HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   New York Rangers (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=24)
-   -   Prospect Info: Hockey's Future Rangers Top 20 prospects, Fall 2009 (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=676939)

squishy 09-01-2009 12:24 PM

Hockey's Future Rangers Top 20 prospects, Fall 2009
 
The list:

1. Evgeny Grachev, C/LW, 8.0C
2. Artem Anisimov, C, 7.5B
3. Ryan McDonagh, D, 8.0C
4. Derek Stepan, C, 8.0C
5. Michael Del Zotto, D, 7.5C
6. Bobby Sanguinetti, D, 7.5C
7. Chris Kreider, C/LW, 8.0D
8. Ilkka Heikkinen, D, 7.0B
9. Matt Gilroy , D, 7.0B
10. Michael Sauer, D, 7.0B
11. Nigel Williams, D, 7.0C
12. Tomas Kundratek, D, 7.0C
13. Dane Byers, LW, 6.5B
14. Ethan Werek, C, 7.0C
15. Ryan Bourque, C, 7.0D
16. Brian Boyle, C, 6.5B
17. Carl Hagelin, LW, 6.5C
18. Chris Doyle, C, 7.0D
19. Brodie Dupont, LW, 6.0B
20. David Kveton, RW, 6.5D

The details:
http://www.hockeysfuture.com/article...ects_fall2009/

Discuss. ;)

LyNX27 09-01-2009 12:26 PM

Looks so strong. Finally a prospect list to be proud of.

And Derek Stepan Finally getting the attention he deserves.
(Still remembers Radek27 telling him about how not good Stepan is)

ECL 09-01-2009 12:34 PM

Really disagree with Grachev over Ani, but whatever. The hype is unreal right now.

Doyle should be more of a 7.5D or 8.0F or something.

Kreider should be a C and not a D.

Love Stepan, but not over DZ at all. I think I'm Stepan's biggest fan on this board (and have been since we drafted the kid), but in no way should he be higher than Del Zotto.

Don't see how the new Finn is over Gilroy, either.

Everything else besides those complaints looks fine.

Nich 09-01-2009 12:34 PM

8. Ilkka Heikkinen, D, 7.0B
9. Matt Gilroy , D, 7.0B
10. Michael Sauer, D, 7.0B
11. Nigel Williams, D, 7.0C


realllllllly?

ECL 09-01-2009 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nich (Post 20948258)
8. Ilkka Heikkinen, D, 7.0B
9. Matt Gilroy , D, 7.0B
10. Michael Sauer, D, 7.0B
11. Nigel Williams, D, 7.0C


realllllllly?

Yeah, I don't like Heikkinen there at all. Not one bit. Above Gilroy? Not a chance. Sorry.

This is like when Zaba was ACTUALLY in our top 20.

ECL 09-01-2009 12:39 PM

And hasn't it been confirmed that Kundratek will NOT be returning to the WHL?

nyr2k2 09-01-2009 12:40 PM

I'd flip Anisimov and Grachev, then flip Sanguinetti and Del Zotto. Then I'd put Sauer ahead of Heikkinen and Gilroy. I'd drop Byers down behind Werek, Bourque and Boyle.

I think it's a good list...no glaring omissions or players that have no business being where they are.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jonathan. (Post 20948319)
And hasn't it been confirmed that Kundratek will NOT be returning to the WHL?

I haven't seen any confirmation, just speculation. He'd be an overage and an import, which is tough for a team to swallow.

ColonialsHockey10 09-01-2009 12:42 PM

I agree with most of the ratings except for Del Zotto. I really think he has higher upside, like an 8. The C is fine but this guy was touted as a top 3 pick a few months before the draft.

Does anyone remember what Staals rating was in HF? Was it like an 8.0B?

ECL 09-01-2009 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nyr2k2 (Post 20948345)
I'd flip Anisimov and Grachev, then flip Sanguinetti and Del Zotto. Then I'd put Sauer ahead of Heikkinen and Gilroy. I'd drop Byers down behind Werek, Bourque and Boyle.

