Speculation: 2014 - 2015 New York Rangers :: Roster building / proposal thread

[KreiMeARiver*]

I'm still pretty shocked Stempniak hasn't been signed.

It's pretty simple: He sucks

kidding, he's ok, but he probably wants more than he's worth. He should land somewhere, soon. Hopefully not here!

 

[Raspewtin]

It's not a crap shoot, it's not a random throw of dice. Scouts actually watch the players. Eventually the scouting services come up with rankings. Go back in time look at their rankings, who the consensus best average pick was among all the rankings, and compare that to the teams who took off the board picks and see who has the better results.

Who called it a random throw of the dice?

It's a crapshoot because luck plays a big role in it. If you don't want to accept that I don't know what to tell you.

 

[Off Sides]

Who called it a random throw of the dice?

It's a crapshoot because luck plays a big role in it. If you don't want to accept that I don't know what to tell you.

You can tell me that educated guesses, a good development program, competent coaching throughout the process post draft play a much larger role than luck.

 

[Raspewtin]

You can tell me that educated guesses, a good development program, competent coaching throughout the process post draft play a much larger role than luck.

I just said they play a 50/50 role.

If it was as easy as you think it is a LOT more drafted players would make the NHL.

 

[Off Sides]

I just said they play a 50/50 role.

If it was as easy as you think it is a LOT more drafted players would make the NHL.

Where do you think the large majority of NHL players came from?

 

[Raspewtin]

Where do you think the large majority of NHL players came from?

By my comment, I meant a lot more players drafted would succeed.

 

[BobMarleyNYR]

It's not a crap shoot, it's educated guessing, depends on who is making the guesses.

The issue for me has been always, why go off the board with the first 10-15 picks, it's pretty rare that ever works out. If odds were good that player would work out he would be ranked higher by the consensus.

When a consensus better player falls, and a team still takes their off the board pick instead, that is really a head scratcher to me. At that point it seems like the team is not expecting a player to drop, but since they already fell in love with their off the board pick, they take that player anyway.

The other thing I do not understand is when teams take an organization need with these same higher picks, teams change up like 1/5 of their team every year, and yet they are somehow going to predict what their organizational need will be in 3-4-5 years?

With the later picks I can certainly understand them gambling, boom or bust, trying to fill what may be a future need but whiffing in the first round more often than hitting just sets the team up to have to make other moves that cost assets down the line or signing other players who are probably overpriced or older by that point.

I agree with all of this.

 

[Off Sides]

By my comment, I meant a lot more players drafted would succeed.

It's odds, if by luck you mean that I can understand what you are trying to say.

Odds are strange like that, an educated gambler wins more often than a non educated gambler even when playing the same game that has the same odds because the educated one plays the odds to maximize their "luck"

 

[Raspewtin]

It's odds, if by luck you mean that I can understand what you are trying to say.

Odds are strange like that, an educated gambler wins more often than a non educated gambler even when playing the same game that has the same odds because the educated one plays the odds to maximize their "luck"

This post is pretty much what I was trying to say.

 

[BobMarleyNYR]

He's a very good 3rd liner. He will put up 35-40 points in a full season and if things go really right, he can put up way more.

that'spouliot. tell me he's better without the puck then pouliot, otherwise i'm a non-believer.

 

[Raspewtin]

that'spouliot. tell me he's better without the puck then pouliot, otherwise i'm a non-believer.

He is. One of the better PK'ers in the league.

And he probably wont cost something stupid like 4 million.

 

[Off Sides]

This post is pretty much what I was trying to say.

But that goes back to my point, taking a reach in the first 10-15 picks versus taking the consensus best ranked player is not playing the higher odds. From there as the picks get later sure the odds and luck play a more significant factor, all depending on the depth of the prospects pool to draw from and the differences in talent between the prospects.

So sure while that reach will work from time to time, the odds are, over a long time period of many drafts, the team who goes off the board will end up drafting a player not as good as the consensus best prospect available at the time.

Basically if teams go off the board they best have a pretty concrete solid reason to do so, because if they are wrong, which is more often the case than not when ignoring the educated consensus, they end up with a worse player.

It's one of the occasions when a grouping of people actually comes to the correct conclusion more often than not over any one person.

 

[NYRSchrute217]

Yep, people don't really understand the percentages because all anyone remembers is Tarasenko. What about Burmistrov?

Tons of teams miss all the time even in the 1st round.

The reason people remember Tarasenko and Fowler is because they were the 2 logical and popular choices by most of us when the Rangers were picking. Now that Fowler is a US Olympian and top 4 offensive dman (something the organization has lacked) and Tarasenko is on his way to being a 30 goal scorer and McIlrath has played 2 NHL games entering the 5th year since he was drafted, people will (rightly) mention Tarasenko and Fowler. Even if the draft is a crapshoot, McIlrath was picked for a need, not because he was the best player on the board. Still holds true, 5 years later.

 

[BobMarleyNYR]

I just said they play a 50/50 role.

If it was as easy as you think it is a LOT more drafted players would make the NHL.

I wouldn't say it's easy. But I really would say that if you have scouts that ask the right questions, are very in-tune with subtleties in a guy's game, an organizational attitude of, "if we don't get THE GUY," we're screwed (whether true or not for your team, Duane Sutter coaches with that mentality, as much as he plays it off for the camera). The Rangers management doesn't operate that way with the drft. That said, we've gotten damn good at developing players, and Sather seems to say the right things to take the pressure off guys who may prospectively play in NY. FWIW (clearly very little here lol), I think a guy like Miller NEEDS that shove.

