2018 NHL Draft: Quantity vs. Quality?
- Thread starter aufheben
- Start date
Pavel Buchnevich
"Pavel Buchnevich The Fake"
Elite talent over depth every day of the week. Pittsburgh and Chicago had laughable blue-line depth for many of their Stanley Cups.
Oscar Lindberg
Registered User
Eh there’s probably some form of middle ground here
I would not trade up or down from #9, but I have no issue trading up from a late twenty depending on the cost
I want them to have as many first two round picks as possible though
A lot of solid choices in the second round that can turn into great players
I would not trade up or down from #9, but I have no issue trading up from a late twenty depending on the cost
I want them to have as many first two round picks as possible though
A lot of solid choices in the second round that can turn into great players
silverfish
got perma'd
Unless you can add another first round pick, stay at 9OA. Trade one of the lower first round picks for an already player or multiple later picks in the draft. Keep the other one.
aufheben
#Norris4Fox
Right but you could argue that more picks gives you a better chance of finding elite talent. I didn't mean it to be, say, 1st liner vs. 2x 2nd liners.
FireGerardGallant
The Artist Formerly known as FireDavidQuinn
- Mar 19, 2016
- 6,656
- 7,576
The draft, in all honesty, is a bit of a crapshoot so if you can get more picks it makes it more likely to get a hit. Sure in 2015 Boston swung and missed on Zboril and Shensyshyn, but they hit on Jake Debrusk and Brandon Carlo who both became big contributors to that team. At the start of a rebuild it's important to get quantity over quality
Pavel Buchnevich
"Pavel Buchnevich The Fake"
Agreed, it really just depends. If you can move up for Boqvist, you give up one of your later firsts and a second. If not, stay pat. Unless Buffalo or Carolina are trading their picks, I don't think the value is enough with the others for it to be worth it to move up.
haveandare
Registered User
silverfish
got perma'd
Expected value by overall pick. Player names are just filled in from mock drafts. Each teams picks are stacked to show individual value by pick and total team pick value.
haveandare
Registered User
Ohhh so it's for all picks a team is holding in the upcoming draft and net value for each team?
Well... they hit on Debrusk...
Their next few drafts were grand slams though and it's important to note that their best players were all on the NHL roster before the 2015 draft. Rangers need a centerpiece, or at least a very high end player or 2 more than they need a supporting cast.
Their next few drafts were grand slams though and it's important to note that their best players were all on the NHL roster before the 2015 draft. Rangers need a centerpiece, or at least a very high end player or 2 more than they need a supporting cast.
FireGerardGallant
The Artist Formerly known as FireDavidQuinn
- Mar 19, 2016
- 6,656
- 7,576
Looking at Detroit on that chart makes me wish we didn't do that Brendan Smith deal, add that ottawa pick to what we already have and we are set for this draft
Mac n Gs
Drury plz
- Jan 17, 2014
- 22,836
- 13,560
This is the correct answer
Unless you can add another first round pick, stay at 9OA. Trade one of the lower first round picks for an already player or multiple later picks in the draft. Keep the other one.
JimmyG89
Registered User
- May 1, 2010
- 10,149
- 9,033
More picks are better than less picks.
Unfortunately, our other two firsts are going to be very close to the bottom of the 1st. We're going to have the following top 50 picks:
9, 26, 28-31, 39, and 48.
Depending on what we can get for the pick 28-31, I'd be willing to move down to get even more picks. Get an extra early 2nd and another 3rd. We can take so many swings at that point. We need to replenish a system that is barren.
If we had an already deep system, lacking high end talent but having depth, I'd be willing to package to move up from 9. But, right now, we need as many picks as possible.
Unfortunately, our other two firsts are going to be very close to the bottom of the 1st. We're going to have the following top 50 picks:
9, 26, 28-31, 39, and 48.
Depending on what we can get for the pick 28-31, I'd be willing to move down to get even more picks. Get an extra early 2nd and another 3rd. We can take so many swings at that point. We need to replenish a system that is barren.
If we had an already deep system, lacking high end talent but having depth, I'd be willing to package to move up from 9. But, right now, we need as many picks as possible.
aufheben
#Norris4Fox
Oh absolutely. The poll is just a general consensus for curiosity's sake.
If you don't think you can get a quality player at nine, why would another team trade with you to move down to nine? Even in the worst draft years in history, there have been great players who came from picks outside the top 10. The question is, did your staff do the work? If everyone on the board that people think should go there stinks and you take what looks like a reach and it turns out you were right, then your staff did the work. The ultimate question is did this staff do the work. There is just no way you can convince me that this draft is so shallow that we can't find someone we need at nine. We literally need players at every position.
I said impact player, like someone that is going to be a bona fide first-line player. Not quality player. Big difference in my book. Someone might trade down to 9 because they think they can get the player they want there and would be picking up an asset in the process. Everyone has different boards and different valuations, so just because we don't like what's at 9 doesn't mean that all the teams ahead feel the same way.