I think it's a good list...no glaring omissions or players that have no business being where they are.

I wouldn't drop Byers down that far. NHL readiness has to be taken into account at least a bit.

I actually agree with all the players ON the list. Their positions on the list are a bit off, though, for me.

ECL 09-01-2009 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ColonialsHockey10 (Post 20948374)
I agree with most of the ratings except for Del Zotto. I really think he has higher upside, like an 8. The C is fine but this guy was touted as a top 3 pick a few months before the draft.

Does anyone remember what Staals rating was in HF? Was it like an 8.0B?

Around there.

Leslie is one of the most conservative graders on the site (which is a good thing -- not a bad thing). You have to take that into account. I'd rather have a conservative writer than one giving everyone 8Bs and such.

Bluenote13 09-01-2009 12:44 PM

I like it. Alot better than the polls conducted on this board.

The Perfect Paradox 09-01-2009 12:47 PM

Anisimov should be above Grachev.

Heikkinen over Sauer, Gilroy and Williams is pushing it.

Kreider and Borque should be a C not a D.

Just some things that stand out, strictly my opinion.

I really like our list of prospects, we really have to hope the Rangers develop all of them correctly. We have a bright future ahead of us.

ECL 09-01-2009 12:47 PM

Oh, and for the record, both Ani and Grachev should be 8.0Bs.

BrooklynRangersFan 09-01-2009 01:01 PM

Biggest surprise is Heikkinen - I find it hard to believe that a guy that has that kind of upside (if true) was available for the taking overseas. I mean were there even competing bids for his services?

Other than that, I don't have any real problems. I agree with Leslie that Grachev SHOULD be number 1.

Also, interesting to note that according to THIS article, Doyle remains unsigned. That issue is officially still open.

eco's bones 09-01-2009 01:04 PM

The main surprises for me are how high Heikkinen and Williams are. Kundratek is another player I'd move back into the 15 range anyway. Doyle before his back injury at 18 would be fine--now I'm not so sure.

From the missing the two guys I really like are Potter and Valentenko. It may be that Heikkinen is a real sleeper but I can easily see a spot coming down to a battle between him and Potter or Sauer and one of the other two taking it. Then again not many of us have seen him play.

One way or another it's a deep list and the deeper a list is it seems the harder it is to rank players.

Levitate 09-01-2009 01:08 PM

I think grading Kreider is somewhat of a nightmare. A D is, what, "very unlikely to pan out"?

But with Kreider, we simply don't know at this point. Any letter grade right there is a placeholder as far as I'm concerned and means nothing until we get at least a full year to see how he does in college

Vitto79 09-01-2009 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nich (Post 20948258)
8. Ilkka Heikkinen, D, 7.0B
9. Matt Gilroy , D, 7.0B
10. Michael Sauer, D, 7.0B
11. Nigel Williams, D, 7.0C


realllllllly?

maybe Heikkinen is gonna kick but, hope so

when u really look at that list it makes me think their is no pt to sign a vet. Let the kids battle it out throughout all of camp and reward 2 with spots

from that list I see Heikkinen, Gilroy, Anisimov, Boyle making the jump. With Sauer and Saguinetti having a shot to over take Heikki and Gil

nyr2k2 09-01-2009 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Levitate (Post 20948692)
I think grading Kreider is somewhat of a nightmare. A D is, what, "very unlikely to pan out"?

But with Kreider, we simply don't know at this point. Any letter grade right there is a placeholder as far as I'm concerned and means nothing until we get at least a full year to see how he does in college

It means "unlikely to reach his potential," whereas an 8 indicates "first line forward." I think I agree with that assessment. The MOST LIKELY outcome for Kreider is a third line forward. I say this because MOST prospects don't reach their full potential. I believe that Kreider will certainly become more than a third line player, but at this point, calling it "unlikely" is reasonable, IMO.

