Don't get me wrong, I'm not against all moves up. If there is a guy who they like who falls into a spot they know they can't get him in, ok. If they want to move a guy like Spooner or Names for another pick, ok. More than likely I think Gortons statement is a sign to the league that he's open for business, and pieces are in play. Not hopefully saying three first are getting packaged for one shot.
2018 NHL Draft: Quantity vs. Quality?
- Thread starter aufheben
- Start date
Machinehead
Fox Mafia Consigliere
I agree with this, especially considering this team has many holes to fill.
Think we need to make a distinction between forward depth and blueline depth though. Vegas is all forward depth. Pittsburgh didn't win anything with Crosby and Malkin for a long while until they got the best 3rd line in hockey.
Ghost of jas
Unsatisfied
Except for when it’s not foolish. Nor do I look at it as a paramount moment in Ranger history. Given the option of trading up to 12 to get Staal, or staying put at 16 to take Alex Bourret (the supposed Rangers choice at the time), I’ll take the option of trading up for Staal. Yes, if they keep the 2nd, perhaps they get a player as good as Staal, or they miss there and are instead 0-for-2, instead of getting a player that was part of their success from 2010-2014.
Brooklyn Rangers Fan
Change is good.
I am so hesitant to talk about "policy" in the abstract; I don't think you can view a draft/potential deals without context.
I mean, yes, generally speaking, I would like as many picks as possible, due to the law of averages, and in particular the quality of this draft.
But...
If Carolina makes the #2OA/Svechnikov available? If Zadina slips? If Wahlstrom is there at 7 and you have info that Chicago is likely to take him at 8? Yeah, make a move – preferably using roster players, but at the end of the day, do what you gotta do.
I mean, yes, generally speaking, I would like as many picks as possible, due to the law of averages, and in particular the quality of this draft.
But...
If Carolina makes the #2OA/Svechnikov available? If Zadina slips? If Wahlstrom is there at 7 and you have info that Chicago is likely to take him at 8? Yeah, make a move – preferably using roster players, but at the end of the day, do what you gotta do.
Ghost of jas
Unsatisfied
Keeping all your picks statistically should result in better success in terms of actual percentage of players making it. But, would the Sharks have been better off not trading up for Couture or the Devils trading up for Parise?
Machinehead
Fox Mafia Consigliere
Brooklyn Rangers Fan
Change is good.
Again, it depends on context. Last year, I would've given the 7, the 21 (which I would've subsequently regretted), and potentially a third pick to get to 3, 4, or 5 to take Pettersson. But unlike last year, this draft appears loaded, into the second round. I just gave a number of instances in which I'd absolutely be cool with moving up, but I'm not at all comfortable saying in a vacuum, "yeah, look to trade up".
NoQuitInNewMexico
it's okay cause it's all just the way it should be
Obviously it all comes down to what the Rangers board looks like. If they have like Ty Smith at #4 or #5, hold tight at 9 and pick him. People here might be mad but who cares. If they love Wahlstrom or Hughes, chase the guy within reason. Trading up a couple spots is affordable, getting Montreal to give up Zadina won't be affordable.
If they like someone who's a huge reach at 9 but probably gone by the Boston-Tampa picks, try to find a trade-up partner in the middle of the draft. If guys like Namestnikov and Spooner were brought here to be currency, that's probably the way to use them.
If they like someone who's a huge reach at 9 but probably gone by the Boston-Tampa picks, try to find a trade-up partner in the middle of the draft. If guys like Namestnikov and Spooner were brought here to be currency, that's probably the way to use them.
LORDE
I am Lorde, YA YA YA
This thread is just "Hindsight is 20/20" repeated over and over again, every post.
If the NYR screw up this draft by moving up people will scream "I TOLD YOU SO"
and if the NYR screw it up by using all 3 first rounders etc. people will scream "I TOLD YOU SO"
The only way people don't scream is if NYR don't screw up.
If the NYR screw up this draft by moving up people will scream "I TOLD YOU SO"
and if the NYR screw it up by using all 3 first rounders etc. people will scream "I TOLD YOU SO"
The only way people don't scream is if NYR don't screw up.
Ghost of jas
Unsatisfied
NoQuitInNewMexico
it's okay cause it's all just the way it should be
Feel like the Sens are a much better candidate for a "big" trade-up than the Habs - they don't gain anything from being awful next year, they can use extra roster players, they might still want to resign Karlsson and put a team around him - and no one really talks about it because no one wants Brady Tkachuk
PlamsUnlimited
Big Church Bells
Quantity in this one. I say this because outside of Dahlin and Svech/Boqvist I feel like they could all be promising or at least intriguing players with good potential in roles on our team and we aren't high enough to get a clear BPA or trade for one at this point. We have at least 3 1st round picks as it stands right now with possibility for more or less really. In this one, you take quantity. In 2015, BPA/quality OR quantity would be good. But in weaker ones, quality only IMO
silverfish
got perma'd
9th OA - BPA
Next First Round Pick - BPA
Next First Round Pick - Trade for early mid-2nd rounder and 3rd
Earliest 2nd Round pick - Trade to Florida for Mascherin
Remaining picks: BPA or trade down
Thank you,
silverfish
PS - Please see User Title under Avatar and Username before yelling at me.
