Prospect Info: 2013-2014 Rangers Prospects Thread *Part III* (Player Stats in Post #1; Updated 4/8)

[Beacon]

Yes.

And the purpose of your post is to complain about how horrible our system is.

It's not.

Looking at it in the small vacuum of how we are currently ranked as compared to the rest of the league makes your argument for you.

My contention is that we've graduated so many players, and make the playoffs every year that it doesnt matter that we're ranked 30th.

so, i'll say it again.

who cares that we're ranked 30th. it means nothing without any context around it.

VERY few spots for kids going forward. Lots of young players signed long term.

plenty of free agents who could fill in around if need be.

our 30th ranked prospect pool means next to nothing. we've got the prospects ready to fill the few holes we have. beyond that, it doesnt matter.

This is what EVERY team's fans say when their prospect pool gets wiped out.

1. The idea that there is no space for kids is ridiculous. If a kid is good enough to play, he will. McDonagh was good enough, so we traded Rosie. Zubov was good enough to play, so we traded away Patrick.

2. You are describing this team as if it's some perennial Cup contender that wins every other year. It's not. It's barely a playoff team. Basically our run of prospect production has resulted in us being a low-end playoff team most seasons plus one run to the ECF. Now the players will age and some will leave, and we'll be back in the Dark Ages, having achieved nothing.

I've written about this years ago, but no, 90% of the board was screaming, "it's important to make the playoffs every year" as well as "Hank will get older, we need to give him a chance right now!"

We needed to take one more step in rebuilding. There was no need to keep Jagr, Nylander, Straka, Rucinsky, Rucchin and Sykora rather than trading them for valuable young assets that would've been in their prime right now. Throw in 1-2 top-6F and 1-2 top-4D, and this team is a legit contender right now. But instead of dumping our vets, we dumped draft picks for more vets.

The reason this team is what it is stems from the fans unwillingness to go through a full rebuild that requires a complete house-cleaning along with sinking to the bottom for 3 years minimum. No, I don't want to hear about Edmonton because while they are going through growing pains, they will be a terrific outfit for a decade starting within a couple of years. Meanwhile, we'll once again sink into the crapper.

 

[Inferno]

This is what EVERY team's fans say when their prospect pool gets wiped out.

1. The idea that there is no space for kids is ridiculous. If a kid is good enough to play, he will. McDonagh was good enough, so we traded Rosie. Zubov was good enough to play, so we traded away Patrick.

2. You are describing this team as if it's some perennial Cup contender that wins every other year. It's not. It's barely a playoff team. Basically our run of prospect production has resulted in us being a low-end playoff team most seasons plus one run to the ECF. Now the players will age and some will leave, and we'll be back in the Dark Ages, having achieved nothing.

I've written about this years ago, but no, 90% of the board was screaming, "it's important to make the playoffs every year" as well as "Hank will get older, we need to give him a chance right now!"

We needed to take one more step in rebuilding. There was no need to keep Jagr, Nylander, Straka, Rucinsky, Rucchin and Sykora rather than trading them for valuable young assets that would've been in their prime right now. Throw in 1-2 top-6F and 1-2 top-4D, and this team is a legit contender right now. But instead of dumping our vets, we dumped draft picks for more vets.

The reason this team is what it is stems from the fans unwillingness to go through a full rebuild that requires a complete house-cleaning along with sinking to the bottom for 3 years minimum. No, I don't want to hear about Edmonton because while they are going through growing pains, they will be a terrific outfit for a decade starting within a couple of years. Meanwhile, we'll once again sink into the crapper.

since christmas the rangers have one of the best records in the entire NHL.

since the 9 game roadtrip to start the season the Rangers have one of the 3 best records in the Eastern Conference.

The Rangers are currently 2nd in the Metro division.

I'd argue vehemently that we are just a borderline playoff team.

 

[StepansLabyrinth]

since christmas the rangers have one of the best records in the entire NHL.

since the 9 game roadtrip to start the season the Rangers have one of the 3 best records in the Eastern Conference.

The Rangers are currently 2nd in the Metro division.

I'd argue vehemently that we are just a borderline playoff team.

I agree. We're 5th in the league in FF% (2nd in the East), which historically is a great measure of team talent. 2nd in the East in goals allowed, 4th in the league in goals allowed (with the most games played). We also have 42 wins right now and, if you removed loser points (OTLs), we'd already have our playoff spot clinched.

We're an excellent defensive hockey team with an offense that has 3 lines that can score when it's on. There are only a handful of teams that are better than the Rangers and very few come from our conference.

