Prospect Info: Rangers Prospects Thread (Stats in Post #1; Updated 5.29.18)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Edge

Kris King's Ghost
Mar 1, 2002
34,749
42,578
Amish Paradise
Our young RDs consists of Pionk, ADA and Zboro. The first 2 are big questinmarks, the last one probably doesn't have the skating to make the NHL. We desperately need RDs and luckily we've got an early pick in an RD-heavy draft. Unless someone else is clearly better, RD is the way to go.

If the Rangers feel those guys are better, one of them will be the pick.

But if the Rangers feel Bouchard and Dobson are second pairing guys, and (for example) Farabee or someone else is a first line forward, they're less likely to draft one of them --- regardless of their current RHD crop.
 

Beacon

Embrace the tank
May 28, 2007
13,676
1,454
If the Rangers feel those guys are better, one of them will be the pick.

But if the Rangers feel Bouchard and Dobson are second pairing guys, and (for example) Farabee or someone else is a first line forward, they're less likely to draft one of them --- regardless of their current RHD crop.

Nobody in this draft is projected as a first liner. Svechnikov is a 50-50 possibility. The rest would have to exceed expectations to get there. No doubt some kids will surprise, but as of today, nobody available at #8 should be projected as a first line forward or first pair defenseman. It is frankly laughable to think that someone available at #8 in any draft has a better shot (as of draft day) of being a first liner than a total bust or a dime a dozen role player.
 

Edge

Kris King's Ghost
Mar 1, 2002
34,749
42,578
Amish Paradise
Nobody in this draft is projected as a first liner. Svechnikov is a 50-50 possibility. The rest would have to exceed expectations to get there. No doubt some kids will surprise, but as of today, nobody available at #8 should be projected as a first line forward or first pair defenseman. It is frankly laughable to think that someone available at #8 in any draft has a better shot (as of draft day) of being a first liner than a total bust or a dime a dozen role player.

I think a lot of teams would beg to differ with you.

I'm not even going to respond to the Svechnikov 50-50 line. That's where I just kind of smirk and peace out. If that's our starting point in the conversation, ain't no bridge long enough to cross that gap.
 

McRanger

Registered User
Sponsor
Jul 20, 2005
4,889
2,250
If the Rangers feel those guys are better, one of them will be the pick.

But if the Rangers feel Bouchard and Dobson are second pairing guys, and (for example) Farabee or someone else is a first line forward, they're less likely to draft one of them --- regardless of their current RHD crop.

Would that scenario make them more likely or less likely to try and trade up and grab a second pick in the 10-15 area?
 

Beacon

Embrace the tank
May 28, 2007
13,676
1,454
I think a lot of teams would beg to differ with you.

I'm not even going to respond to the Svechnikov 50-50 line. That's where I just kind of smirk and peace out. If that's our starting point in the conversation, ain't no bridge long enough to cross that gap.

You're welcome to look at last draft picks by position, the hype they got and their eventual outcome. The idea that a draft, any draft, has ~10 first liners at the start (plus some later-drafted kids who surprise or are boom/bust prospects) is so nuts that it's mind-boggling that someone who presents himself as a prospects/draft expert would argue that. No draft had that kind of an outcome. Not even close.
 

Edge

Kris King's Ghost
Mar 1, 2002
34,749
42,578
Amish Paradise
Would that scenario make them more likely or less likely to try and trade up and grab a second pick in the 10-15 area?

At this point, I think the Rangers feel comfortable they will get someone they really like with their top pick. Whether it's a guy the fan base sees coming is a different matter.

I believe, and have for a while, that the Rangers would be keenly interested in having their second first round pick come sooner. I could certainly be wrong, but I don't believe the interest is in moving up with their top pick. I think the interest is in finding a way get closer with that second pick --- whether that means acquiring certain assets with a roster player, or packing some of their other picks, or some combination of those scenarios.
 

nyr2k2

Can't Beat Him
Jul 30, 2005
45,659
32,728
Maryland
At this point, I think the Rangers feel comfortable they will get someone they really like with their top pick. Whether it's a guy the fan base sees coming is a different matter.

I believe, and have for a while, that the Rangers would be keenly interested in having their second first round pick come sooner. I could certainly be wrong, but I don't believe the interest is in moving up with their top pick. I think the interest is in finding a way get closer with that second pick --- whether that means acquiring certain assets with a roster player, or packing some of their other picks, or some combination of those scenarios.

