2018 NHL Draft: Quantity vs. Quality?

[Nopuckluck]

The question stands. What can you possibly give to Edmonton in addition to the TB or Boston pick to entice them to give up the 10th overall pick? If not next year's #1, then what? I doubt that two second and a late first rounder would do it.

Zucc or Pionk plus one of our late 1sts

Still I say trade whatever it takes to get up to #2 or #3

 

[Irishguy42]

The question stands. What can you possibly give to Edmonton in addition to the TB or Boston pick to entice them to give up the 10th overall pick? If not next year's #1, then what? I doubt that two second and a late first rounder would do it.

Roster player

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

Roster player

Yup.

Spooner was drafted when Chiarelli was in Boston. Just sayin'...

 

[True Blue]

Roster player

Such as? Who is Edmonton taking in exchange for the 10th overall pick?

 

[True Blue]

Zucc or Pionk plus one of our late 1sts

Still I say trade whatever it takes to get up to #2 or #3

Why would Edmonton ever do this? Zucc plus a late firs in exchange for the 10th overall pick? What do they get out of this? Zucc does not change at all who they are. And Pionk plus a late first? REALLY? That is a Bern sort of trade proposal.

Still I say trade whatever it takes to get up to #2 or #3

Whatever it takes? Then why not trade all of our 1st round picks from this year and throw in next year's as well? Bet you that gets it done.

 

[Nopuckluck]

Why would Edmonton ever do this? Zucc plus a late firs in exchange for the 10th overall pick? What do they get out of this? Zucc does not change at all who they are. And Pionk plus a late first? REALLY? That is a Bern sort of trade proposal.

Whatever it takes? Then why not trade all of our 1st round picks from this year and throw in next year's as well? Bet you that gets it done.

No way it takes 4 first rounders. That’s childish. But...Whatever it takes!

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

Why would Edmonton ever do this? Zucc plus a late firs in exchange for the 10th overall pick? What do they get out of this? Zucc does not change at all who they are. And Pionk plus a late first? REALLY? That is a Bern sort of trade proposal.

Whatever it takes? Then why not trade all of our 1st round picks from this year and throw in next year's as well? Bet you that gets it done.

Ah, I see that you too are a Pionk doubter, TB. I personally think he is Torey Krug v. 2.0 and obviously is a lot closer to reaching that potential than anyone we draft at 10 would be, given he’s already shown it for a quarter of a year at the NHL level. I wouldn’t make the deal from the Rangers’ POV.

Now, DeAngelo on the other hand...

 

[Nopuckluck]

Ah, I see that you too are a Pionk doubter, TB. I personally think he is Torey Krug v. 2.0 and obviously is a lot closer to reaching that potential than anyone we draft at 10 would be, given he’s already shown it for a quarter of a year at the NHL level. I wouldn’t make the deal from the Rangers’ POV.

Now, DeAngelo on the other hand...

Not true. Plonk is ok. I think he will have a good career as a number 4 or 5. He’s just not “special” and soft. VERY SOFT. You have to trade someone ov value for the pick and losing him is not hurting when we could draft a better defender potentially. Pink not on this team doesn’t set us backwards. Tony D is and will be better than Pionk. That’s a given in my book. Let a coach Give him space and room and watch out

 

[True Blue]

Ah, I see that you too are a Pionk doubter, TB. I personally think he is Torey Krug v. 2.0 and obviously is a lot closer to reaching that potential than anyone we draft at 10 would be, given he’s already shown it for a quarter of a year at the NHL level. I wouldn’t make the deal from the Rangers’ POV.

Not at all. I believe, based on what I saw last year, he has a chance to be what you say. However, that is based on a very small sample. And I do not believe that an NHL GM would make trade the 10th overall pick for a player (and another pick) based on such a small sample.

 

[True Blue]

No way it takes 4 first rounders. That’s childish. But...Whatever it takes!

Seems to me that "whatever it takes" is just that. Do whatever you have to to land the pick. What I said is "whatever it takes". If you are saying no to that, then clearly you are not operating with the "whatever it takes" mentality. You have boundaries. So what is acceptable to you for a move for the 2nd or third overall? What in your view would it take? What would you be willing to do? Clearly it is NOT "whatever it takes".

