Rangers Prospect Poll (Summer 2018): #5 Prospect

[SnowblindNYR]

Boo put up some points in the NHL but i wouldn't have him anywhere near the top 10.

Poink is good, don't get me wrong, but at 5 I think it's a stretch.

Who the hell is Poink?

 

[SnowblindNYR]

BTW, I find it funny how highly regarded Hajek and Howden are now after all the devastation over the trade.

 

[Drew4u]

I see top pairing potential on Hajek, his one weakness is his shot but he's solid otherwise. Howden is more likely to develop into a middle six role.

 

[Harbour Dog]

I tried to lay out my rationale for voting for Pionk as best as I could. Particularly why I see upside with him. I'd be curious why others aren't as high on him if you guys don't mind sharing your thoughts.

For me, I see him as the polar opposite of Gilmour when it comes to the eye test.

Pionk does some very noticeable things very well. His play in the offensive zone and 1-on-1 defensive play is already that of an NHL player.

But similarly, he does some less noticeable things very poorly. His transition game from defense to offense is reminiscent of Girardi in his last few years, and his positioning and/or anticipation in the defensive zone weren't very good imo. Him and Staal (possible explanation right there) got pinned much, much more than any other pairing at the end of last season.

I'm not sure how much this would be a dissension from those who praise him a little more. It may come down to perceived room for him to continue developing.

For me, I think that the player we've seen is pretty much the player we're going to get; with the two exceptions being:
1) His scoring totals will come back down to earth, and;
2) Pairing him with a more mobile partner than Staal may cover up for some of his weaknesses.

Perhaps for all of you guys that see him as a top 5/6 prospect in our pool, there is more hope for his continued development.

I would be more than happy if he can become a steady bottom pairing D, but that isn't enough for me to vote for him yet.

I know I said I was going to avoid Pionk talk, but you're just so goddamn polite .

 

[Harbour Dog]

Who the hell is Poink?

 

[The Crypto Guy]

Who the hell is Poink?

Would have been nice if someone pointed out i've been spelling his name wrong back at poll 3

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

Who the hell is Poink?

 

[The Crypto Guy]

BTW, I find it funny how highly regarded Hajek and Howden are now after all the devastation over the trade.

I don't see them getting anymore regarded now than they were when we got them. Most posters were very excited for both prospects but some were just dissapointed we didn't get one of their elites like Foote.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

Howden, add Rykov.

I won't be able to vote next poll, if you don't add Rykov.

 

[nyr2k2]

Lias would of won with 95%+ of the votes, so we just skipped it.

I'm always opposed to doing this. What if the 60% of people that voted for Kravsy would not have voted for Andersson. I mean I think they probably would have, but you never know. Just because there was a clear 1-2 doesn't mean that everyone who voted for 1 would have then voted for 2. We've seen examples of this in the past, where a guy finishes 2nd in consecutive rounds. I forget who it was but someone a few years ago I'm pretty sure went from #2 one round to #3 the next, which didn't even make any sense.

 

[Let Blaine Die]

Howden, add Georgiev.

 

[Gardner McKay]

Would have been nice if someone pointed out i've been spelling his name wrong back at poll 3

I've got to be honest. I didn't even notice

 

[H00fHearted]

Hajek add Georgiev.

 

[pblawr]

For me, I see him as the polar opposite of Gilmour when it comes to the eye test.

Pionk does some very noticeable things very well. His play in the offensive zone and 1-on-1 defensive play is already that of an NHL player.

But similarly, he does some less noticeable things very poorly. His transition game from defense to offense is reminiscent of Girardi in his last few years, and his positioning and/or anticipation in the defensive zone weren't very good imo. Him and Staal (possible explanation right there) got pinned much, much more than any other pairing at the end of last season.

I'm not sure how much this would be a dissension from those who praise him a little more. It may come down to perceived room for him to continue developing.

For me, I think that the player we've seen is pretty much the player we're going to get; with the two exceptions being:
1) His scoring totals will come back down to earth, and;
2) Pairing him with a more mobile partner than Staal may cover up for some of his weaknesses.

