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

Edge's 2004 Top 50

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-17-2004, 08:36 AM
  #1
Edge
Registered User
 
Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Amish Paradise
Country: United States
Posts: 13,399
vCash: 500
Edge's 2004 Top 50

Not the way I see them getting picked, but how I'd rank em. Factors ranged from current level of player, potential, coachability, attitude, effort, and the all important "can they progress into NHL players". Guys like Schremp and Radulov are clearly at the top of the class in terms of talent but had factors that lead to their lower rankings. Special thanks to those I consulted with before putting my final list out and without further delay here are my top 50 prospects for 2004.

1. Ovechkin
2. Malkin
3. Ladd
4. Olesz
5. Barker
6. Thelen
7. Picard
8. Tukonen
9. Valabik
10. Schwarz
11. Montoya
12. Bolland
13. Schremp
14. Radulov
15. Smid
16. Green
17. Wolski
18. Chipchura
19. Stafford
20. Graham
21. Fristic
22. Zajac
23. Wheeler
24. Garlock
25. O’Neil
26. Schneider
27. Dubnyk
28. Pinneault
29. Tesliuk
30. Salmonsson
31. Fransson
32. Lepisto
33. Dubinsky
34. Chucko
35. Lewis
36. Schultz
37. Rogers
38. Wharton
39. Bickell
40. Meszaros
41. Lisin
42. Berti
43. Booth
44. Carson
45. McGrath
46. Meidl
47. Funk
48. Painchaud
49. Seitsonen
50. Kaspar

Edge is offline  
Old
05-17-2004, 08:50 AM
  #2
allrevvedup25
Registered User
 
allrevvedup25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 319
vCash: 500
Good list Edge, great work!!!!

allrevvedup25 is offline  
Old
05-17-2004, 09:48 AM
  #3
Shadowtron
Registered User
 
Shadowtron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Earth
Posts: 5,534
vCash: 500
Edge,

Based on the needs of the teams picking 3rd, 4th, and 5th do you think there's any chance in hell of us picking up Olesz with the 6th pick?

Shadowtron is offline  
Old
05-17-2004, 10:24 AM
  #4
Edge
Registered User
 
Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Amish Paradise
Country: United States
Posts: 13,399
vCash: 500
I doubt it, but I wouldn't bet my savings account on it.

It really depends on what Chicago does at 3. Columbus likes the WHL boys Ladd and Barker and Phoenix like Tukonen. But Chicago could take Ladd or Barker or Radulov.

I think if Radulov goes in the top 6 it's either to the Hawks or the Yotes.

If Radulov cracks the top 3, it could throw several guys off because push comes to shove I think Columbus goes with Barker and I think Phoenix still goes with Tukonen which leaves the Rangers choosing between Ladd and Olesz. In that case I think it's honestly a toss up. Olesz has more natural talent but was far less consistent throughout the year.

Edge is offline  
Old
05-17-2004, 10:41 AM
  #5
rnyquist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 646
vCash: 500
I honestly believe the Yotes will take Ladd over Tukonen, there is no secret to their love for the West coast kids.

As for Olesz and Ladd a toss up, i don't buy it. I think Olesz's ceiling is twice that of Ladd's and could make an impact this year whereas Ladd is still another year away from the NHL at least, and I question how NHL ready he is, remember, big guys take time.

rnyquist is offline  
Old
05-17-2004, 12:18 PM
  #6
BobMarleyNYR
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Alphabet
Country: Iraq
Posts: 3,182
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to BobMarleyNYR

BobMarleyNYR is offline  
Old
05-17-2004, 12:41 PM
  #7
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,473
vCash: 500
Edge...

I assume your top 50's based on top 50 players in the draft, and not your predicted order in which you see the draft, correct?

Fletch is offline  
Old
05-17-2004, 12:42 PM
  #8
BobMarleyNYR
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Alphabet
Country: Iraq
Posts: 3,182
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to BobMarleyNYR
Awesome list! My only question is why is Lisin so low? I regard him as on of the 3 most underrated players in the draft (along with Meszaros and Sindel). And, IMO, Schushould fall toward the bottom of a top-70 list. Also, don't you think Nokelainen should be there somewhere between 25-35? Good to see Pineault, Salmonsson & Wheeler ranked properly according to their talent. Awesome ranking, I always appreciate these!

I'd love to get Olesz... question is, will things work in our favor at 6? That's why I lean toward Ladd, as he seems most realistic at this point... I'd also hate to trade up, seeing as it would cost at least 2 of the 24th, 36th and 37th picks. Those are the picks that make this draft so safe for us... then again, maybe we could unload Lundmark (oops! Sorry! Said it), all but guarantee Olesz at 3, and help justify the Hawks reuniting the Radulov's.

