Changing our draft strategy

[Beacon]

It's impossible to pin down what those factors are when you're dealing with 18-year-old kids. No two organizations are going to see every kid the same way either. It's not the like the kids are all sitting around with a bunch of success rates pinned to them.

Granted, but I listed the percentages just for the sake of the argument. Just as a general theory. It's the same way that some organizations prefer size, some prefer speed, some prefer defense, some prefer run-and-gun. Obviously all these teams prefer "the best players", but different people view different things as best.

The same for drafting strategy. What's best is not something that everyone agrees on. Obviously if another McIlrath is clearly the best player available, let's get another McIlrath. But whether McIlrath is better than Fowler is a matter of philosophy and preferences.


As a strictly philosophical exercise, would we prefer a guy who has a 50-50 chance of becoming another Dubinsky or someone who has a 20-80 chance of becoming Giroux?

 

[BroadwayStorm]

Hey I'm not sure if its the right thread but real quick does anyone know why Tomas Kloucek was considered a bust? I don't remember him sucking as badly as some say and I wonder if McIlrath is anything like him. Either way best player available. Even if D-Man. Because surplus allows you to trade for offense.

 

[Ace2008]

fit styles not overall value

if the NYR want to emulate a draft strategy they should focus on 2 of their most recent 1st rounders Brady skej *shAY* and Chris Kreider.

Both are elite skaters with both HW size(100kg would be HW in int'l wrestling etc) and standing 6'3 both have superb chance of being top 2 line or even starting lineup regulars. Skej reminds of a young B.Hedican and has superb lateral agility and should be a solid no frills #4 dman that can play a steady simple game.

as for the Maximum skill and elite goal scoring focus...many have tried but usually the elite smaller bodied scorers slip past the 1st round. sure scouting has become more advanced but there are many solid prospects coming outside of the tradtional hotbeds of Eastern Europe, Canada and scandinivian lands like sweden/Finland.

More talent from places like Denmark, Lithuania, etc+++ a strong need for systems play means that having your minor team mirror the type of team wanted at the NHL level is a sure fire way of easing the rookies and prospects into NHL service.

Better to have the youngsters be overripe and seasoned like the wings have been doing than to rush them into service before they're physically mature.

Keeping Kreider was a major Major Major step up. If he can be clutch like C.Lemieux then the NYR would a scary combo of size, speed, and skill at Lw

1 of the 3 between FAsth, Thomas, and Nieves should be a solid #2 option at Rw.


The need is to have 6 elite skating defenders that combine good passing and size with a bit of grit from 1 or 2 of them and maybe a good speed skater (Gilroy maybe?) that can play Forward and Defense to play a torpedo style.

Right now the biggest play I can think of would be to either trade a minor asset and mid round 3-4th pick for cody Franson as he is a low risk /Hi reward specialist for a rental....OR....GO BIG and try to dangle MDZ and a grinder like McIlrath for a speedskater with the necessary size to make the NYR blueline truly elite like E.Johnson.

Avalanche have 4 good Right shooting youngsters on D w/ Barrie, Elliott, and D.siemens. They also have a need for a proven PPQB like Del Zotto which wouldn't hurt the NYR offense too much to lose because they could transform the style of their PP attack from a dump and chase to a skating and puckcarrying style if both E.J. and Gilroy were given open season to Rush the puck on the PP. The trade cost would be a lot lower than the cost of Nash but a similar 3-4 part package would probably be needed to overkill and compensate for landing a former 1st overall skater.

short of getting J.Bouwmeester as UFA there are no elite skating power defenders that can fill that rare role.


as for wingers....keep on stocking up on the speedy guys like fasth, bourque, thomas in the later rounds and keep the cap hit lower by not overpaying for 3-4 line talent.

Pyatt at 1.5 mill is perfect fit...guys like that help to win cups eventually.