Perhaps for all of you guys that see him as a top 5/6 prospect in our pool, there is more hope for his continued development.

I would be more than happy if he can become a steady bottom pairing D, but that isn't enough for me to vote for him yet.

I know I said I was going to avoid Pionk talk, but you're just so goddamn polite .

That's interesting. I think your stereotype of liking the offensive plays and one-on-one defense but not noticing poor D-zone or transition play would definitely apply to me. I may just be missing it. I would make a couple counterpoints though that I think may have some merit:

- Last year was his first season of pro-hockey and he had less than a year to adjust in the AHL before getting called up the NHL. I have to think he's going to move up the learning curve as he gets more than a year of pro experience under his belt. Especially when you consider that he has a been improving at a very rapid rate - he went from being an NCAA Freshmen to playing 1st / 2nd pair minutes in the NHL in less than 2 years - and he's still only 22 years old.
- AV's defensive system was tough for even experienced pros to learn and execute well. Was there anyone who looked good in the defensive zone in that system last year? The fact that Pionk was often going against other team's top lines and, as you mentioned, was paired with Staal definitely didn't make things easier. I wonder if that made the defensive issues you noticed look worse than they really are. I actually thought he was pretty good in transition. He can definitely skate the puck and I thought he made some really nice stretch passes, although to be fair I didn't notice his passing within the D-Zone as much.
- The 0.5 ppg in the NHL is definitely a small sample and I would admit there is something fishy about him scoring at a higher rate in the NHL than he did in the AHL. But at the same time, he scored close to a PPG in the NCAA, so he does have a history of strong offensive production. Furthermore, he doubled his scoring rate from his 1st year to his 2nd year in the USHL and then did that again in the NCAA, so he has a track record of improving his scoring as he gets experience in a league. Finally, he shows really really high end, legitimate skill and hockey sense in the offensive zone that I think should manifest itself in premium scoring production. Plays like the spin-o-rama goal against the Islanders or skating through the entire Caps team show a really high level of skill and he's also made some good plays joining the rush or slipping in behind the other team's D-zone coverage to create scoring chances both on the Rangers and in the WC.

I think of his upside moreso as a #3 D who adds premium offensive production than as a #2, but I think those have similar value. I would also add that he may deserve a small bump for being a righty.

 

[Ghost of jas]

Would have been nice if someone pointed out i've been spelling his name wrong back at poll 3

The proper spelling is S-T-I-O-N-K. Please make the necessary corrections.

 

[Harbour Dog]

I'm always opposed to doing this. What if the 60% of people that voted for Kravsy would not have voted for Andersson. I mean I think they probably would have, but you never know. Just because there was a clear 1-2 doesn't mean that everyone who voted for 1 would have then voted for 2. We've seen examples of this in the past, where a guy finishes 2nd in consecutive rounds. I forget who it was but someone a few years ago I'm pretty sure went from #2 one round to #3 the next, which didn't even make any sense.

Yeah, I agree. Even in this case, where it is all but a 100% certainty that Lias would of won, it could still have an impact on who gets added and jimmy the rankings around the 10th spot a touch.

 

[nyr2k2]

Yeah, I agree. Even in this case, where it is all but a 100% certainty that Lias would of won, it could still have an impact on who gets added and jimmy the rankings around the 10th spot a touch.

Yep, good point, who is added is something I hadn't even considered. I mean it's not a big deal, but still, there's a reason why we don't do this (and why I pitched a fit the one time I remember we did do it).

EDIT: Just want to say, though, @The Crypto Guy gets a pass on any complaints because he stepped up to do this when no one else appeared like they were going to. So, props to him.

 

[kovazub94]

Yep, good point, who is added is something I hadn't even considered. I mean it's not a big deal, but still, there's a reason why we don't do this (and why I pitched a fit the one time I remember we did do it).