As you said, this first year will help paint a clearer picture. If he excels, I'm certain his next ranking will be bumped up to grade C.

Quote:

Originally Posted by King Henrik 30 (Post 20948444)
Anisimov should be above Grachev.

Heikkinen over Sauer, Gilroy and Williams is pushing it.

Kreider and Borque should be a C not a D.

Just some things that stand out, strictly my opinion.

I really like our list of prospects, we really have to hope the Rangers develop all of them correctly. We have a bright future ahead of us.

Kreider, maybe, but a D is right for Bourque, I think. Barring a growth spurt, I see no middle ground for him--it's boom or bust. A "C" rating indicates that he could drop two points--from an 8 to a 6--which would peg him as a third line player. I have a hard time envisioning Bourque as a third liner.

wa2k99 09-01-2009 01:41 PM

How is our number one prospect a C?

vipernsx 09-01-2009 01:41 PM

I'm really hoping Stepan can become that #1 pivot. He can really dish the puck.

If we're really lucky McDonagh becomes a #1 D. I think MDZ will be the solid all-round D and Sangs might be a PP specialist but not a true #1 D that you can count on all the time.

Any way you look at it, there are lots of guys who project to be NHLers and that's good.

wolfgaze 09-01-2009 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vipernsx (Post 20949086)
Any way you look at it, there are lots of guys who project to be NHLers and that's good.

Yeah about 7 or 8!

Management has said that recently too, I think it was Schoenfeld or Clark.

Bleed Ranger Blue 09-01-2009 01:51 PM

Disagree wholeheartedly with putting Grachev over Anisimov.

Grachev put up impressive numbers in juniors playing with the #10 overall draft pick in 2008 and the #3 overall draft pick in 2009. Its pretty obvious his numbers were inflated a bit thanks to such talented linemates.

Anisimov on the other hand was the 5th highest scorer in the AHL as a 21 year old (highest scorer under the age of 25).

I think its very difficult at this time to gauge how good Grachev will be. Anisimov is a ready product.

LyNX27 09-01-2009 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bleed Ranger Blue (Post 20949174)
Disagree wholeheartedly with putting Grachev over Anisimov.

Grachev put up impressive numbers in juniors playing with the #10 overall draft pick in 2008 and the #3 overall draft pick in 2009. Its pretty obvious his numbers were inflated a bit thanks to such talented linemates.

Anisimov on the other hand was the 5th highest scorer in the AHL as a 21 year old (highest scorer under the age of 25).

I think its very difficult at this time to gauge how good Grachev will be. Anisimov is a ready product.

If you spent some time looking at his plays or atleast his highlights you'll see how many chances he creates for them and how a lot of his players are created from his bursts of speed or sniping at the corners. I don't mean to say that They were nothing with out him and that Grachev didn't need them... But Grachev was an amazing play maker for them as well as being a talented sniper.

nyr2k2 09-01-2009 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wa2k99 (Post 20949079)
How is our number one prospect a C?

It just means that there's a reasonable chance that he becomes a third line player rather than a first line player. Since we haven't seen Grachev play against men in North America, there's still a legitimate question as to how his game will fare. If he plays well in the AHL, he'll become an 8.0B or better.

Bleed Ranger Blue 09-01-2009 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LyNX27 (Post 20949226)
If you spent some time looking at his plays or atleast his highlights you'll see how many chances he creates for them and how a lot of his players are created from his bursts of speed or sniping at the corners. I don't mean to say that They were nothing with out him and that Grachev didn't need them... But Grachev was an amazing play maker for them as well as being a talented sniper.

I have spent time on youtube, which seems to be the scouting service of choice for 99% of hfboards.

I also determined long ago that Ill never reach a conclusion on a player by watching a 4 minute clip of them set to bad rock music.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:51 PM.

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.