I'm not ignoring our weakness, offensive consistency, but this team has almost everything you need to win a cup and a few positive things some teams that have won the cup don't have. We have an elite goalie, a true #1 D-Man, and two elite wingers. Our bottom 6 is top tier. We don't have an elite center but there's, what, 8-12 of them go around? Even Boston, who's generally considered a lock to advance to the SCF on this board, doesn't have an elite center.

 

[RangerBoy]

I agree. We're 5th in the league in FF% (2nd in the East), which historically is a great measure of team talent. 2nd in the East in goals allowed, 4th in the league in goals allowed (with the most games played). We also have 42 wins right now and, if you removed loser points (OTLs), we'd already have our playoff spot clinched.

We're an excellent defensive hockey team with an offense that has 3 lines that can score when it's on. There are only a handful of teams that are better than the Rangers and very few come from our conference.

I'm not ignoring our weakness, offensive consistency, but this team has almost everything you need to win a cup and a few positive things some teams that have won the cup don't have. We have an elite goalie, a true #1 D-Man, and two elite wingers. Our bottom 6 is top tier. We don't have an elite center but there's, what, 8-12 of them go around? Even Boston, who's generally considered a lock to advance to the SCF on this board, doesn't have an elite center.

Bergeron is a great player.

 

[StepansLabyrinth]

Bergeron is a great player.

Oh, I agree, but there's a huge difference between a player like Crosby and Bergeron. Bergeron is a surefire 1st line center but I just wouldn't classify him as elite. He's closer to Stepan than Sid, Malkin, etc.

 

[jniklast]

This is what EVERY team's fans say when their prospect pool gets wiped out.

1. The idea that there is no space for kids is ridiculous. If a kid is good enough to play, he will. McDonagh was good enough, so we traded Rosie. Zubov was good enough to play, so we traded away Patrick.

2. You are describing this team as if it's some perennial Cup contender that wins every other year. It's not. It's barely a playoff team. Basically our run of prospect production has resulted in us being a low-end playoff team most seasons plus one run to the ECF. Now the players will age and some will leave, and we'll be back in the Dark Ages, having achieved nothing.

I've written about this years ago, but no, 90% of the board was screaming, "it's important to make the playoffs every year" as well as "Hank will get older, we need to give him a chance right now!"

We needed to take one more step in rebuilding. There was no need to keep Jagr, Nylander, Straka, Rucinsky, Rucchin and Sykora rather than trading them for valuable young assets that would've been in their prime right now. Throw in 1-2 top-6F and 1-2 top-4D, and this team is a legit contender right now. But instead of dumping our vets, we dumped draft picks for more vets.

The reason this team is what it is stems from the fans unwillingness to go through a full rebuild that requires a complete house-cleaning along with sinking to the bottom for 3 years minimum. No, I don't want to hear about Edmonton because while they are going through growing pains, they will be a terrific outfit for a decade starting within a couple of years. Meanwhile, we'll once again sink into the crapper.

There are two good answers on the "barely a playoff team" so I'll reply to some other points:

When exactly should we have traded Jagr, Straka etc? When we were 1st in our division and looking like a contender for most of 2005-06? That's just ridiculous to expect blowing up the team at that time, absolutely no GM would've done anything like that. And don't be Captain Hindsight pointing out we didn't win the Cup. You blow up teams that are declining, not teams that far exceed expectations.
We also traded nearly all our veteran assets leading up to 2005 and the returns were measly.

And you say don't mention Edmonton and how they are sure to have a glorious future, but what about Florida or Atlanta/Winnipeg? The Islanders who haven't won a playoff series in two decades? Tanking three years is absolutely not the guarantee for success you make it out to be.

 

[ColonialsHockey10]

Meh, I don't really care about the ranking.

I have seen plenty of Fast, Lindberg, Miller, Allen, Kristo, Skjei and McIlrath. All of them will be impact players in the NHL. Maybe not in NYC, but somewhere.

We also have a player who just graduated from our pool that has played on the 1st line nearly all year, and done a solid job. And our recently graduated top goaltender prospect is playing lights out at the NHL level.

This doesn't come close to some of the previous #30 ranked team. Remember the Flyer's pool a few years ago?

We'll be fine.

 

[Raspewtin]

Oh, I agree, but there's a huge difference between a player like Crosby and Bergeron. Bergeron is a surefire 1st line center but I just wouldn't classify him as elite. He's closer to Stepan than Sid, Malkin, etc.

If Bergeron is a #1 center then so is Stepan.

 

[JohnC]

No, I don't want to hear about Edmonton because while they are going through growing pains, they will be a terrific outfit for a decade starting within a couple of years. Meanwhile, we'll once again sink into the crapper.

I usually respect your posts Beacon, but I have a hard time agreeing with this. That team will go nowhere with Kevin Lowe still at the helm and it doesn't look like he's going anywhere

 

[RangerBoy]

Oh, I agree, but there's a huge difference between a player like Crosby and Bergeron. Bergeron is a surefire 1st line center but I just wouldn't classify him as elite. He's closer to Stepan than Sid, Malkin, etc.

