Prospect Info: The Athletic ranks Rangers as 11th best system

[Miamipuck]

As far as the rankings go, it's one man's opinion. His opinion is predicated on something the Rangers arguably do or do not have. That high end guy ultra skilled guy. If you think they do, you hate the ranking, if you think they do not, the ranking is ok.

You can't accurately rank a draft class less than 2 months after the draft anyway. So sans the 2018 draft, really this opinion is predicated on one year, lets not get worked up over it.

 

[Kakko Schmakko]

Yeah it's kinda hard to tell at this point...they have swung for the fences more this go round so clearly they want some home grown foundational pieces. With that said it still feels like, I'd they're not allowing themselves to bottom out, that they may be hoping the allire of NYC will help them gain the elite top end players that they may not be able to draft, and instead us the draft to fill in around them. One of the worst things you can do is use u.f.a to fill out your middle 6...those guys always get overpaid on the market.

I am kind of happy we are not bottoming out (aka cheating) many teams once they start bottoming out have a difficult time trying to get back to winning ways. I think it kind of ruins many games when one team has complete crap lineup.

 

[Harbour Dog]

Let's not forget that Pronman also has Sorokin well ahead of Shesty because of Igor's age and reliance on athletic ability. I'd be taking any rankings that he releases with a boulder of salt.

The best thing that came out of that article are the realistic, civil, discussions in this thread.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

Let's not forget that Pronman also has Sorokin well ahead of Shesty because of Igor's age and reliance on athletic ability. I'd be taking any rankings that he releases with a boulder of salt.

The best thing that came out of that article are the realistic, civil, discussions in this thread.

Isn't Sorokin older than Shestyorkin?

 

[Harbour Dog]

Isn't Sorokin older than Shestyorkin?

AND he relies more on athleticism lmao.

 

[Trxjw]

Not a Pronman fan by any stretch, but I expect us to be in the 9-12 range on most lists. We are very shallow on the wing, and when you consider guys like Pionk and ADA aren't really considered prospects by most folks anymore, we're extremely thin on RD as well. We also lack that ultra high end prospect every team covets.

That all being said, what an amazing turn around it's been for this organization. Consider where they were just 16 months ago after going years and years without any first round picks. Now they're right on the cusp of having a top-10 prospect pool. Very impressive.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

AND he relies more on athleticism lmao.

I need a link or screenshot of him saying that. That's f***ing hilarious

 

[darko]

I need a link or screenshot of him saying that. That's ****ing hilarious

So called expert haha.

 

[Harbour Dog]

I need a link or screenshot of him saying that. That's ****ing hilarious

Just checked, I was wrong.

Scott Wheeler cited those reasons for Shesty being left off his 'top 50 NHL affiliated prospects' list in favour of Sorokin, in the comment section of the article on The Athletic.

I don't have a subscription, so I can't provide a link, but it was @Glen Sathers Cigar that pointed it out to the board originally.

Either way, not a ringing endorsement for the quality of reporting that is going into these rankings.

 

[Edge]

Just checked, I was wrong.

Scott Wheeler cited those reasons for Shesty being left off his 'top 50 NHL affiliated prospects' list in favour of Sorokin, in the comment section of the article on The Athletic.

I don't have a subscription, so I can't provide a link, but it was @Glen Sathers Cigar that pointed it out to the board originally.

Either way, not a ringing endorsement for the quality of reporting that is going into these rankings.

Not going to lie, when I got beyond the obvious effort they put in to making the site look professional, I found the work to be very uneven. You probably could've copied a lot of the articles into Word, done the same for some of the free/amateur sites on the web, and had a very hard time telling the difference in a "blind" comparison.

 

[Glen Sathers Cigar]

Just checked, I was wrong.

Scott Wheeler cited those reasons for Shesty being left off his 'top 50 NHL affiliated prospects' list in favour of Sorokin, in the comment section of the article on The Athletic.

I don't have a subscription, so I can't provide a link, but it was @Glen Sathers Cigar that pointed it out to the board originally.

Either way, not a ringing endorsement for the quality of reporting that is going into these rankings.

Yeah, it's in the comments of this article: Wheeler: The Top 50 drafted NHL prospects ranking, 2018...

