Rumor: Gordie Clark Moving Towards Retirement?

[Dfence033]

I'm indifferent to this move, but have to point out... Everyone suggesting we shouldn't discount Laf and Kakko draft luck because the Rangers wouldn't be much worse off with Zegras and Lundell instead seem to be missing the major point those posters are making.

By suggesting Zegras and Lundell, you are ascribing "best-case" scenario in hindsight, same as "we passed over Point, Aho, Giroux, etc." for worse players. Do your opinions change if the Rangers didn't win the lottery, but drafted "lesser" players than the two best-case?

No Kakko, but instead of Zegras, the Rangers drafted:

Vasily Podkolzin, Victor Söderström, Spencer Knight, or even reached farther down where these players ultimately got drafted?

No Laf, but instead of Lundell:

Rodion Amirov, Lukas Reichel, Jack Quinn, or a slightly bigger reach?

It's not, "the Rangers would be fine without lottery luck, because Zegras and Lundell!"

What if it was "Rangers never win a lottery and we missed on Zegras and Lundell by drafting Spencer Knight when they didn't need another goalie and Lukas Reichel, who we know very little about, and still don't have any center prospects."

 

[Leetch3]

I'm indifferent to this move, but have to point out... Everyone suggesting we shouldn't discount Laf and Kakko draft luck because the Rangers wouldn't be much worse off with Zegras and Lundell instead seem to be missing the major point those posters are making.

By suggesting Zegras and Lundell, you are ascribing "best-case" scenario in hindsight, same as "we passed over Point, Aho, Giroux, etc." for worse players. Do your opinions change if the Rangers didn't win the lottery, but drafted "lesser" players than the two best-case?

No Kakko, but instead of Zegras, the Rangers drafted:

Vasily Podkolzin, Victor Söderström, Spencer Knight, or even reached farther down where these players ultimately got drafted?

No Laf, but instead of Lundell:

Rodion Amirov, Lukas Reichel, Jack Quinn, or a slightly bigger reach?

It's not, "the Rangers would be fine without lottery luck, because Zegras and Lundell!"

What if it was "Rangers never win a lottery and we missed on Zegras and Lundell by drafting Spencer Knight when they didn't need another goalie and Lukas Reichel, who we know very little about, and still don't have any center prospects."

except those aren't fictional made up scenarios. we know that the rangers tried to trade up to draft zegras and lundell in addition to picking laf and kakko but couldn't make the deals.

we also didn't pass on Aho as he picked 6 spots before our first selection in that draft.

 

[Dfence033]

except those aren't fictional made up scenarios. we know that the rangers tried to trade up to draft zegras and lundell in addition to picking laf and kakko but couldn't make the deals.

we also didn't pass on Aho as he picked 6 spots before our first selection in that draft.

And the idea that we wanted to trade up means they, with 100% certainty, take those players where their pick originally was? My point is that it's a hypothetical best-case. What if they drafted Spencer Knight, then traded up to draft Zegras, using the 2020 pick that still becomes Laf?

It's all moot, it's all hypothetical. No one can definitively say the Rangers who did not win the lottery both years are fine because they 100% always draft Zegras and Lundell.

You can't suggest the Rangers drafting pedigree would look "just as good" without those lottery wins. That's the point the others (I think) are trying to make: the Rangers draft history can be judged in context of lottery luck because it happened. We can never say for sure what they would have done without that luck.

 

[Trxjw]

And the idea that we wanted to trade up means they, with 100% certainty, take those players where their pick originally was? My point is that it's a hypothetical best-case. What if they drafted Spencer Knight, then traded up to draft Zegras, using the 2020 pick that still becomes Laf?

It's all moot, it's all hypothetical. No one can definitively say the Rangers who did not win the lottery both years are fine because they 100% always draft Zegras and Lundell.

You can't suggest the Rangers drafting pedigree would look "just as good" without those lottery wins. That's the point the others (I think) are trying to make: the Rangers draft history can be judged in context of lottery luck because it happened. We can never say for sure what they would have done without that luck.

Yes. That's exactly what it means. We know definitively that the Rangers would've taken Zegras and Lundell had they not won the lottery those years. Could having Zegras in the pipeline have changed their mind about going with centers in back to back years? Possible but highly unlikely since the team is almost certainly going BPA in the first round and center is arguably our weakest position as an organization in terms of prospects.

So if you're going to judge the Rangers prospect pool had they not landed Lafreniere and Kakko then you can simply sub Zegras and Lundell in their place.

 

[Dfence033]

Yes. That's exactly what it means. We know definitively that the Rangers would've taken Zegras and Lundell had they not won the lottery those years. Could having Zegras in the pipeline have changed their mind about going with centers in back to back years? Possible but highly unlikely since the team is almost certainly going BPA in the first round and center is arguably our weakest position as an organization in terms of prospects.

So if you're going to judge the Rangers prospect pool had they not landed Lafreniere and Kakko then you can simply sub Zegras and Lundell in their place.

I know you've been here for a long while, and I respect your knowledge. I will admit that I did not follow hockey as closely as I had previously for a few recent years due to life/health/family circumstances, so if this is truly the case, then fair enough. I haven't heard or seen anything other than Rangers tried to trade up, but just because I didn't hear or see it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

And, in all honesty, I don't discount the lottery wins at all. They happened, and the Rangers made the right picks, which seems to be the point of the detractors here. I just don't like playing "what-ifs" with 17 year old kids we "should have" drafted instead. There haven't been that many "WTF?!" picks by this team over the last decade. At least none that other teams also wouldn't/didn't make, or have made even more of, either in volume or severity.

 

[huerter]

Blistering analysis

Riley, Ujiri, Buford...Davidson???

 

[huerter]

except those aren't fictional made up scenarios. we know that the rangers tried to trade up to draft zegras and lundell in addition to picking laf and kakko but couldn't make the deals.

we also didn't pass on Aho as he picked 6 spots before our first selection in that draft.

"we know"

 

[Quinnisinoverhishead]

This offseason has been such a success. Micheletti is the last guy left, who needs the axe.

Keep it up Drury! Chytil and Kakko long term extensions next!

 

[SingnBluesOnBroadway]

This offseason has been such a success. Micheletti is the last guy left, who needs the axe.

Keep it up Drury! Chytil and Kakko long term extensions next!

The Rangers get rid of enough members of the organization they're shoo-ins for the Cup next season.

 

[mas0764]

And the idea that we wanted to trade up means they, with 100% certainty, take those players where their pick originally was? My point is that it's a hypothetical best-case. What if they drafted Spencer Knight, then traded up to draft Zegras, using the 2020 pick that still becomes Laf?

It's all moot, it's all hypothetical. No one can definitively say the Rangers who did not win the lottery both years are fine because they 100% always draft Zegras and Lundell.

You can't suggest the Rangers drafting pedigree would look "just as good" without those lottery wins. That's the point the others (I think) are trying to make: the Rangers draft history can be judged in context of lottery luck because it happened. We can never say for sure what they would have done without that luck.

The entire exercise is hypothetical. Trying to dock personnel savvy points because "they won the lottery and wouldn't have players X and Y if they didn't win the lottery," is just as much of a hypothetical as saying "We can be reasonably certain they would have taken players A and B if they hadn't."

 

[Baby Punisher]

Not super surprising - he is getting to the age when people transition to more "Senior Advisor" type roles.

He's had some high profile misses, but overall think Clark has done a good job here. Grass is always greener when evaluating drafts in hindsight.

His replacement is one of the most, if not the most, consequential decisions Drury will have to make.

The Lias Anderson debacle will always stick out in my mind.

 

[cwede]

The Lias Anderson debacle will always stick out in my mind.

Lias will have a fine NHL career, thank Quinn that it won't be in NYR sweater

 

[Trxjw]

I know you've been here for a long while, and I respect your knowledge. I will admit that I did not follow hockey as closely as I had previously for a few recent years due to life/health/family circumstances, so if this is truly the case, then fair enough. I haven't heard or seen anything other than Rangers tried to trade up, but just because I didn't hear or see it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

And, in all honesty, I don't discount the lottery wins at all. They happened, and the Rangers made the right picks, which seems to be the point of the detractors here. I just don't like playing "what-ifs" with 17 year old kids we "should have" drafted instead. There haven't been that many "WTF?!" picks by this team over the last decade. At least none that other teams also wouldn't/didn't make, or have made even more of, either in volume or severity.

I can totally appreciate what you're saying in your second paragraph. Kakko was probably the easiest pick in the history of the franchise but it doesn't discount what our scouts have done in other rounds and with other picks.

As for the first bit, I didn't mean for that to come off as accusatory or anything. Never sure who is up on what happened and who isn't. It's been bounced around quite a bit here but long story short is the Rangers had Zegras in their top-5 in 2019 and were on the phone with Edmonton right up until the last minute trying to get their pick so they could take him in addition to Kakko. Deal involved Buchnevich and a couple of other players swapping teams. Rangers had also talked to Buffalo leading up to the draft. Had they stayed at 6, Zegras would've been the guy.

 

[Calad]

I can totally appreciate what you're saying in your second paragraph. Kakko was probably the easiest pick in the history of the franchise but it doesn't discount what our scouts have done in other rounds and with other picks.

As for the first bit, I didn't mean for that to come off as accusatory or anything. Never sure who is up on what happened and who isn't. It's been bounced around quite a bit here but long story short is the Rangers had Zegras in their top-5 in 2019 and were on the phone with Edmonton right up until the last minute trying to get their pick so they could take him in addition to Kakko. Deal involved Buchnevich and a couple of other players swapping teams. Rangers had also talked to Buffalo leading up to the draft. Had they stayed at 6, Zegras would've been the guy.

To add to this, Lundell was 6th on their board and they would have slotted in at 10th or 11th had they not won the lottery.

From Edge at the 2020 Draft:

1. Lafreniere
2. Byfield
3. Stutzle
4. Holtz
5. Sanderson
6. Lundell
7. Drydale
8. Rossi
9. Perfetti
10. Raymond
11. Guhle
12. Schneider
---------Tier Drop------- (this was confirmed by blueshirts breakaway, "Schendier was 12 on their board and the last one in that tier which is why they traded up for him)
13. Askarov
14. Quinn
15. Jarvis

 

[bobbop]

Clark takes a lot of crap but his teams went to a Cup Final, two Conference Finals, and were in the playoffs most years.

Not many teams can say that.

He made four mistakes that were all catastrophic (Sanguinetti over Giroux, LaFleur in Round 2, McLIrath we know, and the most underrated was Del Zotto over John Carlson).

That's the sad part. He did a very good job and found many players but the misses were amplified.

Even with that, the biggest issue was too much reliance on "character" and not talent.

That metric wasn't always consistent and not enough of his players with the exception of Hagelin or Fast had the clutch gene to get better in the playoffs.

He also has a statue built outside of MSG if some of the 2013-2017 drafts didn't have all the loons and headcases (Kovacs, Sareela, Zborovsky, Andersson, Gropp).

Sanguinetti over Giroux was Don Maloney’s call.

 

[bobbop]

Clark is 69, was very tight with Gorton and very well compensated by the Rangers. With all of the other changes, it’s likely Drury wants to start with a new scouting director. He won’t be able to hire a stud from another team prior to this draft but expect changes after the draft. I, for one, will be sorry to see Gordie fade away.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

The Lias Anderson debacle will always stick out in my mind.

He was a fine pick where he was drafted. It's not like he was some unknown who had no business being a top-10 selection. Prior to being drafted, Lias Andersson helped HV71 win the SHL championship as a teenager, being an integral part to that team. He also set records in Swedish junior hockey.

Hindsight is 20/20 but everything that went wrong with Lias afterwards was the fault of the player/his agent on one side and the org on the other. Cannot really blame Gordie Clark for that.

 

[Bluenote13]

He was a fine pick where he was drafted. It's not like he was some unknown who had no business being a top-10 selection. Prior to being drafted, Lias Andersson helped HV71 win the SHL championship as a teenager, being an integral part to that team. He also set records in Swedish junior hockey.

Hindsight is 20/20 but everything that went wrong with Lias afterwards was the fault of the player/his agent on one side and the org on the other. Cannot really blame Gordie Clark for that.

