Even if you want to say Lias was a reach, I don't think you can criticize the Rangers for reaching for him and then praise them for Chytil. Chytil was a much bigger reach than Andersson was.
Player Discussion Filip Chytil: Part II
- Thread starter aufheben
- Start date
-
Work is still on-going to rebuild the site styling and features. Please report any issues you may experience so we can look into it. Click Here for Updates
- Status
Edge
Kris King's Ghost
I worry sometimes that "reach" became/has become a buzz word that we kind of gravitate toward. It's really hard to pinpoint that terms because it doesn't fully take into account that beyond the top one or two guys, the concept of a "consensus" is equally subjective.
So if we use Andersson as an example, he was a "reached" because a lot observers had him in the 11-17 range. But ISS had him as the third ranked European. In that same draft, Vilardi was a "consensus" high pick that went 13th. So then you have to question just how much of a consensus there was in the first place.
It's similar to zeroing in too much on the "line" a player is assigned. Jaromir Jagr was, by assignment, a second line RW for a large part of his 20s in Pittsburgh. Why? Because Mario was on the top line and they didn't play together. Yet no one in their right mind would consider Jagr to "only be" a second line RW during those times - he was challenging for Hart.
I think we all like to have a sense of order when situations get a little messy. We like to have everything in its place, with a clear designation and understanding. But you have to be mindful about becoming too rigid with an interpretation.
When we look at Andersson and Chytil, it really doesn't matter where others had them. It matters where the Rangers had them, and whether they receive good value for their choice.
I just think there's a lot of context that gets missed when we look at these things.
So if we use Andersson as an example, he was a "reached" because a lot observers had him in the 11-17 range. But ISS had him as the third ranked European. In that same draft, Vilardi was a "consensus" high pick that went 13th. So then you have to question just how much of a consensus there was in the first place.
It's similar to zeroing in too much on the "line" a player is assigned. Jaromir Jagr was, by assignment, a second line RW for a large part of his 20s in Pittsburgh. Why? Because Mario was on the top line and they didn't play together. Yet no one in their right mind would consider Jagr to "only be" a second line RW during those times - he was challenging for Hart.
I think we all like to have a sense of order when situations get a little messy. We like to have everything in its place, with a clear designation and understanding. But you have to be mindful about becoming too rigid with an interpretation.
When we look at Andersson and Chytil, it really doesn't matter where others had them. It matters where the Rangers had them, and whether they receive good value for their choice.
I just think there's a lot of context that gets missed when we look at these things.
SA16
Sixstring
There's a pretty big difference to me in a reach at a early pick where boards are pretty similar to in a later picks where boards are all over the place.
That largely depends on the draft year. In general, most teams boards begin to diverge after the top 2 or 3 picks. 2017 in particular had considerable discussion regarding the uncertainty beyond the first couple of picks.
Edge
Kris King's Ghost
I think that's a little bit of the illusion we buy into though.
We're not actually seeing teams boards, we're seeing rankings from observers.
A guy that websites and publications have 5th ends up going 15th. We view him as a faller. For all we know teams just didn't have him in the top 5, or even the top 10. Suddenly that guy becomes a steal.
A guy that websites and publication have 15th ends up going 5th. We view him as a riser or a reach.
Larrybiv
We're CLEAN, we PROMISE!
I thought you were gonna say; "On the Filip end, you can see why......
Bottom line, IMO the strategy picking high in a draft, particularly top 10 should ALWAYS be to get guys with high upside. It may not work in individual cases and maybe you'll get more NHLers going the other way in theory, in reality those guys seem to bust as much as anyone. Look at McIlrath and while Lias isn't a bust yet he's at least trending into disappointment. If value = probability of success * upside, I'd gladly trade some percentage points of probability of success for upside. As I said I don't even think that the prob of success is that much lower with those guys. I guess there's a better shot that Lias stick as a 3rd or 4th liner than a bust offensive player but if you're worried about getting 3rd or 4th liners top 10 in a draft you're doing it wrong. You can get those guys every year in FA.
Larrybiv
We're CLEAN, we PROMISE!
Being disappointed is quite the understatement, I know i am. Didnt expect "miracles" per sé, but he really hasnt done a damned thing worthy of even being in the NHL right now. Oh wait.............he isn't any longer. With that being said, I haven't given up on him yet, but that is a big YET.
All of these wonderful things and reasons as to WHY the Rangers chose him.......well, why wouldn't we be disappointed? If he was playing "as advertised" he would be "leading" his equally young teammates to playing better. Can't do that if you aren't playing well yourself.
Honestly, if he does a 180, like Chytil did I would be totally shocked, as the Rangers aren't usually fortunate like that. As it is, Chytil has made me quite the happy camper. Lias doing the same would be the icing on the cake, and to heck with Middelstadt.
Amazing Kreiderman
Registered User
- Apr 11, 2011
- 45,058
- 40,899
They picked a guy who had a strong end to his season in the 3rd/4th best league in the world, being one of the better players on a championship team.
Sure, there were some doubts about his overall upside, but a performance like that will make players rise late. We saw it with Kravtsov too
Larrybiv
We're CLEAN, we PROMISE!
@aufheben All due respect, I started this original Filip Chytil thread and was thrilled into thinking I would go down in HF boards Filip Chytil history, in originating this thread.
Now, it says this is your thread just because it surpassed 1,000 replies. People were contributing to this thread because I started it, now watch it dwindle. They will go to the Haley thread now, instead.
I am really sad right now.
Now, it says this is your thread just because it surpassed 1,000 replies. People were contributing to this thread because I started it, now watch it dwindle. They will go to the Haley thread now, instead.
I am really sad right now.
Rempe73
RIP King of Pop
It’s not unrealistic, but to spend a 7th overall pick on someone AND wait 3-4+ years for them to materialize as a 3C is very disappointing.
Last edited:
Ainec
Panetta was not racist
- Jun 20, 2009
- 21,782
- 6,432
Smart Alek
Registered User
- Jul 13, 2002
- 1,014
- 666
- Aug 5, 2010
- 13,743
- 9,376
Actually it is a reality, and so even if this situation development is not exciting, it should not be considered a disappointment per se, especially in a weaker draft.
Amazing Kreiderman
Registered User
- Apr 11, 2011
- 45,058
- 40,899
I think his point is at 7 you hope for either a high ceiling player that takes time or a depth player that's more ready than most. A 3rd or 4th line player that takes time can be had later in the draft.
Amazing Kreiderman
Registered User
- Apr 11, 2011
- 45,058
- 40,899
The draft isn't an exact science though and you're making the same mistake others do in looking back and cherry picking what you want based on the outliers, not the norm
I mean, neither is trading and you wouldn't accept that as a blanket excuse from your money manager.
Inferno
Registered User
Lias Andersson would not have been my pick. Filip chytil would not have been my pick...but neither of them were super off the board either.
ElLeetch
Registered User
- Mar 28, 2018
- 3,254
- 3,989
They didn't have much to pick from. This isn't a case where they left a Tarasenko or a Fowler on the board: players who, at the time, people thought were better.
The 2017 draft had, even at the time, a clear fall-off outside the top 5. Thats why the rangers were desperately trying to trade up. at 7, it was a coin flip between Lias and Casey. To this day, i would argue it still is. Almost three years later, we can only see two or three players better than Lias right now, in every pick after him for the rest of the draft, and all were considered risks (Chytil, Necas, and Thomas). Lias likely still goes 10-15 OA today, easy.
On top of that, it was an odd draft. Of the top 10 picks, 8 centers and 2 D were taken, and it might be that the two D are the best two.
Rempe73
RIP King of Pop
Why are you patronizing me? Name one team that would be happy waiting 4 years for a 7th overall pick to develop into a 3C. Waiting 4-5 years for a 2C? Sure. Waiting 2 years for a 3C? Ok. Fine. But that 7OA makes the difference.
Rempe73
RIP King of Pop
Amazing Kreiderman
Registered User
- Apr 11, 2011
- 45,058
- 40,899
And then complain when the player in question doesn't even play professional hockey?
- Status
