Prospect Info: 2012-2013 Rangers Prospects Thread (Player Stats in Post #1; Updated 5/9) *Part III*

[Bluenote13]

Agreed, that was the way I felt. It wouldn't matter who you like between them as they are both good young players. I think I was voting for Lindberg for a while before he got the spot though.

Me too.

 

[Kwayry]

The pipeline still has a huge whole, no PMD lefty or righty. this needs to be addressed by this draft at the latest.

 

[Beacon]

The pipeline still has a huge whole, no PMD lefty or righty. this needs to be addressed by this draft at the latest.

I think we need a forward more than we need a defenseman at this point. We don't have a first, but I would love to draft a high-risk, high-return scoring forward, particularly a center, in the second round. This team can really use a 65 point center to replace Richards.

 

[TheRedViper]

Whats the depth supposed to be like in this draft? we have potentially 4 early third round picks.

Also, might be a good idea to draft a goalie with one of those thirds if the value is there. Gotta start developing a potential start sometime.

 

[Beacon]

Whats the depth supposed to be like in this draft? we have potentially 4 early third round picks.

Also, might be a good idea to draft a goalie with one of those thirds if the value is there. Gotta start developing a potential start sometime.

Usually when they talk about a lot of depth, they mean that good players don't last to #8, they last to #22. It has nothing to do with the third round. It is possible to have 5-8 extra top-10 quality guys. It is not possible to have an extra 50 first round quality draftees. The third round is a third round, and we will have the same batting average in this round round as in all the other drafts.

Take a look at past drafts. Talk of depth is irrelevant for the third round.

 

[TheRedViper]

Pretty simplistic way to look at it... I was not implying getting 1st round talent in the third round. But if there's depth, it's possible to get 2nd round talent in the third. Especially if we're drafting at the top of the third.

 

[Kwayry]

I think we need a forward more than we need a defenseman at this point. We don't have a first, but I would love to draft a high-risk, high-return scoring forward, particularly a center, in the second round. This team can really use a 65 point center to replace Richards.

I am not sure we can afford to wait for this draft pick 3/4 years, Richards may not be around that long. Richards replacement would have to come through trade/FA.

 

[Beacon]

I am not sure we can afford to wait for this draft pick 3/4 years, Richards may not be around that long. Richards replacement would have to come through trade/FA.

We may not have a choice. Instead of signing Richards, I wanted (and posted a thread on it) to trade for Tyler Toffoli, Linden Vey and some throw-ins. At the time, LA fans were saying they'd be willing to do that. But Ranger fans were saying we must go for the Cup now, ready or not.

If instead of Gaborik and Richards, we had Toffoli and Vey, with over $11 extra in salary cap space (more than enough to outbid anyone for a young guy like Parise instead of having two guys on their downswing), we'd be looking much better right now.

Next year's squad would look something like this:

Parise - Stepan - Nash
Hagelin - Toffoli - Callahan
Kreider - Miller - Fasth
Hrivik - Boyle - Vey/MZA

That's a young, up and coming squad that can actually put the puck in the net.

 

[Kwayry]

We may not have a choice. Instead of signing Richards, I wanted (and posted a thread on it) to trade for Tyler Toffoli, Linden Vey and some throw-ins. At the time, LA fans were saying they'd be willing to do that. But Ranger fans were saying we must go for the Cup now, ready or not.

If instead of Gaborik and Richards, we had Toffoli and Vey, with over $11 extra in salary cap space (more than enough to outbid anyone for a young guy like Parise instead of having two guys on their downswing), we'd be looking much better right now.

And what would have gone the other way?

 

[Ail]

We may not have a choice. Instead of signing Richards, I wanted (and posted a thread on it) to trade for Tyler Toffoli, Linden Vey and some throw-ins. At the time, LA fans were saying they'd be willing to do that. But Ranger fans were saying we must go for the Cup now, ready or not.

If instead of Gaborik and Richards, we had Toffoli and Vey, with over $11 extra in salary cap space (more than enough to outbid anyone for a young guy like Parise instead of having two guys on their downswing), we'd be looking much better right now.

Next year's squad would look something like this:

Parise - Stepan - Nash
Hagelin - Toffoli - Callahan
Kreider - Miller - Fasth
Hrivik - Boyle - Vey/MZA

That's a young, up and coming squad that can actually put the puck in the net.

Parise was never coming here. Not sure what assets you planned on giving up to LA either.

 

[Barnaby]

Parise was never coming here. Not sure what assets you planned on giving up to LA either.

There's also the assumption that they were willing to trade these guys... I'm guessing none of these HF posters were actually working as GM of LA at the time...

 

[Beacon]

There's also the assumption that they were willing to trade these guys... I'm guessing none of these HF posters were actually working as GM of LA at the time...

I was trying to make two points: 1) Ranger fans always pressure the management to try to go for the playoffs, to go for it now, no matter how terrible the odds; 2) it didn't have to be those two prospects from LA, it could've been similar prospects from another team, but I'm sure we'd have been able to get very significant return for Gaborik two years ago.

 

[egelband]

I was trying to make two points: 1) Ranger fans always pressure the management to try to go for the playoffs, to go for it now, no matter how terrible the odds; 2) it didn't have to be those two prospects from LA, it could've been similar prospects from another team, but I'm sure we'd have been able to get very significant return for Gaborik two years ago.

not me. i really like to see a team developed. i am very happy - for instance - with what the mets are doing. many complain about alderson not making a splash in free agency. i'm more than happy to watch a team grow, even if they lose a lot (hopefully just at the beginning).
much better than a team of renegades that loses in the first round of the playoffs.
it's not all about wins and losses, necessarily. i think there's a story in watching a group develop. might be kind of an old-fashioned way to look at it, but it's good enough for me. i prefer that narrative.
not that a trade or free agent signing is automatically a bad thing. but i'm happy to take the long road. i think it's more stable and success breeds success too. once the hard work is done, the benefits are reaped for a long time.

 

[Kwayry]

not me. i really like to see a team developed. i am very happy - for instance - with what the mets are doing. many complain about alderson not making a splash in free agency. i'm more than happy to watch a team grow, even if they lose a lot (hopefully just at the beginning).
much better than a team of renegades that loses in the first round of the playoffs.
it's not all about wins and losses, necessarily. i think there's a story in watching a group develop. might be kind of an old-fashioned way to look at it, but it's good enough for me. i prefer that narrative.
not that a trade or free agent signing is automatically a bad thing. but i'm happy to take the long road. i think it's more stable and success breeds success too. once the hard work is done, the benefits are reaped for a long time.

You are in the rare silent minority

 

[egelband]

i would like to see slats and torts step off the gas. let the kids develop for the rest of this year. maybe even sell off some parts for youngsters and picks. aim for next year to contend. which is when, prior to last season, we all would have expected the rangers to contend. last year was a bit of fools-gold i suspect. play miller and kreider and fast and zucc and mcilrath and whoever else they see as part of the future.
tortorella needs to back-off a bit too. he's stressing-out the team. it's not healthy. i don't think the team's going to get lazy if he allows them to have some fun.

 

[egelband]

You are in the rare silent minority

maybe the rangers just need to tell the fans they have no money. 'we need three years with no high-priced additions'. in the end, i bet that team is pretty good.
anyhow, i think a lot of fans agree with me, but, as you say, they're just quiet about it.
baseball and hockey are the only sports with farm teams (legit ones, unlike the d-league and the taxi squad) where a fan can watch the players/team evolve over a long period. it's a really cool wrinkle and makes the 'fan experience' that much more layered. i think we'd all agree on that. just sometimes need to step back and let it happen.

 

[Kwayry]

maybe the rangers just need to tell the fans they have no money. 'we need three years with no high-priced additions'. in the end, i bet that team is pretty good.
anyhow, i think a lot of fans agree with me, but, as you say, they're just quiet about it.
baseball and hockey are the only sports with farm teams (legit ones, unlike the d-league and the taxi squad) where a fan can watch the players/team evolve over a long period. it's a really cool wrinkle and makes the 'fan experience' that much more layered. i think we'd all agree on that. just sometimes need to step back and let it happen.

People would curse you and point to other teams that rebuilt in 2 and are winning, how can a team flush with money like the Rangers tank for 3 years?
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

 

[egelband]

People would curse you and point to other teams that rebuilt in 2 and are winning, how can a team flush with money like the Rangers tank for 3 years?
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

unfortunately, team management has to appease the win-now crew. they're louder and bolstered by the press. it's pretty short-sighted. but what isn't these days. gimme gimme gimme. i feel so old. i'm still in my 30s!

 

[Beacon]

People would curse you and point to other teams that rebuilt in 2 and are winning, how can a team flush with money like the Rangers tank for 3 years?
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Yeah because it's much better to take a full decade or more to rebuild. We began in 2004, and at best, we'll be contending in 2014. And we actually did have a sell-off in 2004 that resulted in guys like Dubinsky and Sauer.

 

[egelband]

Yeah because it's much better to take a full decade or more to rebuild. We began in 2004, and at best, we'll be contending in 2014. And we actually did have a sell-off in 2004 that resulted in guys like Dubinsky and Sauer.

doing things half-assed like the rangers have done tends to drag it out. we're looking at three 'rebuilds' in the last decade or so.

 

[Beacon]

Yeah because it's much better to take a full decade or more to rebuild. We began in 2004, and at best, we'll be contending in 2014. And we actually did have a sell-off in 2004 that resulted in guys like Dubinsky and Sauer.