Also keeping in mind that the majority of our fans won't know a thing about who we pick. HF is not representative of Rangers fans as a whole, that's for sure. They'll form their opinion of the pick on whatever garbage Pierre or Mac or whoever is on the broadcast feeds them immediately after the name is announced. Not to go down this road again but I truly believe 90% of the people that dislike the Andersson pick wouldn't feel that way had they not heard the lazy, wrong comparisons with Fast.
 

McRanger

Registered User
Sponsor
Jul 20, 2005
4,889
2,250
You're welcome to look at last draft picks by position, the hype they got and their eventual outcome. The idea that a draft, any draft, has ~10 first liners at the start (plus some later-drafted kids who surprise or are boom/bust prospects) is so nuts that it's mind-boggling that someone who presents himself as a prospects/draft expert would argue that. No draft had that kind of an outcome. Not even close.

No one would argue that prospect success percentages are low, I think the problem was that your post seemed to suggest this draft was somehow different than others in a negative way.

As for Svechnikov, he is the (borderline undisputed) top rated forward in the draft. If you look back the last 10 or 15 years more than 50% of the top 2 rated forwards became first liners. So the odds really arent against him.
 

Edge

Kris King's Ghost
Mar 1, 2002
34,749
42,578
Amish Paradise
You're welcome to look at last draft picks by position, the hype they got and their eventual outcome. The idea that a draft, any draft, has ~10 first liners at the start (plus some later-drafted kids who surprise or are boom/bust prospects) is so nuts that it's mind-boggling that someone who presents himself as a prospects/draft expert would argue that. No draft had that kind of an outcome. Not even close.

I actually haven't argued that all.

You said there were none, zero, potential first line players. I disagreed with that assertion.

I think there are several potential first line players in the top 10 of this draft. I've not discussed the odds of all of them reaching that level, nor have I made assertions that I expect all or even most of them to reach that level.

I'm not exactly sure what "outcome" I presented that you're arguing against.

Beyond that, with 31 teams in the league, I think those teams would disagree with your assertion that "nobody in this draft is projected as a first line player."

I don't think those teams would all agree on the same players all being guys they project as first line players. But to make a blanket statement is incorrect.

As for my presentation, I really don't have to present myself as anything. If I was full of crap, my reputation would reflect that by now. People ask my opinion because, whether it's something they want to hear or not, I have a pretty good batting average over the last 21 years on here. Sometimes they agree, sometimes they don't.

But I generally try to avoid sweeping comments like "nobody in is projected as a first liner" or things like that. Admittedly, my focus is also on trying to identify the smaller percentage of players who are somewhat undervalued heading into a given draft. Granted I could probably make my life easier and identify the larger group of players who won't make it and play the easier odds, but then what fun would that be?

But generally speaking, I try to keep it civil, try not to make it personal and let the chips fall where they may. We could proceed with that approach, or I could reluctantly bust out with the "old school" version of Edge.

IAG either way.
 

McRanger

Registered User
Sponsor
Jul 20, 2005
4,889
2,250
Also keeping in mind that the majority of our fans won't know a thing about who we pick. HF is not representative of Rangers fans as a whole, that's for sure. They'll form their opinion of the pick on whatever garbage Pierre or Mac or whoever is on the broadcast feeds them immediately after the name is announced. Not to go down this road again but I truly believe 90% of the people that dislike the Andersson pick wouldn't feel that way had they not heard the lazy, wrong comparisons with Fast.

Casual fans can barely follow who is on the team, let alone follow the draft.

More hardcore fans tend to know more about the draft and the prospects in the system, but I've found they seem to rely on the opinions of like the one guy in the group who does follow the stuff. And if that fan is an imbecile then their opinions follow suit.

Even with the fans that watch every game, I've found interest in the draft and watching the draft has always been low.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nyr2k2

nyr2k2

Can't Beat Him
Jul 30, 2005
45,659
32,728
Maryland
Casual fans can barely follow who is on the team, let alone follow the draft.

More hardcore fans tend to know more about the draft and the prospects in the system, but I've found they seem to rely on the opinions of like the one guy in the group who does follow the stuff. And if that fan is an imbecile then their opinions follow suit.

