I know I loved this kid, I remeber thinking he was the first real ofensive threat we had taken in the 1st rd since Kovalev. I remember being so hyped about him it hurt.
Guys let me tell you as a person who watches Wisconsin hockey and keeps a careful eye on our prospects. Stepan is the real deal... Be very excited when this guy finally decides to don the blue cause it will be a lot of fun to watch
This prospect crop looks like nothing in comparison to what we had in 1997.
Dube looked amazing, with superstar potential (Dube was much better than Savard).
Savard was also a top CHL scorer, "scoring at will" according to a Blueshirt Bulletin quote by his OHL coach.
Cherneski looked like a future 30-40 goal scorer.
Cloutier was a top goalie prospect.
Sundstrom was was a 21-year-old phenom who just had 52 points as a defense-first player.
Vasiliev was regarded a top prospect.
Mike Mottau was seen as having potential.
Wes Jarvis was seen as a sure-fire NHLer.
Burke Henry was very well-regarded.
Goneau had a great start to the 96-97 season, then faded. But there was still a lot of hope for him.
Norstrom was a top-shelf prospect.
Mike Martin was regarded as a good prospect.
Bob Maudie was seen as having potential after getting 100+ points in his last WHL season.
Mike York was a high-risk, high-return prospect.
Purinton was seen as a potential Beukeboom replacement, maybe not as good, but better than he turned out to be.
Vorobiev looked like a solid prospect.
Peter and Chris Ferraro were still regarded as probable NHL forwards.
Sorochan and Galanov were regarded as probable NHL defensemen.
Old guys Ronnie Sundin and Johan Lindbom were seen as potentially valuable NHLers.
Blouin was supposed to be a top goon.
That's 23 good-to-great prospects who were projected to be anything from third liners to superstars. The future looked absolutely amazing, especially considering that guys like Messier, Leetch, Robitaille, Graves, Kovalev, Beukeboom, Langdon, Nemchinov, etc. were still supposed to play several more years.
What was the result? We lost Savard, York, Norstrom. A bunch of the guys, most painfully Dube, never made it. Cherneski got injured. And we went into our Dark Age.
This is why I CAN'T get crazy when these articles come out overly prasing any of our prospects, I just think back to this core of "future stars"
The only ones still playing are, Norstrom, Savard & Mottou, it took Mottau along time to get to the pros, & he did by default becaus ethe Devils were desperate for Blue line help, now to Mottaus credit he has worked hard & has managed to hang on, but he was toutted as the Next Zubov.
What happened to Cherneski was just devestaing to this orginization, I remember being so high on him, very similar to the feelings I had about Chearpanov.
I do feel good about a few of these guys we are developing, & Ioverall I feel good about how the team has developed talent the past 6 years, Time will tell with this new group of future "Stars"
Nice to hear good things about our prospects. God knows how long it's been.
From a Ranger fan source like this one??? Not long at all. Ranger prospects are regularly overhyped from these sources. The future always at least "looks good" when it's not "amazing."
Frankly, these are good stroke pieces, but we can all run down the list of guys who we're told "are gonna be players in this league." Of the most recent crop I cite Dawes, Baranka, and Immonen.
We'll judge the quality of these players and this organization when they STOP being prospects and either contribute or fail at the NHL level.
This prospect crop looks like nothing in comparison to what we had in 1997.
Dube looked amazing, with superstar potential (Dube was much better than Savard).
Savard was also a top CHL scorer, "scoring at will" according to a Blueshirt Bulletin quote by his OHL coach.
Cherneski looked like a future 30-40 goal scorer.
Cloutier was a top goalie prospect.
Sundstrom was was a 21-year-old phenom who just had 52 points as a defense-first player.
Vasiliev was regarded a top prospect.
Mike Mottau was seen as having potential.
Wes Jarvis was seen as a sure-fire NHLer.
Burke Henry was very well-regarded.
Goneau had a great start to the 96-97 season, then faded. But there was still a lot of hope for him.
Norstrom was a top-shelf prospect.
Mike Martin was regarded as a good prospect.
Bob Maudie was seen as having potential after getting 100+ points in his last WHL season.
Mike York was a high-risk, high-return prospect.
Purinton was seen as a potential Beukeboom replacement, maybe not as good, but better than he turned out to be.
