Confirmed with Link: Holden to Boston for Rob O'Gara + 2018 3rd round pick

[ReggieDunlop68]

Not sure I trade prime Staal for any of the defensemen on that list.

Not sure I trade prime Miller or Kreider for anyone other than maybe prime Stepan.

Not sure is the key word.

It's a bit of a toss up.

 

[Edge]

I'm assuming you're starting from 2005. But then we didn't have 15 1st round picks since then I don't think.

I have no idea where I got 15. It's 10.

so 7-2-1.

 

[Edge]

I mean also Lundmark, Brendl, Sanguinetti, McIlrath.

The Rangers have only had a a few first rounders since the 99 debacle, and a lot of them have been stinkers.

All will be forgiven when Anderson is guaranteed to shatter all RangersTown™ records, but until he plays in the NHL, our first round has been whack AF in a relative sense, and is somewhat south of "ridiculously good" when compared to other teams.

I think there's two very distinct eras for drafting - pre-2005 and post-2005.

I'm not really sure drafts from 14-20 years ago are an accurate assessment of where we are now.

Not sure is the key word.

It's a bit of a toss up.

For me, not really. But I'm also not sure I understand if the Rangers being able to find at least equal talent over 4-5 rounds as they do in the first round is a particularly good indictment of how they're doing in the first round.

The goal is always to find those gems in later rounds. The fact that it takes the team five times as many picks to do so, even if they're successful, is not particularly concerning IMO.

 

[Thirty One]

About 1 per year† since Lundqvist's draft year [2000]. All of whom have had about as much or more success than the 4 players you mentioned Staal's unfortunate injury not withstanding.

†RangersTown™ unfortunately started throwing away 2nd and 3rd round picks too during the latter end of the New Era®

In the 17 drafts since 2000, the Rangers have had 18 2nds and 21 3rds.

 

[NYR Viper]

I'm intrigued to see O'Gara play tomorrow night with Gilmour. Hope they give him an extended look

 

[ReggieDunlop68]

I think there's two very distinct eras for drafting - pre-2005 and post-2005.

I'm not really sure drafts from 14-20 years ago are an accurate assessment of where we are now.



For me, not really. But I'm also not sure I understand if the Rangers being able to find at least equal talent over 4-5 rounds as they do in the first round is a particularly good indictment of how they're doing in the first round.

The goal is always to find those gems in later rounds. The fact that it takes the team five times as many picks to do so, even if they're successful, is not particularly concerning IMO.

I agree that the record of the last 10 years has been way better than it has ever been.

I was answering a few posts in my OP. Did I quote the wrong thing from you the first time ?

 

[Edge]

I agree that the record of the last 10 years has been way better than it has ever been.

I was answering a few posts in my OP. Did I quote the wrong thing from you the first time ?

Don't think so. But I'm in a bit of a fog today.

 

[PlamsUnlimited]

But that doesn’t fit the narrative.

I'm not making any narrative. We draft mediocre players or busts in the first round. Sorry, is what it is.

 

[Edge]

I'm not making any narrative. We draft mediocre players or busts in the first round. Sorry, is what it is.

I just don't see that being factual.

If we look at just busts, you've got 2 out of the last 10 picks.

If you look at mediocre, I'm not exactly sure who you draft instead of Staal, Kreider, Miller, or Skjei. Maybe you go with someone instead of DelZotto, but he's 27 and played 540+ NHL games.

You can make the argument they haven't drafted a superstar, but then you'd also have to tell who was the logical or obvious superstar alternative to them. And no, picking a Johnny Gaudreau who was passed up 103 times does not count.

 

[Ghost of jas]

I just don't see that being factual.

If we look at just busts, you've got 2 out of the last 10 picks.

If you look at mediocre, I'm not exactly sure who you draft instead of Staal, Kreider, Miller, or Skjei. Maybe you go with someone instead of DelZotto, but he's 27 and played 540+ NHL games.

You can make the argument they haven't drafted a superstar, but then you'd also have to tell who was the logical or obvious superstar alternative to them. And no, picking a Johnny Gaudreau who passed up 103 times does not count.

For every Sanguinetti over Giroux, there’s a Kreider over Jordan Schroeder.

 

[nyr2k2]

I just don't see that being factual.

