Player Discussion Post Draft Discussion

[SnowblindNYR]

Yeah, I don't know if we just extreme BPA or we purposely cluster drafted D-men.

 

[haveandare]

I think the Rangers did better than some are giving them credit for, but I also think there's a general feeling that they didn't quite hit it our of the park either.

Around the sport I think you're seeing people not necessarily dislike the picks, but feel that the value of the picks is probably on the lower side.

I think people expected a draft like Vegas had last year, and in reality the prevailing opinion outside of this board is that the honor probably belongs to the Wings or Islanders.

We can disagree with that to our heart's content, but right now I think this board is probably more of the outlier than the consensus. Just keep that in mind if you're wondering why some of the draft grades are coming back and you're not really seeing a lot of A grades.

Difference between the Isles this year, Vegas last year and NYR this year is simply number of high picks. It wasn't that Vegas or the Isles played some brilliant game at the draft, they just had the picks necessary to take an extra shot in the higher end of really good first rounds.

 

[The Crypto Guy]

Honestly, for a rebuild year, and with all the picks we had it was imperative to hit this draft out of the park, we absolutely didn't.

I truly believe we are crazy for passing at Walhstrom, he is going to be a star goal scorer in the league, something we haven't drafted in forever. I don't mind the Kravtsov pick however since he does have nice potential as well, but I think Walhstrom should have been the guy. We should have tried trading Zucc or something for another 10-15 pick and landed Kravtsov if it was possible.

I'm ok with the Miller pick but not happy we gave away a 2nd round pick to move up 4 spots to grab him. The Lundkvist pick I'm not sure of, seems like a VERY smart player but a bit skeptical of his size and impact he can have.

The goalie in the 2nd round was just mind blowingly stupid. Esp with it being our only 2nd round pick. Right off the bat I put our score down a full letter grade for that incompetence.

As for the rest of the draft, we didn't draft anyone who fell and basically loaded up on defenseman.

Round 1: A-
Round 2: F
Rounds 3-7: C+

Final score: C+

 

[Gardner McKay]

As bad as the 2nd round pick was, and as questionable as some of the other late picks were, we did well in round one and it is important to remember that we went from a bottom five prospect pool two years ago to a top five prospect pool.

Think about that. Top. Five. Prospect. Pool.

 

[nyrage]

I wanted Wahlstrom because this team has lacked a true sniper/shooter for so long. That said, I like the Kratsov pick. He might turn out to be a better player overall.

I wanted them to get Miller, but not trade up with a second rounder to get him. I would have been ok with a third rounder plus another pick. There was still value in the second round.

I don't think there was a lot of forward depth in this draft. I'm ok with them going heavy defenseman, but if that was the case, I would have preferred that they had gotten 2 forwards from our first 4 picks. I liked Miller, but in retrospect, they should have used the 22nd on Bokk. Or at least a forward instead of the goaltender in the second. Even Wilde would have been a better pick.

 

[Edge]

Difference between the Isles this year, Vegas last year and NYR this year is simply number of high picks. It wasn't that Vegas or the Isles played some brilliant game at the draft, they just had the picks necessary to take an extra shot in the higher end of really good first rounds.

To some extent, but this was also a much deeper draft than last year, with far more interesting talent slipping into those later picks as a result.

I believe the opportunities were there, the Rangers just had their own list.

For better or worse, this draft will be about how well the Rangers scouted. It won't be about whether the consensus was wrong.

If the Rangers nail it, other teams will be analyzing what they missed and what the Rangers' saw.

If the Rangers stumble, or underachieve on value, it would probably result in some major changes to the Rangers scouting department --- which has remained relatively intact for the better part of 13 years.

 

[The Crypto Guy]

As bad as the 2nd round pick was, and as questionable as some of the other late picks were, we did well in round one and it is important to remember that we went from a bottom five prospect pool two years ago to a top five prospect pool.

Think about that. Top. Five. Prospect. Pool.

Eh, i'm not sure we are a top 5 prospect pool TBH. Top 10 absolutely

 

[AlternateSideParking]

Strategy and execution, and gut feeling: D
Pure talent/upside standpoint: B-

This was a reactionary draft, and I hate reactionary drafting for just one pick, let alone an entire class. The defense at the NHL level sucked and was old or slow, or both; so they traded everyone for defense prospects, then drafted a bunch of additional defense prospects. This was the strong draft for playmaking defensemen with top-pairing upside, and those I had earmarked with that potential were passed over by the Rangers in favor of steady, mobile types. No bueno, IMO.

They left a lot of skill on the table. A lot.

