Aug
19

Rangers ranked 29th system; Andersson ranked 47th top prospect

August 19, 2017, by

lias andersson

Corey Pronman, one of the best prospect gurus out there, has done his NHL rankings for top farm systems and top prospects. When it comes to where the Rangers rank compared to the rest of the league, Pronman is the go-to guy.

The Rangers right now are ranked 29th in the league, just ahead of Pittsburgh. Pronman made a very important caveat into his rankings, noting that he judges based on elite talent. In that regard, the Rangers rank around where we’d expect them to.

The 2017 draft is just behind us, and there isn’t much to go on for both Lias Andersson and Filip Chytil. Chytil could be an elite talent, but at just 17 years old, he needs some more time to really make that call. As for Andersson, he projects to be a middle-six forward, and a good one at that.

Pronman did note that while the Rangers don’t have much elite talent, a product of trading so many 1st round picks, they have done will in grabbing unsigned free agents and constantly feeding the NHL roster with depth. In his rankings though, the unsigned free agents are already NHL players and the depth isn’t ranked as highly as elite talent.

As for the individual prospects, the Rangers had Lias Andersson at #47 among skaters. Pronman had some fine words for Andersson, and we will hopefully see a lot of him this season. Filip Chytil was an honorable mention.

Igor Shestyorkin was ranked the 5th highest goalie prospect in the game. He’s just phenomenal and the heir-apparent for the Rangers. Adam Huska was an honorable mention.

"Rangers ranked 29th system; Andersson ranked 47th top prospect", 5 out of 5 based on 14 ratings.

29 comments

  1. Reenavipul says:

    If Chytil were elite, he would’ve been killing it, even against men. Instead, he was merely good. No knock on him, but should max out as a middle 6 forward.

    • Eugene says:

      Did McDavid played against the men before draft and he was almost 1 year older when his 1st season started….

      • Reenavipul says:

        Could I have an English translation of that?

        • AWDS says:

          McDavid didn’t play against men in juniors. You’re also not considering Chytil’s age, which matters quite a bit IMO. Just the fact he was playing in those leagues at (barely 16, given his birthday) is quite something…

          As such, Chytil is widely considered to have ‘elite’ potential as a prospect.

          Now, is said potential as likely (or as high, even) as it was for some of the aforementioned names? No.

          • Reenavipul says:

            Andersson did the same thing, played 2nd line minutes and produced, nobody is calling him elite.

            • AWDS says:

              I’ll say this about Andersson – I think he made a lot of people (myself included) look a bit silly in the WJSS; for a non-elite prospect, he sure did a decent impression of one.

              However, as I mentioned before, that Chytil, unlike Andersson, is playing on the ‘young side’ of the draft class. If he was born a few days later, he’d have been in next year’s draft.

              Andersson, however, missed last year’s cutoff by a few weeks or so. He’ll be 19 by September, whereas Chytil is just turning 18.

        • Eugene says:

          you don’t need translation, you absolutely understand what I mean….. just try not to be stupid

      • Peter says:

        Andersson may never be a McDavid but the projects to be a solid mid 6 center and a good two way player. Those kind of guys are harder to come by than many seem to understand. I am optimistic about both Lias and Chytil. Chytil could be a real good grab.

  2. BOBBY B says:

    Reenavipul, spot on !! Austin Matthews is 20 yrs old and plays against men who he makes look like children , The KID ( Chytil) needs time to develop, as does Andersson, who is being set up for failure with too much pressure, because of our lack of center depth. While the team has made tremendous strides on the Defense end, the LACK OF CENTER DEPTH has me and many others WORRIED!!. I am not a fan of shifting JT Miller ( who I love as a player) into a center slot, he seems to have excellent chemistry playing with Hayes ( who I do not love as a player) as his center. But the center crisis is dictating these panic driven moves. I was not a Derreck Stephan fan, ( way overpriced and too soft ) but he did provide depth. I feel we are going to miss Oscar Lindbergh more than we realize.

    • Reenavipul says:

      And Matthews did it in his draft year as well in Zurich. Apparently simple concepts aren’t simple enough for some here.

      • sherrane says:

        AYFKM? Austin Matthews missed being drafted in the McEichel draft by two days. There were plenty of people who suggested the NHL should review their draft eligibility rules because Matthews should have spent that year in the NHL rather than Zurich. On the other hand, if Chytil is born 11 days later he is in next year’s draft.

        Another factor is the competition quality in the development camps. For example, the US has won gold in 7 of the last 9 IIHF U18 tournaments as well as a silver and bronze. During that time, the Czech Republic won a silver. In the U20 tournament, the US has won 3 golds and 3 bronze medals since the Czech’s last medal (bronze) in 2005.

