Prospect Info: Rangers Prospects Thread (Stats in Post #1; Updated 10.17.18) *Part II*

[Kovalev27]

I guess I am confused as to how you speak of management as if they're a constant throughout the process and not different people, with different approaches, spread out over multiple decades.

I'm also confused as to how you lump the team's drafting from 1992-2003 into the came category as the team's drafting from 2004-2018, because those seem like two completely different approaches with two very different results.

I don’t think so. I think the philosophy has never changed. I think we’re an arrogant franchise and always have been. I think we always think we know better. I think we rely on veterans that we normally trade for instead of developing our own talent. That’s gone on for decades.

 

[Kovalev27]

For the record my exact words were the rangers have drafted and developed a STAR forward for THEMSELVES (by the way don’t forget that part) in 50 years.

Nothing about that is overstated. It’s extremely sad. But not overstated.

 

[Edge]

Name the star forward we drafted in the past 50 years that became a star for us. Then I’ll admit I overstated it. If Kovalev or Stepan is the best you can do then I did not overstate anything.

You now are saying first line player. I said star forward. We haven’t done it.

Actually, what I said was:

"Have the Rangers drafted and developed a star forward in recent memory? No, and so they lose points for that. (I'd debate the the 50 years aspect of things, but that's another conversation)."

and

"Have the Rangers drafted and developed first line forwards in recent memory? Yes, they have."

So I am not "now" saying anything that I didn't say originally.

With regards to the 50 years comment, I personally think they have developed stars and have said as much. Whether they traded them, or the context in which they traded them, is a whole different conversation, but they drafted and developed several players who became star players and multi-time all-stars.

Now I will say they haven't done that as much as they need to in recent memory and (once again) they lose points for that.

I would also argue that depending on deployment, usage, health and other factors, both Kreider and Stepan score more than 60 points --- with the latter having scored at that pace three times, but having lost games to injury and/or lockout. I'd probably also argue that Miller tops 60 if not for AV.

All three of those players were chosen in a 3 year span, and two were first round picks --- something they haven't done with regularity over the last 13 years (not counting years without a first), until 2017.

So, when the Rangers have focused on forwards, they've tended to do well. But they haven't done necessarily done it consistently.

With regards to the current landscape, I don't think we have anything to compare it to over the last 50 years.

For example, when have the Rangers ever had 3 first round picks in a draft? Or five firsts over a two year period? Or anywhere from 6-9 over a three year period?

There's simply nothing to compare it to.

Likewise, when have the Rangers had two young forwards in recent memory who had the type of D-1 seasons that Andersson and Chytil had last season?

Or when have the Rangers have not one, but two guys that could potentially be the best forwards they've drafted in a generation (Chytil and Kravtsov)?

So even if we disagree on what constitutes a first line player, or the threshold of when a team gets credit for drafting and developing a star player, or any number of other factors, I'm not really sure I see the similarity or connection to what the team has done in recent history, as compared to a broader, half-century landscape.

 

[Edge]

I don’t think so. I think the philosophy has never changed. I think we’re an arrogant franchise and always have been. I think we always think we know better. I think we rely on veterans that we normally trade for instead of developing our own talent. That’s gone on for decades.

Okay, I'll bite.

I'm curious as to how you view the way 2005- to now resembles 1990-2003.

Or for that matter, I'm curious as to how you view Eposito years in comparison to the Gorton years.

 

[pblawr]

You’d be right in implying the extreme here except for the fact the Rangers haven’t drafted and developed a star forward fir themselves in 50 years.

So continuing to give them the benefit of the doubt is crazy.

I get what you are saying, but my feeling is that the outcome is primarily due to their draft position / luck and not their drafting effectiveness.

1) Firstly, the Rangers have had unbelievably bad draft spot / lottery luck. They haven't had a top 3 pick since 1966 and there were only 6 teams in the league at the time. Theoretically, in a league that has averaged about 20 teams, a team should end up with one top-3 pick every 7 years and 7-8 top-3 picks every 50 years, so for the Rangers to go 50+ years without getting a single top 3 pick is just extremely unlucky.

2) I think analysis of the current management should be limited to the picks under their tenure. In the case of Gordie Clarke, this starts with the 2006 draft.

3) Their draft spots have been especially low during Gordie Clarke's tenure due to having a competitive team and a go-for-it mindset. In the 11 drafts Clarke ran before 2017, we traded away 4 first round picks and 3 second round picks. We only had one lottery pick and didn't win. Every single team in the league had a higher draft pick than our highest pick (10th) during that time period, except for Detroit. 26 of the 30 teams in the NHL had at least 2 picks higher than any pick the Rangers have had. Arizona, Columbus, Edmonton, the Islanders, Toronto, and Winnipeg have all had at least 5 picks higher than a single pick Gordie Clarke has had.