Nash better show up. Those Boston guys are proven playoff performers. Bergeron. Marchand. Krejci. Lucic, Paille. Campbell. Cup winners in 2011. Finalists in 2013. The core of that team has been together for a while.

 

[StepansLabyrinth]

If Bergeron is a #1 center then so is Stepan.

I'd agree. I'd say Bergeron is more in the 10-15 range and Stepan is more in the 20-25 range of top centers but anything above top 30 should be considered a top line center quality player.

And yes, I agree with the sentiment that we need Nash going in order to win a cup. We pretty much need every player going.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Beacon seems to be more of a Rangers farm fan than a Rangers fan. No wonder he's complaining about our farm.

 

[eco's bones]

Teams like Boston, St. Louis, San Jose, Anaheim, Chicago, Pittsburgh not only are legit contenders but they have a lot more organizational depth than we do. Graduating younger kids into the lineup doesn't necessarily mean the well runs dry for some of the better teams in the league. Rangers IMO have a number of very good prospects but not a lot of depth. It just about means if some of our better prospects don't make it we're running even more behind those teams.

 

[RangerBoy]

Giving up a first-round pick (19th overall) to the Portland Winterhawks for a consistent offensive producer was a fair price to pay.

If Tambellini returns for an over-age season — one of seven players eligible to do so — the trade swings heavily in the Hitmen’s favour.

“It was tough to give up a first-round draft pick, but I think the production he provided and the improvement he made on our powerplay and everything he provided was certainly worth the price,†Moore said. “And if we get him back, it lessens that price.

“We thought there was a chance to get Adam back (next year). He had a great year and put up some good numbers for the time he played. Certainly, we feel there’s some room for development, for everyone for that matter.

“It’ll be up to New York whether they sign him. And if they sign him, whether they want him back in junior for another year or if they think he’s prepared to play pro. He was a terrific addition, and we’d love to have him back.â€

http://www.calgarysun.com/2014/03/31/early-exit-no-joke-for-calgary-hitmen

The Rangers want Tambellini to get stronger.

 

[nyr2k2]

Teams like Boston, St. Louis, San Jose, Anaheim, Chicago, Pittsburgh not only are legit contenders but they have a lot more organizational depth than we do. Graduating younger kids into the lineup doesn't necessarily mean the well runs dry for some of the better teams in the league. Rangers IMO have a number of very good prospects but not a lot of depth. It just about means if some of our better prospects don't make it we're running even more behind those teams.

You can go back to 2008 and Chicago had missed the playoffs multiple years in a row. The Ducks missed the playoffs in 2 of the 4 prior seasons. Until two years ago, St. Louis went through a period where they were a joke. Since the lockout, we've finished ahead of Boston in 4 out of 8 seasons. Pittsburgh was on the verge of complete collapse before they tanked their way to two of the top five players in the game.

Now, are we better than those teams? Do we have better organizational depth than those teams? No, on both counts. My point is that those teams have gone through some rough spells themselves, and I think that sometimes our fans compare our team to those organizations and say, "They're great every year, why can't we do that?" And really, they aren't great every year. Not for any extended period of time anyway.

I'm not disagreeing with or countering your point in any way, I just wanted to throw this out there.

 

[slipknottin]

http://www.calgarysun.com/2014/03/31/early-exit-no-joke-for-calgary-hitmen

The Rangers want Tambellini to get stronger.

Where does it say that?

 

[eco's bones]

You can go back to 2008 and Chicago had missed the playoffs multiple years in a row. The Ducks missed the playoffs in 2 of the 4 prior seasons. Until two years ago, St. Louis went through a period where they were a joke. Since the lockout, we've finished ahead of Boston in 4 out of 8 seasons. Pittsburgh was on the verge of complete collapse before they tanked their way to two of the top five players in the game.

Now, are we better than those teams? Do we have better organizational depth than those teams? No, on both counts. My point is that those teams have gone through some rough spells themselves, and I think that sometimes our fans compare our team to those organizations and say, "They're great every year, why can't we do that?" And really, they aren't great every year. Not for any extended period of time anyway.

I'm not disagreeing with or countering your point in any way, I just wanted to throw this out there.

Basically there's no good reason for our prospect depth to fall as low as it has. Speaking of which I for one have been clamoring for us to sign College and CHL free agents and Sather and his team have been doing a pretty decent job of it--signing Haggerty and McCarthy. This is what the Flyers were doing a few years ago and it paid dividends. They moved a lot of draft picks but picked up on some a little older but more developed undrafted late bloomers. Usually you're not going to get top end talent on mid to late first round and/or second round picks anyway. At that point you just hope to get good players. They go back to where they were drafted from and hopefully develop according to or ahead of expectations.

