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

Rangers ranked 6th in Organizational rankings

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
04-06-2006, 12:10 AM
  #1
TheZherdev
Registered User
 
TheZherdev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 2,351
vCash: 500
Rangers ranked 6th in Organizational rankings

http://hockeysfuture.com/article.php?sid=8563

I thought we should have been ahead of Montreal. But good list overall.

TheZherdev is offline  
Old
04-06-2006, 12:20 AM
  #2
Balej20*
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 11,045
vCash: 500
One spot up from the last ranking in Oct.

Balej20* is offline  
Old
04-06-2006, 04:32 AM
  #3
Geogaddi
Registered User
 
Geogaddi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Dallas
Country: United States
Posts: 1,401
vCash: 500
I like...but i have to disagree...i feel like montreal deserves to be there as they have some Gems in Price, Perezhogin, Latendresse, and Chipchura. All whom are quite hard to match up to. We shall see who actually comes out on top down the road though.

Geogaddi is offline  
Old
04-06-2006, 09:03 AM
  #4
Nich
Registered User
 
Nich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Wantagh
Country: Croatia
Posts: 6,895
vCash: 500
about where we figured.

we so need to get another decent goalie in this draft. hopefully we can snag one in the 3rd round. anybody know what goalies project to be there?

Nich is offline  
Old
04-06-2006, 09:20 AM
  #5
BigE
Registered User
 
BigE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: San Francisco, CA
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,476
vCash: 500
We might be too high.

BigE is offline  
Old
04-06-2006, 09:41 AM
  #6
frozenrubber
Registered User
 
frozenrubber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 2,002
vCash: 500
Too positive

While I'm no doubt VERY happy in the revamped system, I just don't think we are 6th out of 30 in organizational depth. I know it is a very subjective pick, but I just feel other organizations have more surefire prospects. I do however, look forward to next year, when we'll really get to see big draft picks like Korpikoski. Additionally, if a player like Jessiman steps up, then we'll deserve a 6th ranking. Let's continue to hope that the Rangers continue a focus on drafting so we can rate highly year after year.

frozenrubber is offline  
Old
04-06-2006, 10:28 AM
  #7
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 29,973
vCash: 500
Awards:
I don't understand the comment about the goaltending. After Montoya it's practically bare? The guy in front of Montoya is 24.

__________________
SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline  
Old
04-06-2006, 10:47 AM
  #8
Levitate
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 20,983
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by frozenrubber
While I'm no doubt VERY happy in the revamped system, I just don't think we are 6th out of 30 in organizational depth. I know it is a very subjective pick, but I just feel other organizations have more surefire prospects. I do however, look forward to next year, when we'll really get to see big draft picks like Korpikoski. Additionally, if a player like Jessiman steps up, then we'll deserve a 6th ranking. Let's continue to hope that the Rangers continue a focus on drafting so we can rate highly year after year.
well I think the Rangers have a more balanced mix of prospects and it could be said that while they lack the high end prospects, they have more "good" prospects than most other teams.

I guess I see it as "good quantity" over "a few star prospects" and that may give them the edge over some teams.

Quote:
I don't understand the comment about the goaltending. After Montoya it's practically bare? The guy in front of Montoya is 24.
Well they're just dealing in prospects, not the overall state of the team. Lundqvist isn't considered a prospect anymore, so they're just looking strictly at what is in the system and all they see is Montoya (though I think Holt does get overlooked to an extent...he could have used another year in college and I think will still develop into a solid player)

Levitate is offline  
Old
04-06-2006, 11:06 AM
  #9
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,469
vCash: 500
Put another way, Levitate...

they have a lot of players who have a high chance of being NHLers, albeit third and fourth liners or 5/6 defensemen. As you mentioned, it's the high-end prospects this team lacks (or the ones they have are young, raw, or question marks).

Fletch is offline  
Old
04-06-2006, 11:23 AM
  #10
Levitate
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 20,983
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fletch
they have a lot of players who have a high chance of being NHLers, albeit third and fourth liners or 5/6 defensemen. As you mentioned, it's the high-end prospects this team lacks (or the ones they have are young, raw, or question marks).
well I think they also have a fair amount of potential 2nd liners too...key word potential.

Levitate is offline  
Old
04-06-2006, 11:55 AM
  #11
EvilCorporateLawyer
Very slippery slope
 
EvilCorporateLawyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Country Roads
Country: United States
Posts: 74,667
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to EvilCorporateLawyer
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonzai12
I like...but i have to disagree...i feel like montreal deserves to be there as they have some Gems in Price, Perezhogin, Latendresse, and Chipchura. All whom are quite hard to match up to. We shall see who actually comes out on top down the road though.
Perezhogin has not been that good this year.

Latendresse is NOT a gem.

Chipchura will be a nice 3rd liner.

Montoya is much better than Price.

We should've definately been ahead of Montreal.

