Recalled/Assigned: Lias to Hartford, Gettinger called up

[Barnaby]

No assuming, just thinking it's a possibility. The front office could have said to Quinn "we're thinking of sending Lias down but we'd like to see what he does with different linemates first." Either that conversation didn't happen or they're letting Quinn be the final arbiter of these things.

I won’t say that never happens, but I think coaches generally make the line up decisions. I don’t think hockey has gone the way of baseball quite yet

 

[Tawnos]

We have reached the Timmy Gettinger portion of the Rangers season. He was called up this time last season.



Good luck trying to make an impression in your 5 minutes of playing time.

If he can find some consistency and plays better than Andersson did, that line will get more minutes.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

Until Kravtsov packed up and went back to Russia, this board was swooning over him. He was largely considered to be a top-10 prospect league wide. If you want to say he's whiffed on some high picks then go right ahead, but let's not pretend that he hasn't stocked the pool with a number of other high quality players since the rebuild kicked off. We can debate the true meaning of "Great" as much as we like but I can't for a minute buy the notion that this organization has the best prospect pool in the league in spite of the guy who is supposed to be leading the way.

We'll see. The fact of the matter is no matter where you stand at the moment, translating Clark's prospect pool into legitimate and relentless NHL depth is what will make or break this organization for the next decade. I just find myself being ultra thankful for Kakko/Trouba/Panarin, instead of being forced to ride or die with the draft picks that Gordie Clark actually had to think about.

 

[HatTrick Swayze]

Great? I think that's a strong word. Kakko fell into his lap, but his other top 10 picks have not advanced this organization forward. McIlrath was a bust. The jury is still out on Kravtsov and Andersson, but it ain't looking too good right now.

The Rangers are crawling out of the rebuild primarily because they got lucky with Kakko and acquired Trouba and Panarin. As a fan who is happy with the direction the organization is going, I'd argue it's been in spite of Clark, not because of him.

I’m not sure if I would use the phrase “in spite of him” but I generally do agree with this. If Lias is added to McIlrath, that is very bad. If for some reason Kravtsov is added as well (don’t think he will be...I’m saying if) that has to be checkmate. 2nd round goalie bonanza is a huge black mark as well.

 

[ElLeetch]

On the long-term, swap KK and Fast, and thats not half bad for the rest of the season. hopefully, next season, Lias and VK stick

 

[Edge]

You know, I don't mind the dissenting opinions nearly as much as I find myself annoyed at the cherry picking.

The Rangers have had 6 first round picks since 2017. Of those six, the only one who has "serious" question marks around him is Andersson right now. We'll ignore that his peers are only turning pro right now and all of the other stuff that's been beaten to death. So right now, nobody has a problem with 5 out of 6 picks. And whether we like or not, the success of this rebuild will not rest on Andersson. It would certainly benefit from Andersson, but he's not the linchpin either.

Is it Skjei we have problem with at 28th? Miller at 15th? Kreider at 19th? Staal at 12th? Cherepanov?MDZ?

Or it is Sanguinetti and McIlrath?

I mean what is the threshold? Or is it completely arbitrary?

It's fair to say that since taking over, Clark has had significantly more success than failures and that's reflected when we look over the Rangers draft picks. Have we been the best? No we haven't. But over and over and over again, when we press people to come up with the list of teams that have been better, it somehow never seems to be a very long list. We get the usual suspects, including Tampa and Boston, but this conversation always seems to die when it gets pushed beyond the whole one-off comment type responses.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

You know, I don't mind the dissenting opinions nearly as much as I find myself annoyed at the cherry picking.

The Rangers have had 6 first round picks since 2017. Of those six, the only one who has "serious" question marks around him is Andersson right now. We'll ignore that his peers are only turning pro right now and all of the other stuff that's been beaten to death. So right now, nobody has a problem with 5 out of 6 picks. And whether we like or not, the success of this rebuild will not rest on Andersson. It would certainly benefit from Andersson, but he's not the linchpin either.

Is it Skjei we have problem with at 28th? Miller at 15th? Kreider at 19th? Staal at 12th? Cherepanov?MDZ?

Or it is Sanguinetti and McIlrath?

I mean what is the threshold? Or is it completely arbitrary?

It's fair to say that since taking over, Clark has had significantly more success than failures and that's reflected when we look over the Rangers draft picks. Have we been the best? No we haven't. But over and over and over again, when we press people to come up with the list of teams that have been better, it somehow never seems to be a very long list. We get the usual suspects, including Tampa and Boston, but this conversation always seems to die when it gets pushed beyond the whole one-off comment type responses.