I'm not trying to convince anyone the draft is shallow. I don't really follow it anymore so I have no idea. I'm just saying, if I'm the Rangers and I don't think anyone projected to be available at 9 is worth it, I'd consider moving up. Again though, as long as we keep at least one of the other firsts. I recognize that we need to address a lot of things and I don't want to hand over a wealth of picks just to move up a spot or two.
HFsNumber1Heel
FKA Roo Returns...Still A Contrarian Apparently
I'm a fan of the whole "more shots means more chances" and I hate this notion of "can't have too many draft picks in one year and ELCs expiring the same time." The solution to that is to pick NCAA players who will have ELCs that start later and thus the pipeline will continue to flow. A big part of the success of 2011-12, was because Hagelin and later Kreider came into the picture.
Also someone at #21 can have more of an impact than someone in the top 9. It appears Chytil may produce more offensively than Anderson. What about Claude Giroux, Kyle Connor, Travis Koneckny? Those guys were not top ten picks. Brandon Saad ring a bell?
This is where the scouts have to earn their keep. The last time the Rangers had this many picks, they ended up with two excellent second liners (Dubinsky, Callahan) an overrated third liner (Korpikoski...and Hagelin became pretty much what Korpi was supposed to become) and a very very good short term 4th line center (Blair Betts).
I think it's safe to say Rangers Scouting 2018 >>>> Rangers Scouting 2004-2005 but still the right picks need to be made.
Diversify. Don't just pick finesse wingers or power forwards or RHDs for the sake of it. For every safe player picked, choose two wild cards as long as they can skate. And go big or go home.
Also someone at #21 can have more of an impact than someone in the top 9. It appears Chytil may produce more offensively than Anderson. What about Claude Giroux, Kyle Connor, Travis Koneckny? Those guys were not top ten picks. Brandon Saad ring a bell?
This is where the scouts have to earn their keep. The last time the Rangers had this many picks, they ended up with two excellent second liners (Dubinsky, Callahan) an overrated third liner (Korpikoski...and Hagelin became pretty much what Korpi was supposed to become) and a very very good short term 4th line center (Blair Betts).
I think it's safe to say Rangers Scouting 2018 >>>> Rangers Scouting 2004-2005 but still the right picks need to be made.
Diversify. Don't just pick finesse wingers or power forwards or RHDs for the sake of it. For every safe player picked, choose two wild cards as long as they can skate. And go big or go home.
I'm very surprised by how often i see this sentiment. If we miss on both later picks and could've gotten a better player by trading up to 3 then we get by picking at 9 then more picks is not better.
I think we're building depth. We're a hell of a lot more deep than we were last year. Yet, we are missing the high-end talent to a large degree. So what's the priority right now--building depth or finding something high-end?
Ghost of jas
Unsatisfied
JimmyG89
Registered User
- May 1, 2010
- 10,149
- 9,033
You're already under the impression we're missing on those picks. I'll concede that there is a good chance that we will miss on one of them, based on draft history in general, but both? It's highly unlikely.
There are also more examples of team moving down and getting a better player with their multiple acquired picks then the team moving up into the 1st round.
The difference between the player we could get at 28-31 and our actual 2nd round pick (39) is very small. Enough to the point where if we like a bunch of players in that range, and they are available, moving down, getting another asset, and picking someone that we still like.
I would also not package our late 1sts to move to 3. If we were talking about 1 or 2, I would. Dahlin and Svechnikov are above the rest in the draft. We're not going to get #1 or #2 from Buffalo or Carolina. We're better off taking someone at #9 and using our late 1sts.
I guess I disagree with alot of people. To me, there are different ways to go about this. For me, this season, my way is this. Get as many of these picks to the NHL as you can. Stay steady. Keep building the farm. Keep the ELC talent coming in as the league gets older and more expensive. Build an identity, a philosophy, a culture that you want to define New York Rangers hockey. When you have that in place, you make a move for a proven guy who you have more of a book on than some 18 year old kid from east nowhere, who has never had a dime to his name and you have no real idea of how what he's got ahead of him is going change him. SO, I don't think we should put a bunch of eggs in a basket trying to get a better egg. We're not that one major player away from being a contender. We may miss out on a whale of a player if we don't pull the trigger this year, but you know what? Unless the sun burns out or some huge asteroid is on a collision course with earth, it's not the last year of hockey. There will be someone just as highly touted next year and so on. I look at this year as a framework year. It's not going to be every season you dump off all your vets for picks. We need to build the foundation of this organization this year, not put all chips on a roulette number hoping to strike it big. That strategy is too risky. You trust your guy who tells you Brendl is great or Cherepanov can't miss and you gamble. Well life doesn't always go that way. For me the safer bet is that your guy is not so bad at scouting that he whiffs with this many chances. Get players. Lots of players. BPA the whole way on draft day. THE END.