 

[JimmyG89]

With the internet at your fingertips and all sorts of examples of how trading up netted MASSIVE returns...you continue to blindly insist trading up always fails. According to you "You never win the value battle"

I'll triple down. You. Never. Win. The. Value. When. Trading. Up. On. Draft. Day. Did I say you fail when you trade up? No. You're not reading.

Should we have traded that 9th pick in 86 so we could draft luminaries like Kim Issel and Jamie Nichols?

Strawman. Let's talk about a draft from 30 years ago to "prove" my statement wrong.

Why did we keep 9 when we could've had the 11 and 32 pick from Hartford to get Marc Laforge and Scott Young instead of Brian Leetch? (Something tells me you might miss the actual point and respond with ' well who says Hartford would've even wanted to make that trade at the time')

Keeping your own pick vs moving assets to get a higher pick is not the same. Goalposts went out the window with this statement.

It's amazing what people will ignore in order to blindly pitch a narrative regardless of all context. Bonus points for continuing to push the idea that I was at all implying that my scenario is the only possibility (I didn't, I made that pretty clear). Sorry I'm being a bit nasty in this reply but the fact you did this twice, especially after I took the time to clearly show I wasn't doing this is incredibly annoying so i lost patience.

There are examples of trade ups that totally failed and trade ups that MORE then netted back what was given up to move up. (Contrary to the bafflingly wrong statements you just made)

It's not "blindly pitching a narrative" when we actually have information available to us to show the value of a specific draft selection (See post 1 of this thread).

Also, your only scenario presented is if we miss on both picks. What if we hit one and miss the other, or hit both? We're just as likely to hit at 9 as we are at 3. If we only have 1 pick from 25 to 31, instead of two, we have a much bigger chance of missing at the end of the round. I'm already willing to concede that one of those picks will be a bust. Give me two swings to find the guy who won't, as opposed to one.

It's ALMOST like there's risk in drafting at any position. Almost like there are no sure things so any strategy has been proven to work or fail in any given draft. Almost like individuals have been picked between 3-9 that have gone on to be WAY better than the next 5 guys picked after them combined.

I don't get why it's so hard for you to simply say "I just don't like the talent enough to trade up using our other 1sts but obviously there's always a chance a team could guess right." But then I guess you'd have to admit you don't actually know and god forbid...

I'm glad you agree that there is a risk drafting at any spot, so having more draft selections will actually lower the risk of having a poor draft. I'm not willing to risk either pick in the late first to move from 9 to 3. I trust our scouts to find a player at 9 who will be comparable to the player who is drafted at 3.

I'm not in the game of "trading up to possibly guess right". If you're trading up, you better know what you're getting. In this draft, and just about any draft that has happened in the past 15 years, once you get past the #2 pick, there is a big uptick in the risk of getting that pick for what you are giving up.

There is really no reason to continue this. My thoughts on trading up are not changing and neither are yours. Our system has needs at 4 positions (LW, RW, LD, and RD). Having our 3 firsts, or possibly even more depending on what else we move out, is exactly what this franchise needs moving forward after not selecting in the first round for 4 straight years.

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

Not at all. I believe, based on what I saw last year, he has a chance to be what you say. However, that is based on a very small sample. And I do not believe that an NHL GM would make trade the 10th overall pick for a player (and another pick) based on such a small sample.

Ah, okay, I get what you're saying. Then again, this is also where scouting comes into play.

There is also such a thing as a deal that works for neither team. That might be one example.

 

[True Blue]

There is also such a thing as a deal that works for neither team. That might be one example.

That is where I am at. Logically, there is not much that would work here. The Rangers two other first rounders are too far back in the draft and next year' s first rounder is out of the question. Edmonton is far from being a team that is a player away, so why would they take someone like Zucc? This is a deep draft. They stand to get a pretty good player. Aside from gross over payment (one or two of this year's late first rounders + next year's first) I do not see what could entice them to give up the 10th overall pick and drop over 15 spots in the draft.