And that's the thing. Fans expect us the be the best at everything. The "We are New York, we should be the best" attitude. That's just not how it works. New York isn't as appealing to scouts/coaches/players as some may think. Sure, guys like Panarin and Fox wanted to come here, but what about the others like Stamkos and Tavares (to name a few) who were sure fire signings for the Rangers if you believe everything fans said and reporters wrote down.

The same goes for scouts and staff. For every person who feels honored to work for the New York Rangers, there are tens who prefer to work elsewhere. We don't have the best scouts, we don't have the best coaches and we certainly don't have the best prospects or highest average draft pick over the last 10 years. What do people expect? You can be upset if we are bottom of the barrel when it comes to drafting but the Rangers are nowhere near that bad.

• Kreider at 19? Great pick. Not an all star, but a great pick at 19 for what he brings.
• Miller at 15? Another good selection.
• Skjei at 28? top-4 defenseman that late in the first round is a good selection.
• Staal at 12? For what he made out of his career, a damn good selection
• Del Zotto? Again, playing that many NHL games is good value for where he was picked
• Stepan in the 2nd round
• Hagelin and Fast in the 6th

I will be the first one to agree we never really had that sure-fire star, but is that reason enough to "fire Clark"? I just don't agree with that assessment. The need for perfection when it comes to drafting is just ridiculous. That's not how it works.

 

[HatTrick Swayze]

You know, I don't mind the dissenting opinions nearly as much as I find myself annoyed at the cherry picking.

The Rangers have had 6 first round picks since 2017. Of those six, the only one who has "serious" question marks around him is Andersson right now. We'll ignore that his peers are only turning pro right now and all of the other stuff that's been beaten to death. So right now, nobody has a problem with 5 out of 6 picks. And whether we like or not, the success of this rebuild will not rest on Andersson. It would certainly benefit from Andersson, but he's not the linchpin either.

Is it Skjei we have problem with at 28th? Miller at 15th? Kreider at 19th? Staal at 12th? Cherepanov?MDZ?

Or it is Sanguinetti and McIlrath?

I mean what is the threshold? Or is it completely arbitrary?

It's fair to say that since taking over, Clark has had significantly more success than failures and that's reflected when we look over the Rangers draft picks. Have we been the best? No we haven't. But over and over and over again, when we press people to come up with the list of teams that have been better, it somehow never seems to be a very long list. We get the usual suspects, including Tampa and Boston, but this conversation always seems to die when it gets pushed beyond the whole one-off comment type responses.

Ok let’s bring some analysis into the discussion that goes beyond one-off anecdotal “what about team x” quips.

I looked at top 15 picks since per the linked analysis that is when value drops off by ~50% from 1st overall. My thought being that hitting on those top picks is of higher importance because they are more likely to turn into productive NHLers vs later long shots.

https://myslu.stlawu.edu/~msch/sports/Schuckers_NHL_Draft.pdf

Looked at a decade of drafts (2008-2017). Every team/franchise has had at least one top 15 pick in that timeframe.

Started at looking at who has been most successful at finding NHLers. Defined this as games played / potential games played (I.e. the maximum number of games a player could have played since they were drafted).

Distribution:
Max 82%
75th percentile 67%
Median 63%
25th percentile 50%
Min 0%

Best:
Montreal 82% (Galchenyuk, Sergachev)
Toronto 78% (Reilly, Nylander, Marner, Matthews, Kadri, Schenn)
Calgary 75% (Monahan, Bennett, Tkachuk, Baertschi)
Florida 73% (Gudbranson, Huberdeau, Barkov, Ekblad, Tippett, Kulikov, Crouse)
St Louis 73% (Pietrangelo, Schwartz)

NY Rangers 37%, <25th percentile, 29th rank

Then to get a sense of productivity looked at points per game. Since I’m at work and had to be quick screened for forwards so most comparable. Didn’t want mix aspect of # of d men taken skewing results. Also would have been good to bifurcate by pick ranges ie look at the same data excluding top 2-3 picks to back out generational players. Someone else can do that.

The data shows:
Points / game distribution:
Max 0.77
75th percentile 0.61
Median 0.56
25th percentile 0.51
Min 0.28

NY Rangers 0.51, ~25th percentile, 24th rank.

I expect a natural rebuttal will be but what about the rest of the draft? And signings? And amateur scouting? First of all, I have never been critical of that. And sure, that matters and can offset this. But if we are talking about the big swings of the bat that SHOULD matter the most and SHOULD deliver the most value and SHOULD be where good scouting makes the difference - it doesn’t grade out so well. The next few years when the 2016-17 drafts get flushed out and 2018-19 drafts show initial results will go a long way towards settling that score.

 

[Edge]

Ok let’s bring some analysis into the discussion that goes beyond one-off anecdotal “what about team x” quips.

I looked at top 15 picks since per the linked analysis that is when value drops off by ~50% from 1st overall. My thought being that hitting on those top picks is of higher importance because they are more likely to turn into productive NHLers vs later long shots.

https://myslu.stlawu.edu/~msch/sports/Schuckers_NHL_Draft.pdf

Looked at a decade of drafts (2008-2017). Every team/franchise has had at least one top 15 pick in that timeframe.

Started at looking at who has been most successful at finding NHLers. Defined this as games played / potential games played (I.e. the maximum number of games a player could have played since they were drafted).

Distribution:
Max 82%
75th percentile 67%
Median 63%
25th percentile 50%
Min 0%

Best:
Montreal 82% (Galchenyuk, Sergachev)
Toronto 78% (Reilly, Nylander, Marner, Matthews, Kadri, Schenn)
Calgary 75% (Monahan, Bennett, Tkachuk, Baertschi)
Florida 73% (Gudbranson, Huberdeau, Barkov, Ekblad, Tippett, Kulikov, Crouse)
St Louis 73% (Pietrangelo, Schwartz)

NY Rangers 37%, <25th percentile, 29th rank

Then to get a sense of productivity looked at points per game. Since I’m at work and had to be quick screened for forwards so most comparable. Didn’t want mix aspect of # of d men taken skewing results. Also would have been good to bifurcate by pick ranges ie look at the same data excluding top 2-3 picks to back out generational players. Someone else can do that.

The data shows:
Points / game distribution:
Max 0.77
75th percentile 0.61
Median 0.56
25th percentile 0.51
Min 0.28

NY Rangers 0.51, ~25th percentile, 24th rank.

I expect a natural rebuttal will be but what about the rest of the draft? And signings? And amateur scouting? First of all, I have never been critical of that. And sure, that matters and can offset this. But if we are talking about the big swings of the bat that SHOULD matter the most and SHOULD deliver the most value and SHOULD be where good scouting makes the difference - it doesn’t grade out so well. The next few years when the 2016-17 drafts get flushed out and 2018-19 drafts show initial results will go a long way towards settling that score.

Well, I can tell you the first challenge is that going from 2008-2017 inherently has the problem of the Rangers lacking picks for four years, and it being too early to tell on the last three drafts.

However, I am intrigued by your research and I am curious as to what the numbers show if you went from 2005 to 2012. Because those would cover the Clark years, and be far enough away to have produced results at this point --- notwithstanding the death of one of our first round picks.

 

[Tawnos]

Ok let’s bring some analysis into the discussion that goes beyond one-off anecdotal “what about team x” quips.

I looked at top 15 picks since per the linked analysis that is when value drops off by ~50% from 1st overall. My thought being that hitting on those top picks is of higher importance because they are more likely to turn into productive NHLers vs later long shots.

https://myslu.stlawu.edu/~msch/sports/Schuckers_NHL_Draft.pdf

Looked at a decade of drafts (2008-2017). Every team/franchise has had at least one top 15 pick in that timeframe.

Started at looking at who has been most successful at finding NHLers. Defined this as games played / potential games played (I.e. the maximum number of games a player could have played since they were drafted).

Distribution:
Max 82%
75th percentile 67%
Median 63%
25th percentile 50%
Min 0%

Best:
Montreal 82% (Galchenyuk, Sergachev)
Toronto 78% (Reilly, Nylander, Marner, Matthews, Kadri, Schenn)
Calgary 75% (Monahan, Bennett, Tkachuk, Baertschi)
Florida 73% (Gudbranson, Huberdeau, Barkov, Ekblad, Tippett, Kulikov, Crouse)
St Louis 73% (Pietrangelo, Schwartz)

NY Rangers 37%, <25th percentile, 29th rank

Then to get a sense of productivity looked at points per game. Since I’m at work and had to be quick screened for forwards so most comparable. Didn’t want mix aspect of # of d men taken skewing results. Also would have been good to bifurcate by pick ranges ie look at the same data excluding top 2-3 picks to back out generational players. Someone else can do that.

The data shows:
Points / game distribution:
Max 0.77
75th percentile 0.61
Median 0.56
25th percentile 0.51
Min 0.28

NY Rangers 0.51, ~25th percentile, 24th rank.

I expect a natural rebuttal will be but what about the rest of the draft? And signings? And amateur scouting? First of all, I have never been critical of that. And sure, that matters and can offset this. But if we are talking about the big swings of the bat that SHOULD matter the most and SHOULD deliver the most value and SHOULD be where good scouting makes the difference - it doesn’t grade out so well. The next few years when the 2016-17 drafts get flushed out and 2018-19 drafts show initial results will go a long way towards settling that score.

I take *major* issue with the way you're judging "NHLers."

 

[HatTrick Swayze]

Well, I can tell you the first challenge is that going from 2008-2017 inherently has the problem of the Rangers lacking picks for four years, and it being too early to tell on the last three drafts.

However, I am intrigued by your research and I am curious as to what the numbers show if you went from 2005 to 2012. Because those would cover the Clark years, and be far enough away to have produced results at this point --- notwithstanding the death of one of our first round picks.

Sure I could adjust to reflect Clark’s tenure that makes sense. Agreed on both the lack of picks and agree it is early on 2016-17. I’d argue we have a decent view of 2015 at this point. But I will say the “potential games played” metric tries to eliminate both these factors. The NYR aren’t being overly penalized by not having picks because the denominator is adjusted...they are being penalized in the sense that they could have drafted a good player in those years if they had the opportunity. But not sure how to account for that.

I take *major* issue with the way you're judging "NHLers."

How so? What else would you consider besides games played? Luke Schenn for example, for all his flaws is still in an NHL roster 11 years after being drafted. And that value (or even perception of value) amongst GMs brought a productive top 6 forward in JVR to the Leafs. Even a situation like that is a very big swing from getting a “0”.

 

[Oscar Lindberg]

@Edge was Lias the overwhelming choice by the scouting staff once Pettersson and Glass were off the board at 7?

Just curious if they were leaning to one guy or another

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

@Edge was Lias the overwhelming choice by the scouting staff once Pettersson and Glass were off the board at 7?

Just curious if they were leaning to one guy or another

Pettersson was their target in 2017. Out of the remaining prospects in the range where we drafted, they went with Lias who came off a strong season in SHL, and really strong post-season on a championship winning HV71 team.

The 2 players I wanted ahead of him were Brännström and Nečas. Other than that, on draft day I didn't really think there were overwhelming favorites at 7th overall.

 

[Edge]

@Edge was Lias the overwhelming choice by the scouting staff once Pettersson and Glass were off the board at 7?

Just curious if they were leaning to one guy or another

I think they really liked Andersson, but I believe now, as I believed then, that they were really hoping to get some of the guys who came off the board in the first six picks.

Having said that, I've never been under the impression that he was by far and away the unanimous choice.

Suzuki had a lot of support within the organization. With Vilardi, Rasmussen, and Necas also being names that came up.

 

[gravey9]

It's really quite simple. Despite Brett Howden being up and Lias Andersson being down -- neither has solidified much of anything. They're young bubble players right now.

They need to figure out how to have an impact on the ice like Jesper Fast. Where they consistently make a positive impact no matter who they play with, no matter the situation.

Right now, neither are at that level. As such, neither are guaranteed anything but more chances right now.

I know people hate the comparison of Jesper to Lias because that's exactly what Pierre M said on draft day, but Fast's game really is the best model for Lias.

I followed Jesper's post-draft career pretty closely. In Sweden, he was a decent scorer with nice speed. There was a while there where a few of us had hopes he could become Hagelin with more finish. Then he had a really, really bad ankle injury. By the time he got to NA, he knew he had to change his game to stick around. He did that. And showed tremendous grit in the process.

But the big difference is.... Jesper was chosen in the 6th round didn't come over at 18. He didn't play his first (nearly) full season with the Rangers until he was roughly 23. In other words, he had more time to sort out his pro game and almost no expectations following him.

The best thing for Lias right now is to go down to Hartford and play the rest of the season down there. Let all the blow-hards in the NYR fanbase forget about him. Let them all write him off and move on to worrying about Vitali or K'Andre. In the meantime, let Lias lick his wounds a bit. Let him find and refine a game that's more about moving his feet, puck pursuit and pressure and just thinking less. And also, the fanbase needs to recalibrate our expectations.

 

[Tawnos]

How so? What else would you consider besides games played? Luke Schenn for example, for all his flaws is still in an NHL roster 11 years after being drafted. And that value (or even perception of value) amongst GMs brought a productive top 6 forward in JVR to the Leafs. Even a situation like that is a very big swing from getting a “0”.