Crtl+F for Rangers or Shersterkin or Shestyorkin and you'll find it. His logic is atrocious. Shestyorkin apparently relies on his athleticism too much and his age kept him off the list, although Sorokin is on the list and he's older that Shestyorkin.

Kravtsov isn't even on the honorable mentions. What a joke.

 

[ManUtdTobbe]

It's a very fair and good ranking given the methodology Pronman is using. Personally i'd have NYR higher because i rate Lias, Shesty and Lundkvist a lot higher then Pronman does, mostly agree with the rest.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

Yeah, it's in the comments of this article: Wheeler: The Top 50 drafted NHL prospects ranking, 2018...

Crtl+F for Rangers or Shersterkin or Shestyorkin and you'll find it. His logic is atrocious. Shestyorkin apparently relies on his athleticism too much and his age kept him off the list, although Sorokin is on the list and he's older that Shestyorkin.

Kravtsov isn't even on the honorable mentions. What a joke.

Go Jessica!

 

[nyr2k2]

Not going to lie, when I got beyond the obvious effort they put in to making the site look professional, I found the work to be very uneven. You probably could've copied a lot of the articles into Word, done the same for some of the free/amateur sites on the web, and had a very hard time telling the difference in a "blind" comparison.

Everyone tells me to sign up for The Athletic, it's discounted and you can't pass it up, etc. But then I run across partial or even full articles posted places. Some of the original reporting, the interest pieces, are nice. A lot of the other stuff is no different than what you'd find on some of the better fan blogs.

 

[eco's bones]

As far as the rankings go, it's one man's opinion. His opinion is predicated on something the Rangers arguably do or do not have. That high end guy ultra skilled guy. If you think they do, you hate the ranking, if you think they do not, the ranking is ok.

You can't accurately rank a draft class less than 2 months after the draft anyway. So sans the 2018 draft, really this opinion is predicated on one year, lets not get worked up over it.

It's a healthy way to look at it.....and Pronman is hardly the only opinion on prospects. For an example when we do our own prospect rankings they are consensus rankings---they don't always necessarily reflect how any single individual would rank the players though. And some players are going to get better and some are not going to quite turn out as well as hoped--either with consensus or individual rankings.

Anyway again though I think we have 12 guys that have separated themselves from the rest and 'should' (operative word) become very good NHL players--Shesterkin, Georgiev (goal) Miller, Lundkvist, Hajek, Lindgren, Pionk, Rykov (defense) Chytil, Andersson, Howden, Kravtsov (forwards)--and after all those we still have plenty of good prospects--however well Meskanen, Lindqvist or Bigras turn out--guys we've already seen a bit of like Nieves, Lettieri, Gilmour, O'Gara and who over the summer might have grown from their experiences in the NHL--guys at the cusp of their pro careers like Ronning and Day--not to mention Huska, Lindbom, Ragnarsson, Keane and we can go on and on and still name a bunch of others.

The real determination of how good the group is will be how well those 12 in particular turn out. If we can get several top 6, top 4 players out of them and just one of Shesterkin/Georgiev become starting goalies (and they both might) the Rangers will be back on their way to becoming a pretty good team.

 

[Inferno]

Everyone tells me to sign up for The Athletic, it's discounted and you can't pass it up, etc. But then I run across partial or even full articles posted places. Some of the original reporting, the interest pieces, are nice. A lot of the other stuff is no different than what you'd find on some of the better fan blogs.

Agreed. Honestly the only reason I've even considered it is because Shayna does awesome work...but it's just not worth it to me.

 

[Gardner McKay]

Agreed. Honestly the only reason I've even considered it is because Shayna does awesome work...but it's just not worth it to me.

I just recently signed up. Very happy so far.

Its like $50 for the year.

 

[I Eat Crow]

Pronman has Rasmus frickin Kupari on the same level as Chytil and one tier above Kravtsov. It's ok to say Kravstov has question marks, but to say Kupari had less of them is just wrong. GTFO with that.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

Pronman has Rasmus frickin Kupari on the same level as Chytil and one tier above Kravtsov. It's ok to say Kravstov has question marks, but to say Kupari had less of them is just wrong. GTFO with that.

I remember earlier this season where he mixed up Kotkaniemi and Kupari several times, even once referring to Rasmus Kotkaniemi haha.

