HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

HF Organization Rankings 1-10

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-30-2004, 12:10 AM
  #1
Slats432
Registered User
 
Slats432's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,594
vCash: 500
HF Organization Rankings 1-10

http://www.hockeysfuture.com/article...readed&order=0

Slats432 is offline  
Old
09-30-2004, 12:15 AM
  #2
Edge
Registered User
 
Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sin City
Country: United States
Posts: 13,196
vCash: 500
Sheesh if only the Rangers did this two years ago I would have had something to write about.

Edge is offline  
Old
09-30-2004, 12:19 AM
  #3
Slats432
Registered User
 
Slats432's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,594
vCash: 500
PM Edge.

Slats432 is offline  
Old
09-30-2004, 12:27 AM
  #4
Edge
Registered User
 
Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sin City
Country: United States
Posts: 13,196
vCash: 500
Lol you make it look like I just got in trouble for something.

Edge is offline  
Old
09-30-2004, 06:58 AM
  #5
sathershouldgo
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Shocking that the Ranger hating HF staff put us this high. Mind boggling. I guess when you stock pile so many prospects even HF can't trash you. We should be top 5 next year after the draft with more picks that we stock piled.

I'm actually hope they put all the WolfPack games on T.V. I'd probably watch every game.

 
Old
09-30-2004, 08:08 AM
  #6
nrf83
Registered User
 
nrf83's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: golf course
Country: United States
Posts: 791
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edge
Sheesh if only the Rangers did this two years ago I would have had something to write about.
you know, in a perverted way I'm glad that NYR are stocking up now. Imagine the anguish we would be experiencing if we had a young contending team ready for our first playoff run and"BANG", we have a stoppage. I don't think I could handle that. But either way I am glad that the re-stocking of the franchise has finally begun.

nrf83 is offline  
Old
09-30-2004, 08:22 AM
  #7
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,469
vCash: 500
Edge...

it would've been nive to've done it a couple years ago, but I don't know if it could've ever been as dramatic as the end of last season. I think one of the benefitting factors was that they had useful players for other teams and all were coming off contract at season's end; and of course there was the Leetch tough decision.

Should've been started a while back (and that's what he did day one with Quintal, Taylor, trying to get rid of lefebvre and Kamensky, then Graves, etc., but that's not nearly as marketable as Kovalev, Nedved, Simon, Rucinsky and Barnaby, all with no financial obligations past the end of the playoffs).

Fletch is offline  
Old
09-30-2004, 08:23 AM
  #8
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,469
vCash: 500
True nrf...

the Rangers stand to make out pretty good if there is a season lost. Why? Because a lot of their youth will then be one year older and perhaps more-ready to take the jump to the NHL next season. And there will still be a few vets tied-up who still are under 35.

Fletch is offline  
Old
09-30-2004, 08:28 AM
  #9
Melrose_Jr.
Registered User
 
Melrose_Jr.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Providence, RI
Country: United States
Posts: 10,692
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sathershouldgo
Shocking that the Ranger hating HF staff put us this high.
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.

Melrose_Jr. is offline  
Old
09-30-2004, 08:37 AM
  #10
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,330
vCash: 500
Not to mention the fact

That they head into next year's deep draft armed with 3 2nd round picks already and primed to land another top 10 (or if we dare to dream, top 5) pick. Next year's top pick HAS to either be a top-line forward or that #1 defenseman type we are still lacking. At this point, Crosby is just a dream. Brule is a good bet, but I have a feeling that to get him, we would need a top 3 pick. And as for the defensemen, I have already touted the Checzk and Russian kid as potential #1 types. Johnson is another thought. Landing the #1 defenseman type will really solidfy what is a pretty good defensive prospect core.
Anyway, the organizatinal depth will be even better after the next draft (purportedly a very good one).