If we look at just busts, you've got 2 out of the last 10 picks.

If you look at mediocre, I'm not exactly sure who you draft instead of Staal, Kreider, Miller, or Skjei. Maybe you go with someone instead of DelZotto, but he's 27 and played 540+ NHL games.

You can make the argument they haven't drafted a superstar, but then you'd also have to tell who was the logical or obvious superstar alternative to them. And no, picking a Johnny Gaudreau who passed up 103 times does not count.

It's just, in my opinion, the fact that our two biggest misses were HUGE misses. You go McIlrath when everyone and their mother wants Tarasenko, and we see how that worked out. We go Jessiman, and then see Dustin Brown and Brent Seabrook come off the board next, with Parise, Getzlaf, Burns, Kesler, etc. after them. We have two huge busts on the board when we could have had HOF-caliber guys. Of course those happened years apart, and every team drafts busts, but those, I think, will always stand out for many Rangers fans even when our drafting in the first (as a whole) is probably pretty on par with teams that normally pick in our range. Those two misses hurt so bad, some people will never get over it. And I understand why.

 

[Edge]

Or taking Staal over O'Marra and McArdle.

Or MDZ over Nemisz.

Or Kreider over Ashton.

Or Miller over McNeil, Armia and Biggs.

Or Skjei over Matteau and Sutter.

Post 2005 lockout, the Rangers have done an above average job drafting, including their first round picks. They haven't drafted any superstars, but they've probably only been in the position to do so on 3 occasions. They passed on Giroux and Tarasenko, the Cherepanov story has been well-documented.

But that doesn't make them poor drafters, nor does it make their choices mediocre. I'm just not seeing that and I don't think any re-drafts, polls or other sources would support that view.

 

[Edge]

It's just, in my opinion, the fact that our two biggest misses were HUGE misses. You go McIlrath when everyone and their mother wants Tarasenko, and we see how that worked out. We go Jessiman, and then see Dustin Brown and Brent Seabrook come off the board next, with Parise, Getzlaf, Burns, Kesler, etc. after them. We have two huge busts on the board when we could have had HOF-caliber guys. Of course those happened years apart, and every team drafts busts, but those, I think, will always stand out for many Rangers fans even when our drafting in the first (as a whole) is probably pretty on par with teams that normally pick in our range. Those two misses hurt so bad, some people will never get over it. And I understand why.

I get it. But in context we're also talking about 15 years ago with Jessiman at this point. To put that into perspective, we're as far removed from that draft as those Rangers were from the 1988 fiasco.

McIlrath too is 8 years ago at this point, and was followed by good picks in 2011, 2012 and (so far) 2017.

I get that the misses were big misses, but this team has hit in its other at-bats.

I think we can acknowledge the big misses, without ignoring the hits.

 

[kovazub94]

It's just, in my opinion, the fact that our two biggest misses were HUGE misses. You go McIlrath when everyone and their mother wants Tarasenko, and we see how that worked out. We go Jessiman, and then see Dustin Brown and Brent Seabrook come off the board next, with Parise, Getzlaf, Burns, Kesler, etc. after them. We have two huge busts on the board when we could have had HOF-caliber guys. Of course those happened years apart, and every team drafts busts, but those, I think, will always stand out for many Rangers fans even when our drafting in the first (as a whole) is probably pretty on par with teams that normally pick in our range. Those two misses hurt so bad, some people will never get over it. And I understand why.

Or taking Staal over O'Marra and McArdle.

Or MDZ over Nemisz.

Or Kreider over Ashton.

Or Miller over McNeil, Armia and Biggs.

Or Skjei over Matteau and Sutter.

Post 2005 lockout, the Rangers have done an above average job drafting, including their first round picks. They haven't drafted any superstars, but they've probably only been in the position to do so on 3 occasions. They passed on Giroux and Tarasenko, the Cherepanov story has been well-documented.

But that doesn't make them poor drafters, nor does it make their choices mediocre. I'm just not seeing that and I don't think any re-drafts, polls or other sources would support that view.

These two quote are the gist of it. Being able to consistently identify future NHLer is what the Rangers done very well recently and should not be underestimated. Passing on a universally acknowledged choice for a bust hurts but it's been sooooo long this narrative should be expired by now under the statute of limitation.