        I agree that some pretty basic concepts are missed here.

        • Reenavipul says:

          Then Chytil should be dominating at camps: he’s merely good at tourneys for his age. He’s been elite at his age for his club level. Never been a club leader at a younger age like Andersson has, like what Matthews did in a men’s league. Matthews birth date is irrelevant, because he was dominant with groups older than him as well.

          Chytil is what he is, but whatever that is, it is probabilistic that he will never be an NHL elite player as he has never put up anything remotely looking like obscene point levels. Good numbers, sure.

          You want to see what elite is and obscene numbers? Here’s Jagr in his draft year: 22g, 27a on a men’s team. 6g, 6a the year before. His age 15 year in a U20 league? 57g in 35 games

          Elite: noun
          a select part of a group that is superior to the rest in terms of ability or qualities

  3. Jerry says:

    Thanks Dave.

  4. HOF 19 says:

    A SURPRISING READ>>>>>>>>>>The 2017-18 Sports Forecaster magazine has the Rangers finishing first in the Metro Division, winning the Presidents’ Trophy, the Jack Adams for Alain Vigneault but not reaching the Stanley Cup Final……..Rangers win division ????????????????????……Really ??????????????

  5. craig says:

    Elite talent is exactly what the Rangers have been missing for years as well as the Stanley Cup!

  6. Peter says:

    This article should be remembered whenever folks start talking about trading some draft picks for this or that player. It is hard to grab an elite talent if you don’t have a draft pick.

    • Eddie!Eddie!Eddie! says:

      It’s not an absolute either way Peter. Sure, you need a pick in the draft to have a chance to find that elite talent, but you also have to be in favorable draft position. When the Rangers regularly post 100+ point seasons, the chances of finding that elite talent are greatly diminished.

      Then it also depends on who “this or that player” is that the Rangers would trade for. Some players are worth trading picks for. Some are not. And of even greater importance, is the team close? The Rangers of 2014 and 2015 were all real close. The trades they made to push their chips to the middle of the table and try to win were absolutely the correct call to make at that time. No team in sports builds solely through the draft. Nor is it done solely through FA or trades. Most championship caliber teams will gladly sacrifice some youth for that final piece. The Rangers are no different than any other team in that regard.

      Do you follow baseball? Notice what the Yankees and Cubs have been doing? First all in on a rebuild. Then trade some of the young talent for the final pieces of the puzzle.

      The modern day championship formula.

      • Peter says:

        Oh I understand that where you fall in the round matters greatly 3E, but as you note, to even have a chance you need picks. Future picks in rounds a couple years away are often traded. If the club has an off year and you have traded your picks, then you miss out even more badly.

        • Eddie!Eddie!Eddie! says:

          That’s a very fair point Peter. It illustrates what a tough job being a GM really is. You have to have the instincts to know when to go for it by sacrificing some future for the chance to win in the here and now (as Sather did in 2014 and 2015) versus knowing when to start on a more youthful path that is largely about the future (as we have seen with Gorton who chose not to make a serious push for Shattenkirk prior to the deadline). It’s always a tough call, especially when you are kind of “in between” as the Rangers have been for much of the past decade.

          As I’ve stated before, if the Rangers fail to win a Cup during the Hank Era, it will be squarely on the shoulders of Sather and his staff that were there handling the draft from 2000-2004, and then again in 2010 when McIlrath was drafted over far better options. Every one of those first round picks were busts. If even one of them had panned out and became a legit star, we might have had at least one Cup by now. The Rangers compensated reasonably well by doing well with lower round picks, but those successes were mostly what I would call support players. No stars means good but not great, and that means good enough to make the playoffs year after year but likely no hardware.

          The lesson is, when you DO truly stink, you have to capitalize on your chances. Because it may take years before that opportunity comes again.

          • AWDS says:

            “As I’ve stated before, if the Rangers fail to win a Cup during the Hank Era, it will be squarely on the shoulders of Sather and his staff that were there handling the draft from 2000-2004, and then again in 2010 when McIlrath was drafted over far better options. Every one of those first round picks were busts. If even one of them had panned out and became a legit star, we might have had at least one Cup by now. The Rangers compensated reasonably well by doing well with lower round picks, but those successes were mostly what I would call support players. No stars means good but not great, and that means good enough to make the playoffs year after year but likely no hardware. ”
            _______________

            I mostly agree Eddie, but…. to be fair, I’d add in the non-trades of both Girardi & Staal to that list.

            Both were declining, neither were ever elite talents, and they sure as hell fit like square pegs in round holes under AV’s system….

            Basically, it would have been a far better move to trade at least one of them (rather than what they did).