Kravtsov was an acceptable pick at 9th. Just like last year, however, I felt they overdrafted their first pick by a few spots. Wasn't shocked he went that high. I like his potential as a 30-30 type. But they really need a new Leetch, and there were a couple kid left on the table that have that potential. Grade: A-

All things considered, Miller is not an acceptable pick for the Rangers. They don't need athletic, lefty defenders with size, and the pick is exacerbated by the moronic trade. Sheer stupidity. However, Miller does have the legit potential to be a No. 2 or a go-to No. 3. Still raw, still inexperienced. Wanted this pick to feel like a home run and it didn't. Grade: B-

Lundkvist to me was an overrated kid all season. Weak, wanders and still unsure. Burned his partner a ton. Only reason why I gave him a late-season bump was his play down the stretch. Couldn't determine if it was smoke and mirrors or the kid is really a capable puck mover with elite skill. Saw him live twice at the under-18 Five Nations and thought he was good in spurts, but not 28th-overall good. Grade: B

Lindbom was a terrible pick. Good kid, decent potential, but totally unnecessary. Rodrigue and Skarek didn't impress them? Annunen? Thiessen? On top of that, he has to jump Halverson, Shestyorkin, Huska, Wall and Georgiev on the depth chart. Where will he be at 23 years old? IMO either Sweden or Finland. Grade: F

Ragnarsson is a good prospect. Like his poise, puck control and mobility. Shot is pretty good too. I think the potential for some offense is there, and the stats don't tell the whole story. I see him doing well in a system like Quinn's. Pair him with a stay-at-home type and he can produce. Still felt he was overdrafted, and the names they passed over -- Lauko, Ranta, McGlaughlin, Skarek, Back -- woof. This pick may look real ugly down the road if at least one of those kids I mentioned reaches their potential. Grade: B-

Keane is a decent pick and was one of my top overagers all season. He didn't get drafted last year because of his rookie OHL season and had him top-150 for the first half of 2017. Very good mobility and breakouts are clean. Defense also improved. The fact that he dominated the 2016 Hlinka and had a great sophomore season in Barrie showed his potential as a middle-pairing puck rusher at the NHL level. At this point, the Rangers should have finished with defensemen. Grade: B

Gross was a bit disappointment this season. Maybe it was jitters, or the move from Switzerland to North America threw him off. The player I saw in Oshawa was not the player who was a mobile, poised shutdown defender in the seasons prior. I had him as a preseason first rounder but the bottom fell out. There was no creativity or quality plays inside opposing territory. Even if he bounces back, the logjam of lefty defenders in the Rangers' system makes it next to impossible he makes it. Grade: C-

Pajuniemi is a kid I saw in Plymouth in November of 2016 and impressed me. Speed, hands and a very good shot. Can play inside on occasion. He was 64th among overagers in 2018 and ranked 173rd in my final 2017 rankings. Missed 2018 eligibility by only a few days. But this was a lazy pick because he was Virta's teammate, at times linemate. They waited all the way until the 5th round to take another forward after Kravtsov, and they go for a kid they just happened to watch because he was in the same arena as the kid they drafted last year. The time to take him was last year in the 4th instead of ECHL-bound Crawley. Grade: C

Kjellberg was a nepotism pick. Better kids travelled to Dallas and had their hearts crushed because the Rangers wanted to do a favor for a new team employee. There isn't a planet in the galaxy where this kid's upside is better than Danila Galenyuk, Anton Malyshev, Santeri Salmela, Libor Zabransky, and on and on. Joke of a pick, even if it's only a sixth rounder. Grade: F

Hughes is a Northeastern kid (or soon to be) and I had him ranked low because the USHL games I watched were rough. Barely played but skating looked OK. Size is the first thing I noticed but he was super jittery or sloppy with the puck. Some see a lot of upside because of his size and speed, but I think there were so many better USHL/NCAA-bound options here (Alex Steeves being one of them). Grade: D

 

[GoAwayPanarin]

I feel very comfortable in saying that everyone drafted after #1 will fall short of Brian Leetch, let alone the guys who were available at 9.

 

[mas0764]

Strategy and execution, and gut feeling: D
Pure talent/upside standpoint: B-

Can you post a "what you would have done" draft?

 

[Waivers]

Edit.

 

[AlternateSideParking]

Can you post a "what you would have done" draft?

For record purposes, based on how draft unfolded.


9th. LW Joel Farabee or RW Oliver Wahlstrom
26th. LHD Rasmus Sandin
28th. C Joe Veleno
39th. RHD Bode Wilde
48th. LHD Johnny Tychonick
70th. LW Blake McLaughlin
88th. C/W Dmytri Zavgorodniy
101st. C Philipp Kurashev
132nd. LW Blade Jenkins
163rd. LHD Danila Galenyuk
217th. RW Michal Kvasnica or RW Alexander Steeves

 

[Unusual Suspect]

Could post at greater length just to blah blah blah, but...
-- assigned a C
-- put mschmidt and kourianos together and you have an incredibly close mirror of why I felt that way (except NO to Wilde, thx)
-- my first round would have probably been Dobson/Bokk/M. Samuelsson then mostly forwards thereafter
-- by no means assume that I'll be at all correct after the next three years have told the actual story. But I kinda sense the NYR scouting staff may be in the same boat.
-- THAT SECOND ROUND!!!

