HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Notices

Final Prospect Rankings - Summer 2009

View Poll Results: Do you mostly agree with these rankings?
Yes 32 78.05%
No 4 9.76%
I don't know enough to judge 5 12.20%
Voters: 41. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-22-2009, 05:03 AM
  #1
Beacon
Sent to HF Minors
 
Beacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 8,060
vCash: 500
After more than a month of voting, we finally have our list of prospects. With 50 prospects in total, about half of whom having a very good chance of cracking the NHL, this is probably the deepest prospect list that the Rangers had since HFboards began these rankings.

We can reasonably expect more than a dozen of these kids to play regularly in the NHL. We may not have any superstars on the list, but we sure will have a lot of depth plus a superstar goalie, which is what the Debbies used to win 3 Cups in 9 years.

In all 42 players got ranked - 35 individually plus 7 honorable mentions. A few more got listed as Rangers property. This list should be valuable to all those looking to track our prospects during the pre-season and then in Hartford.

When we do our mid-season rankings, we will probably go down from 35 individual players to either 25 or 30 because a few prospects are bound to not live up to expectations.

But by then, a few will rise in what is expected of them. Until then, here are the top 50 New York Rangers prospects:


TOP PROSPECTS

1. Artem Anisimov
2. Evgeny Grachev
3. Michael Del Zotto
4. Bobby Sanguinetti
5. Ryan McDonagh
6. Derek Stepan
7. Matt Gilroy
8. Chris Kreider
9. Michael Sauer
10. Ethan Werek


SECOND-TIER PROSPECTS

11. Tomas Kundratek
12. Dane Byers
13. Ryan Bourque
14. Brian Boyle
15. Corey Potter
16. Nigel Williams
17. Ilkka Heikkinen
18. David Kveton
19. Pavel Valentenko
20. Brodie Dupont


PROJECTS

21. Carl Hagelin
22. Chris Doyle
23. Dale Weise
24. Chad Johnson
25. Mitch Gaulton
26. Matt Zaba
27. Jordan Owens
28. Roman Horak
29. Max Campbell
30. Tomas Zaborsky


SUSPECTS

31. Mihail Pashnin
32. Justin Soryal
33. Miika Wiikman
34. Tysen Dowzak
35. Scott Stajcer


HONORABLE MENTIONS
(based on how many votes they got in the last round)

36. Chris Chappell
37. Paul Crowder
38. Devin DiDiomete
39. Sam Klassen
40. Daniel Maggio
41. David Skokan
42. Ryan Hillier


RANGERS PROPERTY WORTH KNOWING
(Not ranked, listed in alphabetical order, but count them as 43-50)

* Ambuhl, Andres
* Bahensky, Zdenek
* Beller, Greg
* Hobbs, Danny
* Hunter, Eric
* Locke, Corey
* Psurny, Roman
* Zelisa, Lucas

RANGERS PLAYERS 26 OR YOUNGER
(They will be in their prime for another half dozen or more years)

Defense: Marc Staal and Dan Girardi.

Forwards: Brandon Dubinsky, Ryan Callahan, Chris Higgins and Enver Lisin.


Last edited by Beacon: 08-22-2009 at 02:46 PM.
Beacon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-22-2009, 05:19 AM
  #2
HoosierDaddy
Registered User
 
HoosierDaddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Norway
Country: Norway
Posts: 1,029
vCash: 500
Nice job BH99. You are correct, this is the strongest group of prospects we've had since I can remember. And I go back to the mid-60s. I hate our "illustrious GM for Life" with a passion, but the farm is an area he deserves a little credit.

HoosierDaddy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-22-2009, 06:19 AM
  #3
Beacon
Sent to HF Minors
 
Beacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 8,060
vCash: 500
Barring terrible all-around development or asset management, our defense should be set. Ten out of the top 19 prospects are defensemen, and with Staal+Girardi, we have only 4 spots to fill. Those 10 plus a half dozen lower level prospects should be enough to fill the 4 holes.

The second line could be Higgins - Dubinsky - Callahan and the fourth line would be Byers - Boyle - Soryal/Didi.