Next First Round Pick - BPA
Next First Round Pick - Trade for early mid-2nd rounder and 3rd
Earliest 2nd Round pick - Trade to Florida for Mascherin
Remaining picks: BPA or trade down
Thank you,
silverfish
PS - Please see User Title under Avatar and Username before yelling at me.
Harbour Dog
Registered User
Easily quantity. There are situations where trading up makes sense, but on the whole, just add more picks.
Even at #9, if it gets to us and there are three or four guys that are all close to BPA, I would love to see us trade down a few picks and add a mid-second rounder.
We'd still probably end up with one of the guys that we're all fawning over, but with another top 60 prospect in a deep draft. Yes please.
Even at #9, if it gets to us and there are three or four guys that are all close to BPA, I would love to see us trade down a few picks and add a mid-second rounder.
We'd still probably end up with one of the guys that we're all fawning over, but with another top 60 prospect in a deep draft. Yes please.
Its also hard to say one way or the other until we see how the draft plays out.
If a bunch of teams start going off the board and a bunch of guys the Rangers like end up falling, trading back for more picks makes sense.
I still think they need 2 picks in the top 15-18. Whether they get that additional pick by trading up from one of their later 1sts or moving a body for it I don't really care, but they really need 2 cracks at the best this draft has to offer IMO.
If a bunch of teams start going off the board and a bunch of guys the Rangers like end up falling, trading back for more picks makes sense.
I still think they need 2 picks in the top 15-18. Whether they get that additional pick by trading up from one of their later 1sts or moving a body for it I don't really care, but they really need 2 cracks at the best this draft has to offer IMO.
Harbour Dog
Registered User
Isn't there supposed to be a bit of a talent drop after the top 12-15 ish area in this draft? I feel like I read an article by someone who had asked several scouts that question.
I.E. if we're trading up, shouldn't aim a few spots higher if that's the case?
It varies from opinion to opinion but yeah, I'd like to aim as high as possible.
Someone will be there in the middle of the first round who has no business still being around. It happens every year.
DanielBrassard
It's all so tiresome
Just ran a sim where I went the other direction, trading down, then trading back up later. Thoughts?
- Rangers Draft Simulation using: Draftwired (400)
http://www.draftwired.com:8888/apps/dwNHL
Trades:
(27, 33, 98) from DET for (9)
(20) from LAK for (27, 90, 163)
(54) from ANA for (70, 101)
(87) from CHI for (98, 132)
Picks:
Rd 1 Pk 20 - Barrett Hayton (C) Sault Ste Marie
Rd 1 Pk 28 - Vitali Kravtsov (RW) Chelyabinsk
Rd 1 Pk 29 - Dominik Bokk (RW) Vaxjo J20
Rd 2 Pk 33 - Jack McBain (C) Jr. Canadiens
Rd 2 Pk 39 - Jacob Bernard-Docker (RD) Okotoks
Rd 2 Pk 48 - Sean Durzi (RD) Owen Sound
Rd 2 Pk 54 - Niklas Nordgren (RW) HIFK
Rd 3 Pk 87 - Oskar Back (C/LW) Farjestad J20
HatTrick Swayze
Just Be Nice
Firmly in the do not trade up from 9 camp. Not opposed to moving up the early TB/BOS pick to the teens. But not clamoring for it either.
I expect that the NYR actually WILL disregard my wishes (!!!) and make a serious move to pick in the top-5. Zadina with Chytil is too tempting. I also could 100% see Tkachuk as the target, melting the HF servers into a puddle of goo.
I expect that the NYR actually WILL disregard my wishes (!!!) and make a serious move to pick in the top-5. Zadina with Chytil is too tempting. I also could 100% see Tkachuk as the target, melting the HF servers into a puddle of goo.
Even more so if the Rangers hire Quinn.
Then again, I'm convinced the Rangers would have selected Tkachuk if they had picked 2 or 3.
Then again, I'm convinced the Rangers would have selected Tkachuk if they had picked 2 or 3.
Latest posts
-
GDT: 2024-25 season game 59 LA Kings vs Chicago Blackhawks @5:30pm 3/3/25- Latest: Ziggy Stardust
-
