PDA

View Full Version : This Team Has More Depth Than Most Think



MacTruck
09-28-2014, 12:47 AM
There is a lot of criticism in hockey saying the Rangers have one of the worst prospect systems in hockey. While we lack elite talent at the farm, this team is going to face a problem next season of having too many NHL-ready players, specifically at forward.

Let's assume these are the players who are under contract or who we'd like to keep in our system for 15-16.

Kreider, Nash, Brassard, Zuccarello, Stepan, St. Louis, Hagelin, D. Moore, Lombardi, Glass, Hayes, Haggerty, Duclair, Miller, Kristo, Fast, Lindberg, Buchnevich

I expect every name on this list to be NHL-ready next season. Who should we let walk? Who should we trade? Who do we waiver? Does any of this talent stay in the AHL next year?

Mike
09-28-2014, 05:19 AM
Even if all of those players are ready for next season, that doesn't mean we're deep. Having 6 rookies that may be ready to play only means you don't have to go searching to fill a spot. That doesn't make them strong. I also think expectations are a little too high right now after 2 split squad pre season games. Guys are going to be traded, and waived next season, but it won't be because they're all ready to kick the NHL door down.

JOHN
09-28-2014, 07:12 AM
I haven't seen anyone say we have one of the worst prospect pools in hockey. Far from it as a matter of fact. We do however have a very substantially limited amount of potential top end talent. In reality there's two, maybe three players with top 6 potential who have even a chance of realizing that potential in the nhl right now in our system.

Mike
09-28-2014, 08:12 AM
I haven't seen anyone say we have one of the worst prospect pools in hockey. Far from it as a matter of fact. We do however have a very substantially limited amount of potential top end talent. In reality there's two, maybe three players with top 6 potential who have even a chance of realizing that potential in the nhl right now in our system.
You're a generous fellow.

Pete
09-28-2014, 08:43 AM
I haven't seen anyone say we have one of the worst prospect pools in hockey. Far from it as a matter of fact. We do however have a very substantially limited amount of potential top end talent. In reality there's two, maybe three players with top 6 potential who have even a chance of realizing that potential in the nhl right now in our system.

Exactly. We're knee-deep in "depth" players. Only 1-2 of the rookies listed in the OP are top end players.

AmericanJesus
09-28-2014, 09:40 AM
You're a generous fellow.

Duclair and Buchnevich both have top six potential. Lindberg and Fast probably middle six. Hayes and Haggerty are still raw but could fall anywhere in the top 9 as far as potential.

Slobberknocker
09-28-2014, 10:19 AM
this topic intrigues me greatly.

i think Slats did a really good job this year of filling the cupboard back up. we have a lot of youngsters with some potential at the moment whereas you couldnt really say that this time last year.

that's what has made this camp so interesting this year. I really want to watch these guys and play along with who has a shot of developing.

in my mind our pro club looks vastly different next year.

fletch
09-28-2014, 12:21 PM
I'd argue that it doesn't matter who the Rangers have in the system. If they're not an elite talent, there's a good chance that management will acquire veterans to fill out the lineup for the big club. If anything, young talent may be used to help acquire veterans.

Sorry, it just seems to be organizational philosophy. People can point out exceptions to the rule but one of the franchise's weaknesses is developing young talent IMO.

JOHN
09-28-2014, 02:32 PM
I'd argue that it doesn't matter who the Rangers have in the system. If they're not an elite talent, there's a good chance that management will acquire veterans to fill out the lineup for the big club. If anything, young talent may be used to help acquire veterans.

Sorry, it just seems to be organizational philosophy. People can point out exceptions to the rule but one of the franchise's weaknesses is developing young talent IMO.

It's not a weakness, it's the price you pay for never rebuilding.

MacTruck
09-28-2014, 03:38 PM
I haven't seen anyone say we have one of the worst prospect pools in hockey. Far from it as a matter of fact. We do however have a very substantially limited amount of potential top end talent. In reality there's two, maybe three players with top 6 potential who have even a chance of realizing that potential in the nhl right now in our system.

ESPN, SI, Hockey's Future, and other lists I've seen all have the Rangers system 23rd or worse.

fletch
09-28-2014, 07:22 PM
It's not a weakness, it's the price you pay for never rebuilding.

Agreed it's the price you pay for never rebuilding. I argue that it would be advantageous to have some younger legs deep in a playoff run. But I can't knock the results the past few years.

Respecttheblue
09-28-2014, 08:15 PM
Agreed it's the price you pay for never rebuilding. I argue that it would be advantageous to have some younger legs deep in a playoff run. But I can't knock the results the past few years.

There certainly have been some interesting results. I get dismayed at the lack of top-6 development, but there has been some decent development, and the team has been creative with the acquisition of talents like Zuccarello, bold in dismissing the oversold Callahan, and bold again with the MSL FA move.

I like the mix of new players that have come in this year; and we have a very good coach to make something of it, even if he's conservative when it comes to rookies (which is his prerogative).

JOHN
09-28-2014, 08:50 PM
ESPN, SI, Hockey's Future, and other lists I've seen all have the Rangers system 23rd or worse.

And we'll see where those lists rank at the end of the season. We will likely be middle of the pack, as we are almost every season.

MacTruck
09-28-2014, 09:04 PM
And we'll see where those lists rank at the end of the season. We will likely be middle of the pack, as we are almost every season.

Believe me, I'm in disagreement. It's just interesting that our NHL-ready depth isn't recognized by the media whatsover.

Unless we make some really bad moves, I feel confident in a very competitive roster for years to come.

Ranger Lothbrok
09-29-2014, 08:59 PM
I haven't seen anyone say we have one of the worst prospect pools in hockey. Far from it as a matter of fact. We do however have a very substantially limited amount of potential top end talent. In reality there's two, maybe three players with top 6 potential who have even a chance of realizing that potential in the nhl right now in our system.

Well, it may not be said left and right, but there are some who think so. This is from The Hockey News last March, and the additions of the NCAA signings don't change it that much:
http://www.blueshirtsbrotherhood.com/showthread.php?12908-The-Hockey-News-Future-Watch-Issue-Has-Rangers-Ranked-30th

TwoMinutesForNothing
09-29-2014, 09:38 PM
Well, it may not be said left and right, but there are some who think so. This is from The Hockey News last March, and the additions of the NCAA signings don't change it that much:
http://www.blueshirtsbrotherhood.com/showthread.php?12908-The-Hockey-News-Future-Watch-Issue-Has-Rangers-Ranked-30th

These rankings were awful though. It was quite clear that our top 3 prospects were Skjei, Buchnevich, and Duclair in some order. They have Duclair 6th, and Buchnevich, who is probably number 1, isn't even listed at all. No credibility there.

Pete
09-29-2014, 09:43 PM
One person having a ranking and another person not agreeing doesn't make the first person less credible.

TwoMinutesForNothing
09-29-2014, 09:46 PM
One person having a ranking and another person not agreeing doesn't make the first person less credible.

No, but not having Pavel Buchnevich ranked at all does.

Pete
09-29-2014, 09:51 PM
No, but not having Pavel Buchnevich ranked at all does.

From what I can see, only tidbits of the article were posted. Could be he was left off because at the time it wasn't clear if/when he was coming over, dropping him out of the top ten.

Can't see if anyone else's Russian prospects were left off, either.

TwoMinutesForNothing
09-29-2014, 09:54 PM
From what I can see, only tidbits of the article were posted. Could be he was left off because at the time it wasn't clear if/when he was coming over, dropping him out of the top ten.

Can't see if anyone else's Russian prospects were left off, either.

I have a subscription. He wasn't mentioned and it was published after his success last season. It's just a lack of effort on their part. They always seem to be a year behind on everyone's rankings because they don't do any new research or something.

Pete
09-29-2014, 10:00 PM
I have a subscription. He wasn't mentioned and it was published after his success last season. It's just a lack of effort on their part. They always seem to be a year behind on everyone's rankings because they don't do any new research or something.

Fair enough.

I still can't agree with the Rangers having anything other than a lower 1/4 of the league prospect pool, despite their handful of boom/bust prospects.