Vorobiev looked like a solid prospect.
Peter and Chris Ferraro were still regarded as probable NHL forwards.
Sorochan and Galanov were regarded as probable NHL defensemen.
Old guys Ronnie Sundin and Johan Lindbom were seen as potentially valuable NHLers.
Blouin was supposed to be a top goon.
That's 23 good-to-great prospects who were projected to be anything from third liners to superstars. The future looked absolutely amazing, especially considering that guys like Messier, Leetch, Robitaille, Graves, Kovalev, Beukeboom, Langdon, Nemchinov, etc. were still supposed to play several more years.
What was the result? We lost Savard, York, Norstrom. A bunch of the guys, most painfully Dube, never made it. Cherneski got injured. And we went into our Dark Age.
I agree with Brooklyn & TJ here. This as a good a take on prospects as you can have.
It's great to have a lot of kids with solid potential...but all it is potential and nothing else. Until they really prove themselves in the NHL.
From a Ranger fan source like this one??? Not long at all. Ranger prospects are regularly overhyped from these sources. The future always at least "looks good" when it's not "amazing."
Frankly, these are good stroke pieces, but we can all run down the list of guys who we're told "are gonna be players in this league." Of the most recent crop I cite Dawes, Baranka, and Immonen.
We'll judge the quality of these players and this organization when they STOP being prospects and either contribute or fail at the NHL level.
Actually, the Rangers prospects have received next to no credit due to anti NY hatred. In other words, you didn't hear squat about Girardi, Callahan, Korpikoski and Dubinsky from the rest of the hockey world. Yet, they all eventually will be very good pro NHL players.
Actually, the Rangers prospects have received next to no credit due to anti NY hatred. In other words, you didn't hear squat about Girardi, Callahan, Korpikoski and Dubinsky from the rest of the hockey world. Yet, they all eventually will be very good pro NHL players.
You might try reading the first two sentences of my post.
From a Ranger fan source like this one??? Not long at all. Ranger prospects are regularly overhyped from these sources. The future always at least "looks good" when it's not "amazing."
Frankly, these are good stroke pieces, but we can all run down the list of guys who we're told "are gonna be players in this league." Of the most recent crop I cite Dawes, Baranka, and Immonen.
We'll judge the quality of these players and this organization when they STOP being prospects and either contribute or fail at the NHL level.
Sorry, I meant in general. I know Ranger fans are constantly over hyping their prospects, but it seems to me that our current group is receiving more praise from outside sources than in the past.
I prefer not to say player X will be a great NHLer until I see them at this level, but nobody wants to hear that.
Sorry you didn't understand. Nice to see you've caught up to the guy to whom I was actually writing. On the other hand, the fact that he understood the post may speak to your poor reading of the post rather than my writing of it. (In truth I don't know how I could have made clearer the fact that I was talking about Ranger fan sources. I suppose I could have bolded it or made it a different color, but really, why should I have to? It only leads the entire post.)
In any event, now that you have caught up, care to comment on what I actually wrote rather than on something you assumed I wrote?
"From a Ranger fan source like this one??? Not long at all. Ranger prospects are regularly overhyped from these sources. The future always at least "looks good" when it's not "amazing.""
Plus, this is the last Ranger source that spends all day hyping prospects. This board is negative on the Rangers a lot more than it is positive. Especially with the farm system which has been bashed on here for over 2 years.
"From a Ranger fan source like this one??? Not long at all. Ranger prospects are regularly overhyped from these sources. The future always at least "looks good" when it's not "amazing.""
Thanks. Your quote makes pretty clear what was being delineated for discussion, and it certainly wasn't "the rest of the hockey world" as in your reply.
In future, if you let me know you'll be responding, I will be certain to mark in some obvious way the topic of the post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by youarentobjective
Plus, this is the last Ranger source that spends all day hyping prospects. This board is negative on the Rangers a lot more than it is positive. Especially with the farm system which has been bashed on here for over 2 years.
If HFBoards was the topic of conversation, this comment would matter. However, the assessment of Prospectpark is the thread topic. Go look at the thread starter if you've forgotten. Thus it really doesn't matter what's said of Ranger prospects around here.
it seems to me that our current group is receiving more praise from outside sources than in the past.