Even with the fans that watch every game, I've found interest in the draft and watching the draft has always been low.
This is true, as my Andersson example applied to a substantial amount of regular posters here. I don't follow the draft like I used to, but I at least wait to learn about the guys we picked instead of rushing to judgment off one report.
 

haveandare

Registered User
Jul 2, 2009
18,879
7,389
New York
I actually haven't argued that all.

You said there were none, zero, potential first line players. I disagreed with that assertion.

I think there are several potential first line players in the top 10 of this draft. I've not discussed the odds of all of them reaching that level, nor have I made assertions that I expect all or even most of them to reach that level.

I'm not exactly sure what "outcome" I presented that you're arguing against.

Beyond that, with 31 teams in the league, I think those teams would disagree with your assertion that "nobody in this draft is projected as a first line player."

I don't think those teams would all agree on the same players all being guys they project as first line players. But to make a blanket statement is incorrect.

As for my presentation, I really don't have to present myself as anything. If I was full of crap, my reputation would reflect that by now. People ask my opinion because, whether it's something they want to hear or not, I have a pretty good batting average over the last 21 years on here. Sometimes they agree, sometimes they don't.

But I generally try to avoid sweeping comments like "nobody in is projected as a first liner" or things like that. Admittedly, my focus is also on trying to identify the smaller percentage of players who are somewhat undervalued heading into a given draft. Granted I could probably make my life easier and identify the larger group of players who won't make it and play the easier odds, but then what fun would that be?

But generally speaking, I try to keep it civil, try not to make it personal and let the chips fall where they may. We could proceed with that approach, or I could reluctantly bust out with the "old school" version of Edge.

IAG either way.
Yeah, I'd be very surprised if there were a single team that doesn't think Svechnikov has first line potential. Depending on how generous one is with "potential" I think most teams would also agree that Zadina, Tkachuk and Wahlstrom at the very least have first line potential, then a guy like Farabee probably has a few different projections around the league, but I'd bet some of those have him down as a guy with first line potential too.

Imo, if a team picks a forward in the first half of the first round they likely think that guy has first line potential. Nobody is throwing around top 15 picks on guys they're sure won't be capable of being first line forwards at any point.
 

Beacon

Embrace the tank
May 28, 2007
13,676
1,454
No one would argue that prospect success percentages are low, I think the problem was that your post seemed to suggest this draft was somehow different than others in a negative way.

No, that's not at all what I wrote. The reason that's how it seems is that people assume that the top-10 in every draft are difference-making All Stars, so if I object to that, it feels like I'm saying that this draft is terrible or Lias was a bad pick.

The top 10 are not a bunch of stars. Usually there's only 1-2 guys you can clearly see will be stars. Then a few surprise or some boom/bust guys boom. But you're far more likely to get a garbage NHLer or a bust than a first liner at #8 in any draft.

Even at #2, most of the stars were guys who wound up being stars were viewed as head and shoulders above the rest and close to the 1OA: Malkin, Eric Staal, Seguin, Eichel. Usually a #2 OA pick who is viewed as closer to 3-6 picks than to #1 winds up a very good player, but not a game-breaking All Star. A few are exceptions, as always, but on the whole that's how it is: JVR, Landeskog, Barkov.

At #8, you CANNOT draft someone who ON DRAFT DAY can be relied to turn into a first liner. Never happened. Some become that because they exceed expectations or boom/bust, but no reliable first liner lasts to #8. Ever.
 

brians1128

Registered User
Nov 1, 2016
647
320
Nobody in this draft is projected as a first liner. Svechnikov is a 50-50 possibility. The rest would have to exceed expectations to get there. No doubt some kids will surprise, but as of today, nobody available at #8 should be projected as a first line forward or first pair defenseman. It is frankly laughable to think that someone available at #8 in any draft has a better shot (as of draft day) of being a first liner than a total bust or a dime a dozen role player.

I think you mean elite. If we just look at NHL stats a first liner is the top 31 at LW,C.RW. Ignoring total points bc of injuries, wingers who produce at around .60 p/gp or better are competing for title of top line winger. Centers are a bit more competitive at .80 p/gp or better and all overall forwards at .70 p/gp or better, There is without a doubt top line players through the first round, the real question is what is the probability that they become that.
 