True Blue is offline  
Old
09-30-2004, 08:39 AM
  #11
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,330
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose_Jr.
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.
So sayeth the shepard, so sayeth the flock

True Blue is offline  
Old
09-30-2004, 08:41 AM
  #12
DarthSather99
Registered User
 
DarthSather99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 3,267
vCash: 500
Not a bad list, although I disagree with some .... like Atlanta probably should be higher than us and Edmonton should be below us ... but I guess it all equals out somewhere along the line.

DarthSather99 is offline  
Old
09-30-2004, 08:49 AM
  #13
Kubera55
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 323
vCash: 500
Loved the list... and actually felt the Rangers were, if anything, rated a little higher than I would have expected. But not like I'm going to complain about that ;-)

Truthfully I think a true organization-by-organization ranking, much like the full top 20, would be impossible to make entirely accurate and satisfying to all parties. There are just too many variables. I think it would be more accurate to assign 'tiers' . . . and in that vein, the Rangers are about where I had them. A strong second tier prospect pool, just behind the really elite group of farm systems like Washington, Pittsburgh, and Chicago. You can debate about where the Rangers fit in that next group, or how to rank the top group.. but so long as the teams are roughly in the neighborhood they belong in, I'm a happy guy.

One thing I was a little curious about... Edmonton seems to have a very similar drafting philosophy (I know, small wonder). They're very long on depth at forward, they have two stud goaltenders, they have a lot of good-but-not-truly-elite defensive prospects. I'd probably give the Rangers the edge in net, the Oilers the edge on defense, and call it a wash at forward myself. Basically I was a little surprised to not see them rated neck-and-neck. But I'm really just quibbling.

Kubera55 is offline  
Old
09-30-2004, 08:58 AM
  #14
ECL
Very slippery slope
 
ECL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Middle America
Country: United States
Posts: 78,293
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to ECL
Edmonton at #4 is way too high IMO. They don't have much depth to their system. Not as much as NYR. ANd I think Atlanta's stock in prospects are definately better than both ours and Edmontons.

ECL is offline  
Old
09-30-2004, 10:22 AM
  #15
Broadway Brett
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Florida, but born in
Country: United States
Posts: 2,503
vCash: 500
I think that we're rated a few spots high. But, I also think that the grades that our prospects get (7.5B, for example) are a bit low. I think Korpikoski and Jessiman, in particular, have more potential than we're giving them credit for. But 5 years from now, the guy we give a 5D could be an MVP. We all know this is for fun, and that it's all just opinions, so I'm not going to go on a tyraid about it.

And thanks to everyone who helped put this project up.

Broadway Brett is offline  
Old
09-30-2004, 10:29 AM
  #16
Fish
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: New Zealand
Posts: 2,177
vCash: 500
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.

I mean who wants to read that their prospect pool sucks and there's no future for the team?

Fish is offline  
Old
09-30-2004, 11:53 AM
  #17
JCProdigy
Registered User
 
JCProdigy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: I want what I want
Posts: 1,232
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fish
I mean who wants to read that their prospect pool sucks and there's no future for the team?
Larry Melnyk always striked me as that type a guy

It's nice that the organization has rebuilt their prospect depth up to the point where they are considered in the top 10 but my pessimism is still making me blue. I look at all the teams surrounding the Rangers on that list and realize that the Rangers have such a long way to go. Just take into account the Not Eligible part of the articles. While Alanta, Chicago, Montreal and Pittsburgh have guys like Heatley, Kovalchuk, Komisarek, Ruutu, and Malone already making a serious dent in the NHL, we have Jamie Lundmark.......

JCProdigy is offline  
Old
09-30-2004, 12:03 PM
  #18
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,469
vCash: 500
I hear you JC...

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.

Fletch is offline  
Old
09-30-2004, 12:23 PM
  #19
Broadway Brett
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Florida, but born in
Country: United States
Posts: 2,503
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fish
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.

I mean who wants to read that their prospect pool sucks and there's no future for the team?
Yeah, you're probably right. IMO I belive a few of our prospects have higher potential that they are getting credit for. Even Blake Wheeler, for the Coyotes, I believe has higher potential than a 6.5. I belive that their are alot of prospects that have higher potential than the grades they are getting, and not just our prospects. But it's just an opinion.