The third line should be ok too with Lisin already an NHLer and guys like Werek, Weise, Hagelin, Dupont, Kveton, Doyle, Owens, Campbell, Zaborsky, etc. to fill the two remaining spots. I am sure a pair of them will do it.


I have concerns about the first line though. Will either Anisimov or Stepan develop into a true first line center? Will either Grachev, Kreider or Bourque develop into a true first line winger? The development of those 5 will determine whether we win several Cups or none at all.

I agreed with the selection of a forward (Kreider) with top end potential in this year's draft, but I doubt it's enough up front. I would like to see another forward with top line potential either drafted in 2010 or traded for this season.

Maybe we can deal Rosie + Kotalik at the trade deadline to a Cup contender willing to give up a top forward prospect. These are two good veteran players and if I am the GM going for the Cup this year, I would surrender a top prospect to significantly improve the team's depth both up front and on the blue line.


Last edited by Beacon: 08-22-2009 at 07:12 AM.
Beacon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-22-2009, 10:32 AM
  #4
SupersonicMonkey*
DROP THE PUCK
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 15,193
vCash: 500
I like it.

Except Kundratek is not a second tier prospect, IMO. He should be in the top 10, and will be in the mid-season rankings when Anisimov and Gilroy are in the NHL and no longer on the list.

Bourque and Kundratek will take their place in the top 10 mid-season.

Im really excited about the future.

Everyone complained that we didn't have size and skill up front... All of them being either teenagers or very early 20's, they still have room to grow.

Grachev 6-3, 202
Anisimov 6-4, 194
Kreider 6-2, 201
Werek 6-1, 199
Dubinsky 6-1, 205
Stepan 6-0 still room to grow.

5 guys that could conceivably be in the top 9.

The forward crop is just as exciting as the D-crop.

Very exciting time for us Rangers fans. I don't ever recall having the system this deep.

SupersonicMonkey* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-22-2009, 11:42 AM
  #5
jniklast
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Country: Germany
Posts: 4,708
vCash: 500
what about eric hunter and greg beller, how can you not include them?

jniklast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-22-2009, 12:01 PM
  #6
TylerDurden
Registered User
 
TylerDurden's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 863
vCash: 500
Of the prospects we acquired, McDonagh was listed number 1 for the Habs and he's number 5 here. Nigel Williams I believe was ranked third for Colorado and he's ranked 16 here.

Very interesting to say the least.

TylerDurden is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-22-2009, 12:35 PM
  #7
ThirdEye
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: New York
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 11,666
vCash: 500
Although my biases insist otherwise, McDonagh really should be third. I think his chance of succeeding in the NHL is higher than that of Del Zotto and Sanguinetti. I can see why the more offensive minded defenseman are more valued though... there is a bigger need for them on the team right now.

ThirdEye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-22-2009, 01:36 PM
  #8
The Perfect Paradox
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Long Island, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 6,496
vCash: 50
I think that it's pretty accurate. I think Williams and Heikkenin should be a little higher but that's just my opinion. After looking at the full list, I'm very impressed. We have plenty of depth in the farm system and I'm really excited to see how our top prospects are going to pan out. We have a bright future ahead of us. Now we just really have to hope management develops all of our players correctly.

The Perfect Paradox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-22-2009, 02:54 PM
  #9
Beacon
Sent to HF Minors
 
Beacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 8,060
vCash: 500
The Rangers top 15 on the main HF site were:

1. Anisimov
2. DZ
3. Grachev
4. Sang
5. Stepan
6. Sauer
7. Byers
8. Kundratek
9. Hagelin
10. Zaborsky
11. Wiikman
12. Campbell
13. Dupont
14. Doyle
15. Weise

Notice that the only person who went up is Grachev, who inched up from 3 to 2. Anisimov stayed at #1. The remaining 13 all dropped. That's a testament to how many prospects we acquired. (Notice that our first rounder was only #8 on the present list.)

It's not as if all of them got worse. But we got so many more prospects that a guy like Zabo went from #10 to #30 despite having a much second half of the season than the first half.

Another top 10 prospect Hagelin dropped to 21. Wiikman dropped 22 spots and Campbell 17.