 

[ColonialsHockey10]

It’s trivial, but it grinds my gears when people refer to him as Pronman, like he’s some type of expert on this topic. Can we just refer to him as “him” or “he” from now on?

Haven’t met a single person that actually likes his prospect assessment on these boards, unless it has their team/prospect at number one. This is the dude that had Michael St Croix in his top tier of prospects.

 

[Glen Sathers Cigar]

Pronman has Rasmus frickin Kupari on the same level as Chytil and one tier above Kravtsov. It's ok to say Kravstov has question marks, but to say Kupari had less of them is just wrong. GTFO with that.

Saw that today and had a nice chuckle.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

The Rangers should be very happy to be ranked 11th anywhere considering the state of the farm as recently as 14 months ago.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

It’s trivial, but it grinds my gears when people refer to him as Pronman, like he’s some type of expert on this topic. Can we just refer to him as “him” or “he” from now on?

Haven’t met a single person that actually likes his prospect assessment on these boards, unless it has their team/prospect at number one. This is the dude that had Michael St Croix in his top tier of prospects.

I think he's very good in assessing forwards, but struggles in assessing defensemen and goalies. His goalie analysis is too basic, and he way underrates good defense from defensemen.

 

[pblawr]

It’s trivial, but it grinds my gears when people refer to him as Pronman, like he’s some type of expert on this topic. Can we just refer to him as “him” or “he” from now on?

Haven’t met a single person that actually likes his prospect assessment on these boards, unless it has their team/prospect at number one. This is the dude that had Michael St Croix in his top tier of prospects.

Pronman actually posted an article before this year's draft on who he would have ended up with if he drafted with the 15th pick using his rankings for the last 8 years. There were plenty of misses / bad picks, but he got Kucherov, Teravainen, Buchnevich, Arvidsson, Point, Barzal, and Tolvanen, so on the whole his results actually seem pretty good to me. He definitely has a style / approach though, which is that he focuses on getting highly skilled offensive players who have the potential to become stars basically to the exclusion of everything else. Given the value of that type of player, I don't think it's an unreasonable approach and I think he's actually pretty good at finding what he's looking for, but it's an entirely different thing than being some kind of nostradamus who predicts the fate of every prospect that's out there.

The Rangers have a different approach from Pronman (which as far as I can tell alternately places more weight on physical ability, character, defensive play, and production in men's leagues) and they really only have two players who fit Pronman's mold, so it's not surprising that he ranks our system relatively low. Fortunately, the Rangers have their own track record that we can evaluate. In the same period as Pronman, with only 5 first round picks (which averaged 16th) and 4 second round picks, they picked up Miller, Skjei, Buchnevich, Shestyorkin, Chytil and Lias. The same constraint would have cost Pronman Kucherov, Arvidsson, and Barzal. So personally, I would give Pronman (Teravainan, Buchnevich, Point, and Tolvanen) an edge over the Rangers (Miller, Skjei, Buchnevich, Shestyorkin, Chytil, and Lias) but it doesn't seem to me like the results are so dramatically different that we should regard Pronman's prospect ratings as universally superior to the Rangers judgments.

 

[AlternateSideParking]

The most important thing is they improved the pool immensely, albeit at a great cost. I do think they need to address the "pure skill' void the next two drafts. Pure skill as in stickhandling, vision, creativity, finesse, shot accuracy and an advanced brain. Of all the prospects they have, I think only Kravtsov (with Chytil a distant 2nd) fall into the "OMG" realm of puck skills. The Leafs drafted three in a row in Marner, Nylander and Matthews, Sabres four in a row with Eichel, Nylander, Mittelstadt and Dahlin. The difference is that those teams didn't have the blue line or goaltending depth the Rangers now have. The biggest reason why the Leafs are good is they traded for Andersen, because the defense still is garbage.

I say suck for two more years and take a spiked bat to the you-know-where, and go for kids like Hughes, Newhook, Turcotte, Byram, Holtz, Lafreniere. Add two of those kids to the current group of two-way types and you'll see a legit, star-loaded Cup contender like 1992 or 1994 rather than 2014. They also should use their later picks on skill types like the Leafs and Flyers have.