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

[NoQuitInNewMexico]

I think scouting and development have improved enough that you have a much better chance of a Kadri, a Skinner, a Trouba etc. at 8 than you would in 1998. But those guys aren't difference makers by themselves, we're a mushy middle team and our best player is probably a 36 year old goalie. So everyone wins. Wins?

 

[Edge]

Every year this is what we hear. Old picks, different era, nobody knew anything, but now suddenly all the new draftees are great.

Ehhh, maybe I'm in the wrong here. This is a forum for fun, not to be accurate. It's more fun to fanticize whether we draft a star C or a star D or a star RW than to be told we're probably getting a middling player like Sundstrom, give or take a little. (The reason I got first interested in prospects is that the MSG once ran a segment called "the kids are alright", hyping the Ferraro twins, Sorochan, Joby Messier and most of all our shiny new toy Sundstrom.) Being told our prospects are Sundstrom and a few Joby Messiers isn't fun and it's not like we are hockey pros trying to determine things that matter.

Or maybe it’s that people can separate the concepts of potential and actuality, thus enabling them to have conversations that take both into account.

I don’t think anyone in this thread has disputed the concept that most picks don’t pan out, or don’t quite reach their highest potential. Despite your increased aggression, you’d probably be surprised to realize that most people actually AGREE with aspects of what you’re saying.

What they don’t agree with is your opinion that separate from the results, that a lot of the kids lack the potential or skills to possibly be higher end players.

It’s really not more complicated than that.

 

[Zibanejbread]

So hostile in here today... you'd think the Rangers were actually playing or something.

How about we all get along and revisit this next weekend after we know where we're actually drafting?

 

[YoSoyLalo]

Dudes continually getting beaned and keeps coming back for more

 

[Beacon]

Dudes continually getting beaned and keeps coming back for more

I'll take it seriously as soon as I start getting beaned for positive statements. It has yet to happen in my 11 years here. Earlier this year when I began pimping Georgiev, nobody objected that maybe it's just a hot streak and he has been so awful before that that the Rangers felt the need to bring in another goalie because Geo couldn't start in the AHL.

A large majority of my statements about prospects are positive, yet those just fly by, whether right or wrong. A large majority of my statements in Pack PbP are positive, yet I've been told repeatedly that I only write negative things there because positive=common sense, while negative=willful ignorance just to make people mad.

It doesn't matter how I arrived at any negative conclusion. For ex, watching is regarded as the gold standard of prospect knowledge (it's not, but whatever). But when I wrote that I was disappointed with Ronning based on watching him in the Juniors and all his Hartford games this season, people got mad. One long time poster who in the past argued repeatedly that I cannot determine anything about prospects by looking at stats now claimed that it doesn't really matter what I saw, what we need to pay attention to is Ronning getting 5 points in 12 Pack games last season. Because if you can arrive at a positive conclusion based on mediocre stats in a tiny sample from a year ago in games nobody saw, it is obviously a better indicator than watching him right now and getting a negative conclusion.

 

[Alluckks]

I'll take it seriously as soon as I start getting beaned for positive statements. It has yet to happen in my 11 years here. Earlier this year when I began pimping Georgiev, nobody objected that maybe it's just a hot streak and he has been so awful before that that the Rangers felt the need to bring in another goalie because Geo couldn't start in the AHL.

A large majority of my statements about prospects are positive, yet those just fly by, whether right or wrong. A large majority of my statements in Pack PbP are positive, yet I've been told repeatedly that I only write negative things there because positive=common sense, while negative=willful ignorance just to make people mad.

It doesn't matter how I arrived at any negative conclusion. For ex, watching is regarded as the gold standard of prospect knowledge (it's not, but whatever). But when I wrote that I was disappointed with Ronning based on watching him in the Juniors and all his Hartford games this season, people got mad. One long time poster who in the past argued repeatedly that I cannot determine anything about prospects by looking at stats now claimed that it doesn't really matter what I saw, what we need to pay attention to is Ronning getting 5 points in 12 Pack games last season. Because if you can arrive at a positive conclusion based on mediocre stats in a tiny sample from a year ago in games nobody saw, it is obviously a better indicator than watching him right now and getting a negative conclusion.

