This seems to be a pattern with Rangers management eh, alienating prospects like this. Makes me wonder what's gonna happen with Kravtsov, is he gonna be like a bottom sixer, gonna get waived and someone's gonna take a chance on him, or he just gives up and signs a massive deal in the KHL? Maybe Lundkvist is headed towards a similar path, I sincerely hope not because he looks like one helluva player if he develops right
Don't see how it is comparable beyond this season. Rathbone basically lost an entire year of developement because he didn't want to leave his autistic little brother alone so he basically skipped a year. Even so, I honestly can't believe you are so high on Lundkvist. What he showed this year is nothing to be impressed about...
But Rathbone was 22. If he did it in his age 20 season He would be on a top pair trajectory.
Lundkvist had a 40+ NHLE in his age 19 and 20 seasons playing in the SHL. That is 99th percentile production. Confidence is huge for young defenseman and he wasn’t put in a position to succeed with the rangers. I still view him the same as I did before last season. He has a lot of translatable skills that will make him at least a #3 defenseman in the NHL.
I’m arguing that the Canucks need to acquire any young talented defenseman they can get.
But Rathbone was 22. If he did it in his age 20 season He would be on a top pair trajectory.
Lundkvist had a 40+ NHLE in his age 19 and 20 seasons playing in the SHL. That is 99th percentile production. Confidence is huge for young defenseman and he wasn’t put in a position to succeed with the rangers. I still view him the same as I did before last season. He has a lot of translatable skills that will make him at least a #3 defenseman in the NHL.
I’m arguing that the Canucks need to acquire any young talented defenseman they can get.
I can’t see how his projection 2 years ago are relevant seeing as how he taken a step back. Rathbone is 1 year older sure but both have had the same amount of years of development. Rathbone basically didn’t play any hockey last year. One was a point per game and named a member of the AHL rookie team, and the other player was just mediocre/struggling. Rathbone was literally too good AHL. Lundkvist was too bad in the NHL
Rathbone last year was rated as one of the top offensive d men outside of the NHL
PNHLe
Jamie Drysdale 73
Jack Rathbone 72
Moritz Seider 72
Villie Heinola 65
Jake Sanderson 59
Nils Lundqvist 59
Erik Brännström 58
Philip Broberg 32
Victor Söderström 27
That is from a year ago. Rathbone clearly excelled even more than Lundkvist this year. I wouldn't mind getting Lundkvist but not at the cost of any of our remaining valuable assets
I can’t see how his projection 2 years ago are relevant seeing as how he taken a step back. Rathbone is 1 year older sure but both have had the same amount of years of development. Rathbone basically didn’t play any hockey last year. One was a point per game and named a member of the AHL rookie team, and the other player was just mediocre/struggling. Rathbone was literally too good AHL. Lundkvist was too bad in the NHL
Projection 1 year ago* - a player who puts up elite numbers at a younger age is more likely to succeed in the NHL than a player who does it in his D+5 season.
Lundkvist didn’t struggle, he performed up to expectations considering the role he was given. He’s also shown more in the NHL than Rathbone. What did you expect him to do in 14 min per game playing with Nemeth? Have a 50 pt season?
I can’t see how his projection 2 years ago are relevant seeing as how he taken a step back. Rathbone is 1 year older sure but both have had the same amount of years of development. Rathbone basically didn’t play any hockey last year. One was a point per game and named a member of the AHL rookie team, and the other player was just mediocre/struggling. Rathbone was literally too good AHL. Lundkvist was too bad in the NHL
Rathbone last year was rated as one of the top offensive d men outside of the NHL
PNHLe
Jamie Drysdale 73
Jack Rathbone 72
Moritz Seider 72
Villie Heinola 65
Jake Sanderson 59
Nils Lundqvist 59
Erik Brännström 58
Philip Broberg 32
Victor Söderström 27
That is from a year ago. Rathbone clearly excelled even more than Lundkvist this year. I wouldn't mind getting Lundkvist but not at the cost of any of our remaining valuable assets
As you can see, Rathbone not only was offensively dominant, he was also rather steady defensively. While he is slightly older than these guys here, all the other D+5 d men were all concentrated near the middle of the graph.
As you can see, Rathbone not only was offensively dominant, he was also rather steady defensively. While he is slightly older than these guys here, all the other D+5 d men were all concentrated near the middle of the graph.
Projection 1 year ago* - a player who puts up elite numbers at a younger age is more likely to succeed in the NHL than a player who does it in his D+5 season.
Lundkvist didn’t struggle, he performed up to expectations considering the role he was given. He’s also shown more in the NHL than Rathbone. What did you expect him to do in 14 min per game playing with Nemeth? Have a 50 pt season?