In a toss-up between Ladd and Olesz, I would go 110% with Olesz. Bigger risk factor (not much of a risk compared to Schremp and Radulov -- who look like the neo-Kamenskys), but more talent than Ladd. I'm so afraid Ladd would just become one of the Rangers 500 developing 3rd-line forwards.

BobMarleyNYR is offline  
Old
05-17-2004, 12:45 PM
  #9
Barnaby
Registered User
 
Barnaby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Port Jefferson, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 4,624
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by rnyquist
I honestly believe the Yotes will take Ladd over Tukonen, there is no secret to their love for the West coast kids.

As for Olesz and Ladd a toss up, i don't buy it. I think Olesz's ceiling is twice that of Ladd's and could make an impact this year whereas Ladd is still another year away from the NHL at least, and I question how NHL ready he is, remember, big guys take time.
Speaking for myself I'll take the guy who will be a better player. NHL readiness isn't a big deal to me.

I would take Olesz over Ladd without too much thought, but I think Ladd would def be a solid pick at 6 if Olesz is gone.

As for Schremp - not much appeal to me unless he's there at 15. I don't want to rely on a player with questionable character - I would take Radulov before him, I'll deal with stubborness before laziness any day. Would you take Holik's character or Nedved's inconsistent character?

Barnaby is offline  
Old
05-17-2004, 01:20 PM
  #10
nyrfuture
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Long Island
Posts: 60
vCash: 500
I really like Tukonen, Radulov, or Ladd. Ladd is the top ranked NA player (that shouldn't be something the rangers should pass on, also he is a left wing which is something that needs to be adressed with this organization

nyrfuture is offline  
Old
05-17-2004, 04:20 PM
  #11
Bluenote13
Believe In Henke
 
Bluenote13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: BKLYN, NYC
Posts: 24,035
vCash: 500
Good job Edge, i think we have alot of the same players in the top 25.
The bottom 25 i'd disagree with a few - Dubnyk, Carson & Meidl - i'd rank lower & Meszaros, Lisin & Wharton i'd rank higher. Just nitpicking your list
Are you going to do a mock draft?
I'll post my top 60 this week sometime.

Bluenote13 is offline  
Old
05-17-2004, 04:54 PM
  #12
Park #2
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 667
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edge
Not the way I see them getting picked, but how I'd rank em. Factors ranged from current level of player, potential, coachability, attitude, effort, and the all important "can they progress into NHL players". Guys like Schremp and Radulov are clearly at the top of the class in terms of talent but had factors that lead to their lower rankings. Special thanks to those I consulted with before putting my final list out and without further delay here are my top 50 prospects for 2004.

1. Ovechkin
2. Malkin
3. Ladd
4. Olesz
5. Barker
6. Thelen
7. Picard
8. Tukonen
9. Valabik
10. Schwarz
11. Montoya
12. Bolland
13. Schremp
14. Radulov
15. Smid
16. Green
17. Wolski
18. Chipchura
19. Stafford
20. Graham
21. Fristic
22. Zajac
23. Wheeler
24. Garlock
25. O’Neil
26. Schneider
27. Dubnyk
28. Pinneault
29. Tesliuk
30. Salmonsson
31. Fransson
32. Lepisto
33. Dubinsky
34. Chucko
35. Lewis
36. Schultz
37. Rogers
38. Wharton
39. Bickell
40. Meszaros
41. Lisin
42. Berti
43. Booth
44. Carson
45. McGrath
46. Meidl
47. Funk
48. Painchaud
49. Seitsonen
50. Kaspar
Good list Edge... I tend to think you generally rate college players a little lower then I would, but in general, we agree. I place Schremp a bit higher - though I understand your questions. However, I for one, am sold on him. I like Tesliuk and Chipchura as well.

Park #2 is offline  
Old
05-17-2004, 05:03 PM
  #13
Bluenote13
Believe In Henke
 
Bluenote13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: BKLYN, NYC
Posts: 24,035
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Park #2
Good list Edge... I tend to think you generally rate college players a little lower then I would, but in general, we agree. I place Schremp a bit higher - though I understand your questions. However, I for one, am sold on him. I like Tesliuk and Chipchura as well.
Hey Park, if you could, rank these guys in the order you'd take them - Barker, Thelen, Schremp, Tukonen, Picard, Radulov.

Bluenote13 is offline  
Old
05-17-2004, 05:42 PM
  #14
Park #2
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 667
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluenote13
Hey Park, if you could, rank these guys in the order you'd take them - Barker, Thelen, Schremp, Tukonen, Picard, Radulov.
Hey, sorry that I haven't been around much. I am assuming that you are asking me to judge solely based on my opinion of the player (aka - not considering team needs, etc.).