            And, while I’m sure you’ll say hindsight is 20/20 etc, the rapid decline of 5 & 18 was hardly something which could not be foreseen…

            • Peter says:

              Both if you gents make valid points. Being a GM, especially in the cap era, is. quite a difficult undertaking. Far more difficult than us fans often appreciate.

            • Eddie!Eddie!Eddie! says:

              I definitely see your point, but I do think there is a little hindsight involved in what you are saying. Let’s look at where each player was and where the team was at the time of their respective signings–

              First Girardi, who was signed right before the 2014 deadline. The fact is, Girardi was still a highly effective player. Ryan McDonagh had what remains to this day his very best season of his career that year with Girardi as his primary partner. The team was in contention. The Callahan situation was deteriorating. So if your Sather, what do you do? If you trade Girardi, who do you replace him with in 2014? Don’t you risk a young McDonagh taking a big step back at that time if you deal Girardi without adequately replacing him? Don’t you risk losing MASSIVE leadership if you deal both Cally AND Girardi at that time?

              I know everyone focuses on how Girardi was exposed in the Kings series. And that’s true. But everyone forgets how terrific he played throughout the first three rounds. He was especially great vs the Pens. The Flyers Claude Giroux, when asked in 2016 who is the most underrated player in hockey, said without any hesitation, Dan Girardi.

              I went back and discovered that Girardi left significant dollars on the table when he re-upped in NY. He was considered the top free agent defensemen available and teams were disappointed when he was removed from the market.

              The next season, Girardi was very good again, spearheading what was arguably the best defense in the league. It stayed that way through the playoffs until the series vs TB. His injury, along with the injuries to the rest of the defense, is what finished the Rangers and kept them from returning to the SCF.

              After that playoff series, whether it was age, injury, or a combination of the two, Girardi was never the same again. And yet, he still got a massive deal from TB this summer. I suspect that if you ask players, coaches, scouts and GMs, most if not all would have a higher regard for what Girardi brings to the table then many of the fans do.

              Staal re-upped midway through the 2014-15 season. He did so in the midst of what was a major renaissance season for him, playing arguably his best hockey since his concussions and eye injury. The Rangers were on a major roll, having arguably their finest regular season in their history. Again, do you trade him then and disrupt a possible championship team? Do you allow him to walk, even though the cupboard was bare on the farm and there wasn’t likely going to be any better options available in FA?

              Like Girardi, Staal played great for the rest of that season and into the playoffs. Then the TB series happened. Then he suffered more injuries. Clearly, he is no longer the same player. But I suspect that if he were bought out, much like Girardi, there would be a market for him.

              I was fine with the Girardi deal at the time. I was concerned with the Staal deal because of his injury history. But I understand why Sather did what he did. The Rangers were close, the defense was terrific, he didnt want to break it up at that time. It was a calculated risk and no doubt, it backfired long range, but short range, I can understand why it was done.

              But all of this comes back to the bad drafting 2000-05. If Sather had had a deeper pool of talented prospects, perhaps he would have been more amenable to moving on from the “twins”.

              • AWDS says:

                I don’t disagree that both of them were playing better hockey at the time. Girardi in particular has fallen off a cliff in that regard, even though I disagree that he was ‘great’ in the playoff rounds before the 2014 finals.

                I only raise that point because of AV being hired by Sather, which fully opens up their non-trades as legitimate avenues of criticism, regardless of their presumably unforeseeable injuries.

                I look at it like this…. if you knew (or, hell, even suspected) that they were not optimal fits for what his system calls for, then why not try and make a change & get some great picks & prospects (instead of making an almost surely ill-fated long term commitment)?

                If they didn’t know (that 5 & 18 can’t pass well/skate), then all i can say is … no comment. That would speak for itself.

                Granted, they were obviously ‘going for it’, and trading away your #1RHD and/or #2 LHD under any circumstances is (usually) a terrible way of trying to achieve that goal… but, IMO, if you’re gonna trade players away, it’s generally best to do so with UFAs who should not fit your future plans…

              • BOBBY B says:

                Brother Eddie, I too am in the consensus that the 2014 version of Girardi was exposed big time in the Cup finals against the LA Kings. Lets not forget that our best player ( Rick Nash) did not register a point, and The LA goalie Jonathan Quick, was a shade better than Hank ( who was very good in that series) .

  7. Mil says:

    Kids are so damm young when drafted its hard to predict how they will be ranked year to year. Don’t recall Skjei having offense before last year, he has grown a ton. These rankings are mainly guesses.

    • Reenavipul says:

      If you saw him in Minnesota, if you saw him in Traverse City, if you saw him in Hartford, it was always there.