I think just about everybody here has seen talented prospects in our system get 4-5 ratings while many other prospects who are less productive get 7-8 ratings for other organizations
Is productivity the only parameter used in the rankings? Is it even the most important?
Think back to our own board rankings though and how almost everyone had their own thoughts on what was the most important "thing" to use when evaluating. It's very subjective. If the people doing the rankings weigh these individual parameters differently than you do, yah, you're not going to agree. That doesn't mean there's a conspiracy here. Seriosuly, what does George Bachul have to gain by sabotaging the NYR prospect rankings?
Is productivity the only parameter used in the rankings? Is it even the most important?
Think back to our own board rankings though and how almost everyone had their own thoughts on what was the most important "thing" to use when evaluating. It's very subjective. If the people doing the rankings weigh these individual parameters differently than you do, yah, you're not going to agree. That doesn't mean there's a conspiracy here. Seriosuly, what does George Bachul have to gain by sabotaging the NYR prospect rankings?
No doubt....and I used to be one of the biggest Sather fans out there...(Until I realized he may have lost his marbles. )
It amazes me that people think for a minute that any writer actually gives a four wing flying you know what about where teams or players are ranked?
When I watch hockey, I cheer less for individual teams than I do just to watch great hockey. (It comes from watching a lot of different hockey. Like, when I watched the NCAA Frozen Four, I have no reason to cheer for one team over another.)
So individual teams or prospects are rated based on the realistic assessment of what they do on the ice. For example, I just saw a report from a fan that said that Marek Schwarz looked terrible in his WHL debut. Something to look at the next time I see them. Do I care if Schwarz is terrible? Nope. Do I care if Montoya is terrible? Nope. I just a calls 'em as I sees 'em.
the Rangers do lack that Kovalchuk, and even Ovechkin-type prospect, but what they do have is a lot of depth. A lot of players in a lot of positions who can make-up a team (yeah, I said team). It doesn't look like a Stanley Cup contender in the making, but it at least may be a young, competitive team in the near future.
No doubt our prospect depth is the main strength for this franchise. Still a team does need some high end 1st line/d-pair talent on it. Even with the way the NHL is being played and superstars being pushed to the back-burner. I'm not looking for flashy players necassarily but just offensively productive ones. We should hopefully aquire them in the next few drafts.
The one thing I am happy about is the character of players the rangers have drafted/traded for/picked up in the last couple of years. You hear alot of adjectives like heart, hardwork, determination and leadership, thrown around when describing these prospects. That is what I'm looking forward to the most as none of those words could describe the Rangers for some time now. I'll always take a group of over-achievers.
Quote:
They don't have that type of prospect offensively, but they could well have it in terms of goaltending. I personally prefer that the Rangers build depth from the goal out...it's the most important part of hockey...
No doubt Fish, I was anything but dissapointed when they chose Montoya and I'll take nothing away from how important goaltending is. We definitely have the advantage in organizational depth over most of teams surrounding us. Still I'm reserved in my enthusiasm regarding our G prospects since one is still recovering from a major injury and the others haven't even sniffed the NHL yet.
Oh and Larry my 2 year old niece plays a mean game of Tiddlywinks...
The HF staff does not hate the Rangers and their fans. It's your lack of objectivity that makes you believe that our shallow prospect pools of the past should have been ranked higher than they were. Spare us your anti-HF dramatics.
A number of Slat's better picks have been late round picks and they are all projects to begin with. I think this 7 years has been a prime example of what sports management teams have to contend with in NY. I have said all along that having a team in NY goes almost counter to what the normal organization has to do.
Slat's tried to fill the building, be entertaining, and completely revamp the whole amateur and minor league and scouting departments. Most people have the luxury of gutting a franchise, suffering for 3-4 years and watch the talent grow. Slat's is arrogant, a typical NYer and maybe because he is not a NYer people don't like it. He has an agenda that he is following. I think people who pissed & moaned about him need to own up and give him credit now.