1- Schremp: I love him as a player. He is an offensive wizard who can create opportunities and plays where there is NOTHING. He I think he is the smartest player in the draft and is easily the most gifted playmaker. If I am a team in the top 6, I don't let him out of it. I think the questions about him have been played - up far too much. I realize that many others would place him last on this last. Not I. He's the guy that bites you in the a$$ five years down the line. When your "safer" pick is barely on your 4th line and he's scoring 90 pts per year.

2 - Thelen: I like Thelen a lot too, and believe he has a higher upside then Barker. That said, upsides can remain just that. I think they're close, but there's a little something about Thelen I like better. Hard to put my finger on it.... it's close.

3- 3- Barker - It's close with Thelan. Barker's a bit more polished.

4-Tukonen - Though I don't love him as a player, I like him. He's a safe pick. Very safe. I would rather see my team take Stafford (between 8-12 - whom I like very much and who's stock is raising). I don't think he'll ever be a star, but I think he'll be top six.

4- Radulov - Love his skills, not big on his attitude.

5. Picard- I'm not big on guys from the Q in general. I'm not big on him. I can see Picard becoming a good 2nd line player, I could see him being in a career AHL player.

That said, with the Rangers situation as it stands - I would take Schremp if available. I know Edge would disagree, but I take Schremp over Ladd if I have my choice. Heck, I know lot's would disagree. (Anyway, I think Columbus takes Ladd.... Ladd or Barker).

With my 2nd pick, I am really high on Chipchura (and I know the Rangers are too). I don't know that he'll be around.

-Park

Park #2 is offline  
Old
05-17-2004, 05:55 PM
  #15
Bluenote13
Believe In Henke
 
Bluenote13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: BKLYN, NYC
Posts: 24,035
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Park #2
Hey, sorry that I haven't been around much. I am assuming that you are asking me to judge solely based on my opinion of the player (aka - not considering team needs, etc.).

1- Schremp: I love him as a player. He is an offensive wizard who can create opportunities and plays where there is NOTHING. He I think he is the smartest player in the draft and is easily the most gifted playmaker. If I am a team in the top 6, I don't let him out of it. I think the questions about him have been played - up far too much. I realize that many others would place him last on this last. Not I. He's the guy that bites you in the a$$ five years down the line. When your "safer" pick is barely on your 4th line and he's scoring 90 pts per year.

2 - Thelen: I like Thelen a lot too, and believe he has a higher upside then Barker. That said, upsides can remain just that. I think they're close, but there's a little something about Thelen I like better. Hard to put my finger on it.... it's close.

3- 3- Barker - It's close with Thelan. Barker's a bit more polished.

4-Tukonen - Though I don't love him as a player, I like him. He's a safe pick. Very safe. I would rather see my team take Stafford (between 8-12 - whom I like very much and who's stock is raising). I don't think he'll ever be a star, but I think he'll be top six.

4- Radulov - Love his skills, not big on his attitude.

5. Picard- I'm not big on guys from the Q in general. I'm not big on him. I can see Picard becoming a good 2nd line player, I could see him being in a career AHL player.

That said, with the Rangers situation as it stands - I would take Schremp if available. I know Edge would disagree, but I take Schremp over Ladd if I have my choice. Heck, I know lot's would disagree. (Anyway, I think Columbus takes Ladd.... Ladd or Barker).

With my 2nd pick, I am really high on Chipchura (and I know the Rangers are too). I don't know that he'll be around.

-Park
Thanks Park.

It's actually good to see someone standup for Schremp. Though he's not my favorite player in the top of this draft, you have to realize how skilled he is, and that alot of player's his age have growing up to do.

As for Chipchura, yeah, i'd be nice to land him with the 2nd pick, but that would mean trading up. I could see Lundmark & Toronto's first to Edmonton for the #14th overall, assuming KC is still on the board.

Bluenote13 is offline  
Old
05-17-2004, 06:13 PM
  #16
Park #2
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 667
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluenote13
Thanks Park.

It's actually good to see someone standup for Schremp. Though he's not my favorite player in the top of this draft, you have to realize how skilled he is, and that alot of player's his age have growing up to do.

As for Chipchura, yeah, i'd be nice to land him with the 2nd pick, but that would mean trading up. I could see Lundmark & Toronto's first to Edmonton for the #14th overall, assuming KC is still on the board.
Frankly, I think the stories on him are overblown. I think his work ethic is just fine.

I think Chipchura goes around 18.

Park #2 is offline  
Old
05-17-2004, 06:30 PM
  #17
rnyquist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 646
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Park #2
Frankly, I think the stories on him are overblown. I think his work ethic is just fine.

I think Chipchura goes around 18.

Exactly I think just as Ladd is this years big hype, I think Schremp is being slammed for nothing. This kid has NYC attitude all over, he loves to be in the spotlight and he's the type of guy who if you boo him he'll go out the next night and score 3 goals, not sulk. He's far from lazy, and his play in London proved he can play a system just like anyone else.

rnyquist is offline  
Old
05-17-2004, 06:50 PM
  #18
Prucha73
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 1,879
vCash: 500
Well if Schremp is so good and skilled and not lazy at all then why didn't he score more points? Espesially on a team with tons of talent. And he also doesn't have the size of some other alternatives like Tukonen and Wolski.