You seem to be annoyed that people don't respect your opinion more

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

You seem to be annoyed that people don't respect your opinion more

I think what annoys people is that he doesn't respect other people's opinions. Unless you post a play-by-play report of the games you've seen, your argument about a prospect is invalid. And passing off his opinion as fact.

 

[Alluckks]

I think what annoys people is that he doesn't respect other people's opinions. Unless you post a play-by-play report of the games you've seen, your argument about a prospect is invalid. And passing off his opinion as fact.

Eh I don't even care about that so much. It is just the reeking entitlement. Pointing to when you were right in the past as a way to justify being pissed off that people don't feel like listening to your preaching now... it's just like someone who sees their self as oh so smart and goes on and on on the the internet.

Think of it like this: pretend this forum is just a local bar that a bunch of us go to. If he was going on about this stuff in the bar the way he does here anyone that heard the first few words would just walk away, hell he might even get kicked out of the bar for just being a pain. Throw on top being mad at others for not wanting to listen to his rant [regardless of how right he thinks he is] just makes it laughable.

 

[BBKers]

I like Beacons passion, his game synopsis’s and some of his posts. The strict league comparison to evaluate a players future annoys me. But he knows quite a bit about hockey. Trying to be teaching people manners here is about as pointless as buying an ab exercise contraption that’ll “guarantee a flat stomach!”!

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

I like Beacons passion, his game synopsis’s and some of his posts. The strict league comparison to evaluate a players future annoys me. But he knows quite a bit about hockey. Trying to be teaching people manners here is about as pointless as buying an ab exercise contraption that’ll “guarantee a flat stomach!”!

Same here. I respect his contributions but also understand the frustration by others. It's not an exact science, it's not something as simple as saying "Well, Manny Malhotra is the best 8th overall pick in the last 20 years so we can't expect a first line player". It's a narrative based on something, but it isn't really a given. The draft is a lottery in itself (aside from the obvious draft lottery). I do agree that the last few years, scouting has gotten a lot better and there are fewer busts in the top-15 of the picks compared to the 80s and 90s.

Eh I don't even care about that so much. It is just the reeking entitlement. Pointing to when you were right in the past as a way to justify being pissed off that people don't feel like listening to your preaching now... it's just like someone who sees their self as oh so smart and goes on and on on the the internet.

Think of it like this: pretend this forum is just a local bar that a bunch of us go to. If he was going on about this stuff in the bar the way he does here anyone that heard the first few words would just walk away, hell he might even get kicked out of the bar for just being a pain. Throw on top being mad at others for not wanting to listen to his rant [regardless of how right he thinks he is] just makes it laughable.

I don't really get involved too much in the discussion about AHL players because I just don't watch the games. My "expertise" is Europe-based players. I've seen a lot of Virta (business trips to Helsinki), Lias, Dahlin (CHL games in Switzerland, Austria, Czech Republic and some games in Sweden when visiting friends), Shestyorkin, Rykov (since I watch those games on TV regularly). When it comes to draft prospects, I have seen my fair share of Boqvist, Bokk etc. I just don't have time (or the energy) to spend an hour writing a report every time I watch a game. I go to the arena to experience the atmosphere, to enjoy the game. While doing that, I focus on certain players, yes. But after the game, I am usually left with an overall feeling of that player. This is why I never really go into detail on certain plays but for instance regarding Lias Andersson, I post about my overall impression. What I notice during the game. How he is great at positioning, reading the game etc. The same way I notice Boqvist being very composed and calm in his own zone despite being 17 years old.

However, I don't try to lecture people on prospects. It's all subjective any way. Sometimes you are confident a player has what it takes and it turns out you were wrong. I remember vividly that me and @Joey Bones were delighted with us picking Brad Morrison. In 2010, I was excited about Shane McColgan. Certain players just wow you with the way they play and fail to take that next step. It doesn't mean that they were certain busts. If we can't have our own opinions, what the f***ing point of coming here, right? That's the beauty of these prospect threads. Everyone sees it different. It gets annoying when BS arguments are used like "can't skate", "lazy player", or "soft Euro".

 

[Blueshirts777]

The game is also changing. Prospects work harder and get better advice how to eliminate their weaknesses leading many players to reach their ceilings than would even 5 years ago. Insane talent is a must have but in itself means less and less. Willingness to work more and more.

Meh I dont buy this bit, I don't even know how you would go about measuring this.