 

[BobMarleyNYR]

He is. One of the better PK'ers in the league.

And he probably wont cost something stupid like 4 million.

Ok, didn't know that... sorry OP.

 

[Off Sides]

The reason people remember Tarasenko and Fowler is because they were the 2 logical and popular choices by most of us when the Rangers were picking. Now that Fowler is a US Olympian and top 4 offensive dman (something the organization has lacked) and Tarasenko is on his way to being a 30 goal scorer and McIlrath has played 2 NHL games entering the 5th year since he was drafted, people will (rightly) mention Tarasenko and Fowler. Even if the draft is a crapshoot, McIlrath was picked for a need, not because he was the best player on the board. Still holds true, 5 years later.

This is pretty much that same as I am pointing out, but I still think calling it a crapshoot is undercutting what goes on.

I do not know the answer but it begs to question, why do the Rangers tend to do well with their later picks and not so well with their 1st rounders? Could it be because certain high level individuals within the organization are making the final call on the 1st rounders and they allow the lesser ranking individuals make the later selections?

I watched Ancient Aliens last night so maybe that is part of it

 

[BobMarleyNYR]

This is pretty much that same as I am pointing out, but I still think calling it a crapshoot is undercutting what goes on.

I do not know the answer but it begs to question, why do the Rangers tend to do well with their later picks and not so well with their 1st rounders? Could it be because certain high level individuals within the organization are making the final call on the 1st rounders and they allow the lesser ranking individuals make the later selections?

I watched Ancient Aliens last night so maybe that is part of it

By that logic, which I agree with 100%, wouldn't you then say a team that drafts well, can necessarily find star players later in the first round?--I realize there are many factors involved, including how strong the draft is, but the question stands.

Our last 1st rounder to become an All-Star was drafted 9 years ago. He was, what 12th overall (even Hugh Jessiman would concur that it's hard to **** up the 12th pick)? Lundqvist was, what, a 7th round pick 14 years ago?

We've yet to fully see where Kreider, Stepan, Skjei, McIlrath, Miller, even later guys like Hagelin and Fast will top out. Until then, I don't think we draft well enough.

Fans need to realize that we shouldn't accept mediocrity.

 

[Trxjw]

It's not a crap shoot, it's educated guessing, depends on who is making the guesses.

The issue for me has been always, why go off the board with the first 10-15 picks, it's pretty rare that ever works out. If odds were good that player would work out he would be ranked higher by the consensus.

When a consensus better player falls, and a team still takes their off the board pick instead, that is really a head scratcher to me. At that point it seems like the team is not expecting a player to drop, but since they already fell in love with their off the board pick, they take that player anyway.

The other thing I do not understand is when teams take an organization need with these same higher picks, teams change up like 1/5 of their team every year, and yet they are somehow going to predict what their organizational need will be in 3-4-5 years?

With the later picks I can certainly understand them gambling, boom or bust, trying to fill what may be a future need but whiffing in the first round more often than hitting just sets the team up to have to make other moves that cost assets down the line or signing other players who are probably overpriced or older by that point.

Except the falling player isn't always the better one. In 2006 the Rangers selected a smooth skating, puck moving defender who slid down the board instead of the player they were planning on taking. They wound up with Bobby Sanguinetti instead of Patrik Berglund. In 2008 they took another sliding defender with offensive potential but major holes in his game, several years later they traded him after his game fell off a cliff. In 2009, if we took the slider we'd be watching some other team develop a 6'3 230lb power-forward who skates like hell while we wondered what the hell happened to Jordan Schroeder.

In short, it's not always the best idea to take the guy sliding down the board. You just have to take whoever is the best player left on your board.

 

[BobMarleyNYR]

Unless you wanna be a maverick and pretend you've found n ace in the hole... that's how you get Jessimans, McIlraths and Montoyas... even Millers.

 

[Tawnos]

that'spouliot. tell me he's better without the puck then pouliot, otherwise i'm a non-believer.

For one thing, Stempniak can kill penalties which is something Pouliot can't do.

The "that's Pouliot" comment doesn't make sense, anyway. Pouliot is who we'd be replacing.

 

[JESSEWENEEDTOCOOK]

Stempniak would be a pretty good pick up on the cheap. Him or Booth.

 

[Gardner McKay]

Stempniak would be a pretty good pick up on the cheap. Him or Booth.

Maybe we can get both for very cheap 1 year deals. We need to replace the 80+ points that we lost from Richards & Pouliot.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

Unless you wanna be a maverick and pretend you've found n ace in the hole... that's how you get Jessimans, McIlraths and Montoyas... even Millers.

Jury is still out on McIlrath and Miller.

Jessiman and Montoya were simply awful picks, no two ways about it. But they were pre-lockout where everything about the organization was awful.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

The Rangers drafting as a whole has been very good.

Its their first round drafting that leaves something to be desired. Good thing the team continues to spin 1st round picks off in trades I guess.

 

[aufheben]

The reason people remember Tarasenko and Fowler is because they were the 2 logical and popular choices by most of us when the Rangers were picking. Now that Fowler is a US Olympian and top 4 offensive dman (something the organization has lacked) and Tarasenko is on his way to being a 30 goal scorer and McIlrath has played 2 NHL games entering the 5th year since he was drafted, people will (rightly) mention Tarasenko and Fowler. Even if the draft is a crapshoot, McIlrath was picked for a need, not because he was the best player on the board. Still holds true, 5 years later.

Also should be noted that that need for which McIlrath was selected still exists for the Rangers.