Edge

Kris King's Ghost
Mar 1, 2002
34,749
42,578
Amish Paradise
Yeah, I'd be very surprised if there were a single team that doesn't think Svechnikov has first line potential. Depending on how generous one is with "potential" I think most teams would also agree that Zadina, Tkachuk and Wahlstrom at the very least have first line potential, then a guy like Farabee probably has a few different projections around the league, but I'd bet some of those have him down as a guy with first line potential too.

Imo, if a team picks a forward in the first half of the first round they likely think that guy has first line potential. Nobody is throwing around top 15 picks on guys they're sure won't be capable of being first line forwards at any point.

And the key word is potential.

We all know that potential has a long road to travel before it can become a reality, assuming it ever does.

You might draft a kid 8th overall who you don't really project as a first line player, but think he'll be a good player. Likewise, you might take a kid in a lower round who has first line potential, but lower odds of fully hitting that potential.

And again, each team is going to project guys different. One team might project Bouchard and Dobson as potential first pairing guys, other teams might project them as very good second pairing players. A team could love Joel Farabee as a first line prospect, another team might not.

There are just so many variables you have to take into consideration when speaking for opinions beyond your own. I think that's where I tend to be a bit more conservative. For example, I think Farabee has good odds to be a first line player. But I also acknowledge that my opinion is probably not the majority.
 

McRanger

Registered User
Sponsor
Jul 20, 2005
4,889
2,250
No, that's not at all what I wrote. The reason that's how it seems is that people assume that the top-10 in every draft are difference-making All Stars, so if I object to that, it feels like I'm saying that this draft is terrible or Lias was a bad pick.

The top 10 are not a bunch of stars. Usually there's only 1-2 guys you can clearly see will be stars. Then a few surprise or some boom/bust guys boom. But you're far more likely to get a garbage NHLer or a bust than a first liner at #8 in any draft.

Even at #2, most of the stars were guys who wound up being stars were viewed as head and shoulders above the rest and close to the 1OA: Malkin, Eric Staal, Seguin, Eichel. Usually a #2 OA pick who is viewed as closer to 3-6 picks than to #1 winds up a very good player, but not a game-breaking All Star. A few are exceptions, as always, but on the whole that's how it is: JVR, Landeskog, Barkov.

At #8, you CANNOT draft someone who ON DRAFT DAY can be relied to turn into a first liner. Never happened. Some become that because they exceed expectations or boom/bust, but no reliable first liner lasts to #8. Ever.

You wrote "Nobody in this draft is projected as a first liner". Putting aside that is not true, Svechnikov and Zadina are both pretty much universally "projected" to be 1st liners, frankly that statement shows a fundamental misunderstanding of even the basics of evaluating a draft. Prospect evaluation isn't binary; forwards drafted outside the top 5 tend to have the inverse of the guys drafted before them, a small chance at being a 1st line player with increasing chances of being a top 6 player, role player, career AHLer etc. A players upside matters, which is why we hear the term 4000 times a day on this site.

I dont really get your "relied on" comment. There are probably a handful of players in total drafted in the last 25 years that realistically could be "relied on" to succeed, and even then nothing is guaranteed. Lindros is probably the best example of that. He was guaranteed to be the best player from his draft, a guarantee to win the Calder, a guaranteed first ballot HOF...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Edge and Thirty One

Levitate

Registered User
Jul 29, 2004
30,947
7,653
No, that's not at all what I wrote. The reason that's how it seems is that people assume that the top-10 in every draft are difference-making All Stars, so if I object to that, it feels like I'm saying that this draft is terrible or Lias was a bad pick.

No. People assume that there are guys in the top 10 with potential to be difference making all stars. Most people don't assume everyone in the top 10 will be a star.

I'm pretty sure you're making some strawman argument here to show off how smart you think you are about prospects
 
  • Like
Reactions: kovazub94

Ola

Registered User
Apr 10, 2004
34,597
11,595
Sweden
I think Beacon made a good point, but depending on how you interpret it, it was maybe a bit exaggerated (reading some scouting reports there are 100 kids in a draft projected to become HHOFs, almost ;)).

There will be first liners draft all over the place. Very simplified stats say that there should be what 90 first lineers in the NHL/10 year careers=9 in each draft. Kinda. 3-5 in the first, 1-3 in the second and then 3-5 undrafted/rest of the rounds. Of course it’s tremenoduly much more floating, almost nobody is a 1st lineer for 10 years and so forth. But it’s still a generalization that gives a bit of an indication.

