flagyl 100

HF: Rangers have #27 farm system

HockeysFuture has released this year’s organization farm system rankings, and the Rangers have slipped from #17 last year to #27 this year. They note that strengths are prospects with intriguing NHL potential at forward and defense, and some high-risk, high-reward prospects (Anthony Duclair, Pavel Buchnevich). Weaknesses are mostly depth related, since the club has graduated a large number of prospects to the NHL level, especially at defense. The note goaltending as an issue, but it should be made clear that Cam Talbot does not qualify as a prospect anymore (by HF standards) due to his age.

I tend to agree with what HF has said, especially since we all have a habit of overvaluing prospects for the teams we root for. That said, the biggest weakness (aside from blue line depth) is the lack of “star” power. Chris Kreider’s stock has taken a hit, but it doesn’t matter since he will graduate this year anyway. Kristo is the only bonafide top-six forward prospect. Others are all bottom-six material. Of course, many teams would kill to have this problem, since the Rangers have a very young team at the NHL level, and have the time to restock the farm.

8 Responses to “HF: Rangers have #27 farm system”

  1. Walt says:

    I don’t care if we are rated 30th, as long as we bring along players who fill in the holes, and perform well at the NHL level!

  2. Chuck A says:

    Has BSB noted any change in drafting philosophy or metrics that might explain the drop? They’d been in the upper half of teams on HF for several years.

  3. Zesta02 says:

    One reason for the drop is having no 1st or 2nd round pick last year. With having 3 3rd rounder’s you have to think we are not looking at top 6 talents and hope that those players can one day contribute in a bottom six role. I don’t think we sell off our picks this year as we do need to restock the prospect pool.

  4. Jess says:

    Walt

    I have been covering Ranger prospects since 2004 and Zestal makes a strong case but it goes deeper as to me there has been a disconnect between drafting players who’s skills did not match the system that the coach (Renney or Tortorella) was wanting to employ.

    Toss in the loss of Michael Sauer to what has turned into a career ending injury and Tim Erixon showing that he was overrated as a prospect which creates 2 big holes in the system.

    Yes the Ranger prospect pool has holes in it but it is not 27th, maybe closer to 20th.

    • Walt says:

      Agree! Remember when Sauer was playing we had Staal+Giradi, Sauer+McD, MDZ+ I forget, but the difference the loss of Sauer made to this team. He was a shut down guy, grit, dropped the gloves, and gave us a great top four set of D-men. Too bad, he aslo was a classy guy, whom I wish nothing but the best.

  5. Mikeyyy says:

    Ratings are so subjective.

    I like being the underdog.

  6. Mark says:

    I think that drafting for the system that the coach wants to employ is so short sighted unless your coach is Scotty Bowman. Coaches come and go and the average tenure for a Rangers coach is likely less than 5 years. So if the Rangers did draft with that in mind it was a mistake. Now on the other hand if you have a GM with a certain philosophy that has status and tenure (think of the Devils), than he has every right to draft his type of player for his system. Especially with top 10 picks i would just go for talent and character and pick the best player available. Even if they are good enough to make it, usually it will take several years and by then a new system may be in place.

  7. Kevin says:

    A website that “rates” prospects based on click baiting with no detailed scouting report or analysis shouldn’t be given as much respect as Hockey Futures