That U18 tournament the year before his draft he was as good as any player there. Team Sweden had Nylander, Petterson, Brannstrom, Liljgren, yet the Swedish coach called Lias their MVP.

He deserved to be picked anywhere from latter half of top ten to the mid teens. I had him as a mid first rounder, they liked his skill plus the intangibles that Gordies drafts have always shown.

 

[Edge]

I'm indifferent to this move, but have to point out... Everyone suggesting we shouldn't discount Laf and Kakko draft luck because the Rangers wouldn't be much worse off with Zegras and Lundell instead seem to be missing the major point those posters are making.

By suggesting Zegras and Lundell, you are ascribing "best-case" scenario in hindsight, same as "we passed over Point, Aho, Giroux, etc." for worse players. Do your opinions change if the Rangers didn't win the lottery, but drafted "lesser" players than the two best-case?

No Kakko, but instead of Zegras, the Rangers drafted:

Vasily Podkolzin, Victor Söderström, Spencer Knight, or even reached farther down where these players ultimately got drafted?

No Laf, but instead of Lundell:

Rodion Amirov, Lukas Reichel, Jack Quinn, or a slightly bigger reach?

It's not, "the Rangers would be fine without lottery luck, because Zegras and Lundell!"

What if it was "Rangers never win a lottery and we missed on Zegras and Lundell by drafting Spencer Knight when they didn't need another goalie and Lukas Reichel, who we know very little about, and still don't have any center prospects."

I think we say Zegras and Lundell because we know that's who they were targeting.

That's why we don't say, for example, Turcotte and Jarvis. Or Podkolzin and Amirov.

So that's where that tends to come from.

 

[Trxjw]

For the record, I don't think Clark leaving would be some sort of doomsday scenario. The good choices go beyond just Clark, just as the bad choices go beyond Clark. I have confidence that our scouting staff will still be in the upper tier of the league even after Gordie retires.

That being said, this idea that somehow Clark is a detriment to our scouting and player development is ludicrous. The Rangers have arguably the best prospect pool in the NHL. So I have no idea why anyone would be cheering the departure of someone who was a key part of putting that pool together.

 

[SingnBluesOnBroadway]

For the record, I don't think Clark leaving would be some sort of doomsday scenario. The good choices go beyond just Clark, just as the bad choices go beyond Clark. I have confidence that our scouting staff will still be in the upper tier of the league even after Gordie retires.

That being said, this idea that somehow Clark is a detriment to our scouting and player development is ludicrous. The Rangers have arguably the best prospect pool in the NHL. So I have no idea why anyone would be cheering the departure of someone who was a key part of putting that pool together.

Not enough red meat to this post.

 

[bobbop]

Sanguinetti over Giroux was Don Maloney’s call.

The Flyers took Giroux only after Bobby Clarke started to announce Sanguinetti's name on the podium, not realizing he had already been drafted.

There's never been anything that said the Rangers wanted Giroux. He was a bit of a reach at 22; 4-5 spots lower in most mocks.

 

[SA16]

I'm surprised he wasn't fired years ago when he drafted J.T. Miller with Kucherov still on the board.

 

[Bluenote13]

I'm surprised he wasn't fired years ago when he drafted J.T. Miller with Kucherov still on the board.

Well every team passed on him at least once so you can't really fault the Rangers for that, J T Miller was a valuable piece of this team for at least a short while.

We traded the 2011 2nd round pick for Tim Erixon. Kucherov was being mocked to the Rangers at that 2nd round spot in quite a few drafts that year before that trade.

 

[True Blue]

And, in all honesty, I don't discount the lottery wins at all. They happened, and the Rangers made the right picks, which seems to be the point of the detractors here. I just don't like playing "what-ifs" with 17 year old kids we "should have" drafted instead. There haven't been that many "WTF?!" picks by this team over the last decade. At least none that other teams also wouldn't/didn't make, or have made even more of, either in volume or severity.

What the hell are you talking about? Who is stating where that the Rangers should have drafted any one other than who they did?

The whole point was to counter the "Gorton got extremely luck in the draft by getting the lottery wins" argument.