To put it like this — we shouldn’t expect to pick a goto star forward at 8th. We shouldn’t be disappointed if we get a kid that projects lower than that — if anything that is what we should expect. Then sure, we can dream. But it think our dreams also are a bit inflated because we hear about how we would have liked i trad up to take a Keller, but FO would never leak the times they wanted to trade up to pick a bust.
 

Beacon

Embrace the tank
May 28, 2007
13,676
1,454
I actually haven't argued that all.

You said there were none, zero, potential first line players.

Please quote me where I said that.

I said that a player cannot be relied upon to be a first liner. Anyone can be a star. Lundqvist was a 7th rounder. That does not mean you can draft a goalie in the 7th round and expect him to be a Hall of Famer or even an NHLer. Lias can become a first liner, but you can't say on the draft day that you just got your 1C locked up because you got an 8OA center. It's not just, "let's be careful before a kid makes it," it is just that the odds are overwhelmingly against anyone drafted at 8OA becoming a first liner on a Cup winner.
 

Drew4u

Registered User
Jul 22, 2016
1,637
522
If the team could actually draft properly, then they could pick a star at 8th. I mean Middlestadt was picked 8th and looks very good. Nylander in 2014. Werenski in 2015. Ristolainen in 2013.

And where are you getting the 3-5 stars in the 1st round ?? Too many excuses. Superstars are definitely available in the 8-11 range.
 

Beacon

Embrace the tank
May 28, 2007
13,676
1,454
No. People assume that there are guys in the top 10 with potential to be difference making all stars. Most people don't assume everyone in the top 10 will be a star.

And thats wrong. Unless a kid exceeds all expectations, an 8OA is not a first line player.

Over the last 20 years, since 1998, not one 8OA scored over 140 goals in his career and Only 4 scored over 70 career goals. Only 2 played 600+ career games: Taylor Pyatt and Setoguchi, neither particularly special.

Every time a kid is drafted at 8OA, there's massive hype. Half a dozen years later we hear, "scouting sucked then, but now, now just look at what amazing prospects went at 8OA."
 

Edge

Kris King's Ghost
Mar 1, 2002
34,749
42,578
Amish Paradise
Beacon, I'm not going to lie. At this point, I'm just flat out confused by what your point actually is.

You just said 8 OA is not a first line player because no one at that position has scored more than 140 goals.

Are you making the argument that the particular slot hasn't produced a first line player, or that no one drafted 8th overall should be projected as a first line player?

I feel like something is getting lost in translation here and I'm struggling to understand what.
 

Glen Sathers Cigar

Sather 4 Ever
Feb 4, 2013
16,499
19,943
New York
If the team could actually draft properly, then they could pick a star at 8th. I mean Middlestadt was picked 8th and looks very good. Nylander in 2014. Werenski in 2015. Ristolainen in 2013.

And where are you getting the 3-5 stars in the 1st round ?? Too many excuses. Superstars are definitely available in the 8-11 range.
Crap, did I miss the part last summer when Nylander, Werenski and Ristolainen were dropped by their teams and re-entered into the 2017 draft? Can't believe I missed that.

Also can't believe I missed the part where Middlestadt has proven to be a star in the NHL. He has played in 6 NHL games. Lias has played in 7. To say the verdict is in on these players or what they will be is completely ridiculous.

You can only draft the players available, whoever went in that slot in previous years is so ridiculously irrelevant to who the Rangers selected in 2017 that it's laughable to even bring it up. You're not even talking of trends of how players picked in that slot pan out, you're trying to say it's evidence that the Rangers can't draft properly because just look at who went there in recent years.
 

Edge

Kris King's Ghost
Mar 1, 2002
34,749
42,578
Amish Paradise
Please quote me where I said that.

I said that a player cannot be relied upon to be a first liner. Anyone can be a star. Lundqvist was a 7th rounder. That does not mean you can draft a goalie in the 7th round and expect him to be a Hall of Famer or even an NHLer. Lias can become a first liner, but you can't say on the draft day that you just got your 1C locked up because you got an 8OA center. It's not just, "let's be careful before a kid makes it," it is just that the odds are overwhelmingly against anyone drafted at 8OA becoming a first liner on a Cup winner.

"
Nobody in this draft is projected as a first liner.
"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->