Toggle sidebar

Prospect Info: Rangers Prospects Thread (Stats in Post #1; Updated 8.7.18)

  • Xenforo Cloud has upgraded us to version 2.3.6. Please report any issues you experience.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Mac n Gs said:
It’s worked for Craig Button for how long now? :D

I agree, but then again, this is a really inexact and imperfect science. Do you know of anyone that actually has a solid prediction or projection rate for these kids over time?
Click to expand...

I tend to gravitate toward the guys who at least have a reasonable track record of identifying talent outside the obvious picks, or in some cases being able to identify the flaws others aren't talking about in the "obvious" picks.

But I think there are some people on the boards who have a reasonable read on prospects without going to extremes. Those people, generally speaking, tend not to draw as much attention to themselves, but also tend to have at least decent batting averages over the long haul.

But I'm also interested to see that so many so-called "experts" that have popped up in the last half decade or so, wanting to charge people for their guesses, when in reality you can probably find just as good, if not better information if you pay close enough attention elsewhere.

Unfortunately, one of the biggest reasons that paid sports reporting is a dying occupation is that outside of interviews with executives who are might tight-lipped than ever, there's really not the level of access or expert insight that there used to be. Unless you're bringing something to the table that is incredibility unique, it's already out there.

It's why I used to chuckle when someone like Kyle Woodlief would go on a tangent about scouts in the seats and people simply rehashing other people's materials. Even if I played devil's advocate, his arguments typically ignored the reality that for all his resources and access, there were people who did as good a job, or better, when it came to identifying prospects.

At worst, they took other's peoples notes and were able to compile, aggregate, and decipher the reports in a fashion that was pretty darn accurate. At best, they were simply better at figuring out which information and observations were more indicative of success. But that would require a hell of a lot of luck and some top-notch deciphering skills that would surely earn a lot of money in the corporate world.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mac n Gs
Edge said:
I tend to gravitate toward the guys who at least have a reasonable track record of identifying talent outside the obvious picks, or in some cases being able to identify the flaws others aren't talking about in the "obvious" picks.

But I think there are some people on the boards who have a reasonable read on prospects without going to extremes. Those people, generally speaking, tend not to draw as much attention to themselves, but also tend to have at least decent batting averages over the long haul.

But I'm also interested to see that so many so-called "experts" that have popped up in the last half decade or so, wanting to charge people for their guesses, when in reality you can probably find just as good, if not better information if you pay close enough attention elsewhere.

Unfortunately, one of the biggest reasons that paid sports reporting is a dying occupation is that outside of interviews with executives who are might tight-lipped than ever, there's really not the level of access or expert insight that there used to be. Unless you're bringing something to the table that is incredibility unique, it's already out there.

It's why I used to chuckle when someone like Kyle Woodlief would go on a tangent about scouts in the seats and people simply rehashing other people's materials. Even if I played devil's advocate, his arguments typically ignored the reality that for all his resources and access, there were people who did as good a job, or better, when it came to identifying prospects.

At worst, they took other's peoples notes and were able to compile, aggregate, and decipher the reports in a fashion that was pretty darn accurate. At best, they were simply better at figuring out which information and observations were more indicative of success. But that would require a hell of a lot of luck and some top-notch deciphering skills that would surely earn a lot of money in the corporate world.
Click to expand...

I have a sense that these "experts" think about the ranking similar to how one would be thinking when filling out a March Madness brackets: we know there will be surprises and so they are trying to built these surprises in their analysis.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nyr2k2
kovazub94 said:
I have a sense that these "experts" think about the ranking similar to how one would be thinking when filling out a March Madness brackets: we know there will be surprises and so they are trying to built these surprises in their analysis.
Click to expand...

Which makes sense. And, it goes without saying, everyone has their personal favorites.

Personally, it kills me that Joel Farabee is a Flyer prospect.
 
Love the article on the Rangers at camp which was raving about Fontaine. Like I said. He almost made the team last year with moron AV who hates young players.
 
  • Like
Reactions: haveandare
Edge said:
Which makes sense. And, it goes without saying, everyone has their personal favorites.

Personally, it kills me that Joel Farabee is a Flyer prospect.
Click to expand...

There’s a difference between a preference and a bias.

Farabee, there’re a lot to like but as a reasonable poster you’re not raising hell that the Rangers passed on him.
 
kovazub94 said:
There’s a difference between a preference and a bias.

Farabee, there’re a lot to like but as a reasonable poster you’re not raising hell that the Rangers passed on him.
Click to expand...

Hey now, don’t ruin the surprise for tomorrow. I was planning on taking a torch to this mother and watching it burn.
 
  • Like
Reactions: haveandare
tradenashnow said:
Love the article on the Rangers at camp which was raving about Fontaine. Like I said. He almost made the team last year with moron AV who hates young players.
Click to expand...

This is ridiculous. Under AV, young players have thrived.