Nash---B.R.---Gaborik/Callahan

Pyatt--stepan-Kreider

Hagelin-Boyle-Ferriero

Asham-Rupp-Gilroy(use him on PP instead of Bickell/stralman)

maybe pickup Anthony stewart as a fill in winger for 3rd/4th line for his speed/size and then entice brother Chris to join Anthony on a line...2 good wings for 5m total would be a nice combo if Tortorella can get Chris to backcheck and shot block.

staal---E.Johnson

Mcdonagh-sauer/Girardi

eminger-????

 

[Pizza]

That's a ridiculous response. This assumes that we know who will turn out to be the best player, which of course we do not. Every player has the ceiling and the risk factor. The question is how much of a ceiling do you want and how much of a risk factor can you tolerate.

Actually it's a very good response. It comes down to how well an organization evaluates talent. Some have a well established history of doing it well: Detroit, New Jersey. Others not so much: Columbus, etc.

There is a reason the track record for success and failure is so clear cut. The Rangers are just beginning to establish that identity for themselves.

 

[Beacon]

Hey I'm not sure if its the right thread but real quick does anyone know why Tomas Kloucek was considered a bust? I don't remember him sucking as badly as some say and I wonder if McIlrath is anything like him. Either way best player available. Even if D-Man. Because surplus allows you to trade for offense.

Kloucek looked great, then got injured which slowed him down and made him a bit scared.

 

[Zil]

Granted, but I listed the percentages just for the sake of the argument. Just as a general theory. It's the same way that some organizations prefer size, some prefer speed, some prefer defense, some prefer run-and-gun. Obviously all these teams prefer "the best players", but different people view different things as best.

The same for drafting strategy. What's best is not something that everyone agrees on. Obviously if another McIlrath is clearly the best player available, let's get another McIlrath. But whether McIlrath is better than Fowler is a matter of philosophy and preferences.

To me they got in trouble on that pick because they got away from the BPA mindset. They fell in love with one particular prospect they felt would fill an organizational need rather than going with the best available player. I honestly don't think there's an argument to be made against taking Tarasenko at that spot unless they were actually spooked that he wasn't going to come over.

As a strictly philosophical exercise, would we prefer a guy who has a 50-50 chance of becoming another Dubinsky or someone who has a 20-80 chance of becoming Giroux?

I don't see the value in that choice. I've read that Giroux didn't fall because of questions about him as a prospect, but rather because he came out of nowhere and the scouts didn't really watch him enough. That's the other factor to keep in mind. Sometimes guys aren't flawed prospects at all, but the whole league manages to under-scout them.

For the record, I wouldn't use a first round pick on a guy I knew had an 80 percent chance of busting completely. Blowing first rounders is the easiest way to put your organization in a big hole fast. I'd much rather gamble in the later rounds. Honestly, my first impulse would be to go in heavy on high upside guys with the vast majority of my picks after the second round.

 

[Beacon]

So would you then agree that in this year's draft, without a first, we should go for another Thomas in the second, another Bourque in the third, another St. Croix in the fourth, another Horak in the fifth, another Fast in the sixth (as they were at the age of 18)?

If we go the safe route, we will likely pull an NHLer in the draft because we have enough extra draft picks that the math works. If we go the risky route, it's 50-50 that we wind up with nobody in this draft, but also 50-50 that we'll wind up with a player who can put up 60 points per season. Is the risk worth it?

 

[Zil]

So would you then agree that in this year's draft, without a first, we should go for another Thomas in the second, another Bourque in the third, another St. Croix in the fourth, another Horak in the fifth, another Fast in the sixth (as they were at the age of 18)?

If we go the safe route, we will likely pull an NHLer in the draft because we have enough extra draft picks that the math works. If we go the risky route, it's 50-50 that we wind up with nobody in this draft, but also 50-50 that we'll wind up with a player who can put up 60 points per season. Is the risk worth it?

This year will be interesting. We have a second, three thirds (four if they don't make the SCFs, which would suck), a fourth, and a sixth (I think we dealt our seventh). With the supposed quality of this draft, I'd be tempted to go all in on high ceiling guys.