 

[True Blue]

I'm not willing to risk either pick in the late first to move from 9 to 3. I trust our scouts to find a player at 9 who will be comparable to the player who is drafted at 3.

Just on this note, players chosen higher tend to have the better careers. First round over second round, high first round over low first round, etc.

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

That is where I am at. Logically, there is not much that would work here. The Rangers two other first rounders are too far back in the draft and next year' s first rounder is out of the question. Edmonton is far from being a team that is a player away, so why would they take someone like Zucc? This is a deep draft. They stand to get a pretty good player. Aside from gross over payment (one or two of this year's late first rounders + next year's first) I do not see what could entice them to give up the 10th overall pick and drop over 15 spots in the draft.

Oh, I 100% agree that Zucc makes no sense whatsoever for them. Zucc makes much more sense to Chicago, Dallas, or Florida.

As for Edmonton, I do think they need to be looking at going to the POs next year. Enough with the high picks and waiting for next year. #10 should be available. But if they move it to the Rangers, the pieces in play should be Spooner, Namestnikov, DeAngelo, Gilmour, and the late 1sts. (Or alternatively, Kreider/Hayes + a large/small add on Edmonton's side.)

 

[True Blue]

But if they move it to the Rangers, the pieces in play should be Spooner, Namestnikov, DeAngelo, Gilmour, and the late 1sts. (Or alternatively, Kreider/Hayes + a large/small add on Edmonton's side.)

I do not believe the bolded gets it done. Not even close. Don't get me wrong, I would do those trades every day and twice on Sunday. But Edmonton? I believe they would laugh.

Now Krieder and a first, and now you are talking. But if I am the Rangers, I do not make that move.

 

[FoxysExpensiveNYDigs]

Voted quantity. The draft is always a crapshoot after the first 3-5 picks. The more darts you have the better chance of hitting an A prospect. Think Petterson from last year.

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

I do not believe the bolded gets it done. Not even close. Don't get me wrong, I would do those trades every day and twice on Sunday. But Edmonton? I believe they would laugh.

Now Krieder and a first, and now you are talking. But if I am the Rangers, I do not make that move.

No way.. EDM adds significantly if they want Kreider.

 

[True Blue]

The draft is always a crapshoot after the first 3-5 picks. The more darts you have the better chance of hitting an A prospect.

Agree and disagree at the same time. It is always better to have more picks then less. As you correctly point out, all the more darts to throw at the board. However, the draft is not quite the crap shoot that some try to make it out to be. Generally speaking, players taken earlier go on to have better careers than those taken later. Taken a whole, of course. So the more draft picks that you have that are earlier round, earlier in a particular round, the better off that you will be.

If the whole thing was such a crap shoot, then why bother with scouts at all? Why scour the ranks?

The more picks you have, the more of currency you have in a hard cap world. It would be even better if they were earlier picks than later.

 

[True Blue]

No way.. EDM adds significantly if they want Kreider.

Probably. But again, I believe that the two teams make for poor trading partners. It would take something significant for Edmonton to drop over 15 spots. And I do not think that the Rangers have what they would be looking for. And if they did, it would not be something that Gorton would want to give up.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

Yup.

Spooner was drafted when Chiarelli was in Boston. Just sayin'...

Spooner is better than G. Reinhart. Spooner for 10th overall

 

[Edge]

It sure it has to be one or the other.

We have 8 picks in the first 101 selections.

If we finish with 6, but get the guys we really want, I don’t know if we really sacrificed “quantity” to achieve it.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

The times we ended the draft with more picks than rounds:

2005: 9 in 7 rounds
2004: 13 in 9 rounds
2003: 10 in 9 rounds
2002: 10 in 9 rounds
2001: 11 in 9 rounds
1999: 11 in 9 rounds
1997: 12 in 9 rounds

 

[Kakko Schmakko]

Quality should be priority, because we already got quantity.

 

[JESSEWENEEDTOCOOK]

Spooner is better than G. Reinhart. Spooner for 10th overall

Oilers basically traded Barzal for Reinhart

So I’d say McDavid for, i don’t know, Bigras is more in line with that