I recall there were three prospects in the running and two wind up in the head-to-head extra vote after being tied. Then someone decided to give the loser of the head-to-head the next vote - I was up in arms too. : )

 

[Edge]

Thes lists are just snapshots. In three months, Hajek and Howden could both be in the NHL, or they could be in Hartford. Both players have higher upsides than Pionk, IMO, but Pionk is much more likely to earn a spot in October. More than likely, both become better players than Pionk., but right, they aren’t there yet, at least to me. Again, it’s not just upside to me. It’s also where a player is in his development and how likely it is a player will reach that potential.

For some reason, when I see Pionk, I see a player who might be closer to being the finished product.

Obviously there will be things that shored up and improved, but I've never quite been able to shake the feeling that he's the type who might come in at a certain level and then kind of remain there.

So in that regard, while I think he may have surprised some people last year, I also get the feeling that there's an assumption he could go progress significantly. Personally, I'm kind of on the fence.

 

[Harbour Dog]

That's interesting. I think your stereotype of liking the offensive plays and one-on-one defense but not noticing poor D-zone or transition play would definitely apply to me. I may just be missing it. I would make a couple counterpoints though that I think may have some merit:

- Last year was his first season of pro-hockey and he had less than a year to adjust in the AHL before getting called up the NHL. I have to think he's going to move up the learning curve as he gets more than a year of pro experience under his belt. Especially when you consider that he has a been improving at a very rapid rate - he went from being an NCAA Freshmen to playing 1st / 2nd pair minutes in the NHL in less than 2 years - and he's still only 22 years old.
- AV's defensive system was tough for even experienced pros to learn and execute well. Was there anyone who looked good in the defensive zone in that system last year? The fact that Pionk was often going against other team's top lines and, as you mentioned, was paired with Staal definitely didn't make things easier. I wonder if that made the defensive issues you noticed look worse than they really are. I actually thought he was pretty good in transition. He can definitely skate the puck and I thought he made some really nice stretch passes, although to be fair I didn't notice his passing within the D-Zone as much.
- The 0.5 ppg in the NHL is definitely a small sample and I would admit there is something fishy about him scoring at a higher rate in the NHL than he did in the AHL. But at the same time, he scored close to a PPG in the NCAA, so he does have a history of strong offensive production. Furthermore, he doubled his scoring rate from his 1st year to his 2nd year in the USHL and then did that again in the NCAA, so he has a track record of improving his scoring as he gets experience in a league. Finally, he shows really really high end, legitimate skill and hockey sense in the offensive zone that I think should manifest itself in premium scoring production. Plays like the spin-o-rama goal against the Islanders or skating through the entire Caps team show a really high level of skill and he's also made some good plays joining the rush or slipping in behind the other team's D-zone coverage to create scoring chances both on the Rangers and in the WC.

I think of his upside moreso as a #3 D who adds premium offensive production than as a #2, but I think those have similar value. I would also add that he may deserve a small bump for being a righty.

These are all good points, some of which I hadn't considered.

1) To your first one, he certainly stepped into the AHL and proved to be good enough to be a top player on a non-bottom feeding team in that league. That accomplishment alone, at the start of the season, would of been considered a success by the majority of the board. Where I find that the waters first start to get murky in our evaluations of Pionk, is when we look at the circumstances of his call up and the defensive environment in which he was placed. It isn't a case of a call up bulling his way to the top of the depth chart; with Shatty and Smith both indisposed for different reasons, ADA and Pionk were 1 and 2 on the RD depth chart. Pionk was given big shutdown minutes on an absolutely terrible team. This coming training camp, with Shatty and Smith (presumably) both back in the fold, will go a long way to determining what sort of minutes Pionk will earn on a mediocre to poor team.

2) I pretty much agree with your second point. The only defenseman who may have looked better in AVs system than he is in reality is Gilmour (and ADA should have, but that's a different story). You can toss "getting moved to a more sensible defensive scheme" into my "getting moved away from Staal" hopes for him.

3) That he has shown a tendency to adapt and produce at every level to this point is promising, no doubt. I'm fairly confident that 0.5 PPG is well over shooting what he will be doing at this level though. Let's say his most realistic upside is a 20-25 point player when given appropriate minutes, then that places him in the 75-100 range for defensemen point producers, and we'll need him to be in a similar range for defensive reliability to be a top 4 D.