Once more thing that I want to point out: the Rangers are anywhere near a conversation about contention only because they stumbled upon Lundqvist 4 years before the rebuilding began. It was pure dumb luck.

If we didn't let draft Lundqvist, we'd have failed to make the playoffs most of the years since 2005, and the franchise would've been an Islanders-like joke... without John Tavares.

Let me be the first one to say this: as soon as Lundqvist begins to show signs of slowing down (or if he leaves as a free agent), we should rebuild and do it hardcore. Trade everyone over the age of 27 because rebuilding takes at least a half a dozen years (a draft pick takes 2-3 years to make the NHL, then 2-3 more years until he learns what to do in the NHL and that's assuming everything goes perfectly. And we will need more than one draft, even if we acquire a whole bunch of draft picks, so a half dozen years is a very low estimate).

I mean everyone: Staal, Girardi, Callahan, everyone should go as soon as Lundqvist is no longer with the team or is reduced by age to no more than an average goalie. This probably will not take place for a while, as goalies last longer than skaters, but when it does happen, I want everyone over 27 gone for picks and prospects.

 

[egelband]

Once more thing that I want to point out: the Rangers are anywhere near a conversation about contention only because they stumbled upon Lundqvist 4 years before the rebuilding began. It was pure dumb luck.

If we didn't let draft Lundqvist, we'd have failed to make the playoffs most of the years since 2005, and the franchise would've been an Islanders-like joke... without John Tavares.

Let me be the first one to say this: as soon as Lundqvist begins to show signs of slowing down (or if he leaves as a free agent), we should rebuild and do it hardcore. Trade everyone over the age of 27 because rebuilding takes at least a half a dozen years (a draft pick takes 2-3 years to make the NHL, then 2-3 more years until he learns what to do in the NHL and that's assuming everything goes perfectly. And we will need more than one draft, even if we acquire a whole bunch of draft picks, so a half dozen years is a very low estimate).

I mean everyone: Staal, Girardi, Callahan, everyone should go as soon as Lundqvist is no longer with the team or is reduced by age to no more than an average goalie. This probably will not take place for a while, as goalies last longer than skaters, but when it does happen, I want everyone over 27 gone for picks and prospects.

i wonder if they would have just tried for more free agents. or gone for a full-on rebuild. interesting.

 

[eco's bones]

Don't think too many people here would be happy with developing the team from scratch. Doing the top 5 in the draft several years in a row can be iffy too. It would mean wasting a goalie like Lundqvist--or trading him.

What we're finding out is that guys like Richards, Gaborik are not nearly on the level of what Jagr was when he was here. They cannot take a team on their backs and lead it somewhere. Looking at Nash it looks very possible that he can but management is going to have fill out the depth better. A young Dominic Moore, Jed Ortmeyer and even Ryan Hollweg (our 4th line coming out of the lockout season) were far more useful to that team than some of our aging bottom six forwards now. They provided real energy and a real forecheck. Ortmeyer may have sucked but he could skate and he would literally hurl himself in front of slapshots on the pk and that could be inspiring to his teammates. Speaking of Jagr--he had charisma on and off the ice--sometimes I think Richards and Gaborik are just trying to blend in. You see guys like MDZ, Stepan, Hagelin trying to step up--not those two guys.

 

[nyr2k2]

Most impressive about Lindberg's postseason is that while contributing eight points in seven games, he has yet to be on the ice for an ES goal against.

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

Don't think too many people here would be happy with developing the team from scratch. Doing the top 5 in the draft several years in a row can be iffy too. It would mean wasting a goalie like Lundqvist--or trading him.

What we're finding out is that guys like Richards, Gaborik are not nearly on the level of what Jagr was when he was here. They cannot take a team on their backs and lead it somewhere. Looking at Nash it looks very possible that he can but management is going to have fill out the depth better. A young Dominic Moore, Jed Ortmeyer and even Ryan Hollweg (our 4th line coming out of the lockout season) were far more useful to that team than some of our aging bottom six forwards now. They provided real energy and a real forecheck. Ortmeyer may have sucked but he could skate and he would literally hurl himself in front of slapshots on the pk and that could be inspiring to his teammates. Speaking of Jagr--he had charisma on and off the ice--sometimes I think Richards and Gaborik are just trying to blend in. You see guys like MDZ, Stepan, Hagelin trying to step up--not those two guys.

I would have no problem with my team doing a true rebuild when called for (i.e. not with the current core). In my mind that means trading your older players for assets and pushing your kids to the fore to take over the team. If you also get one or more top-5 picks out of it, so be it - I would welcome it under those circumstances. That's doing it the right way.

Having said that, I do agree with almost everything you wrote in your second paragraph.