Prospect Info: NYR Prospect Poll: #14

[Beacon]

Marek Hrivik easily won the #13 spot. LW Ryan Bourque is added to the poll.

Please write who you want added to the poll, and give a reason for it. This makes the discussion here more lively.


THE RULES

WHO IS A PROSPECT: http://www.hockeysfuture.com/whatmakesaprospect

HOW TO RANK PROSPECTS: Based on their value in a hypothetical trade or waiver draft. This takes into consideration a prospect's ceiling, how close he's to making it, his health, work ethic, the whole deal. Imagine there was a prospect waiver draft and you could keep only one prospect. That guy is our #1 prospect. Then imagine we had one more waiver protection. That guy is our #2 prospect.


TOP PROSPECTS

1. C J.T. Miller
2. D Brady Skjei
3. LW Anthony Duclair
4. D Dylan McIlrath
5. RW Jesper Fast
6. LW Pavel Buchnevich


SECOND TIER

7. C Oscar Lindberg
8. D Conor Allen
9. RW Danny Kristo
10. RW Ryan Haggerty
11. G Brandon Halverson
12. C Adam Tambellini


THIRD TIER

13. LW Marek Hrivik


Marek Hrivik
Left Wing -- shoots L
Born Aug 28 1991 -- Zilina, Slovakia
Height 6.01 -- Weight 197

2013-14 Hartford Wolf Pack AHL 74 13-14-27 22PIM

PROSPECTS ELIGIBLE TO BE ADDED

Andersson, Calle
Donnay, Troy
Fogarty, Steven
Hughes, Tommy
Kantor, Michael
Mantha, Ryan
McCarthy, Chris
Missiaen, Jason
Nanne, Tyler
Nicholls, Josh
Noreau, Samuel
Nejezchleb, Richard
Shestyorkin, Igor
Skapski, Mackenzie
St. Croix, Michael
Walcott, Daniel
Yogan, Andrew

Click to read more...

 

[Beacon]

Was torn between defensemen Bodie, Zamorsky and Graves, and went with Graves because he showed so much improvement last season.

Add St. Croix. Low odds of making it, but he's a tremendous offensive talent who scored over 200 points in his last two seasons in juniors, and is just one year removed from that. If he makes it, he can be a difference-maker, so even if his floor is low, he has easily the highest ceiling of anyone we didn't rank yet. So add Michael St. Croix.

 

[n8]

i voted for Boo. add St Croix. he only has one pro season, and a decent one albeit in the ECHL but no reason we should give up on his tremendous offensive potential. well other than being Ranger fans

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

Graves. Add Skapski, another prospect who showed good progress last year and is likely undervalued due to his position.

 

[bernmeister]

i voted for Boo. add St Croix. he only has one pro season, and a decent one albeit in the ECHL but no reason we should give up on his tremendous offensive potential. well other than being Ranger fans

I too for boo

pls add Yogan --- should have mentioned him earlier
Noreau, Andersson

 

[Joey Bones]

Zamorsky add Shesterkin

 

[eco's bones]

Zamorsky. McCarthy.

 

[UAGoalieGuy]

Nieves. Add Nejezchleb.

 

[Zil]

Nieves, add Shestyorkin.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

Zamorsky. Add the Russian.

 

[GAGLine]

I have a feeling a lot of people are going to be back on the Boo bandwagon this time next year.

 

[nyr2k2]

Add Skapski.

 

[darko]

Boo, add St Croix

 

[mti79]

Nieves. Add Nejezchleb.

I'm not alone!!!! Voted for Nieves because UAG did. Once again, add Nejezchleb. If the injuries were a fluke, this kid could be an absolute steal.

 

[Net Front Presence]

Nieves. Add Shestyorkin.

 

[Beacon]

I have a feeling a lot of people are going to be back on the Boo bandwagon this time next year.

Probably. I certainly will if he puts up a decent year. If he doesn't, he will drop more. The junior year is key in evaluating a college prospect. He is already an upper classman, so he's not stuck behind more experienced players, but he's also not older than everyone the way a senior would be. A kid's junior year numbers are more telling than any other year when it comes to predicting an NHL future.

 

[nyr2k2]

Probably. I certainly will if he puts up a decent year. If he doesn't, he will drop more. The junior year is key in evaluating a college prospect. He is already an upper classman, so he's not stuck behind more experienced players, but he's also not older than everyone the way a senior would be. A kid's junior year numbers are more telling than any other year when it comes to predicting an NHL future.

Is that based on any empirical evidence?

 

[Beer League Sniper]

Going Graves here over Boo. Graves had a strong season and Boo a disappointing one. I'll take Boo next round.

Add Shestyorkin.

 

[Beacon]

Is that based on any empirical evidence?

I didn't study it, but having followed closely prospects for over two decades, it seems to be the way things line up. Think of it this way: would you really hold a kid's freshman season against him? On the other hand, how impressed are you with Bodie playing well as a 23/24 year old? Apparently not enough to vote for him in the first 14 rounds, I suspect probably likely not for another couple of rounds.

But if a 20/21 year old junior defenseman scored a point per game in college, you'd probably have him fairly high up there, no?

 

[TheRightWay]

I didn't study it, but having followed closely prospects for over two decades, it seems to be the way things line up. Think of it this way: would you really hold a kid's freshman season against him? On the other hand, how impressed are you with Bodie playing well as a 23/24 year old? Apparently not enough to vote for him in the first 14 rounds, I suspect probably likely not for another couple of rounds.

But if a 20/21 year old junior defenseman scored a point per game in college, you'd probably have him fairly high up there, no?

What the **** does this have to do with anything? So if Bodie was a junior last season at 24 it would have put him into the top-10? Or if Bodie was 24 as a freshman and sucked it up then it wouldn't matter?

With all due respect, saying, "junior year is the most important for development and I have no evidence for this being true except for the fact that I like watching prospects and I decided it's true," is pretty ridiculous. Posting a couple of weak anecdotes to support it doesn't help.

 

[Beacon]

What the **** does this have to do with anything? So if Bodie was a junior last season at 24 it would have put him into the top-10? Or if Bodie was 24 as a freshman and sucked it up then it wouldn't matter?

Next time try reading before getting your panties in a bunch. I specifically said that I am referring to someone who's 20/21 in his junior year, the standard age to be a junior.

With all due respect, saying, "junior year is the most important for development and I have no evidence for this being true except for the fact that I like watching prospects and I decided it's true," is pretty ridiculous. Posting a couple of weak anecdotes to support it doesn't help.

Ok, so you don't have to take my word for it. It's not ridiculous, it's my observation. I am not doing a PhD dissertation on this forum, so there's no reason why everything should be carefully cited from a double-blind peer reviewed study. You can disagree, but other than attacking me personally, you really can't disagree with the point that I made. It is very obvious to everyone that the younger a player performs to par, the better it is. A point per game player in juniors at the age of 17 usually gets drafted in the first round. A point per game forward in juniors who's an overager is hoping to play in the AHL instead of getting sent down to the ECHL.

Same in college. Even if you perform really well in your freshman year as an 18 year old, the hope is always that this isn't your max, that you are just hitting your stride and will improve by the time you are an upper classman since right now you are younger than everyone. If you are older than everyone else and outperform them, it usually means jack s--t. But the junior year seems to be the sweet spot where you are about average age compared to your competition.

 

[YoSoyLalo]

We have a lot more depth than a lot of people give us credit for

 

[darko]

We have a lot more depth than a lot of people give us credit for

We absolutely do.

Last time we voted there was a massive drop off after 10th or 11th prospects. There's a handful of prospects not yet ranked that are quiet intriguing.

 

[Zil]

We absolutely do.

Last time we voted there was a massive drop off after 10th or 11th prospects. There's a handful of prospects not yet ranked that are quiet intriguing.

Yeah, there are still plenty of interesting guys to be added: Shestyorkin, Mantha, Nejezchleb, Walcott, Nanne, and McCarthy have potential.

 

[Beacon]

We absolutely do.

Last time we voted there was a massive drop off after 10th or 11th prospects. There's a handful of prospects not yet ranked that are quiet intriguing.

In addition to the 7 draftees, we got Haggerty, Zamorky, Bodie and McCarthy. Adding 11 prospects will do this to a prospect pool. We may be ranked low, but that's because the rankings are based on the top 5 prospects. The sheer depth creates quality because we can rely on kids ranked 15-20 and even some kids ranked 20-30 to make it.

I have no doubt that several of the prospects we haven't ranked yet will be NHLers.