Those are the sources I find genuinely valuable. Saying "Blushirt Bulletin thinks we have GREAT prospects" mean nothing to me. Although many of Ranger fan outlets attempt some measure of objectivity, they are fan sites. Their bias is plain and it generally colors their view of the team.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trxjw
I prefer not to say player X will be a great NHLer until I see them at this level, but nobody wants to hear that.
From someone who has tried to do the same, I feel your pain.
I don't think there's a question about whether we have NHL-level prospects.
The question is whether any of these kids are going to put up numbers.
The argument I made last year was that that team's competing for the cup tend to have at least two guys (usually home grown) that can score a bunch of points.
Those guys are surrounded by players who support them.
From where I stand now, we don't have that. Especially with the lose of Cherepanov.
We have a lot of really good support guys, but we lack those guys that really make other teams heart rates go up. That has been, is, and will continue to be our problem.
You can go about rebuilding one of two ways. You can suck it up and lose for high end draft prospects (Washington, Pitts., Chicago) or you can rebuild on the fly (Detroit, NJ). But either way, you better have a darn good scouting department.
Right now, this team is in a bit of trouble. They have too much money invested in the wrong players and I don't know if they have a TOP END offensive prospect. I'm not even talking potential top six forwards, I'm talking about a game breaker.
From a Ranger fan source like this one??? Not long at all. Ranger prospects are regularly overhyped from these sources. The future always at least "looks good" when it's not "amazing."
Frankly, these are good stroke pieces, but we can all run down the list of guys who we're told "are gonna be players in this league." Of the most recent crop I cite Dawes, Baranka, and Immonen.
We'll judge the quality of these players and this organization when they STOP being prospects and either contribute or fail at the NHL level.
Oh yea, and I'm sure that writer would ask himself what is so special about having Dedalus as a source. Who is Dedalus? No one. Just like the rest of us here on HF Boards just shooting the breeze. Now lets talk about the prospects.
What does Grachev not have a future now? Give it time. Geeez. 80 points in 60 games and you think fans shouldn't hype him up a bit? In his rookie season no less? Give Anisimov time. He's proved much more than Immonen that he is ready for the NHL. Also, give Sather some credit for not trading away any key prospects. If you don't want to look at them as "key" than fine but then you should have the same approach in your thinking for every team in the league.
And no Dedalus. The future does not have to look good if it's not amazing. It CAN look bad. And you want the future to look "amazing?" Hold on we should be drafting the next Gretzky, Lemieux, Hull, Coffey and Orr within the next few years. If Sather does not make this happen, he is a bad GM. Where are these amazing farm systems? Then again you can't tell me because until they prove something at the NHL level they are not "amazing" prospects.
Will you please forget about Baranka and Immonen. Who still talks about these guys except for you? I know, no one. But Baranka is old news. Those two were never hyped up to be star players for this team. Why would you choose those names? Especially Baranka!! That's ancient history. I'm sure if we looked around the league, many General Managers took a gamble on some players. It didn't work out. End of story. Especially on picks in the later rounds. Bring up Baranka, you may as well say that Rangers fans were once high on a prospect named Don Murdoch.Okay, back to the future.
I'm not sure if you noticed, but many more kids have been added to the farm system since the time of Baranka. And why shouldn't there be much more hype about a kid like Staal compared to Baranka? Are you going to tell me that Staal is still a prospect? Please, I hope not. Is Lundqvist still a prospect (idc which GM the scout who found him was working for)? I thought not.
It's hilarious how out of all of the prospects to choose from. You come up with Dawes and Immonen. Yes Dedalus, "all Rangers fans thought they would be our top Center and Left Wing for years to come." Just nod your head and say yes that Anisimov and Grachev are deserving of the hype. No one here over hyped Dawes and Immonen. Maybe you did. We had a guy named Betts to play the fourth line. No need ever for Immonen. For every Nigel Dawes you bring up, what about Callahan and Dubinsky?
You forgot about those two young players who seemed to have made it to the NHL. Deservingly so, no? The jury is still out on Korpikoski. He's got plenty of time. The thing you need to remember is we are currently building a farm system now. The Wolf Pack is finally a team which nurtures, teaches and develops kids for the next level. Where as years ago, the Pack had more vets and although it was still an affiliate, they were more of a team separated from the Rangers and built to win solely for Hartford. They're still built to win but we're plugging in many more quality prospects there, and hoping they will develop into Rangers. Now IMO, there is much to hype about. There's a plan in place. I'd say our farm system is as strong as it's ever been. If you do not think our farm system is "amazing," I assure you, you'll be disappointed. Oh, I forgot about Girardi. He looks like a steady defense man out there, who we can use for years to come. Pick or no pick.