EvilCorporateLawyer is offline  
Old
04-06-2006, 12:41 PM
  #12
Edge
Registered User
 
Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sin City
Country: United States
Posts: 13,196
vCash: 500
You can rank the Rangers differently depending on how you view it.

You don't have as many scoring prospects with safe odds, but you do have a lot of second-fourth liners with higher odds and mass quanitities.

So depending on your opinion on that is where'd you put the team.

Ironically (and not to be a dead horse) but I think if Blackburn doesn't get hurt and the Rangers draft Stoll and Getzlaf instead of Faladeau and Jessiman I think you make a VERY strong case for top 3 universally.

Edge is offline  
Old
04-06-2006, 12:54 PM
  #13
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,469
vCash: 500
That would've been nice, Edge..

I haven't seen much of Anaheim's games this season as I usually watch the Canadian games at that time, but I like Stoll a good deal. Uses his size nicely, really good on faceoffs, kills penalties. Nice second line player - would look very good between Sykora and Prucha - and even his numbers could be elevated a notch as a result.

Fletch is offline  
Old
04-06-2006, 03:37 PM
  #14
BigE
Registered User
 
BigE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: San Francisco, CA
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,476
vCash: 500
I was screaming for Stoll during that draft, but Sather wanted to live up to the code of not re-drafting a guy before he was taken the first time around (although Edmonton had no problem ****ing Calgary).

Moving on...You have to take a look at the context of this "organizational depth ranking" because it's really just a organizational prospects list - not a young players list. Sure the Rangers are really strong with Lundqvist, Tyutin, and Prucha, but these guys are no longer considered prospects. With just Montoya and Holt in our system (both now playing pro, and only one-two years away from decision time there isn't really anyone else).

With that said, however, we've had two pretty solid drafts and I wouldn't be surprised to see us shoot up to 2nd-4th next year with the emergence of Cliche, Pyatt, and Dupont as CHL stars (an injury free year from Sauer would help too - he's got 1st round talent); also consider Girardi and Baranka playing so well in Hartford (Liffiton and Korpikoski looking to make the next step as well). The plethora of picks has really done us some good, and I'm a firm believer in this system of rebuilding (gaining lots a picks, just how Chicago has done).

In terms of giving credit...who's to say...was it Renney, Maloney, Sather, or all three? However you look at it though, Sather has been the guy to bring in all these top-notch hockey minds (the Tim Murray's and Jan Gajdosik's as an example). It should also not be overlooked that not only are we starting to draft well, but we're also starting to develop well.

BigE is offline  
Old
04-06-2006, 03:50 PM
  #15
BigE
Registered User
 
BigE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: San Francisco, CA
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,476
vCash: 500
I wasn't a fan of our pre-2003 drafts, hell I even hated the first round of '03 and '04, but despite all of that we've managed to get a solid player or two in every draft since 2000, which says something. Compare that to the pre-2000 years.

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/draft/teams/dr000048.html

2000 - Moore, Lundqvist
2001 - Blackburn, Tyutin, Zidlicky, Hollweg
2002 - Falardeau (is looking like he'll become a checker), Prucha

BigE is offline  
Old
04-06-2006, 03:55 PM
  #16
Geogaddi
Registered User
 
Geogaddi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Dallas
Country: United States
Posts: 1,401
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Prescription
Perezhogin has not been that good this year.

Latendresse is NOT a gem.

Chipchura will be a nice 3rd liner.

Montoya is much better than Price.

We should've definately been ahead of Montreal.
Perezhogin was up, then fell way down, but its the potential in the prospects that were rating them at right now. Perezhogin will be a Great Winger in the league to come and is above what we have for a sure fire winger...(and even though i hate to be against the rangers he will be better then the Korpos and the Jessiman when looking at the wings) Latendresse again has major potential to be a top 6 forward along with Kostitsyn (better then butloads of bottom 6 forward that we have piled up on)...Chipchura is another decent pick that they have and at tops could be another top 6 forward... We have projects with jessiman whom might never even be a force in the NHL...so another side goes to them

this is how i see it break down in talent wise...not on how many

Centers - Canadiens (Aubin, Plekanec, Chipchura, Locke)
Left Wing - Rangers (Korpikoski, Dawes, Byers, Psurny)
Right Wing - Canadiens (Perezhogin, Kostitsyn,Latendresse, D'Agostini)
Defense - Rangers (Staal, Sauer, Baranka, Pock)
Goalies - Canadiens (Price, Huet)

Canadiens by a little...Goaltending gets them over with two capable Starters

Geogaddi is offline  
Old
04-06-2006, 05:10 PM
  #17
EvilCorporateLawyer
Very slippery slope
 
EvilCorporateLawyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Country Roads
Country: United States
Posts: 74,667
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to EvilCorporateLawyer
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonzai12
Perezhogin was up, then fell way down, but its the potential in the prospects that were rating them at right now. Perezhogin will be a Great Winger in the league to come and is above what we have for a sure fire winger...(and even though i hate to be against the rangers he will be better then the Korpos and the Jessiman when looking at the wings) Latendresse again has major potential to be a top 6 forward along with Kostitsyn (better then butloads of bottom 6 forward that we have piled up on)...Chipchura is another decent pick that they have and at tops could be another top 6 forward... We have projects with jessiman whom might never even be a force in the NHL...so another side goes to them

this is how i see it break down in talent wise...not on how many

Centers - Canadiens (Aubin, Plekanec, Chipchura, Locke)
Left Wing - Rangers (Korpikoski, Dawes, Byers, Psurny)
Right Wing - Canadiens (Perezhogin, Kostitsyn,Latendresse, D'Agostini)
Defense - Rangers (Staal, Sauer, Baranka, Pock)
Goalies - Canadiens (Price, Huet)

Canadiens by a little...Goaltending gets them over with two capable Starters
Even Habs fans will say that Perez is a HUGE question mark. And rightfully so. He hasn't impressed me at all.

Plus most Habs fans have been agreeing that they were ranked a bit too high and should've been below us.

And how the hell do you consider Huet a prospect?

We have the better goaltending situation solely because Montoya is a better prospect than Price. We win on Defense, Goaltending, and I'd rank the teams tied on offense.

EvilCorporateLawyer is offline  
Old
04-06-2006, 05:14 PM
  #18
BigE
Registered User
 
BigE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: San Francisco, CA
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,476
vCash: 500
By Huet I assume that you meant Danis. I'd give the Canadiens goaltending because of Danis and Price vs. Montoya and Holt.

BigE is offline  
Old
04-06-2006, 05:31 PM
  #19
EvilCorporateLawyer
Very slippery slope
 
EvilCorporateLawyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Country Roads
Country: United States
Posts: 74,667
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to EvilCorporateLawyer
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigE
By Huet I assume that you meant Danis. I'd give the Canadiens goaltending because of Danis and Price vs. Montoya and Holt.
No way. Danis might be a nice back-up, but he's never going to be a starter in the league.

The clear upside is in the Rangers favor, and in a pretty big way.

EvilCorporateLawyer is offline  
Old
04-06-2006, 06:27 PM
  #20
BigE
Registered User
 
BigE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: San Francisco, CA
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,476
vCash: 500
I was refering to Bonzai's post, but I stand by my point. Price and Danis over Montoya and Holt.

Price has just as much upside as Montoya - both are inconsistent and need to mature, but one is closer to the show. If we're talking purely potential I'm not sure where you're coming from, add in that Danis is a much better prospect than Holt and that tips the collective scale in favour of Montreal.

One prospect a stable does not make.

BigE is offline  
Old
04-06-2006, 06:27 PM
  #21
Edge
Registered User
 
Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sin City
Country: United States
Posts: 13,196
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigE
I wasn't a fan of our pre-2003 drafts, hell I even hated the first round of '03 and '04, but despite all of that we've managed to get a solid player or two in every draft since 2000, which says something. Compare that to the pre-2000 years.

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/draft/teams/dr000048.html

2000 - Moore, Lundqvist
2001 - Blackburn, Tyutin, Zidlicky, Hollweg
2002 - Falardeau (is looking like he'll become a checker), Prucha
Better than pree 2000 but still room for grtowh, especially in 2002 when the only pick in the top 60 is at best a fourth line player (and i do mean at best).

Edge is offline  
Old
04-06-2006, 06:29 PM
  #22
BigE
Registered User
 
BigE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: San Francisco, CA
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,476
vCash: 500
I tend to refer to the '02 draft as the year of the USHL - or the Green Bay Gamblers - and to me, on a personal level, it represents probably the lowest of the lows for the Rangers in their 7 year drought.

BigE is offline  
Old
04-06-2006, 08:00 PM
  #23
bobbop
Henrik's Pop
 
bobbop's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Suburban Phoenix
Country: United States
Posts: 4,839
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edge
(If) the Rangers draft Stoll and Getzlaf instead of Faladeau and Jessiman I think you make a VERY strong case for top 3 universally.
And if the Rangers picked Mike Bossy and Bryan Trottier instead of Lucien Deblois and Dave Maloney maybe we win the 4 Stanley Cups. Officially dead horse.

bobbop is offline  
Old
04-06-2006, 11:26 PM
  #24
Edge
Registered User
 
Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sin City
Country: United States
Posts: 13,196
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbop
And if the Rangers picked Mike Bossy and Bryan Trottier instead of Lucien Deblois and Dave Maloney maybe we win the 4 Stanley Cups. Officially dead horse.

Big difference with the context of the picks and I've acknowledged it's a dead horse.

Thanks for the amazing insight.

Edge 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 01:52 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.