 

[toewsintangibles]

Rangers have a defense corp that can play defense.

McDonagh, Staal, Girardi, Del Zotto, with Skjei (who is going to be very good), and McIlrath...

What they don't have is any consistent offensive threat.

Every Stanley Cup champion that I can recall off the top of my head in the last 20+ years had one.

Also, one reason our PP sucks, and have trouble consistently sustaining an attack is because we have no real threat from the back end.

DZ is a good offensive defenseman

 

[NYR Viper]

To me they got in trouble on that pick because they got away from the BPA mindset. They fell in love with one particular prospect they felt would fill an organizational need rather than going with the best available player. I honestly don't think there's an argument to be made against taking Tarasenko at that spot unless they were actually spooked that he wasn't going to come over.



I don't see the value in that choice. I've read that Giroux didn't fall because of questions about him as a prospect, but rather because he came out of nowhere and the scouts didn't really watch him enough. That's the other factor to keep in mind. Sometimes guys aren't flawed prospects at all, but the whole league manages to under-scout them.

For the record, I wouldn't use a first round pick on a guy I knew had an 80 percent chance of busting completely. Blowing first rounders is the easiest way to put your organization in a big hole fast. I'd much rather gamble in the later rounds. Honestly, my first impulse would be to go in heavy on high upside guys with the vast majority of my picks after the second round.

15 teams (including the team that eventually picked him) selected other players than Tarasenko before he was selected.

The harping on him is getting a little old. If the Rangers made a mistake, so did the other 15 teams (including the Blues who took Schwartz before him).

The draft is a crapshoot. Hindsight is always 20/20 and people are using hindsight to bash the Rangers organization.

 

[KreiMeARiver*]

Draft strategy: take the best player available.

haha /thread

 

[Zil]

15 teams (including the team that eventually picked him) selected other players than Tarasenko before he was selected.

The harping on him is getting a little old. If the Rangers made a mistake, so did the other 15 teams (including the Blues who took Schwartz before him).

The draft is a crapshoot. Hindsight is always 20/20 and people are using hindsight to bash the Rangers organization.

But everybody knew he had top five pick talent. His hockey ability was never in dispute. It seems like he fell solely based on fears that it'd be difficult to get him to come over. That's not a factor that should've deterred a franchise like the Rangers. It's not like with Giroux where nobody knew how good he really was. I'm not trying to start another moan fest over that pick, but it is going to bug me for a while unless McIlrath turns out in a big way.

 

[offdacrossbar]

But everybody knew he had top five pick talent. His hockey ability was never in dispute. It seems like he fell solely based on fears that it'd be difficult to get him to come over. That's not a factor that should've deterred a franchise like the Rangers. It's not like with Giroux where nobody knew how good he really was. I'm not trying to start another moan fest over that pick, but it is going to bug me for a while unless McIlrath turns out in a big way.

this discussion will never end unless and until mcilrath plays in the nhl at a level equal to the best case scenerio described by gordie clarke in all his interviews after the 2010 draft. he is the guy who needs to justify and explain his reach for big mac. bottom line, he fell in love with a players potential and physical size and overlooked his general lack of high end hockey skill. and in doing so, he passed on a kid who was described as "the next great russian".

after the draft, gordie kept talking about macs character, and from all indications its top notch, but you are asking for trouble if you are basing your draft decisions on criteria that doesnt include hockey IQ as the most important single factor.

gordie fell in love with a dream that he could make this kid into something that is extremely rare in this league, a feared physical dman and fighter who can also play top 4 minutes.

gordie rolled the dice. bigtime.

meanwhile, tarasenko has 8 points in 6 games and is +5. fyi, he would be tied with gaby right now as our top scorer.

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

It seems to me that it's basically proven at this point that you have to constantly have guys who can play at the NHL level coming through your system at all times. We also can use the cap to the fullest so as long as we can promote 1 or two bodies every year from within we can supplement high end talent with FA's and trades which is what we've been doing successfully.Also I think our RW depth is horribly uncertain. Ironically it's the one area where we took chances and loaded up on high talent higher risk guys like Zuccarello and CT. In no way do I think we should change our strategy.

this discussion will never end unless and until mcilrath plays in the nhl at a level equal to the best case scenerio described by gordie clarke in all his interviews after the 2010 draft.

I don't even think it's a discussion it's too blatant that we did not pick the guy who is best for our organization nor is he the best talent we could have grabbed. I do think he will be a good player for us at the very least but Tarasenko was one of the best prospects in the world and looks to be one of the best bright young talents in the world. McI can never hope to equal that...Vlad could fail to deliver and McI could then surpass him. Regardless I'm happy to have DM in our system and am excited that he will be a phenomenal Ranger to watch.

 

[PlamsUnlimited]

I think our positions too are because lately we've been in the middle of the pack and just now we've kinda kicked it up a notch or so it seems since last year. As much as I like McIlrath's stuff I doubt he is a consistent top 4 man with us. The IQ isn't there. Anyhow moving back on track, I think we need some more offensive IQ, like Miller. Nice dudes for the C, and some for LW soon...

 

[SingnBluesOnBroadway]

It seems to me that it's basically proven at this point that you have to constantly have guys who can play at the NHL level coming through your system at all times. We also can use the cap to the fullest so as long as we can promote 1 or two bodies every year from within we can supplement high end talent with FA's and trades which is what we've been doing successfully.Also I think our RW depth is horribly uncertain. Ironically it's the one area where we took loaded up on high talent higher risk guys like Zuccarello and CT. In no way do I think we should change our strategy.

The Rangers didn't draft Zuccarello.

 

[NYR Sting]

15 teams (including the team that eventually picked him) selected other players than Tarasenko before he was selected.

The harping on him is getting a little old. If the Rangers made a mistake, so did the other 15 teams (including the Blues who took Schwartz before him).

The draft is a crapshoot. Hindsight is always 20/20 and people are using hindsight to bash the Rangers organization.

But for most teams, being afraid of the Russian factor might be a legit concern. It shouldn't have been for this team. Hindsight is always 20/20, but there were plenty of reasons to believe at the time that a mistake had been made.

You want to talk about changing draft strategy? It's this obsession with drafting based on physical tools rather than mental accumen, despite the fact that the history of this league has shown time and time again that you don't have to be the biggest, the strongest, or even the fastest to be one of the greats. Niklas Lidstrom, for example, was the best defenseman in the league for over a decade, and he was none of those things. Those things help, but what you need most of all is the brains. And I'll take skill and talent, for that matter, over those physical attributes, too. No matter how fast or strong or domineering you are, it doesn't amount to much if you don't know how to play.

Draft polished, high IQ players. Stop with this madness of drafting kids that have gotten by in high school or juniors simply on their athletic ability, skipping the most important aspect of their development: learning to play the game strategically at a high level.

 

[3rdlineglory]

But for most teams, being afraid of the Russian factor might be a legit concern. It shouldn't have been for this team. Hindsight is always 20/20, but there were plenty of reasons to believe at the time that a mistake had been made.

You want to talk about changing draft strategy? It's this obsession with drafting based on physical tools rather than mental accumen, despite the fact that the history of this league has shown time and time again that you don't have to be the biggest, the strongest, or even the fastest to be one of the greats. Niklas Lidstrom, for example, was the best defenseman in the league for over a decade, and he was none of those things. Those things help, but what you need most of all is the brains. And I'll take skill and talent, for that matter, over those physical attributes, too. No matter how fast or strong or domineering you are, it doesn't amount to much if you don't know how to play.

Draft polished, high IQ players. Stop with this madness of drafting kids that have gotten by in high school or juniors simply on their athletic ability, skipping the most important aspect of their development: learning to play the game strategically at a high level.

The Rangers draft those types of players too. The organization has actually drafted a pretty diverse group of players the last few years minus goaltenders of course because we have Hank.

 

[Beacon]

You want to talk about changing draft strategy? It's this obsession with drafting based on physical tools rather than mental accumen, despite the fact that the history of this league has shown time and time again that you don't have to be the biggest, the strongest, or even the fastest to be one of the greats. Niklas Lidstrom, for example, was the best defenseman in the league for over a decade, and he was none of those things. Those things help, but what you need most of all is the brains.

I did a thread on this last June. The reason physical attributes are seen as so important is that they are easy. Every fan understands what 6-3 220 pounds means, which is why fans are always clamoring for big guys. Every team can test a player for speed, both skating and shooting, which is why teams like players who are fast or shoot hard.

But to identify intelligence / hockey sense takes a tremendous amount of skill and a lot of continued attention paid to the player. This is where real skill lies. That's why Gordie Clarke can go for IQ, while the less skilled scouts focus on the the more obvious things like height and skating speed.

 

[Matt Rentfree]

The question is what's better: a player who has a 75% chance of becoming another Taylor Pyatt, a player who has a 50-50 chance of becoming another Callahan or a player who has a 25% chance of becoming Giroux?

How do you qualify that though? Philly took Giroux as the 22nd pick because the Rangers took the guy they wanted (Sanguinetti) as the 21st pick. No one knew what Giroux was going to become - from what I remember, all the scouts said he was too small to ever have a serious shot at the NHL level - I'm assuming that means they all thought he had less than a 25% chance of being the player he became, considering they didn't think he could play at the top level at all.

 

[Dorado*]

I did a thread on this last June. The reason physical attributes are seen as so important is that they are easy. Every fan understands what 6-3 220 pounds means, which is why fans are always clamoring for big guys. Every team can test a player for speed, both skating and shooting, which is why teams like players who are fast or shoot hard.

But to identify intelligence / hockey sense takes a tremendous amount of skill and a lot of continued attention paid to the player. This is where real skill lies. That's why Gordie Clarke can go for IQ, while the less skilled scouts focus on the the more obvious things like height and skating speed.

Complete and utter malarchy . I been hard on Clark but ill admit he has some moderate success. But that's just crap that he has some mystical hockey IQ advantage over any other scout . Look at CK he picked him purely on his athleticism , frame and speed so that just contradicts everything you said . Gordie Clark is a fine enough head of player development ( head scout. ) but lets stop making him out to be anything more than he will be because his picks weren't as epic as people on here make them out to be and he has probably the same amount of players in the league as some other teams who've picked around where he NYR did .

 

[Dorado*]

Hockey IQ doesn't do you much good if your shot can't break an egg or you can't keep up with the play .

 

[SingnBluesOnBroadway]

How do you qualify that though? Philly took Giroux as the 22nd pick because the Rangers took the guy they wanted (Sanguinetti) as the 21st pick. No one knew what Giroux was going to become - from what I remember, all the scouts said he was too small to ever have a serious shot at the NHL level - I'm assuming that means they all thought he had less than a 25% chance of being the player he became, considering they didn't think he could play at the top level at all.

Very good post.

 

[Beacon]

Complete and utter malarchy . I been hard on Clark but ill admit he has some moderate success. But that's just crap that he has some mystical hockey IQ advantage over any other scout . Look at CK he picked him purely on his athleticism , frame and speed so that just contradicts everything you said . Gordie Clark is a fine enough head of player development ( head scout. ) but lets stop making him out to be anything more than he will be because his picks weren't as epic as people on here make them out to be and he has probably the same amount of players in the league as some other teams who've picked around where he NYR did .

Under his watch, the Rangers drafted double the rate of NHLers as other teams.

 

[Pizza]

A year ago there was a lot of complaining about how many bottom six guys we had. Now that we have used some of those guys to acquire a first line guy there are complaints about our depth.

Interesting.