Last edited by gravytrain6t: 06-04-2009 at 02:50 AM.
From a Ranger fan source like this one??? Not long at all. Ranger prospects are regularly overhyped from these sources. The future always at least "looks good" when it's not "amazing."
Frankly, these are good stroke pieces, but we can all run down the list of guys who we're told "are gonna be players in this league." Of the most recent crop I cite Dawes, Baranka, and Immonen.
We'll judge the quality of these players and this organization when they STOP being prospects and either contribute or fail at the NHL level.
Says who? You? A kid comes over from Russia and notches 40 goals and 40 assists in 60 games. And it was just his rookie season in the O. I still can't get over how you want to compare Grachev to Immonen. Baranka is another blast from the past. Try and think of more prospects that didn't pan out for the Rangers. I gave you one. Don Murdoch. That was around the early 80s I believe.
Where is that borderline Dedalus? Where we can feel hyped up about a player or not? You tell us.
Last edited by gravytrain6t: 06-04-2009 at 02:55 AM.
A stable full of good prospects there. Interesting to see how things turn out.
I was real high on Stefan Cherneski. 19th overall 97'. He was a stud in Junior for Brandon, back to back high 30 low 40 goal years could fly and was physical. He was the last cut in camp in 98' I believe, he should have made the team! Don't remember if we sent him down to keep Malhotra or some over-priced vet (probably the latter). Blew his knee out or broke his leg (think it was a patella) like 10 games into his first pro season in Hartford . Man that one killed me, just like Kloucek.
I thought SC was going to be a stud! http://www.hockeysfuture.com/article...fan_cherneski/
Cherneski shattered hi knee cap ( patella ) into seven pieces. That's what ended his career.
Imagine shattering your knee cap into seven pieces? Ugh.....talk about painfull!
I believe that, at one point, they had to break the knee again, in order to set it right.
Yep, that's what happened. It healed wrong and they had to break it again and reset it; so that he could walk. Otherwise, he wouldn't have been able to walk with that leg.
I don't think there's a question about whether we have NHL-level prospects.
The question is whether any of these kids are going to put up numbers.
The argument I made last year was that that team's competing for the cup tend to have at least two guys (usually home grown) that can score a bunch of points.
Those guys are surrounded by players who support them.
From where I stand now, we don't have that. Especially with the lose of Cherepanov.
We have a lot of really good support guys, but we lack those guys that really make other teams heart rates go up. That has been, is, and will continue to be our problem.
You can go about rebuilding one of two ways. You can suck it up and lose for high end draft prospects (Washington, Pitts., Chicago) or you can rebuild on the fly (Detroit, NJ). But either way, you better have a darn good scouting department.
Right now, this team is in a bit of trouble. They have too much money invested in the wrong players and I don't know if they have a TOP END offensive prospect. I'm not even talking potential top six forwards, I'm talking about a game breaker.
Damn, it's good to see you around these parts again...and just in time for draft day. How's family life treating you these days? More importantly, any inside info?
Anyway, I feel good about the Rangers prospect base. Of course, I'd feel better with Getzlaf instead of Jessiman, not drafting Montoya, taking Berglund in 2006, and Cherepanov still be alive and healthy. I believe the opportunity is there to form a very solid core. However, I do agree that this team is lacking the two elite scorers you describe' due to investing elite money in non-elite players, they have made it very difficult to secure those players. This is why I believe it is in the best interest of this franchise to move both Gomez and Rozsival this off-season.
I don't think there's a question about whether we have NHL-level prospects.
The question is whether any of these kids are going to put up numbers.
The argument I made last year was that that team's competing for the cup tend to have at least two guys (usually home grown) that can score a bunch of points.
Those guys are surrounded by players who support them.
From where I stand now, we don't have that. Especially with the lose of Cherepanov.
We have a lot of really good support guys, but we lack those guys that really make other teams heart rates go up. That has been, is, and will continue to be our problem.