Kreider, Miller, Zuccarello, Fast, Hayes, Skjei, Talbot, Lindberg.

And then there's Brassard, Pouliot and some others who reignited their careers under AV here in NY. I am not a fan of AV and after 5 years it was time for a new coach, but this notion that he hates young players is ridiculous. He's a bit more conservative in the minutes he gives to players, but that's about it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: eco's bones, Holden the Stick, Rangers_23 and 2 others
A lot of Pronman haters (for lack of a better word) in here, but he did have some nice things to say today about the Rangers' prospects that played in the summer showcase:

Lauri Pajuniemi, RW, New York Rangers: Pajuniemi played one game versus the Czechs and didn’t go to Kamloops. I wasn’t blown away by him in that one game, but I saw flashes of above-average speed and skill that could make him intriguing as a prospect. At his size, I have questions on if he’s dynamic enough offensively to be a legit NHLer, but I’ve bumped him up to a bubble prospect.

Nils Lundkvist, D, New York Rangers: I was a Lundkvist skeptic heading into the draft and I still have heavy skepticism on a small defenseman with average hands going in the first, but he played solid at the event, so credit where credit’s due. He showed fantastic poise with the puck and gets it up the ice well. He’s mobile and was decent on both special teams. I still have upside questions, but I bumped him up as a prospect.

Joey Keane, D, New York Rangers: Some OHL friends of mine were Keane diehards last season, and I’m beginning to see why. He’s very mobile, smart and has some skill, too. He plays well at both ends of the rink, and at this camp, he had nice flashes of offensive creativity. I wouldn’t classify Keane as a true top prospect, but he’s trended up for me in the past week, and I think he worked his way into the conversation for USA’s final team in December.

And just to feed the beast a little, some criticism of Wahlstrom! Is this Pronman guy good or what!? ;)

Oliver Wahlstrom, RW, New York Islanders: Wahlstrom’s camp was very so-so, though he was better toward the end. I still like him a ton due to his skill, size and elite shot, but I didn’t like how he got caught behind the pace at times and didn’t find ways to win back pucks. Pace and battle effort have been criticisms of his game, but I know what he looks like at his best from seeing him a ton last season.
 
Pronman’s notes on some of our guys:

Lauri Pajuniemi, RW, New York Rangers: Pajuniemi played one game versus the Czechs and didn’t go to Kamloops. I wasn’t blown away by him in that one game, but I saw flashes of above-average speed and skill that could make him intriguing as a prospect. At his size, I have questions on if he’s dynamic enough offensively to be a legit NHLer, but I’ve bumped him up to a bubble prospect.

Nils Lundkvist, D, New York Rangers: I was a Lundkvist skeptic heading into the draft and I still have heavy skepticism on a small defenseman with average hands going in the first, but he played solid at the event, so credit where credit’s due. He showed fantastic poise with the puck and gets it up the ice well. He’s mobile and was decent on both special teams. I still have upside questions, but I bumped him up as a prospect.

Jack Hughes, C, 2019 draft eligible: For a double underage player at the U20 level, Hughes didn’t look the part. He was USA’s most noticeable forward whenever he was on the ice. His skill, IQ and skating all get very high grades. When he has the puck, he’s dangerous with the way he can attack with speed and skill. He’s one of the most impressive 17-year-old players I’ve ever seen take part in U20 games.

Joey Keane, D, New York Rangers:Some OHL friends of mine were Keane diehards last season, and I’m beginning to see why. He’s very mobile, smart and has some skill, too. He plays well at both ends of the rink, and at this camp, he had nice flashes of offensive creativity. I wouldn’t classify Keane as a true top prospect, but he’s trended up for me in the past week, and I think he worked his way into the conversation for USA’s final team in December.
Click to expand...

He also predicited that Keane and K Miller both make the team.
 
TheBPA said:
A lot of Pronman haters (for lack of a better word) in here, but he did have some nice things to say today about the Rangers' prospects that played in the summer showcase:

Lauri Pajuniemi, RW, New York Rangers: Pajuniemi played one game versus the Czechs and didn’t go to Kamloops. I wasn’t blown away by him in that one game, but I saw flashes of above-average speed and skill that could make him intriguing as a prospect. At his size, I have questions on if he’s dynamic enough offensively to be a legit NHLer, but I’ve bumped him up to a bubble prospect.

Nils Lundkvist, D, New York Rangers: I was a Lundkvist skeptic heading into the draft and I still have heavy skepticism on a small defenseman with average hands going in the first, but he played solid at the event, so credit where credit’s due. He showed fantastic poise with the puck and gets it up the ice well. He’s mobile and was decent on both special teams. I still have upside questions, but I bumped him up as a prospect.

Joey Keane, D, New York Rangers: Some OHL friends of mine were Keane diehards last season, and I’m beginning to see why. He’s very mobile, smart and has some skill, too. He plays well at both ends of the rink, and at this camp, he had nice flashes of offensive creativity. I wouldn’t classify Keane as a true top prospect, but he’s trended up for me in the past week, and I think he worked his way into the conversation for USA’s final team in December.