Can he get there? Of course, but I'm not ready to tip my cap to him for eating defensive minutes (poorly, in my perception) on a tanking team.

And perhaps I'm undervaluing his offensive upside. A 30-point guy is a top 4 D, no matter how sheltered he would have to be.

 

[pblawr]

These are all good points, some of which I hadn't considered.

1) To your first one, he certainly stepped into the AHL and proved to be good enough to be a top player on a non-bottom feeding team in that league. That accomplishment alone, at the start of the season, would of been considered a success by the majority of the board. Where I find that the waters first start to get murky in our evaluations of Pionk, is when we look at the circumstances of his call up and the defensive environment in which he was placed. It isn't a case of a call up bulling his way to the top of the depth chart; with Shatty and Smith both indisposed for different reasons, ADA and Pionk were 1 and 2 on the RD depth chart. Pionk was given big shutdown minutes on an absolutely terrible team. This coming training camp, with Shatty and Smith (presumably) both back in the fold, will go a long way to determining what sort of minutes Pionk will earn on a mediocre to poor team.

2) I pretty much agree with your second point. The only defenseman who may have looked better in AVs system than he is in reality is Gilmour (and ADA should have, but that's a different story). You can toss "getting moved to a more sensible defensive scheme" into my "getting moved away from Staal" hopes for him.

3) That he has shown a tendency to adapt and produce at every level to this point is promising, no doubt. I'm fairly confident that 0.5 PPG is well over shooting what he will be doing at this level though. Let's say his most realistic upside is a 20-25 point player when given appropriate minutes, then that places him in the 75-100 range for defensemen point producers, and we'll need him to be in a similar range for defensive reliability to be a top 4 D.

Can he get there? Of course, but I'm not ready to tip my cap to him for eating defensive minutes (poorly, in my perception) on a tanking team.

And perhaps I'm undervaluing his offensive upside. A 30-point guy is a top 4 D, no matter how sheltered he would have to be.

That's fair. I think it's reasonable to have a difference of opinion on what his offensive upside could be and how much his defense could improve in a different system with a different partner and more experience.

 

[Harbour Dog]

That's fair. I think it's reasonable to have a difference of opinion on what his offensive upside could be and how much his defense could improve in a different system with a different partner and more experience.

Same.

Discussing prospects should be more about trying to figure out where the points of contention are, then actually "winning" a debate. It isn't like either one of us has concrete proof one way or the other.

FWIW, I hope he proves me wrong in spades.

 

[kovazub94]

For some reason, when I see Pionk, I see a player who might be closer to being the finished product.

Obviously there will be things that shored up and improved, but I've never quite been able to shake the feeling that he's the type who might come in at a certain level and then kind of remain there.

So in that regard, while I think he may have surprised some people last year, I also get the feeling that there's an assumption he could go progress significantly. Personally, I'm kind of on the fence.

I see where you're coming from re. Pionk's further development but then I think about him leaving school to turn pro a year earlier than Skjei did. I wouldn't bet on Skjei adopting as well if he was given Pionk's circumstances.

Pionk has ways to go to be a top-4 on a legit contender with a good depth in the line-up, but honestly my main concern is more around his lack of size which everyone is telling us should not be an issue where NHL is going.

 

[UAGoalieGuy]

Howden, add Rykov.

 

[UAGoalieGuy]

I'm kind of shocked how many votes Pionk is getting in this round. Yeah hes likely going to be in the NHL next year and possibly in a top 4 role, but it's more to do with organizational depth at the NHL level on D then his potential. Hes older and a bit more of a finished product after spending his years in the NCAA.

I think he isnt going to develop more than potentially a #4, but likely settle in a bottom 4 role.

I dont think hes going to progress more and some posters will jump down the kids throat for it.

Players like Howden/Hajek/Rykov have much higher ceilings and are on the upper trajectory in their development. My opinion is Pionk is going to be leveling off.

I would put him after Howden, Hajek and probably Miller/Lundkvist/Rykov.