4 points in 25 games whereas Rathbone has 3 points in 17 games, both players with limited ice time and back defense partners. Lets not act like either of them have actually done anything in the NHL. Lundkvist was great in Sweden, but came to North America and was not producing well in the AHL. Again, the age difference between the two players is only ONE YEAR. Rathbone also missed an entire year of developement but you seem to keep reading over that. Both have the same amount of seasons played since their draft year
Forget where exactly, had it saved from earlier in the offseason. If I remember correctly, the original graph didn't include Rathbone as he was a bit over the age threshhold, but when the person who made this graph including Rathbone noted that he was the only player from the D+5 year to stand out as the others were mainly concentrated near the middle
4 points in 25 games whereas Rathbone has 3 points in 17 games, both players with limited ice time and back defense partners. Lets not act like either of them have actually done anything in the NHL. Lundkvist was great in Sweden, but came to North America and was not producing well in the AHL. Again, the age difference between the two players is only ONE YEAR. Rathbone also missed an entire year of developement but you seem to keep reading over that. Both have the same amount of seasons played since their draft year
A 20 YO prospect who puts up .85 PPG in the AHL is a lot more impressive than a 21 YO who puts up 1 PPG. The 1 year matters.
Rathbone and Lundkvist are not in the same tier of prospects. Rathbone will be strictly offensive minded but lundkvist has all the tools to play as high as the top pair, at worst he’s a #3.
A 20 YO prospect who puts up .85 PPG in the AHL is a lot more impressive than a 21 YO who puts up 1 PPG. The 1 year matters.
Rathbone and Lundkvist are not in the same tier of prospects. Rathbone will be strictly offensive minded but lundkvist has all the tools to play as high as the top pair, at worst he’s a #3.
At worst, Lundkvist isnt in the NHL. They arent on the same tier, Rathbone is a tier higher. You say a 20 year old prospect who puts up a 0.85 PPG inthe AHL is a lot more impressive than a 21 year old who puts up 1 PPG. Problem is, Lundkvist didnt put up 0.85 points per game. He put up 0.44 points per game. Is that more impressive than 1.03 points per game from a player only one year older? Doubt it.
ONCE AGAIN, RATHBONE DIDN'T REALLY PLAY ANY HOCKEY LAST SEASON, ITS NOT LIKE HE HAD AN EXTRA YEAR OF DEVELOPMENT
At worst, Lundkvist isnt in the NHL. They arent on the same tier, Rathbone is a tier higher. You say a 20 year old prospect who puts up a 0.85 PPG inthe AHL is a lot more impressive than a 21 year old who puts up 1 PPG. Problem is, Lundkvist didnt put up 0.85 points per game. He put up 0.44 points per game. Is that more impressive than 1.03 points per game from a player only one year older? Doubt it
Lundkvist was good in the NHL, he didn’t deserve to get sent down in the 1st place. His two years of 99th percentile production give him leeway - D+1 - D+3 years are the most important when determining upside. Lundkvist is D+4, Rathbone D+5
You might be the only fan out there who thinks Rathbone is a better prospect than than Lundkvist. At best Rathbone will be a #4 D who can run a powerplay
Lundkvist was good in the NHL, he didn’t deserve to get sent down in the 1st place. His two years of 99th percentile production give him leeway - D+1 - D+3 years are the most important when determining upside. Lundkvist is D+4, Rathbone D+5
You might be the only fan out there who thinks Rathbone is a better prospect than than Lundkvist. At best Rathbone will be a #4 D who can run a powerplay
Give me some statistics in Rathbone's previous seasons to show me how he has a worse ceiling than Lundkvist's floor.
Edit: I don't know why you are so high on Lundkvist. He has good skills but his transition to North America hasnt exactly been eye popping. Using SHL stats from past years to grade the prospect as they are now after a mediocre performance in North America is truly a head scratcher
As you can see, Rathbone not only was offensively dominant, he was also rather steady defensively. While he is slightly older than these guys here, all the other D+5 d men were all concentrated near the middle of the graph.
Now i have a few names of defensemen i can vibe with.
Never heard of this Montana Onyebuchi guy, i'll have to read up on him.
Lundkvist was good in the NHL, he didn’t deserve to get sent down in the 1st place. His two years of 99th percentile production give him leeway - D+1 - D+3 years are the most important when determining upside. Lundkvist is D+4, Rathbone D+5
You might be the only fan out there who thinks Rathbone is a better prospect than than Lundkvist. At best Rathbone will be a #4 D who can run a powerplay
https://moneypuck.com/player.htm?p=8480878
Since you CLEARLY know how to analyze stats better, tell me what about his season was so great
As you can see, Rathbone not only was offensively dominant, he was also rather steady defensively. While he is slightly older than these guys here, all the other D+5 d men were all concentrated near the middle of the graph.
did not realize that Broberg did that welll analytically last year
personally i'm not convinced lundkvist is worth much beyond what you'd get for a third or fourth round pick. which uh....rules out all the sandin and hoglander one-for-one trades because those two are much better.