And just to feed the beast a little, some criticism of Wahlstrom! Is this Pronman guy good or what!? ;)

Oliver Wahlstrom, RW, New York Islanders: Wahlstrom’s camp was very so-so, though he was better toward the end. I still like him a ton due to his skill, size and elite shot, but I didn’t like how he got caught behind the pace at times and didn’t find ways to win back pucks. Pace and battle effort have been criticisms of his game, but I know what he looks like at his best from seeing him a ton last season.
Click to expand...

I don’t know how anyone could come away with the opinion that Wahlstrom was “so-so.”

He was bad, really bad. Sounds like he’s trying to save face for an earlier evaluation he had of the player instead of making an honest one. Someone needs to tell Cory that it’s alright to do that and that a short summer tournament doesn’t mean that his initial evaluation was necessarily wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: haveandare and Fvital92
wahlstrom was terrible as I said fair is fair if he were a rangers prospect and he had that tournament we'd be all over him.
 
Go Away Staal said:
I don’t know how anyone could come away with the opinion that Wahlstrom was “so-so.”

He was bad, really bad. Sounds like he’s trying to save face for an earlier evaluation he had of the player instead of making an honest one. Someone needs to tell Cory that it’s alright to do that and that a short summer tournament doesn’t mean that his initial evaluation was necessarily wrong.
Click to expand...

Eh, "very so-so" and "average" are two ways to say someone sucked discreetly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Miamipuck and Holden the Stick
It looks like Rykov had a very good pre-season tournament in Sochi. Of course, pre-season is just pre-season, but I hope he will at last get a permanent place on SKA top6, or even top4. Competion amongst defensemen on the team is going to be tough, though.
 
Pronman had to bend over backwards to say those “nice things” about Rangers prospects. Each one read like a backhanded compliment. Not surprising for him at all. I wonder what time him and Ken Campbell meet up to have the “Rangers Hate Club.”
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kovalev27, I Eat Crow and Irishguy42
Berserk said:
Pronman had to bend over backwards to say those “nice things” about Rangers prospects. Each one read like a backhanded compliment. Not surprising for him at all. I wonder what time him and Ken Campbell meet up to have the “Rangers Hate Club.”
Click to expand...
Ken Campbell might actually be stupider than Milbury
 
  • Like
Reactions: Berserk
I can’t take Pronman or Wheeler seriously. They have the obvious picks and they provide good content but their opinions just reveal tons of blind spots. Both often have their mind made up about prospects due to their own preferences as opposed to what could actually make a good NHLer.

Don’t worry Pronman, I’m sure you’re right and Michael St.Croix is going to be a better NHLer than Kreider and JT Miller any day now.

Wheeler claimed he left Shesterkin off his top 50 list bc of his age and the fact that he “relies too much on his athleticism” despite having Sorokin who is older and the Russian goalie who actually often receives that criticism. It’s basically Wheeler admitting he’s made his mind up and doesn’t care to think about anything that might change it.

Kravtsov not in the top 50 and not even an honorable mention? That should void the entire list.

Andersson not a top 50 prospect? You might think he was a reach where he was picked but he had an objectively good post draft season. He deserves to be top 50, especially over most of the people on that list between 30-50.

Shestyorkin not on the list? He’s arguably the best or second best goalie prospect outside of the nhl right now and Wheeler not only doesn’t have him on the list but has 3 goalies on the list over him? Come on.

Reeks of someone who has their favorites and won’t budge their opinion even with evidence to show they should. Listen, I get that it’s natural for these guys to have favorites and blind spots and stuff but I’d prefer for the two top prospect writers for a pay to read place that is supposed to be the best place for sports coverage, to have less blind spots and favoritism than them. I need them more objective, they’re not HF posters. They’re considere accepted and respected voices on scouting for fans and fans that are less likely to do extra research take their opinions as facts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GodlyRangers, Hunter Gathers, eco's bones and 1 other person
Algernop Kreider said:
Wow you weren't kidding.

Season's over for Rangers, now it's time to look to the future
Click to expand...
There are tons of articles written when the Rangers were down 3-1 in 2014 and when they were down 3-1 in 2015.

I specifically remembered the Campbell article you posted form 2014 and James Mirtle in 2015 who also was endlessly tweeting how the Rangers were frauds and gonna lose to Pitt and then gonna lose to Washington and I remember his gloating and “I told you so” before and even during game 5.

Hilarious reading the comments and twitter posts about them after the Rangers came back and won both series.
 
In regards to "experts" not liking our picks... as much as I would love to have a "sure thing" (i.e. McDavid, Matthews, etc), I can't help but get a smirk on my face whenever I see them make positive comments on their otherwise previously negative outlooks. Just gotta hope they pay off now.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom