Toggle sidebar

Draft and UDFA Thread 2017-18

  • Xenforo Cloud has upgraded us to version 2.3.6. Please report any issues you experience.
  • We are currently aware of "log in/security error" issues that are affecting some users. We apologize and ask for your patience as we try to get these issues fixed.
Status
Not open for further replies.
GregSirico said:
HAHA Dude, I said that weeks ago. I keep trying to put together something that would make sense.
Click to expand...
I stopped thinking about it a while ago, but with all the recent risers and whatnot, it got me rethinking about it. Though I think EDM might not want to do it anymore because they might also be thinking "hey, good talent is still going to be there at 10 with all the risers recently. NYR can't pick them all ahead of us."

But it's Chiarelli, so :dunno:
 
Irishguy42 said:
I stopped thinking about it a while ago, but with all the recent risers and whatnot, it got me rethinking about it. Though I think EDM might not want to do it anymore because they might also be thinking "hey, good talent is still going to be there at 10 with all the risers recently. NYR can't pick them all ahead of us."

But it's Chiarelli, so :dunno:
Click to expand...
But ... but ...
maxresdefault.jpg
 
Edge said:
You're not wrong on Thomas.

I'd dare say that in some ways he's kind of the opposite of Bergrren.

JB has the energy and the drive. For as skilled as he is, everything screams overachiever. Which isn't a bad thing, you just wonder how far it can take him.

Thomas on the other hand is an incredibilty talented prospect who seems to leave you wanting more. All the tools are there, and they come together nicely. But there's that feeling that it should be more. More goals because we know he can shoot, better defense because we know he can play that.

With Bergrren it's not hard to see him as middle/bottom six talent who could potentially play himself into a top 6 role. With Thomas it's not hard to see him as top six talent who potentially slides down into a middle six role.

Despite that, I think Thomas' attributes just have too much potential for most teams to pass on. But none of what you're saying is inaccurate.
Click to expand...

Yeah, what really stood out to me was Thomas lack of ability to gear up and play against the best of his peers. It’s not a stretch to say that Thomas in the U18 looked like say Nigel Dawes in the NHL, is like someone who didn’t quite belong in all areas. Berggren OTOH at the same level was maybe a top 10/15 forward, noticeable every shift, playing the game at a faster pace than just about anyone else, beating Ds 1 on 1 and so forth.

I am sure you recognize the feeling, when a prospect just seem to ‘drown’ when he gets up a level it’s the worst possible sign. You want the opposite, a good prospect, even if in over his head, is usually able to at least make some noise. I remember Marc Savards first camp in NY, he was sooooo in over his. It’s hard to imagine today how far behind kids could be back then, the field is just so much more narrow today, the kids are so well schooled and trained at an early age. But despite really not keeping up with the pace or physical part of the game, Marc Savard always somehow just manage to get on board. Get into the middle of things. And it’s something I see a lot in Europe where there is more flexibility between the different leagues and layers, 15-16 y/o’s play in the SHL every now and then and so forth. Players who grow against better opponents usually do well, the players that shrink are usually not in line for a bright future. Something is just backwards if someone like AT is picked ahead of Berggren but also guys like Ty Dellandrea and co. JMHO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mac n Gs
I like Berggren because his skating alone will make him a useful NHLer. I also think he’s very well disciplined and makes really good reads in typical Swede fashion.

I also really like Albin Eriksson the more I look into him.
 
Fitzy Duke of NY said:
Maybe for the Devils 2nd rounder. No way for the 39 unless Zadina is there.

NYR spent #49 to move from 16 to 12 in 2005. That has to be comparable to a 9-to-7 trade.
Click to expand...

Not that it’s gospel, but I believe the cost on the value chart had things roughly as 9+70 = 7.

I think we determined 26+28 = 16

In turn, 16+48 = 13

So you’d give up 9, 26, 28, 48 and 70 for 7 and 13.

That would leave the Rangers with 7, 13, 39, and 88 in the first three rounds.
 
Edge said:
Not that it’s gospel, but I believe the cost on the value chart had things roughly as 9+70 = 7.

I think we determined 26+28 = 16

In turn, 16+48 = 13

So you’d give up 9, 26, 28, 48 and 70 for 7 and 13.

That would leave the Rangers with 7, 13, 39, and 88 in the first three rounds.
Click to expand...
I just don't see that 26+28 <–> 16 happening in time to then do 16+48 <–> 13.

Also, none of the above takes into account potential roster players involved...
 
Brooklyn Rangers Fan said:
I just don't see that 26+28 <–> 16 happening in time to then do 16+48 <–> 13.

Also, none of the above takes into account potential roster players involved...
Click to expand...

It’s a rough value system to give an approximate range. Kind of like a Kelly Blue Book.

Personally, I’d be thrilled to grab Zadina at 7 and Farabee at 16 and the cost of 9,26,28 and 70 as part of deals.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brooklyn Rangers Fan
Brooklyn Rangers Fan said:
They can have Merkley. Kravtsov would hurt – but it only means we picked (a) guy(s) we like better before him.
Click to expand...

I'm no draft guru, but going over scouting reports the past couple years Merkley was considered a top 5 prospect for this draft. I've read he has had some attitude problems, although I can't seem to find specifics.

If we could land #10 without giving up 26/28 I'd have no prob grabbing him up later in the 1st. Especially if we don't get Boqvist.

Let's say we had 9/10 and grab Whalstom/Kravtsov and Boqvist is gone. I'd see if Dallas, FLA, or Colorado had interest in Names/Spooner + 26/28 for their 1st and grab Merkley in the mid round. I don't think he lasts to 26/28.

Someone said it already. We traded for safe/half developed prospects at the TDL. Three boom/bust picks in Whalstrom/Kravtsov/Merkley and One of them HAS to work out, bonus if 2 or (gasp) all 3.
 
Edge said:
It’s a rough value system to give an approximate range. Kind of like a Kelly Blue Book.

Personally, I’d be thrilled to grab Zadina at 7 and Farabee at 16 and the cost of 9,26,28 and 70 as part of deals.
Click to expand...
Got it. Yeah, not bad at all.

Now, if we can just figure out a way to also get #10, #13 or #15 and take Wahlstrom/Kravstov as well (Lucic deal, Zucc to DAL or FLA), while then taking two of Alexeyev/Samuelsson/Addison/Lundkvist/Tychonick/Bernard-Docker in the second round... :)
 
Alexei Kovalev 27 said:
72 hours ago, guys here were jumping off a bridge if we took Kravtsov 9th, now they would give up their wives for a shot at him with a mid-1st.

Friday can’t come fast enough.
Click to expand...

I don’t recall too many being against Kravtsov in the right situation.

Admittedly, the 9 spot wasn’t really popular. But I don’t know if there was too much pushback for the teens.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brooklyn Rangers Fan
x BEUKEBOOM x said:
I'm no draft guru, but going over scouting reports the past couple years Merkley was considered a top 5 prospect for this draft. I've read he has had some attitude problems, although I can't seem to find specifics.

If we could land #10 without giving up 26/28 I'd have no prob grabbing him up later in the 1st. Especially if we don't get Boqvist.

Let's say we had 9/10 and grab Whalstom/Kravtsov and Boqvist is gone. I'd see if Dallas, FLA, or Colorado had interest in Names/Spooner + 26/28 for their 1st and grab Merkley in the mid round. I don't think he lasts to 26/28.

Someone said it already. We traded for safe/half developed prospects at the TDL. Three boom/bust picks in Whalstrom/Kravtsov/Merkley and One of them HAS to work out, bonus if 2 or (gasp) all 3.
Click to expand...


Assuming Farabee wasn't on the board during any of the picks we hypothetically accrue after 9.
 
Edge said:
I’d consider Merkley in the second. Really not digging him with a first.
Click to expand...

i would have too. What I read in 2017 and earlier reports spooked me a little that he could be a guy teams regret not taking when they had the chance. Since we have at the moment 3 chances whereas most teams have 1 crucial choice, I'd hate to think we blew it, especially if he drops to 26/28.

I conceed moving up to mid-teens to grab him could be a reach.
 
Go Away Staal said:
Who exactly?
Click to expand...

I would have to look back on it to last week (or what seems to be 40 pages)...re: I brought up Kravtsov as a true dark horse for the 9th OV slot. In recent days, the Kravtsov temperature has risen. Don't know if that's credible reasoning or simply the repetition of the name/highlight clips, etc
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom