HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   New York Rangers (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=24)
-   -   2004 HF Org. Rankings (Part 2) (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=106176)

nyr5186 09-29-2004 01:06 AM

2004 HF Org. Rankings (Part 2)
 
http://www.hockeysfuture.com/article.php?sid=7223

Guess which team is in the top 10! :)

Balej20* 09-29-2004 01:21 AM

Hell yeah baby!! :handclap: :banana: :handclap:

WE HAVE A FUTURE!!

Balej20* 09-29-2004 01:23 AM

im curious to see the updated top 50 prospects list as well.

RangerBoy 09-29-2004 05:59 AM

Remaining teams

Rangers
Montreal
Edmonton
Pittsburgh
Washington
Chicago
Nashville
Atlanta
Anaheim
Minnesota

In no order

in the hall 09-29-2004 07:49 AM

well lets try to guess the order!

0. Atlanta
9. Anaheim
8. Minnesota
7. Edmonton
6. Nashville
5. Pittsburgh
4. Montreal
3. Rangers
2. Chicago
1. Washington

Big Bill 09-29-2004 07:56 AM

Almost the same as in the hall's list

10. Anaheim
9. Atlanta
8. Minnesota
7. Nashville
6. Edmonton
5. Rangers
4. Pittsburgh
3. Montreal
2. Chicago
1. Washington

ECL 09-29-2004 08:07 AM

10. Anaheim
9. Atlanta
8. Minnesota
7. Edmonton
6. Nashville
5. Rangers
4. Montreal
3. Pittsburgh
2. Chicago
1. Washington

True Blue 09-29-2004 08:26 AM

Not to rain on peoples' parade, but how can we go from one of the worst (last year) to one of the best (this year) so quicky?

Vito Andolini 09-29-2004 08:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by True Blue
Not to rain on peoples' parade, but how can we go from one of the worst (last year) to one of the best (this year) so quicky?

Because it was all part of Glen Sather's master plan.

- Phase 1 was to force the fans into apathy.
- Phase 2 was to help bolster other teams for their playoff runs
- Phase 3 is to watch our prospects developing in other leagues while the owners and players association enjoy a game of liars poker.
- And of course Phase 4 is to eat a pint of Ben and Jerry's delicious Chunky Monkey ice cream

in the hall 09-29-2004 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by True Blue
Not to rain on peoples' parade, but how can we go from one of the worst (last year) to one of the best (this year) so quicky?

by trading all the value (which we had lots of) on our pro roster for top valued youngsters and picks which turned into top valued youngsters and have our current crop improve their value

so we added quality depth and developed quality all in this one year

Lundqvist, Prucha, Dawes, Murry, Lampman, Taylor are just some that have increased their stock since Sept '03

according to these rankings, we have already jumped 20 spots since last year that alone defies what you are saying

True Blue 09-29-2004 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by in the hall
according to these rankings, we have already jumped 20 spots since last year that alone defies what you are saying

Exactly my problem. It does not defy what I am saying, it only highlights it. Last year we were one of the more barren farm systems. Yet this year, we are jumping no less than 20 spots? And all of this without the so-called "superstar prospect"? Heck, Carolina has Vanek. Calgary has Phaneuf.

Guy Flaming 09-29-2004 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by True Blue
Exactly my problem. It does not defy what I am saying, it only highlights it. Last year we were one of the more barren farm systems. Yet this year, we are jumping no less than 20 spots? And all of this without the so-called "superstar prospect"? Heck, Carolina has Vanek. Calgary has Phaneuf.

When you acquire a handful of prospects at the deadline (Balej, Helminen, etc) and then have about 10 selections in the first 2-3 rounds... you're bound to add to your prospect corps and that's what this rankings looks at. To me it's a no brainer that the Rangers are top 10.

Buffalo has Vanek by the way.

Some would argue that Montoya is a blue chipper, as are Balej and Jessiman.

sathershouldgo 09-29-2004 10:29 AM

They probably won't rank us higher then 8th. If we had a big center prospect we would be top 5. I think after next years draft we will be top 5. We have amazing depth in our system but we still lack that huge centerman unless somebody surprises.

in the hall 09-29-2004 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by True Blue
Exactly my problem. It does not defy what I am saying, it only highlights it. Last year we were one of the more barren farm systems. Yet this year, we are jumping no less than 20 spots? And all of this without the so-called "superstar prospect"? Heck, Carolina has Vanek. Calgary has Phaneuf.

I thought you were arguing that it the Rangers would not have a chance at being a top 5 or top 3 team. I disagree, look at the situation. We have as much depth if not more then any other team, while we don't have that stone cold superstar, we do have a few with that upside and that are considered blue chip prospects. The teams you named, for example Calgary, only has Phaneuf, there are no teams with the next Heatly-Kovalchuk combo still prospects. While we may not have any Kovalchuk's we do have multiple Frolovs if that makes any sense.

in the hall 09-29-2004 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sathershouldgo
They probably won't rank us higher then 8th. If we had a big center prospect we would be top 5. I think after next years draft we will be top 5. We have amazing depth in our system but we still lack that huge centerman unless somebody surprises.

Why do we need a huge centerman in order to be a top 5 team?

NYR469 09-29-2004 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by True Blue
Not to rain on peoples' parade, but how can we go from one of the worst (last year) to one of the best (this year) so quicky?

when you add 26 of the organizations top 40 prospects since last summer plus see major improvements/exceeding of expectations from lundqvist, prucha, dawes, baranka, etc you rocket up the rankings...while most teams add 5-7 players in the draft while losing 3-4 to graduation each year, we add 26 while losing 3-4 to graduation.

the difference in depth and talent in the organization between now and last year is mindboggling.

Fletch 09-29-2004 10:42 AM

Tb..
 
it's a combination of all that was added through the draft this past year (through the Rangers many picks in the top 60 or so), players acquired at the deadline (including Immonen, Kondratiev, Balej, Betts, and Helminen), and other players making positive strides (including Lundqvist, Tyutin and Lampman), coupled with other teams having players graduate (as the Rangers had few or none - can't name one off the top of my head aside from Ortmeyer) from prospect status, as well as trading away players and picks the last couple years because they're in a Cup run (the Rangers of course not being in that).

And TB...maybe no superstar, but there's a heck of a lot of depth out there, and a lot of it people think could be potentially good. I don't think the organizational listing is based on the quality of superstars, but overall quality and depth of the cupboard (although who knows, perhaps Montoya or Lundqvist become a superstar - maybe Balej turns into a 30 goal scorer - maybe Tyutin's a top pair defenseman going against top lines - maybe Jessiman ends up filling out his body further and becomes a monster - yeah, no Ovechkins, but not a bad bunch).

sathershouldgo 09-29-2004 01:55 PM

For starters our system was not completely barren last year. It was rated low by Ranger haters who had no clue on half our prospects. Ratings for Dawes, Prucha, Wiseman, Jonasen, were comical at best. We added 2 starters for sure in Kondratiev and Balej. Then we added Helminen and Immonen who are likely to be starters for our team. So figure in we got about 4 guys that probably will make the NHL and had 3 or 4 players that were rated completely wrong and you can see why we jumped.

We should have been about 20 to start the season last year. Then probably about 15 after the trades and our draft probably moved us up about 7 spots. People who question this sound more like Devil fans then Ranger fans. The Devil system which by the way should be ranked at least 20th or lower.

Fletch 09-29-2004 02:09 PM

I wouldn't say they were a joke...
 
unfortunately when little is known about you you tend to be ranked near where you were drafted. Dawes was drafted in the fifth round, and in that year was not highly rated by HF's staff (last year). Why would HF's staff take a leap that many GMs were not willing to take? What, should he have been given a high ranking, something higher than the pros were not willing to do otherwise with his numbers he would've gone in the first or second round?

Wiseman was drafted in the 9th and I believe Prucha was too. They started low (and that's where the professionals ranked tham) and there's a lot of proving to be done to get out of that hole, as there always is.

sathershouldgo 09-29-2004 02:11 PM

"Why would HF's staff take a leap that many GMs were not willing to take"

You evaluate a player based on production. Many GM's were stupid on Dawes just like they were with St. Louis and Madden.

GM's get caught up in 6'3, 6'4 players forgetting that talent, smarts, heart and production is what makes a player

SingnBluesOnBroadway 09-29-2004 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sathershouldgo
"Why would HF's staff take a leap that many GMs were not willing to take"

You evaluate a player based on production. Many GM's were stupid on Dawes just like they were with St. Louis and Madden.

GM's get caught up in 6'3, 6'4 players forgetting that talent, smarts, heart and production is what makes a player

No, you evaluate a player on potential.

If a kid scores 50 goals in pee wee, does that mean he will become a 30 goal scorer in the NHL?

Fletch 09-29-2004 02:25 PM

Ok...
 
30 GMs were stupid as they had about 150 chances to pick Dawes but for some reason passed each time. While GMs and scouts aren't perfect, they are privy to a lot more information (including interviews with coaches, tapes of games, and collaborating information) than us. And they don't get it right, but there are a lot more guys in the NHL, I believe, who were drafted in the first couple rounds, than in latter rounds, so they're do often get it right. And size does matter. Scroll through the years of WHL, OHL and 'Q' of players who were high scorers but never made it to the NHL. Many of them just do not have the size (and often drive or skating ability, cheif among others) to make it to the NHL. I'll bring back my Don Biggs example - drafted 8th many years ago. In his year after being drafted he was on the same team as John MacLean. His point per game total was comparable to Mac's (a bit off), he was second on the team in scoring, and he had one more point than Johnny Mac in as many playoff games [and Mac was six months older]. Biggs played in 12 NHL games (he is also 5'8), despite leading several of his AHL teams in scoring. Why is that? I dunno, but it tells me you must look at something other than production. As SBOB pointed out, success at one level does not mean success at another. Size does matter.

Tawnos 09-29-2004 02:27 PM

I remember it being widely believed that if Dawes was bigger, he would've been selected in the top 2 rounds. There is no way he was underestimated.

Put it this way: Of the two people with similar skill sets, who is more likely to succeed in the NHL? A 6'3" 220 lb player or a 5'8" 185 lb player? It's about potential+probability. There are absolutely exceptions to the formula. But they are rare. Dawes and Prucha both have the chance to be the rare exceptions.

Sunshine 09-29-2004 05:17 PM

We have made the Top 10 Prospect List
 
We have finally been recognized - we are in the Top 10.

We may not have made the Top 10 for players with 1st/2nd line upside,
but there is no doubt in my mind that we have the BEST depth in the entire NHL.
The group we have right now will produce the most future NHL players.
For the past decade, we've lacked these role players.

Hold on tight, the Rangers will be a power again.

NYRangers 09-29-2004 05:56 PM

Heres the reason for the jump.

10 of our top 20 prospects are newly aquired since March. The ones we have had's stock kept rising, Prucha, Dawes, Tyutin, etc.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:15 AM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.