Nobody who was outside the previous top 8 wound up in the top 20 this time. Now that's what you call depth!

That said, I still want at least one more first round quality forward prospect like Kreider.

Beacon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-23-2009, 12:38 PM
  #10
dank
Registered User
 
dank's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: NYC
Posts: 5,867
vCash: 500
find it hilarious that Hillier is 42..

dank is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-23-2009, 12:42 PM
  #11
FLYLine24*
 
FLYLine24*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: NY
Country: United States
Posts: 29,102
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dank View Post
find it hilarious that Hillier is 42..
Pretty sure people just forgot about him till the very end, myself included.


He's obviously not top 20, but i could see him around 20-30.

FLYLine24* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-23-2009, 03:10 PM
  #12
Beacon
Sent to HF Minors
 
Beacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 8,060
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dank View Post
find it hilarious that Hillier is 42..
Two comments:

1. If people just forgot about him, then this won't happen next time. Since we just got 50 people ranked or listed, next time during the mid-season rankings, people will have a full list of Rangers prospect available for them. I will make sure to link to this listing in January.

2. I don't think he was just forgotten. He shouldn't be in the top 30. He is where I would rank him.

Hillier failed to make the AHL, not even for a cup of coffee. He wasn't even that good in the ECHL. He was tied for 7-9 in total scoring in Charlotte, but several players had more points per game (they played fewer games because they got called up). So he was no more than a third liner in the ECHL. Not good.

Nor did he play that well in the QMJHL. He had point per game in his last year (less in prior years), which would be only ok in the OHL or the WHL, but is bad in the more offensive QMJHL.

There's no reason to suspect that he'll ever even come close to cracking the NHL. I will bet you that he'll be stuck in the ECHL the vast majority of the upcoming season. Hillier will be lucky if he ever establishes himself as a solid AHLer.

My HF rank for him would be 5F.

Beacon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-23-2009, 03:28 PM
  #13
FLYLine24*
 
FLYLine24*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: NY
Country: United States
Posts: 29,102
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrooklynHockey99 View Post
Two comments:

1. If people just forgot about him, then this won't happen next time. Since we just got 50 people ranked or listed, next time during the mid-season rankings, people will have a full list of Rangers prospect available for them. I will make sure to link to this listing in January.

2. I don't think he was just forgotten. He shouldn't be in the top 30. He is where I would rank him.

Hillier failed to make the AHL, not even for a cup of coffee. He wasn't even that good in the ECHL. He was tied for 7-9 in total scoring in Charlotte, but several players had more points per game (they played fewer games because they got called up). So he was no more than a third liner in the ECHL. Not good.

Nor did he play that well in the QMJHL. He had point per game in his last year (less in prior years), which would be only ok in the OHL or the WHL, but is bad in the more offensive QMJHL.

There's no reason to suspect that he'll ever even come close to cracking the NHL. I will bet you that he'll be stuck in the ECHL the vast majority of the upcoming season. Hillier will be lucky if he ever establishes himself as a solid AHLer.

My HF rank for him would be 5F.
Coming in 26th in points in the QMJHL is bad?

Nobody here is calling him a future star, but to say he put up bad numbers is quite the reach.

One year ago he was ranked 9th on our prospect list...he didn't move down 33 spots because of one season in the ECHL. He's still a decent 3rd round pick from 2006.

He was forgotten about, plain and simple, that is why he was ranked 42nd in this, which is a joke.

FLYLine24* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-23-2009, 03:57 PM
  #14
Beacon
Sent to HF Minors
 
Beacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 8,060
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FLYLine24 View Post
Coming in 26th in points in the QMJHL is bad?

Nobody here is calling him a future star, but to say he put up bad numbers is quite the reach.

One year ago he was ranked 9th on our prospect list...he didn't move down 33 spots because of one season in the ECHL. He's still a decent 3rd round pick from 2006.

He was forgotten about, plain and simple, that is why he was ranked 42nd in this, which is a joke.

Being 26th in the QMJHL isn't bad, but it's not great for your last year in juniors, as shown by his poor performance in the pros last year.