Broadway Brett is offline  
Old
09-30-2004, 12:23 PM
  #20
Fish
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: New Zealand
Posts: 2,177
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fletch
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.
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...

Next season the Rangers might be in a better position to trade up for the Crosby pick or perhaps Brule because they have depth to trade from...

Fish is offline  
Old
09-30-2004, 12:58 PM
  #21
Larry Melnyk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Gloomsville, USA
Posts: 4,376
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JCProdigy
Larry Melnyk always striked me as that type a guy

It's nice that the organization has rebuilt their prospect depth up to the point where they are considered in the top 10 but my pessimism is still making me blue. I look at all the teams surrounding the Rangers on that list and realize that the Rangers have such a long way to go. Just take into account the Not Eligible part of the articles. While Alanta, Chicago, Montreal and Pittsburgh have guys like Heatley, Kovalchuk, Komisarek, Ruutu, and Malone already making a serious dent in the NHL, we have Jamie Lundmark.......
Hell, Even when I remain quiet, I catch flak!..Man, despite my late season epiphany last year, looks like I will never live things down...I've always had a soft spot for prospects but, hey, if the team, management, and organization sucked, I just had to tell it like it was...

Now, even if I think #7 is a bit too high, I too LIKED our new-found prospect base and was totally stoked to seeing them play and develop.....Now, I couldn't care less...The NHL is dead for at least 1-2 years and many of these prospects will never see the ice as a New York Ranger..Gotta start checking out who the hot young prospects are in the world of poker and tiddlywinks.....

Larry Melnyk is offline  
Old
09-30-2004, 01:00 PM
  #22
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,469
vCash: 500
I left that out Fish..

thanks for throwing that in. But of course goaltending never excites people. it's about the flair and dynamics of individual players that get people on the edge of their seat.

Fletch is offline  
Old
09-30-2004, 01:02 PM
  #23
sathershouldgo
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
"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."


If you don't HF hates the Rangers using terms like "Rags" you might want to visit rehab. 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

In fact this year they gave Wiseman a 4.5 which is ridiculous and Dawes and Lundqvist got lousy ratings till the board threw a fit.

 
Old
09-30-2004, 01:09 PM
  #24
sathershouldgo
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
If you remember Parise got an absurd rating when he was CLEARLY outplayed by Dawes at the worlds. They orginally gave Dawes a 6C rating I believe and the board went nuts. Then they changed it. Same with Lundqvist.

Plus Wiseman is a guy who CLEARLY outplayed a couple of Devil prospects on the AHL level who got 7's. The discrimination continues but they are getting better.

 
Old
09-30-2004, 01:19 PM
  #25
Fish
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: New Zealand
Posts: 2,177
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sathershouldgo
If you remember Parise got an absurd rating when he was CLEARLY outplayed by Dawes at the worlds. They orginally gave Dawes a 6C rating I believe and the board went nuts. Then they changed it. Same with Lundqvist.

Plus Wiseman is a guy who CLEARLY outplayed a couple of Devil prospects on the AHL level who got 7's. The discrimination continues but they are getting better.
I always put that down to individual bias on the part of editors of certain teams, plus a bias towards teams that have produced players in the past. For instance I see that Hudler is rated in the top 50 from last April and yet I wouldn't put him on par with Dawes in terms of ability and projection as an NHLer...perhaps Hudler has better leg strength at this point.

But because Detroit has been successful in recent years and has moved guys like Zetterberg, Datsyuk and Fischer up to the NHL they get a better rating for the prospect they have...either that or the Red Wings editors are simply more positive on their prospects that the Rangers editors are on theirs (non wholly unrelated to winning).

St Louis has in some ways been like the Rangers in years past getting a bad rap for their prospects and yet have turned out Backman and Jackman.

Fish is offline  
Closed Thread

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 01:44 AM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.