 

[RangerLifer]

Really? Aside from Lundqvist 18 years ago, which late round picks were better than Staal, Kreider, Miller or Skjei?

You named quite a few but forgot Hags.

 

[PlamsUnlimited]

Or taking Staal over O'Marra and McArdle.

Or MDZ over Nemisz.

Or Kreider over Ashton.

Or Miller over McNeil, Armia and Biggs.

Or Skjei over Matteau and Sutter.

Post 2005 lockout, the Rangers have done an above average job drafting, including their first round picks. They haven't drafted any superstars, but they've probably only been in the position to do so on 3 occasions. They passed on Giroux and Tarasenko, the Cherepanov story has been well-documented.

But that doesn't make them poor drafters, nor does it make their choices mediocre. I'm just not seeing that and I don't think any re-drafts, polls or other sources would support that view.

I didn't say they were bad at drafting. Just in the 1st round. I mean quite honestly MDZ isn't that good. Armia is pretty solid actually. Miller is quote overvalued here as well. Kreider is the best out of those. Great possession and play driver for the team. Skjei is good too but reserving judgement because of this poorer year. It isn't even about Claude or Tank. It's the thought process of this organization that makes the "mistakes" even worse.

 

[Ghost of jas]

You named quite a few but forgot Hags.

In my second post, I named Hagelin. I also don’t take hm over Kreider, Miller, Staal or Skjei.

 

[Edge]

These two quote are the gist of it. Being able to consistently identify future NHLer is what the Rangers done very well recently and should not be underestimated. Passing on a universally acknowledged choice for a bust hurts but it's been sooooo long this narrative should be expired by now under the statute of limitation.

Finding that superstar in the latter half of the draft is possible, but it takes a great deal of luck to go along with prep. The fact that we can only come up with two or three names from the last 15 years is a pretty good indication of that.

I think the Rangers have done well with what they've had. Obviously they haven't been perfect, but I think they've been in the top 1/3 post-lockout.

 

[Edge]

I didn't say they were bad at drafting. Just in the 1st round. I mean quite honestly MDZ isn't that good. Armia is pretty solid actually. Miller is quote overvalued here as well. Kreider is the best out of those. Great possession and play driver for the team. Skjei is good too but reserving judgement because of this poorer year. It isn't even about Claude or Tank. It's the thought process of this organization that makes the "mistakes" even worse.

I hear what you're saying. I still disagree.

Who did they pass up for Staal in 2005, Kreider in 2009, Miller in 2011 or Skjei in 2012? How are Chyil and Andersson doing compared to their contemporaries from 2017?

I just don't understand how you can they've done bad at drafting in the first round when we can't consistently pinpoint players they should've taken in the first instead of their guys.

Every player has their flaws, not just ours. But our picks, flaws and all, have been successful.

In the first round, we've consistently drafted productive NHL players,who have and are playing in top-6 forward and top-4 defensive roles, and/or who are currently counted among the top prospects in the game and are the highest producing teenage players in the AHL. And we've done so despite our average draft position being something like 19th, having a first round pick die, and having traded four consecutive first round picks.

Hell, we've actually traded more first round picks then we've drafted first round busts since 2005.

 

[ReggieDunlop68]

I hear what you're saying. I still disagree.

Who did they pass up for Staal in 2005, Kreider in 2009, Miller in 2011 or Skjei in 2012? How are Chyil and Andersson doing compared to their contemporaries from 2017?

I just don't understand how you can they've done bad at drafting in the first round when we can't consistently pinpoint players they should've taken in the first instead of their guys.

Every player has their flaws, not just ours. But our picks, flaws and all, have been successful.

In the first round, we've consistently drafted productive NHL players,who have and are playing in top-6 forward and top-4 defensive roles, and/or who are currently counted among the top prospects in the game and are the highest producing teenage players in the AHL. And we've done so despite our average draft position being something like 19th, having a first round pick die, and having traded four consecutive first round picks.

Hell, we've actually traded more first round picks then we've drafted first round busts since 2005.

See this is why we would have won the cup if we won the Joe Sakic poaching.

Those 5 picks didn’t mean shit.

 

[Edge]

See this is why we would have won the cup if we won the Joe Sakic poaching.