His QMJHL numbers would've been excellent in the pre-draft year. Solid in the post-draft year. Meh in the last year. His numbers were also artificially inflated by playing with an offensive dynamo.

He's not big and he's an offensive player. He should've had more than 26 points in 66 games in the ECHL.

Last year, our prospect list wasn't that good. I am very high on this bunch, but if you check my posts last year, I was complaining about our crop as being not particularly deep.

We've added probably 20 prospects since then who have better value than a third line role player in the ECHL.


Last edited by Beacon: 08-23-2009 at 04:16 PM.
Beacon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-23-2009, 04:57 PM
  #15
Ian
Mike York fan club
 
Ian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Long Island, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,608
vCash: 500
Hillier could probably rank anywhere from 31 or so to 42, but really at that point it becomes preference more than anything, so it's not really a big deal.

Ian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-23-2009, 05:08 PM
  #16
BrooklynRangersFan
Change is good.
 
BrooklynRangersFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brooklyn of course
Country: United States
Posts: 10,112
vCash: 500
I agree with BH99. I was well aware of Hillier and not voting for him - I was extremely disturbed by the fact that he played in the ECHL last year. Not to mention that he didn't do anything while there.

A 3rd round pick from 3 years ago needs stick at Hartford - and start putting up numbers. To not be able to do either, is very, very bad. Not sure where he fits, but there were 35 guys I liked better.

I wasn't voting for Zaborsky as high as many of you for a similar reason. IMO he also wound up about where he should have at number 30. I was glad to see that he appeared to turn it around at Dayton and earn a callup back to the Pack, but as an '87 birthday, playing most of the year in the ECHL is a sign that you've slipped on your development curve.


Last edited by BrooklynRangersFan: 08-23-2009 at 05:16 PM.
BrooklynRangersFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-23-2009, 06:51 PM
  #17
nyr2k2
Can't Beat Him
 
nyr2k2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Country: United States
Posts: 22,769
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by FLYLine24 View Post
Coming in 26th in points in the QMJHL is bad?

Nobody here is calling him a future star, but to say he put up bad numbers is quite the reach.

One year ago he was ranked 9th on our prospect list...he didn't move down 33 spots because of one season in the ECHL. He's still a decent 3rd round pick from 2006.

He was forgotten about, plain and simple, that is why he was ranked 42nd in this, which is a joke.
I had him in mind when voting. However, we have such a glut of prospects similar to him in potential, it's inevitable that someone slips farther than they should. That's probably Hillier this time around.

I focused my energy on trying to have Zaba, Wiikman, Zaborsky and DiDiomete added.

nyr2k2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-24-2009, 01:59 AM
  #18
darko
Registered User
 
darko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Country: Australia
Posts: 30,003
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TylerDurden View Post
Of the prospects we acquired, McDonagh was listed number 1 for the Habs and he's number 5 here. Nigel Williams I believe was ranked third for Colorado and he's ranked 16 here.

Very interesting to say the least.

There's few people saying negative things about Williams so I would kinda put bit of an asterix next to his name. Also that ranking may be abit outdated. Dont really know much about the guy but just when you look at the number of people bashing him it has to raise some red flags.


We definitely have very good depth and pretty much agree with the list. There's few guys who I would move up or down but that would be just neatpicking...

darko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-25-2009, 06:13 PM
  #19
bagh
Registered User
 
bagh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 543
vCash: 562
Judging by how highly the defencemen we recently traded for are rated according to HF, I think our rankings and theirs might differ greatly:

http://www.hockeysfuture.com/teams/new_york_rangers

They have Williams and McDonagh rated higher above both Del Zotto and Sangunetti.

bagh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-25-2009, 07:18 PM
  #20
Beacon
Sent to HF Minors
 
Beacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 8,060
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bagh View Post
Judging by how highly the defencemen we recently traded for are rated according to HF, I think our rankings and theirs might differ greatly:

http://www.hockeysfuture.com/teams/new_york_rangers

They have Williams and McDonagh rated higher above both Del Zotto and Sangunetti.

Those players were ranked higher when they were on other teams. I bet you this shows the general anti-New York bias much more than anything else.

