on Tolvanen, so it's tough to fault Clarke for that. While I don't think that Lias has the offensive upside that Mittelstadt or Vilardi do, I think he certainly has the skill to be a very valuable offensive player and he doesn't carry as much risk. For what it's worth, Lias's draft + 1 year AHL production is pretty similar to what what Anisimov, JT Miller, and Zibanejad did in their draft + 2 years, so Lias still profiles as a better offensive player than those guys. On top of that, he's excellent defensively and I think his leadership ability has real value. I don't think there's anything wrong with taking a player like Lias when you lack confidence in the other guys who are available and then picking high-upside guys like Chytil and Kravstov when you do have confidence in them. I also think it's noteworthy that when Clarke has targeted high-upside guys at the top of the draft (we reportedly targeted Keller and Pettersson and had Barzal in our top 5), his judgment has been very good.
EDIT: I think it's notable that Andersson's AHL production came while he was recovering from a separated shoulder too.
Last edited:
- Aug 5, 2010
- 13,898
- 9,525
Yup. Draftees from twenty years ago played a part in analysis. If this is the case this ranking is exactly what I think about them.
And Kreider, Miller, Skjei say hi.
All of those picks except for McIlrath were made with someone other than Gordie Clarke running the draft. More than half of those picks were made in the 90's. Do you still dock Jets and Islanders prospects because of the Patrik Stefan and Rick DiPietro picks?
UnSandvich
Registered User
- Sep 7, 2017
- 5,919
- 9,065
I mean, why wouldn't he? It's just reality, after all
MikeSteaks
Registered User
- Sep 30, 2017
- 493
- 805
I'm just going to continue to never read anything by Steve Kournianos.. yikes.
AlternateSideParking
Registered User
- Dec 11, 2005
- 21,635
- 5,178
Of couse you think it's silly. You probably think a lot of things I myself find incredibly silly.
I clearly said 1) Andersson doesn't have luck on his side and 2) he's been passed by several players picked after him.
One has nothing to do with the other when it came to the ranking. One is a common figure of speech based on facts (i.e. the Rangers suck with top-10 picks); the other based on a consensus view of the overwhelming majority of media, scouts, coaches and non-NYR fans.
"Normal and Reasonable person" is a nice way of saying the 10-20 people on here who have been attacking ever since I gave the Rangers a bad draft grade and was vocal about passing over Vilardi Necas, Mittelstadt, Tolvanen (among others) and taking Andersson.
Again, Kravtsov has to deal with the same bad luck and poor top-10 history Andersson does, except he made the ranking.
FireGerardGallant
The Artist Formerly known as FireDavidQuinn
- Mar 19, 2016
- 6,656
- 7,576
I know this is a Post about Ep but just pointing out that Andersson had a really good season and all this rubbish about about him not being a good pick is starting to get ridiculous especially from “draft experts”
Last edited:
Are you kidding? I don't give a shit about your rankings. I don't give a shit that you have Kravtsov in the ranking. My point, from the beginning, was that it's asinine to in any way downgrade a prospect because the team that drafted them has not been particularly successful with high picks. That was literally it. And then you proceeded to contradict yourself, saying it didn't factor in, but the fact that people factor it in is the reality, and that even though those things factor in, Kravtsov is on your ranking. I just do not care.
Looking at how good a prospect is and factoring in his drafting team's history is totally amateur, and nonsensical. I have no idea if you do that or not because your convoluted posts have seemed to go back on forth on it. So, whatever. It has nothing to do with a bad draft grade--I am not aware of that, as far as I recall; as previously stated I don't read your stuff. Don't give yourself so much credit as to think it's personal.
AlternateSideParking
Registered User
- Dec 11, 2005
- 21,635
- 5,178
I agree completely. The problem that will face Andersson is that the modern NHL game is based on speed and creativity, vision and stickhandling. Dylan Strome, Gabe Vilardi, Evan Bouchard are average skaters, but they make up for it with elite vision and passing. Andersson is a grind-it-out type who as a center doesn't expand the ice. He makes his money in the trenches. Not saying that's a bad thing. It's just that the common superlatives you hear about Andersson -- leadership, tenacity, strength -- don't align with the way the game is trending for top players. If he turns out to be an elite checker like Jordan Staal, then it's hard to knock the pick, even in Staal's case where Toews and Backstrom are at or near HHOF careers.
Next year's draft is loaded with centers. If the Rangers end up with a high pick, it could bump Andersson down or move him to wing.
AlternateSideParking
Registered User
- Dec 11, 2005
- 21,635
- 5,178
First you said "infer" in one post, and now you're flat out saying I incorporate draft history into my rankings, after I said (twice) that Andersson -- nor ANY prosoect for that matter -- never was ranked based on bad luck or whatever.
I get it. You're angry. Sorry you feel that way. Peace.
No, I flat out said I don't know if you incorporate it into your rankings because your posts are contradictory and unclear. Man, you have some serious reading comprehension issues.
Last edited:
Lots of words and your post was completely absurd. The bold comment, beyond stupid.
haveandare
Registered User
I really don't understand how this isn't clear to them. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills reading this back and forth.No, I flat out said I don't know if you incorporate it into your rankings because your posts are contradictory and unclear. Man, you have some serious reading comprehension issues.
Again for someone who makes his money doing this shit, you're incredibly unprofessional.
I don't really care how good your info is, your attitude is off putting as hell and your reasoning behind some of the stuff you say is even worse.
If I were your employer, I'd fire you on the spot.
I don't really care how good your info is, your attitude is off putting as hell and your reasoning behind some of the stuff you say is even worse.
If I were your employer, I'd fire you on the spot.
Kornandonions just can't admit he's wrong. It's a thing. He even tries to get out in front of it all by claiming that the reasonable people I referred to are really just people that are angry at him because he gave us a bad draft grade in an article no one here read. So then when everyone is like, uhhh, what the f***, man?, he can just claim it's the people that don't like him.
Oscar Lindberg
Registered User
This would be ideal and I hope it happens.
To me his game is better served on the wing long term
- Status
