Rangers #17 in Organizational Rankings
Hockey's Future is currently releasing their organizational rankings and have ranked the Rangers at #17...
Strengths: The Rangers have focused on building a team based on speed over the last five years. Top prospect Chris Kreider was one of the fastest skaters in the NHL during last season's playoffs. New York continues to add defensive prospects, and although several of the young players have graduated to the NHL, the organization continues to have a strong corps along the blue line.
Weaknesses: The Rangers' NHL number one goaltender, Henrik Lundqvist, is one of the best netminders in the league, however, New York has not been able to either draft or sign a successor to groom for the position. Additionally, there is no potential first line center within the system.
Top 5 Prospects: 1. Chris Kreider, RW; 2. J.T. Miller, RW; 3. Dylan McIlrath, D; 4. Jesper Fast, RW; 5. Brady Skjei, D.
...i'm usually very critical when the Rangers aren't in the top 10 of organizational rankings, but I'm pretty much in agreement with HF on this one. After Kreider, there really isn't that super star can't miss prospect in the Rangers organization or a legit heir apparent to Lundqvist. Add in the uncertainty of McIlrath after his injury as well as Skjei's average freshman year at Minnesota and you can see why the Rangers are in the middle of the pack.
...one thing I do have to take issue with is St. Croix somehow not falling in the top 5 prospects. He is easily a better prospect than McIlrath, Fast and Skjei at this point.
Remember to follow me on Twitter & Facebook or e-mail me at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. .
Kevin Sorry I would not have St.Croix in the top 5 and I would very much put Oscar Lindberg ahead of Jesper Fast because of his defensive play. What I don't get is how do you get that Skjei is having an "average " year at Minnesota?
Skjei is a freshman on a very loaded Minnesota roster just on the blueline are 5 other NHL draft picks. Skjei is paying his dues just like any other freshman would.
As for the ranking, certain places tend to be consistently wrong about Ranger prospects. The Rangers have one huge area that does need to be addressed and that is a replacement for Henrik Lundqvist, But that should not have dropped them to 17th.
@TheProspectpark All those things you mention are true, but he's still having an average year.
1 Like
OK, so let's all breathe deep for a second and check out HOW Hockey Future ranks prospects, and how they do their organizational prospect rankings. There's a handy link right here ....
http://www.hockeysfuture.com/playerprojections/
This article points out that Hagelin is not longer considered a "prospect" by their criteria, so take every young player who's played MORE games with the Rangers (McD, Stepan, MDZ etc) and throw them out the window too. This is about the the guys teams have drafted and how they are progressing to fill holes down the road.
@BuckarooClub I understand that, so take our the "Top NHL ORGANIZATION" in the title of this...
This is about who has the brightest future. And it shouldnt just be about whose graduated and whose still a prospect
@MarkFox I don't see where this post, or the HF post called anyone the "Top NHL ORGANIZATION".
The HF headline was "Team Rankings: Anaheim Ducks continue to have solid talent at all positions"
And the headline here was "Rangers #17 in Organizational Rankings".
HF has always done things this way, they found their niche in covering players BEFORE they really even hit the radars of traditional NHL sources.
I am shocked, baffled and sad to see you agree with this because I have seen you argue over stuff like this and now all of a sudden you agree?
#1 in the East last year, Eastern Conference Finals and one of the youngest NHL teams in the league (what are we top 5? or top 8?)
First and foremost, for the last 2 seasons we have done nothing but focus on keeping our core players to keep and improve chemistry. The biggest shocker we have done in two years was trading Dubi and Anisimov for Nash. Which is fine with me since Nash is only 28 and was putting up 30 goals on a badddd team.
Goalie prospects? I understand our goalie prospects have not been lighting it up wherever they are playing but this is not something we should worry about. We are in the mix of still giving our goalie prospects a chance and looking into drafting a better one. How can we fear anything right now though when we have Lundqvist whose only 30 years old. How old is Broduer again and hasnt he been playing some of his best hockey over the last 5 years?
Prospects... are we really still underrating JT Miller. When Drafted they couldnt shut up about how GOOD of a player he was and if his stats were just slightly higher he would have gone top 10. We drafted him because of his high hockey IQ and overall ability and look how much he has improved in less than 2 years. No one should expect Dylan to be anything more than a giant wall and monster. Skjei is already within our top 5 prospects and hes looking good for WJC.
I am nothing but proud of our drafting ability in the last 10 years and especially the last 4 years where we havent gotten the best standings to draft from. Sorry we cannot be more like Pittsburgh or Washington. Proud of the true blue
@MarkFox I think you're missing what this list is. It has nothing to do with the young studs that the Rangers currently have on their team (McD, Stepan, Hags, etc.) and everything to do with prospects. And right now there are a lot of question marks in my opinion. Now that doesn't mean they can't develop into stud players but I feel it's still up in the air.
What exactly does "organizational" mean? Shouldn't it take into account ALL of the organization - or even, all players 25 and under, whether in the NHL or not? Too subjective, remember - no one picked the Rangers to have the best record in the East (or even the division!) last year
@smoothyv All these lists are obviously subjective, but when they organizational I'm pretty sure they just mean prospects.
@KevinDeLury my point exactly - so if a team has a lot of "prosects" in juniors or AHL, but is stocked with aging veterans in the NHL, they would be ranked higher than NYR, which may have better "prospects' (Stepan, Hagelin, McDonagh, Staal, DelZotto- all 25 or under) with NHL experience on the roster, and guys like Kreider, Miller, Thomas, McIlrath, etc., in the wings...I have not analyzed other teams nor do I allege to have any credentials to do so, but to ignore the talented youth on the roster is shortsighted...as for the goalie situation, you need to have someone to spell Hank in 4-5 years, so why are we worried if that guy is not on the roster now? 17th by your definition is fine with me, under the radar, but if you think the "organization" (NYR as a whole) is 17th, I beg to differ, and wonder why you would think that rank is OK.
@KevinDeLury No problem, just think that NYR has so many quality, proven players just over the "prospect" line, that the 17th ranking is deceptive and not indicative of the true standing - some of the "prospects" may actually be blocked by recent "graduates"...for reference, here is the prospect criteria..http://www.hockeysfuture.com/whatmakesaprospect/
@smoothyv The reason I think it's ok is because the guidelines you spell out are not the same ones used by Hockey's Future. It is merely a look at organizational depth in the minors. If it was based on what you're saying yes I'd have a big time problem with #17.