 

[Beer League Sniper]

Basically there's no good reason for our prospect depth to fall as low as it has. Speaking of which I for one have been clamoring for us to sign College and CHL free agents and Sather and his team have been doing a pretty decent job of it--signing Haggerty and McCarthy. This is what the Flyers were doing a few years ago and it paid dividends. They moved a lot of draft picks but picked up on some a little older but more developed undrafted late bloomers. Usually you're not going to get top end talent on mid to late first round and/or second round picks anyway. At that point you just hope to get good players. They go back to where they were drafted from and hopefully develop according to or ahead of expectations.

Most of these guys we're signing are like 2nd or 3rd round picks to me. Yeah, guys like Haggerty and McCarthy have warts to their games, but if a 2nd or 3rd round pick developed like they have, we wouldn't be disappointed. Both of these players have a realistic shot at the NHL. If you drafted a 2nd rounder with that knowledge, I'd think you'd have to be pretty happy with the pick.

 

[eco's bones]

Most of these guys we're signing are like 2nd or 3rd round picks to me. Yeah, guys like Haggerty and McCarthy have warts to their games, but if a 2nd or 3rd round pick developed like they have, we wouldn't be disappointed. Both of these players have a realistic shot at the NHL. If you drafted a 2nd rounder with that knowledge, I'd think you'd have to be pretty happy with the pick.

I agree--Haggerty may be more like a late 1st rounder/2nd rounder and McCarthy like a 2nd rounder. Draft picks that high don't always pan out the way that you want them but you kind of expect them to turn into useful players of some sort anyway. These guys are developed a lot more and it's easier to project the kinds of roles that they might play. I expect both will probably be in Hartford next season--though Haggerty could push for a job.

One other thing I like about them is they're both in the 6' and over 200 lb. range. They're not huge but they're not shrimps either. They've shown they have some talent as well. What's not to like?

A note on Van Brabant--who the Rangers didn't get. He projects not so much as a scoring winger but a physical Matt Martin type. We could use a player like that.

 

[RangerBoy]

Where does it say that?

There a previous story on Tambellini which mentioned the Rangers want the player to get stronger. He might not be physically ready for pro hockey and another year of junior is best for his development.

 

[NYR Viper]

I agree--Haggerty may be more like a late 1st rounder/2nd rounder and McCarthy like a 2nd rounder. Draft picks that high don't always pan out the way that you want them but you kind of expect them to turn into useful players of some sort anyway. These guys are developed a lot more and it's easier to project the kinds of roles that they might play. I expect both will probably be in Hartford next season--though Haggerty could push for a job.

One other thing I like about them is they're both in the 6' and over 200 lb. range. They're not huge but they're not shrimps either. They've shown they have some talent as well. What's not to like?

A note on Van Brabant--who the Rangers didn't get. He projects not so much as a scoring winger but a physical Matt Martin type. We could use a player like that.

I think projecting any college UFA as a 1st round talent is a bit much. These guys are like adding 2nd/3rd rounders. If nothing else they provide good depth and cost no assets to bring in.

 

[Beacon]

One reason first rounders cost more is the possibility that they become stars. A big guy who falls to the end of the first because he is thought to have only third line potential may turn into Trachuk or Getzlaf. There is hope with top end 18 year olds. By the time you are dealing with 22-23 year olds, there is little of that. You are hoping to get a Brian Boyle quality (regardless of style) player, whom we acquired for a third rounder. Occasionally you stumble upon Girardi or Read, but that is MUCH more rare with UDFAs than late first rounders.

Guys like Haggerty and McCarthy would likely fetch no more than a third rounder in a trade.

 

[nyr2k2]

An article someone posted earlier, or something I read on my own, quoted a scout as saying that the majority of the higher-profile college free agents are basically equivalent to a pick in the 3rd-5th rounds. That sounds right to me. It's rare that you find a kid that would truly be a first or second round pick--Danny Dekeyser last year was a guy that probably would be a second round pick. NHL teams may miss guys that are late bloomers, but it's exceptionally rare for a guy to miss all his draft years and still develop into a player that would really be considered a first round talent.

You can pull decent guys out of those rounds. Dubinsky, Dominic Moore, Callahan, Weise, those were all guys taken in that range. Bozak and Matt Read are good success stories from the recent past.

 

[UAGoalieGuy]

Would love to see the Rangers sign Kevin Hayes if he opted not to sign w the Blackhawks like has been rumored.

 

[BarbaraAlphanse]

Would love to see the Rangers sign Kevin Hayes if he opted not to sign w the Blackhawks like has been rumored.

I would not.