Yet you still see people say, well he should have done this 2 years ago, he was fortunate to get picks in next years draft because people had traded their 04 picks away. These are most likely the same people who said that getting all these picks in a weak draft was a mistake. They sound more like John Kerry than John Kery does!
Some funny stuff: www.newyorkrangers.com announced that www.hockeysfuture.com ranked them 7th. I can't believe they are taking these ratings serious enough to post on the official site.
A number of Slat's better picks have been late round picks and they are all projects to begin with. I think this 7 years has been a prime example of what sports management teams have to contend with in NY. I have said all along that having a team in NY goes almost counter to what the normal organization has to do.
Slat's tried to fill the building, be entertaining, and completely revamp the whole amateur and minor league and scouting departments. Most people have the luxury of gutting a franchise, suffering for 3-4 years and watch the talent grow. Slat's is arrogant, a typical NYer and maybe because he is not a NYer people don't like it. He has an agenda that he is following. I think people who pissed & moaned about him need to own up and give him credit now.
Yet you still see people say, well he should have done this 2 years ago, he was fortunate to get picks in next years draft because people had traded their 04 picks away. These are most likely the same people who said that getting all these picks in a weak draft was a mistake. They sound more like John Kerry than John Kery does!
Why are you trying to put words into posts by others when you have no idea what they were thinking?
And why should I give credit to a Jackass who tried everything but the correct way to build a hockey team for 4 years? Why should I listen to someone who is paid millions of dollars a year because of his reputation--and who claimed repeatedly that he had full control or he wouldn't have taken the job in the first place--blame the man who hired him for his mistakes?
Gutting the organization of veterans was easy. The hard part of building a real hockey team is just beginning. I'll give credit when it's due, not before.
Last edited by Brooklyn Ranger: 10-01-2004 at 07:32 PM.
When you've spent more money than any organization over the last four years (and ballooned the league's looses to $224 million by contributing $40 million to that), while you were being paid, I believe, more than any other GM (and no CBA will put any restriction on what an owner can pay his employees, other than the players he chooses to employ), and when all you have to show for it is a bunch of recent draftees and youth who are not yet ready for prime time, all the while not garnering a playoff berth in the timeframe...uh, I lost my train of thought...and he wants credit for something? Most GMs would've been fired by year 2. The rest by year 3. Now he's extended his stay a few years by 'beginning' a rebuild. Credit will be given when credit is deserved.
When you've spent more money than any organization over the last four years (and ballooned the league's looses to $224 million by contributing $40 million to that), while you were being paid, I believe, more than any other GM (and no CBA will put any restriction on what an owner can pay his employees, other than the players he chooses to employ), and when all you have to show for it is a bunch of recent draftees and youth who are not yet ready for prime time, all the while not garnering a playoff berth in the timeframe...uh, I lost my train of thought...and he wants credit for something? Most GMs would've been fired by year 2. The rest by year 3. Now he's extended his stay a few years by 'beginning' a rebuild. Credit will be given when credit is deserved.
I still believe that $40 mil number is pure BS but that's just my opinion. Cablevision's P&L has a couple of good places to move revenues and costs that can create an imaginary loss in one division and balloon profit in another. The good old black box of corporate financial reporting.
but it may not include everything. Further, it may not include the 'synergies' that Cablevision enjoys as it markets other products and programming during Ranger telecasts and at the games. Further, there is value to the mailing list, as I will often see tickets for other event being marketed because I am on their mailing list. As I've mentioned before, the financial statements of Cablevision state that if there is a lockout, it will have a negative effect on business (which goes against losing money to a large extent).
Some funny stuff: www.newyorkrangers.com announced that www.hockeysfuture.com ranked them 7th. I can't believe they are taking these ratings serious enough to post on the official site.
I just noticed the same thing. This is a big deal for "HF", no?
I think on the whole people tend to be overly positive about prospects...myself included. It's hard not to be when almost every profile you read focuses on the positives and potential and not the actual and negatives.
As much as I love watching prospects develop (or not), I've always been guided by a simple statement: The vast majority of prospects only remain prospects until they've had a chance to prove you wrong.
)