 

[haveandare]

To some extent, but this was also a much deeper draft than last year, with far more interesting talent slipping into those later picks as a result.

I believe the opportunities were there, the Rangers just had their own list.

For better or worse, this draft will be about how well the Rangers scouted. It won't be about whether the consensus was wrong.

If the Rangers nail it, other teams will be analyzing what they missed and what the Rangers' saw.

If the Rangers stumble, or underachieve on value, it would probably result in some major changes to the Rangers scouting department --- which has remained relatively intact for the better part of 13 years.

I think it's most of why both teams had good drafts. Vegas had 6, 13 and 15 in a very deep first round. I mean, look at that round and count how many guys haven't performed in line with or well above all reasonable expectations for their draft spot - I count like 5 or 6 of 31.

Islanders this year had 11 and 12, which pretty much everybody agreed going in to the draft would be the bottom few picks of the upper tier of players. To make it even better for them, both MTL and Arizona made insane reaches that gave the Isles even better choices there.

I don't think either franchise was brilliant in either draft, they had great picks and made pretty obvious choices. I'd argue the Rangers made just as obvious choices with their firsts this year zlxo, issue was they only had one in the upper tier of players. The only real pick of theirs that seemed really odd to me was Lindblom, and I agree he almost certainly could have been had later. I understand picking a goalie if Allaire raves about them as he's earned that, but if they're projected to go 5th or 6th round, there's no need to use a 2nd on them. But going off the reservation on a second after making 3 picks in the first doesn't define a draft either way imo.

 

[Edge]

I think it's most of why both teams had good drafts. Vegas had 6, 13 and 15 in a very deep first round. I mean, look at that round and count how many guys haven't performed in line with or well above all reasonable expectations for their draft spot - I count like 5 or 6 of 31.

Islanders this year had 11 and 12, which pretty much everybody agreed going in to the draft would be the bottom few picks of the upper tier of players. To make it even better for them, both MTL and Arizona made insane reaches that gave the Isles even better choices there.

I don't think either franchise was brilliant in either draft, they had great picks and made pretty obvious choices. I'd argue the Rangers made just as obvious choices with their firsts this year zlxo, issue was they only had one in the upper tier of players. The only real pick of theirs that seemed really odd to me was Lindblom, and I agree he almost certainly could have been had later. I understand picking a goalie if Allaire raves about them as he's earned that, but if they're projected to go 5th or 6th round, there's no need to use a 2nd on them. But going off the reservation on a second after making 3 picks in the first doesn't define a draft either way imo.

And yet, I can't help but feel that if the Rangers had taken Wahlstrom/Dobson/Bouchard, Bokk, Lundkvist, Wilde, Thomas/Addison/Wise, Lauko, I think the Rangers are probably in that conversation.

That's not to say it proves to be more successful over the long haul, but the immediate reaction is probably that it's more of an "A" draft.

So, overall, I think that's why there's a pretty widespread belief that the Rangers could've had that kind of draft and that they didn't quite hit it out of the park.

Will that be the takeaway three years from now? I don't know. But that's probably a pretty popular takeaway today.

 

[Calad]

B+. Itd be an A- if they didnt take a goalie at 39, so much talent on the board it feels like a wasted pick with our pipeline. If we wanted the goalie so bad I'm not sure why they wouldn't have explored moving one of our RFA for a mid/late 2nd

 

[Gardner McKay]

Eh, i'm not sure we are a top 5 prospect pool TBH. Top 10 absolutely

Although I disagree, we are at least debating whether we are top-5 or top-10. Still a STARK difference from 2 years ago.

 

[Edge]

Although I disagree, we are at least debating whether we are top-5 or top-10. Still a STARK difference from 2 years ago.

Part of me can't help but feel somewhat disappointed that we're not a consensus top-5 at this point.

I feel like we should be and there really shouldn't be as much debate.

 

[haveandare]

And yet, I can't help but feel that if the Rangers had taken Wahlstrom/Dobson/Bouchard, Bokk, Lundkvist, Wilde, Thomas/Addison/Wise, Lauko, I think the Rangers are probably in that conversation.

That's not to say it proves to be more successful over the long haul, but the immediate reaction is probably that it's more of an "A" draft.

So, overall, I think that's why there's a pretty widespread belief that the Rangers could've had that kind of draft and that they didn't quite hit it out of the park.

Will that be the takeaway three years from now? I don't know. But that's probably a pretty popular takeaway today.

I guess it depends who is hosting that conversation and why they like this or that player over another.

We've both been here long enough to know people fall in love with certain players or prospects for reasons that are often totally arbitrary.

People like Wahlstrom more than Kravstov - why? Some, I'd wager, becuase he's a pure shooter and goals are the most exciting part of the game, some I'd wager because he's American, some I'd wager for any number of other reasons unrelated to him being a better hockey player. And many people because they honestly believe he's going to be the better player, which is fine and the best reason to like one prospect over another.

Same with Bokk over Miller.

So yes, maybe the conversation would be more positive, but the conversation isn't always or even often driven strictly by logic or reason. I think, as far as the first round goes specifically, the Rangers didn't do anything too unusual. I think there's a strong case for Kravstov being BPA at 9, equally as strong as that for Wahlstrom being BPA at 9. Both have certain things in their favor. Same for Miller at his position.

 

[Gardner McKay]

Part of me can't help but feel somewhat disappointed that we're not a consensus top-5 at this point.

I feel like we should be and there really shouldn't be as much debate.

I dunno. Fair point but is there anything we could have done differently that would have made us top-5? Picking Wilde over Lindbom wouldn't make us top 5.

 

[brians1128]

If we would have picked Bokk over Miller and Lauko over Lindbom, I would probably give this draft an A overall.

Now, I have to go with B

I know you were super high on Kravstov, many of us were high on trading up to get him. Would you have done 26+28+48 for 10 and grab Dobson if it was available over kravstov/miller/lundkvist?

 

[mas0764]

And yet, I can't help but feel that if the Rangers had taken Wahlstrom/Dobson/Bouchard, Bokk, Lundkvist, Wilde, Thomas/Addison/Wise, Lauko, I think the Rangers are probably in that conversation.

That's not to say it proves to be more successful over the long haul, but the immediate reaction is probably that it's more of an "A" draft.

So, overall, I think that's why there's a pretty widespread belief that the Rangers could've had that kind of draft and that they didn't quite hit it out of the park.

Will that be the takeaway three years from now? I don't know. But that's probably a pretty popular takeaway today.

To be fair, Bokk would not have been available at 26 if we just stayed put, so you can't say we should have taken Bokk and also then have us picking twice in the second. We still would have had to make the trade up for Bokk at the cost of 48, I assume.

 

[Edge]

I guess it depends who is hosting that conversation and why they like this or that player over another.

We've both been here long enough to know people fall in love with certain players or prospects for reasons that are often totally arbitrary.

People like Wahlstrom more than Kravstov - why? Some, I'd wager, becuase he's a pure shooter and goals are the most exciting part of the game, some I'd wager because he's American, some I'd wager for any number of other reasons unrelated to him being a better hockey player. And many people because they honestly believe he's going to be the better player, which is fine and the best reason to like one prospect over another.

Same with Bokk over Miller.

So yes, maybe the conversation would be more positive, but the conversation isn't always or even often driven strictly by logic or reason. I think, as far as the first round goes specifically, the Rangers didn't do anything too unusual. I think there's a strong case for Kravstov being BPA at 9, equally as strong as that for Wahlstrom being BPA at 9. Both have certain things in their favor. Same for Miller at his position.

Can't deny any of that.

Just saying that it's tending to be the initial reaction.

Basically, in a nutshell, the Rangers and a segment are probably on the higher-end of view that are out there.

It's not to say that they're right or wrong, brilliant of clueless. It's merely to say that it's probably the minority opinion right now.

I think there's a certain curiosity as to how others view how we did. The answer to that question is probably a B.

 

[Edge]

I dunno. Fair point but is there anything we could have done differently that would have made us top-5? Picking Wilde over Lindbom wouldn't make us top 5.

Truthfully, I'm not sure because I don't what moves were possible or not possible.

But, one has to wonder, if we swap Andersson, Kravtsov, Miller and Lindbom for Mittelstadt, Dobson, Bokk and Wilde over the last two years, what the opinion would be outside of our immediate community.

At the very least, it's an interesting question. And one that could very well pop up over the next year or two --- both in our favor, and not in our favor.

 

[nyr2k2]

Chris Peters, ESPN: B+
Corey Pronman: B
CBS Sports: B

Here's a link where you can read the rationales behind the three grades above: http://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog/Jan-Levine/My-way-too-early-grade-on-the-Rangers-draft/89/93574

I gave it a B myself the night we wrapped up. That seems to be the consensus. Only two picks I didn't like (Skjellberg and Lindbom, and Lindbom was just because of when he was picked). I think they got some really nice talent and established that they're going to continue building from the net out.