Those 5 picks didn’t mean ****.

It's interesting to me that a lot of the prospects that have popped up in the discussions on here are players from 2013-2016. In some cases, players that would've been on the board when our picks were scheduled.

 

[vladmyir111]

The Rangers have been fairly good at drafting since the lockout minus a couple of exceptional duds. The problem is not having a top 5 pick in like 40 years (literally), rarely are you going to find a game breaker outside of that range. Hence why it's a team of miscellaneous guys with one superstar in Lundqvist, soon to be zero superstars in a couple of years unless we succeed at tanking.

 

[Fireonk]

Count me as someone who thinks our drafting overall has been good in the recent past. I think there is an unfair perception because the misses were so big. If we pass on Tarasenko the year we drafted Kreider and Mcilrath was sandwiched with the people near where JT Miller got drafted the narrative is very different.

Just more eye popping when we see the superstars we missed out when we did have those two big misses.

 

[Tawnos]

I think my frustration with the draft isn’t with the actual picks, but where those picks have peaked. Staal because of the eye injury never ends up being a number 1 D. But even beyond that, why is it that this organization seems to never completely luck out with its picks? At least since the early 90s. We get good players. But our high end mind-first round offensive defenseman (MDZ) ends up topping out as a decent D, while you see a guy like Erik Karlsson and even Kevin Shattenkirk also picked as mid-first rounders.

Our JT Millers NEVER turn into Claude Giroux’s. Our Chris Kreiders NEVER turn into Vladimir Tarasenkos. And those are the good ones!

And this has been going on for 25 years.

It’s entirely bad luck, but bad luck is the hallmark of the Rangers organization. Jean Ratelle 1972. Ulf Nilsson 1979. (My dad thinks the players strike in 1992 ruined the Rangers momentum) Brian Leetch 1992-93. Eric Lindros 2002. Mats Zuccarello 2015. Then things like Cherneski and Cherepanov. Losing out on Crosby.

The organizational bad luck goes beyond the draft, but it certainly includes it. It’s why I’m 95% sure we’re not getting Dahlin, Svechnikov or Zadina no matter what we do.

 

[Edge]

I think my frustration with the draft isn’t with the actual picks, but where those picks have peaked. Staal because of the eye injury never ends up being a number 1 D. But even beyond that, why is it that this organization seems to never completely luck out with its picks? At least since the early 90s. We get good players. But our high end mind-first round offensive defenseman (MDZ) ends up topping out as a decent D, while you see a guy like Erik Karlsson and even Kevin Shattenkirk also picked as mid-first rounders.

Our JT Millers NEVER turn into Claude Giroux’s. Our Chris Kreiders NEVER turn into Vladimir Tarasenkos. And those are the good ones!

And this has been going on for 25 years.

It’s entirely bad luck, but bad luck is the hallmark of the Rangers organization. Jean Ratelle 1972. Ulf Nilsson 1979. (My dad thinks the players strike in 1992 ruined the Rangers momentum) Brian Leetch 1992-93. Eric Lindros 2002. Mats Zuccarello 2015. Then things like Cherneski and Cherepanov. Losing out on Crosby.

The organizational bad luck goes beyond the draft, but it certainly includes it. It’s why I’m 95% sure we’re not getting Dahlin, Svechnikov or Zadina no matter what we do.

It's a mixed bad IMO.

While we didn't land the stars that Philly and St. Louis landed, we've arguably been more successful longer in recent memory --- both with our drafting and our on-ice accomplishments. So while they may have hit a homerun, you could argue that we actually manufactured more runs over the same time period of time.

But part of the problem is that the Rangers have never been able to put both elements together. Solid drafting and then getting that one over-the-top prospect. It's the difference between grading their draft an "A" versus a "B" and more than likely it's the difference between them having a cup or two.

Some of it is timing, some of it is luck.

Sometimes it is picking the wrong guys at a key moment (falling in love with your prospects and not moving them for Shanahan, etc.)

Other times it's crazy outcomes - we lost three promising first round picks, before the age of 21, during a roughly ten year span. I don't know of any other team in recent memories that has experienced that kind of situation.

There are moments I think someone sold their soul for that cup in 1994 and said, "I don't care if we don't win another championship for 50 years, I'll trade you all of them for this one, now."