 

[nyr2k2]

I think everyone should use the ignore function. Not saying this in a mean-spirited way. If someone drives you crazy, ignore them. It cuts down on bickering and makes the board better in general. Also, on Xenforo, it's very easy to see ignored content without taking someone off your list.

 

[eco's bones]

Every year this is what we hear. Old picks, different era, nobody knew anything, but now suddenly all the new draftees are great.

Ehhh, maybe I'm in the wrong here. This is a forum for fun, not to be accurate. It's more fun to fanticize whether we draft a star C or a star D or a star RW than to be told we're probably getting a middling player like Sundstrom, give or take a little. (The reason I got first interested in prospects is that the MSG once ran a segment called "the kids are alright", hyping the Ferraro twins, Sorochan, Joby Messier and most of all our shiny new toy Sundstrom.) Being told our prospects are Sundstrom and a few Joby Messiers isn't fun and it's not like we are hockey pros trying to determine things that matter.

One of the points of my post was you can't blame recent players for not meeting thresholds that they've had no chance to reach.....Mittlestadt would have had to start playing in the NHL as a 10 year old to have played 600 games by now....as well as to the point out that of recent many of those same players--Werenski, Nylander, Ristolainen, Couturier have been making or have made very good strides towards becoming seriously good hockey players. I think Mac n Gs commentary on drafting, training and coaching also taking strides is apt but these days we don't see teams looking for goons in the first round--we see teams looking more and more at skilled young Europeans and focusing more and more on speed and skill.

But you are right to be skeptical about the draft our picks don't always turn out such as Jessiman, McIlrath, Brendl--sometimes though due to bad luck--Cherneski, Blackburn, Cherepanov or underwhelm Lundmark, Malhotra, Montoya, Korpikoski.

 

[Edge]

I think everyone should use the ignore function. Not saying this in a mean-spirited way. If someone drives you crazy, ignore them. It cuts down on bickering and makes the board better in general. Also, on Xenforo, it's very easy to see ignored content without taking someone off your list.

I think the strange part is that there's actually quite a bit that most of us agree on, which is why I'm not really sure how or why this is escalating.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

I guess I don't get the end game here. Are we supposed to stop talking about prospects because they'll most likely suck? In the last 9 seasons 4 teams have won the cup. Let's stop watching and stop talking about hockey since clearly only 4 of 31 teams can win the cup which is about 1/8.

 

[Off Sides]

At #8 I'd expect the Rangers to draft a player who turns out to be a middle 6 forward or a 2nd pair defender. They could also get a bust or someone who ends up awesome but that is just where my subjective expectations would be set.

With the later 1sts, honestly I'd expect they may actually do better as far as possible potential ceilings goes. At that point it's likely scouting having more influence on the picks versus management and scouting is looking at it from a pure skill standpoint rather than a "does he have this or that trait" standpoint.

 

[Edge]

At #8 I'd expect the Rangers to draft a player who turns out to be a middle 6 forward or a 2nd pair defender. They could also get a bust or someone who ends up awesome but that is just where my subjective expectations would be set.

With the later 1sts, honestly I'd expect they may actually do better as far as possible potential ceilings goes. At that point it's likely scouting having more influence on the picks versus management and scouting is looking at it from a pure skill standpoint rather than a "does he have this or that trait" standpoint.

See, now I don't think anyone necessarily disputes that as a likely outcome, or that it would even be a good outcome.

I think the debate comes down to whether one believes that a player who might be available or selected by the Rangers has a chance to be more than that --- say a first liner or a first pair defenseman.

I'd say the majority believes that yes, that is a possibility --- depending on the player, how they progress and a host of other factors.

I don't think anyone is saying that the possibility would have the same odds for every player, or that the possibility is more likely than not, or that they are relying or expecting our pick to undoubtedly hit that level.

That last part is what makes the debate so confusing. It's actually not really a debate.

Most people think it's a possibility, with varying odds depending on the player. A few people think it's not, under any circumstances. That's really the long and short of things.

 

[Off Sides]

Yes it's possible but that goes both ways, could be a total bust or could be great (turn out much better than his draft slot), or pretty much what a team "usually" gets from that slot. ("usually" = my subjective not really mathematical or scientific take on past drafts)

Rangers with some of their 1st have beat my subjective expectations, Miller, Skjei, Kreider I believe are better than their draft slot would have indicated, where as McIlrath and Sangunetti were worse. At #8 I would expect something like a Miller or Skjei (middle 6 forward, 2nd pair defender) I would not be surprised to see a Kreider (top line non elite wing) Yet I am not expecting a Karlsson or a Giroux but it's possible, just as would be a bust.

 

[Edge]

Yes, our pick could be a bust. I don't think anyone would dispute that either. So again, there's no argument there.

My gut tells me the Rangers will do well with this pick and in this draft overall.

For me the question is a matter of how well.

Based on their scouting department, the perceived depth of the draft, and the number of picks they have, I think they have a very good shot at earning at least a B.

Can they make it a B plus? An A? Can they hit a grand slam?

That remains to be seen.

But that's also what generates the interest and intrigue.

 

[Off Sides]

I'd argue they need an A+ if their idea is to draft a "special player" (Karlsson, Giroux, etc) someone who could change a franchise should that franchise not do a bunch of other less than smart stuff.

Even if those teams had no other picks in those drafts they should still get an A+

I don't expect that although it's possible, not probable.

If they do end up with a B, like a Miller/Skjei, or even a Kreider, I'd call that a B in terms of getting players that are good but I'm still not sure where that leaves them in terms of getting the players who are a notch or two better than they are.

Which is likely where my opinion differs from most, I think this whole team building exercise is ending up as a team that is possibly good but will still have much trouble beating teams, in as many as 4 straight playoff series, who have those players who are a notch or two above.

So in my opinion it is going to come down to luck/skill whatever, if they end up with those better than what one would expect players from these draft slots, that is great, yet not probable.

So why not have more picks to gamble on getting those players as it increases the probability (yet still leaves it a long shot) rather than retaining the players who are a notch or two below what they will eventually need?

 

[LaffyTaffy]

Why are we discussing a poster rather than prospects? Did something happen?

 

[nyr2k2]

Why are we discussing a poster rather than prospects? Did something happen?

Yeah the season ended. Still f***ing annoying though.

Day and Gettinger are still playing and technically Hajek is as well. It's the Prospect Thread, not the Draft Thread or the Crap on Annoying Posters Thread. Whatever, though. I'll update stats in the first post and just ignore the actual thread.

 

[Edge]

I'd argue they need an A+ if their idea is to draft a "special player" (Karlsson, Giroux, etc) someone who could change a franchise should that franchise not do a bunch of other less than smart stuff.

Even if those teams had no other picks in those drafts they should still get an A+

I don't expect that although it's possible, not probable.

If they do end up with a B, like a Miller/Skjei, or even a Kreider, I'd call that a B in terms of getting players that are good but I'm still not sure where that leaves them in terms of getting the players who are a notch or two better than they are.

Which is likely where my opinion differs from most, I think this whole team building exercise is ending up as a team that is possibly good but will still have much trouble beating teams, in as many as 4 straight playoff series, who have those players who are a notch or two above.

So in my opinion it is going to come down to luck/skill whatever, if they end up with those better than what one would expect players from these draft slots, that is great, yet not probable.

So why not have more picks to gamble on getting those players as it increases the probability (yet still leaves it a long shot) rather than retaining the players who are a notch or two below what they will eventually need?

Can't really disagree with anything here.

I think for the more optimistic supporters, that's dancing around somewhere in their thoughts.

 

[Miamipuck]

However, I don't try to lecture people on prospects. It's all subjective any way. Sometimes you are confident a player has what it takes and it turns out you were wrong. I remember vividly that me and @Joey Bones were delighted with us picking Brad Morrison. In 2010, I was excited about Shane McColgan. Certain players just wow you with the way they play and fail to take that next step. It doesn't mean that they were certain busts. If we can't have our own opinions, what the ****ing point of coming here, right? That's the beauty of these prospect threads. Everyone sees it different. It gets annoying when BS arguments are used like "can't skate", "lazy player", or "soft Euro".

You were wrong on 2 late round players and actually admitted it? I am sorry but I have to put you on ignore, all the scouts I know are perfect in their evaluations. lol

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

You were wrong on 2 late round players and actually admitted it? I am sorry but I have to put you on ignore, all the scouts I know are perfect in their evaluations. lol

I don't see a reason to admit when I am wrong haha.