Beacon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-26-2009, 03:00 AM
  #21
Ola
Registered User
 
Ola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 17,288
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrooklynHockey99 View Post
Those players were ranked higher when they were on other teams. I bet you this shows the general anti-New York bias much more than anything else.
Yeah, but I am definitly worried when a team trades a prospect. McDonagh could have been someone who was moved as a center pice and MTL had to give up to get something.

But Colorado gave away Williams. Teams keeps very good track of their own prospects. And it doesn't take much for a team these days to deem a prospect "untouchable". Like it seems atleast like if we called around and offered Lundqvist around the league there are plenty of prospects we never could get...

Ola is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-26-2009, 08:01 AM
  #22
eco's bones
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Elmira NY
Country: United States
Posts: 12,280
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrooklynRangersFan View Post
I agree with BH99. I was well aware of Hillier and not voting for him - I was extremely disturbed by the fact that he played in the ECHL last year. Not to mention that he didn't do anything while there.

A 3rd round pick from 3 years ago needs stick at Hartford - and start putting up numbers. To not be able to do either, is very, very bad. Not sure where he fits, but there were 35 guys I liked better.

I wasn't voting for Zaborsky as high as many of you for a similar reason. IMO he also wound up about where he should have at number 30. I was glad to see that he appeared to turn it around at Dayton and earn a callup back to the Pack, but as an '87 birthday, playing most of the year in the ECHL is a sign that you've slipped on your development curve.
Agree with all of this. Hillier and Zaborsky got passed by a number of other players and that's why they fell--Hillier especially. If they can't make it in Hartford they're not going to make it to New York.

eco's bones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-26-2009, 10:46 AM
  #23
vipernsx
Flatus Expeller
 
vipernsx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Country: United States
Posts: 6,365
vCash: 566
Quote:
Originally Posted by SupersonicMonkey View Post
Except Kundratek is not a second tier prospect, IMO. He should be in the top 10, and will be in the mid-season rankings when Anisimov and Gilroy are in the NHL and no longer on the list.

The forward crop is just as exciting as the D-crop.

Very exciting time for us Rangers fans. I don't ever recall having the system this deep.
Agreed. Kudratek sitting in the 2nd tier is only a testament of how deep the prospect pool is. I'm glad to see that Management has changed the philosophy of the organization and has stopped draining youth for costly veterans. It will pay off greatly over the next couple of years. Although at times it seems like it, Drury and Redden won't be financial burdens forever and there will be money to sign other elite UFAs like Gabby.

Although we lack that elite prospect, which we lost when Cherry's tragedy occurred, I have very high hopes of Stepan, he's got real potential to become a puck distributing wizard which is what I really like in a center. Add to it Gabby is young and signed for 5 years and we've got time to attract more stars.

I'm so excited I wish I could watch more WolfPack games. Anyone know if they're streamed online?

vipernsx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-26-2009, 11:26 AM
  #24
eco's bones
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Elmira NY
Country: United States
Posts: 12,280
vCash: 500
Going by Prospect Park's game by game reporting Kundratek had a fairly uneven season. Maybe PP is not a great source but they're about the only one that tracks players game by game (with commentary) that we have. They expected more offense out of him for one thing. Kundratek had a very good WJC but his season in Medicine Hat had its ups and downs. To me he's high enough at 11 if not a few places too high comparitive to others and keeping in mind that we have a deep pool--another way of saying he needs to raise his game and play with more consistency IMO just to stay where he is.

eco's bones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2009, 03:10 PM
  #25
Garfinkel1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: CT
Posts: 3,435
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ola View Post
Yeah, but I am definitly worried when a team trades a prospect. McDonagh could have been someone who was moved as a center pice and MTL had to give up to get something.

But Colorado gave away Williams. Teams keeps very good track of their own prospects. And it doesn't take much for a team these days to deem a prospect "untouchable". Like it seems atleast like if we called around and offered Lundqvist around the league there are plenty of prospects we never could get...
I know this is kind of OT here but who couldn't we get. I can't think of a single prospect that was untouchable when the likes of Kind Henry is on the table.

Garfinkel1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:20 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.