It's not games played. It's games played vs potential games played. It acts as a negative towards every pick that doesn't play in the NHL in their D+1 when compared to every pick that did.

Just as an example... and I realize that Kreider isn't a top-15 pick... but if you look at Kreider compared to Evander Kane (4OA, same year). Kane comes in at ~83% (going into this season) on the standard you used. Kreider comes in at ~59%. That's a HUGE difference for two fairly equal players. IMO it's a pretty big misrepresentation between how successful they've each been as NHLers in comparison, simply because they took different routes in development. And you'll see this issue crop up all over the place. Dylan Strome looks like he'll be a solid NHLer for a long time, but if even if he keeps it up, Arizona has a 130+ game disadvantage in this analysis compared to the 2 teams selecting before them and 2 teams selecting after them.

 

[Mac n Gs]

The thing being lost in the whole Clark discussion is that Bobrov is his clear heir apparent. They're not going to just fire Gordie. They're going to just keep giving Bobrov more responsibilities until he takes over the position naturally. Clark has been here too long and is too well respected within the organization to can him.

 

[n8]

Howden should be going down also.

Agreed. We can call up Fogarty or Nieves. I believe the former is performing better than the latter at present.

 

[Edge]

The thing being lost in the whole Clark discussion is that Bobrov is his clear heir apparent. They're not going to just fire Gordie. They're going to just keep giving Bobrov more responsibilities until he takes over the position naturally. Clark has been here too long and is too well respected within the organization to can him.

He’s also widely respected around the league. And if this wasn’t likely his last gig, he’d have zero problems landing his next opportunity in short order.

 

[HFBS]

I want andersson to be a part of the team in the worst way

I think he's succeeded.

 

[HatTrick Swayze]

It's not games played. It's games played vs potential games played. It acts as a negative towards every pick that doesn't play in the NHL in their D+1 when compared to every pick that did.

Just as an example... and I realize that Kreider isn't a top-15 pick... but if you look at Kreider compared to Evander Kane (4OA, same year). Kane comes in at ~83% (going into this season) on the standard you used. Kreider comes in at ~59%. That's a HUGE difference for two fairly equal players. IMO it's a pretty big misrepresentation between how successful they've each been as NHLers in comparison, simply because they took different routes in development. And you'll see this issue crop up all over the place. Dylan Strome looks like he'll be a solid NHLer for a long time, but if even if he keeps it up, Arizona has a 130+ game disadvantage in this analysis compared to the 2 teams selecting before them and 2 teams selecting after them.

Sure I hear your point. The counter argument would be that given that most NHLers break down around the same age, getting more utility earlier out of a player should be worth more, all else equal. But maybe I could pull in first pro season or something and see if that changes things.

 

[GoAwayPanarin]

Hartford is the best place for him, Knoblauch has basically been King Midas.

 

[Leetch3]

Hartford is the best place for him, Knoblauch has basically been King Midas.

funny how much this has changed since the days of knoblauch ruining kravtsov oh so long ago

 

[Hire Sather]

Boo stuck in minors

 

[FIRE DRURY]

You know, I don't mind the dissenting opinions nearly as much as I find myself annoyed at the cherry picking.

The Rangers have had 6 first round picks since 2017. Of those six, the only one who has "serious" question marks around him is Andersson right now. We'll ignore that his peers are only turning pro right now and all of the other stuff that's been beaten to death. So right now, nobody has a problem with 5 out of 6 picks. And whether we like or not, the success of this rebuild will not rest on Andersson. It would certainly benefit from Andersson, but he's not the linchpin either.

Is it Skjei we have problem with at 28th? Miller at 15th? Kreider at 19th? Staal at 12th? Cherepanov?MDZ?

Or it is Sanguinetti and McIlrath?

I mean what is the threshold? Or is it completely arbitrary?

It's fair to say that since taking over, Clark has had significantly more success than failures and that's reflected when we look over the Rangers draft picks. Have we been the best? No we haven't. But over and over and over again, when we press people to come up with the list of teams that have been better, it somehow never seems to be a very long list. We get the usual suspects, including Tampa and Boston, but this conversation always seems to die when it gets pushed beyond the whole one-off comment type responses.

You’re obviously a complete moron who knows nothing about hockey.

Nobody... I mean, literally, nobody enjoys or appreciates your thoughts, opinions or feedback.

Delete your account and start over.