You can go about rebuilding one of two ways. You can suck it up and lose for high end draft prospects (Washington, Pitts., Chicago) or you can rebuild on the fly (Detroit, NJ). But either way, you better have a darn good scouting department.
Right now, this team is in a bit of trouble. They have too much money invested in the wrong players and I don't know if they have a TOP END offensive prospect. I'm not even talking potential top six forwards, I'm talking about a game breaker.
Good take Edge.
We had two real chances to acquire game breakers thru the draft: '03 & '07. We missed on both. One because of poor decisions and the other because of tragedy.
I was upfront in my support of the Jessiman pick, but there is no denying now that it was probably one of the worst draft picks in team history. If you look at who was picked after him that's pretty clear. No 20/20 here, just stating a fact.
The Cherepanov pick was a devastating loss in so many ways. Purely from a draft and prospect stand point it's almost too big to deal with.
If you add Cherepanov and say Getzlaf to this teams future then you have something undeniably positive going forward.
We don't have that.
The Rangers are really in need a of some huge breaks in order to recover from these losses.
We had two real chances to acquire game breakers thru the draft: '03 & '07. We missed on both. One because of poor decisions and the other because of tragedy.
I was upfront in my support of the Jessiman pick, but there is no denying now that it was probably one of the worst draft picks in team history. If you look at who was picked after him that's pretty clear. No 20/20 here, just stating a fact.
The Cherepanov pick was a devastating loss in so many ways. Purely from a draft and prospect stand point it's almost too big to deal with.
If you add Cherepanov and say Getzlaf to this teams future then you have something undeniably positive going forward.
We don't have that.
The Rangers are really in need a of some huge breaks in order to recover from these losses.
Very well put. Just think of how different the whole perception of years of "Rangers draft futility" would be if you swapped Jessiman for Getzlaf, Parise or Dustin Brown. And obviously the loss of Cherry was a huge blow to the organization.
Those two events play a large part in the team being where it's at now.
I liked what I saw out of Charnetski in camp that season - had high hopes for him and rooted for him in each comeback attempt. But, I also thought Jarvis would be that big defensive body the team needed and thought that Burke Henry would be that two-way guy who can be physical that's always nice to have (at least I thought that up until the point I actually saw him on the ice - he could barely skate, not an attribute you want lacking in your defensemen).
Maybe the Rangers should not draft any players with names that start with CHER. These prospects were sure-fire NHLers that projected to 2nd line at least. Then something bad seems to happen to them. Being a Rangers fan is a *****.
Nope. Them. Don't believe me? Go back and read their reports on these kids. Hell you only need go back two years to read the raves for Dawes, Baranka, and Immonen 'round these parts. All future NHLers, and good ones. Book it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gravytrain6t
A kid comes over from Russia and notches 40 goals and 40 assists in 60 games. And it was just his rookie season in the O.
Wow! That's impressive! Just imagine what a kid could do who just came over from the Czech leagues and posted 73 goals and 61 assists in his 68-game rookie season in the CHL.
Kid must be a great NHLer now, huh?
Oh well. Whatever he is now, the hype about him MUST have been spot on! Who could argue against numbers like that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by gravytrain6t
I still can't get over how you want to compare Grachev to Immonen.
And I can't get over your reading issues. I compared the hype around Grachev to the hype around Immonen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gravytrain6t
I gave you one. Don Murdoch. That was around the early 80s I believe.
Thanks. Were guys like you as wrong about Murdoch as they were wrong about Brendl? About Lundmark? About Immonen? Cloutier? Dube?
I understand you want this conversation to be about the prospects, but you'll need to go elsewhere for that conversation. My posts have been about fans not players.
As always, if you can't stay topical, resist the urge to reply.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gravytrain6t
Where is that borderline Dedalus? Where we can feel hyped up about a player or not? You tell us.
Poor gravy. Don't cry. You can feel amped about any prospect you want, I promise, and you can make any predictions about his future you like. I've seen it lots of times before. Hell I'll even join you in being amped when these "players" become ... you know ... players. I only ask that I not be expected to consume the Kool-Aid in the meanwhile.
Where are these amazing farm systems? Then again you can't tell me because until they prove something at the NHL level they are not "amazing" prospects.
Okay, back to the future. 
