Should Tony DeAngelo be included in our Summer Prospect Ranking?

[The Crypto Guy]

He's 22 years old still but missed the cut off by playing 6 too many NHL games (71 games).

We have bent the rules previously on players who just missed the cut off to keep them included, Yogan was the last I believe as he was a few months too old by the criteria.

I really don't mind either way but would prefer to keep him on since he still is a very young player with potential who played most of the year in the minors last season.

Majority wins. Poll closes in 16 hours and round 2 will be posted.

Click to read more...

 

[EdJovanovski]

Yes
If he played those 71 games in one season I'd say no but he hasn't even played a half season in the NHL yet

 

[kovazub94]

Yes, as a noted exception to the normal rules due to his age and the way he accumulated these NHL games that were the reason for him becoming ineligible.

 

[Kakko Schmakko]

with a plethora of Dmen he is very likely to get traded soon, so whatever you think will help his trade value. I think exclude him.

 

[Mikos87]

I didn't put him in my rankings. He's still a young player trying to make his mark. But he's been that for a few years now. At some point you have to hold him to a higher standard than saying he's still a kid. Looking forward to seeing if he can man up, instead of pleading his case on twitter.

 

[DanielBrassard]

I'd just like to see where people have him, so keep him.

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

I didn't put him in my rankings. He's still a young player trying to make his mark. But he's been that for a few years now. At some point you have to hold him to a higher standard than saying he's still a kid. Looking forward to seeing if he can man up, instead of pleading his case on twitter.

Agreed. He's gotten more than his fair share of "cups of coffee", but it doesn't seem that way to folks because only half of it occurred with the Rangers.

 

[The Crypto Guy]

Agreed. He's gotten more than his fair share of "cups of coffee", but it doesn't seem that way to folks because only half of it occurred with the Rangers.

He made the show in PHX and got what, 2 chances with the Rangers in which he got injured the 2nd one. How is that a fair share of cups of coffee?

 

[kovazub94]

Agreed. He's gotten more than his fair share of "cups of coffee", but it doesn't seem that way to folks because only half of it occurred with the Rangers.

Has nothing to do with the question of whether he should be in the poll. If you do not like him (as is your right) ahead of other prospects - rank him lower. Should he be mentioned among the prospects is the question.

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

He made the show in PHX and got what, 2 chances with the Rangers in which he got injured the 2nd one. How is that a fair share of cups of coffee?

Has nothing to do with the question of whether he should be in the poll. If you do not like him (as is your right) ahead of other prospects - rank him lower. Should he be mentioned among the prospects is the question.

I fully admit I'm not high on the kid, but of course it has something to do with our poll. As I think @Trxjw pointed out in the first poll, the number of games he played was enough to push him over our historical threshold for who is or is not a prospect. Which is why I'm saying no.

 

[eco's bones]

You have standards or you don't. If you don't like the 65 game standard--change it to 75, 80, 100. I think 65 is a bit too much (I'd be happier at 50) but whatever it is it should be across the board for everybody from one year to the next.

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

 

[Hunter Gathers]

You have standards or you don't. If you don't like the 65 game standard--change it to 75, 80, 100. I think 65 is a bit too much (I'd be happier at 50) but whatever it is it should be across the board for everybody from one year to the next.

I have always said it should be 82 games and 25 years old.

 

[NoQuitInNewMexico]

Could be a fun reference point if he turns it around or if he's in Switzerland next year

 

[kovazub94]

You have standards or you don't. If you don't like the 65 game standard--change it to 75, 80, 100. I think 65 is a bit too much (I'd be happier at 50) but whatever it is it should be across the board for everybody from one year to the next.

Of course, rules are to go by but as someone already noted there’s been a precedent for an exception in the past. If anyone’s circumstances allowed for such consideration it would be ADA.

 

[eco's bones]

I have always said it should be 82 games and 25 years old.

Well that's consistent which is good.

 

[nyr2k2]

I like standards. He met the standard we used to follow. I don't really see any compelling reason why he should be given an exemption. The only way I think he should be given consideration as a prospect is if we do away with the old criteria completely and come up with something new. But, whatever. Not a huge deal either way.

I just think it's important to have standards, because what happens when we have to consider a guy like O'Gara, who is still a prospect under the old system but probably not many would otherwise consider a prospect? Or Chris Bigras, Steven Fogarty, John Gilmour and Boo Nieves? Just helpful to have set criteria so we know who is eligible and who is not.

 

[Matz03]

yes, he's still not a full-time guy and still possible he spends some time in Hartford.

 

[eco's bones]

Of course, rules are to go by but as someone already noted there’s been a precedent for an exception in the past. If anyone’s circumstances allowed for such consideration it would be ADA.

I'm not much of a rules person really. If you want--get some kind of consensus and change it to a higher number of games. I won't have a problem with it--I'd rather the number of games were lower (mainly because a player loses his rookie status at somewhere around 25 games) but if the majority of posters would rather a higher number then I'm fine. I don't think DeAngelo or anyone else though should have exceptions made for them.

 

[nyr2k2]

I'm not much of a rules person really. If you want--get some kind of consensus and change it to a higher number of games. I won't have a problem with it--I'd rather the number of games were lower (mainly because a player loses his rookie status at somewhere around 25 games) but if the majority of posters would rather a higher number then I'm fine. I don't think DeAngelo or anyone else though should have exceptions made for them.

The HF games played criteria for losing your eligibility is 65 games for a skater and 45 for a goalie. And it is of course dependent on a variety of age-related factors as well. I posted the whole thing in the voting thread for #1 prospect.

 

[Kakko Schmakko]

He made the show in PHX and got what, 2 chances with the Rangers in which he got injured the 2nd one. How is that a fair share of cups of coffee?

He did not look that great in either of the chances and failed to score a goal, while Pionk had all kinds of success. 32 games was enough for me.

 

[pld459666]

if he is no longer defined as a prospect, regardless of when his games have been played, then he should be removed from the Rankings.

IMHO

 

[Joey Bones]

I agree with @nyr2k2

Rules are rules....

 

[The Crypto Guy]

He will be removed, but where was the outrage about rules when we bent the rules for ECHLer Yogan?

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

Remove him. Also remove Georgiyev and Pionk. None are really prospects at this point, as far as I'm concerned.