Prucha73 is offline  
Old
05-17-2004, 06:59 PM
  #19
rnyquist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 646
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prucha73
Well if Schremp is so good and skilled and not lazy at all then why didn't he score more points? Espesially on a team with tons of talent. And he also doesn't have the size of some other alternatives like Tukonen and Wolski.
Schremp didn't score more because he wasn't the top offencive weapon, he wasn't the go to guy all the time, something people forget. And as for size, its not like this guy is small or anything. Plus, no one worries about the size of Crosby or Parise, who aren't much bigger.

rnyquist is offline  
Old
05-17-2004, 07:06 PM
  #20
Prucha73
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 1,879
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by rnyquist
Schremp didn't score more because he wasn't the top offencive weapon, he wasn't the go to guy all the time, something people forget. And as for size, its not like this guy is small or anything. Plus, no one worries about the size of Crosby or Parise, who aren't much bigger.
I am Pretty sure if Parise was 6'2" we would have taken him instead of Jessiman.

Well if Schremp was that good, wouldn't his coach be using him on top line and as a top offensive weapon? Plus I read that he wasn't buying into a defensive system or something.

Prucha73 is offline  
Old
05-17-2004, 07:12 PM
  #21
Olorin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,492
vCash: 500
Good job, Edge!

I'm curious as to where you'd rank Carl Soderberg, Juraj Gracik, Petteri Nokelainen and Lauri Korpikoski. Soderberg seems to be touted as a solid two-way player who has been projected to go in the late first or early second as has Nokelainen from everything I've read. Do you have any opinions on Gracik and Korpikoski? Thanks.

Olorin is offline  
Old
05-17-2004, 07:17 PM
  #22
n8
WAAAAAAA!!!
 
n8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: san francisco
Country: United States
Posts: 7,435
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prucha73
I am Pretty sure if Parise was 6'2" we would have taken him instead of Jessiman.

Well if Schremp was that good, wouldn't his coach be using him on top line and as a top offensive weapon? Plus I read that he wasn't buying into a defensive system or something.
i'm pretty sure if parise was 6'2" some other team would have taken him before us.

n8 is offline  
Old
05-17-2004, 07:26 PM
  #23
rnyquist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 646
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prucha73
I am Pretty sure if Parise was 6'2" we would have taken him instead of Jessiman.

Well if Schremp was that good, wouldn't his coach be using him on top line and as a top offensive weapon? Plus I read that he wasn't buying into a defensive system or something.
I don't get your point on Parise, I'm sure if Jessimen was 6'7 and played as well as he did he would have gone top 8, but i still don't get your point.

As for Schremp: He was moved to London this season, so he wasn't from their system, not to mention he's very young and wasn't the only weapon. Ladd for example had the luxury of a weak offence and is partially why he played on the top line, Schremp was behind at least 1 or 2 older centers who had been with the team for years

rnyquist is offline  
Old
05-17-2004, 07:36 PM
  #24
Prucha73
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 1,879
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by rnyquist
I don't get your point on Parise, I'm sure if Jessimen was 6'7 and played as well as he did he would have gone top 8, but i still don't get your point.

As for Schremp: He was moved to London this season, so he wasn't from their system, not to mention he's very young and wasn't the only weapon. Ladd for example had the luxury of a weak offence and is partially why he played on the top line, Schremp was behind at least 1 or 2 older centers who had been with the team for years
My point is why would Sather take Schremp when there are bigger and also very skilled players like Tukonen, Wolski, Picard, etc. are available. Just how much more "skilled" or better is Schremp than let's say Wolski. Shremp's numbers have not improved much from last season, Wolski's did. Schremp played on a team with a lot of very good offensive players, while Wolski pretty much emerged as his team's top player, and probably had to play against other teams' best defensive units.

Prucha73 is offline  
Old
05-17-2004, 07:42 PM
  #25
rnyquist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 646
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prucha73
My point is why would Sather take Schremp when there are bigger and also very skilled players like Tukonen, Wolski, Picard, etc. are available. Just how much more "skilled" or better is Schremp than let's say Wolski. Shremp's numbers have not improved much from last season, Wolski's did. Schremp played on a team with a lot of very good offensive players, while Wolski pretty much emerged as his team's top player, and probably had to play against other teams' best defensive units.
Schremp may not be huge like Wolski, but he's probably the most pure talent guy in the draft, more than Ovechkin. If anything this year proved that he can play as a system and he can sustain a roll that doesn't include him being the "golden boy".

rnyquist 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 04:14 PM.

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.