This is a big deal. By my count, there are only 6 (Tarasenko, Kuznetsov, Giroux, Benn, Kucherov, Gadreau) star forwards who have been available among the ~3,000 players drafted after the Rangers got their name called during Gordie Clarke's tenure and there have been 30 other teams (who have had better draft positions than we did) targeting them. The odds of us picking one of those players were materially below 20%, so I think it's tough to fault management for not finding one of those players when the odds were so stacked against them.

4) Cherepanov's death was extremely unlucky. My personal belief is that, despite the odds being stacked against them, the Rangers actually did draft a star forward and it's only because of an incredibly unfortunate tragedy that he never played for us.


On the whole, the Rangers have performed pretty well under Sather / Clarke. Despite our horrible draft positions, from 2011 - 2015, we finished with the best record in the eastern conference twice, made the conference finals three times, and made the cup finals once. We've been one of the winningest teams in the league over that time period. I think that is pretty impressive given the cards we were dealt. But it was inevitable that years of trading away picks and drafting low would catch up to us at some point (as mentioned above, it has caught up to basically every other team in the NHL at some point already).

I think it's tough to rank management teams accurately because luck in the draft lottery and luck in long-shot draft picks becoming stars has a bigger impact on their outcomes than skill, but based on their track record with the draft picks they've had and the overall success of the Rangers over the past decade, I think it's tough to argue that Sather / Clarke aren't a very good management team. Furthermore, I think they are doing the right thing to proactively get value for players who aren't a part of our future to accelerate our rebuild and even if I don't necessarily agree with every single decision they make, I think they are doing the absolute right thing from a big picture perspective. I think the rebuild in front of us will take time, but realistically, I think it's tough to ask for much more than a management team with a very good track that is doing the right thing from a big picture perspective.

 

[Edge]

For the record my exact words were the rangers have drafted and developed a STAR forward for THEMSELVES (by the way don’t forget that part) in 50 years.

Nothing about that is overstated. It’s extremely sad. But not overstated.

But if the focus is on the Rangers ability to draft and develop, isn't conversations about Rangers trading those guys kind of a separate conversation?

So it almost seems like it should be three separate conversations:

1. The Rangers ability to identify and draft star talent, and develop said talent.

2. The Rangers inability to not trade away said talent.

3. The Rangers ability to actually utilize said talent.

The second conversation seems to be more about a win-now mentality that has plagued this franchise, the third about personnel.

 

[Fireonk]

I get what you are saying, but my feeling is that the outcome is primarily due to their draft position / luck and not their drafting effectiveness.

Your whole post is just amazing. Thanks for putting actual research into forming your opinions and helping others by sharing that information.

Not to say someone can't look at the same facts and have a different opinion, but it sure is refreshing to actually see opinions based on something and not just hot takes.

 

[Levitate]

Buch gonna score 70 points this year anyways and put that "no star player, can't score over 60 points" talking point to rest

 

[Mac n Gs]

I’d have to agree that we aren’t even having this discussion if Cherry doesn’t die. There was your impact, franchise-altering forward who would’ve had trickle down effects throughout the entire organization. It’s an endless list of hypotheticals that happen once you start trying to play the “what if” game in hindsight: do we make the Nash trade? Do we need to move all of those picks? Do we build a better farm that’s primed for long-term success? What happens with that 09-10 team with another piece of firepower to add to Gaborik?

It goes on endlessly.

 

[pblawr]

Your whole post is just amazing. Thanks for putting actual research into forming your opinions and helping others by sharing that information.

Not to say someone can't look at the same facts and have a different opinion, but it sure is refreshing to actually see opinions based on something and not just hot takes.

Thanks

 

[Edge]

I’d have to agree that we aren’t even having this discussion if Cherry doesn’t die. There was your impact, franchise-altering forward who would’ve had trickle down effects throughout the entire organization. It’s an endless list of hypotheticals that happen once you start trying to play the “what if” game in hindsight: do we make the Nash trade? Do we need to move all of those picks? Do we build a better farm that’s primed for long-term success? What happens with that 09-10 team with another piece of firepower to add to Gaborik?

It goes on endlessly.

And that's why I think the board also tends to bring up Getzlaf/Tarsenko more often. Not just because they were popular, and somewhat obvious choices, but because either one of those guys is potentially the difference in that 2012-2015 time frame.

To some extent, I get fans frustration over the last decade and a half about how we always seem to be close to make that one move for a young talent that potentially changes the whole conversation.

Whether its the Getzlaf/Tarasenko conversations, or the ability to come away with either Keller or Pettersson, there's something to those "what if" questions.

 

[Mac n Gs]

And that's why I think the board also tends to bring up Getzlaf/Tarsenko more often. Not just because they were popular, and somewhat obvious choices, but because either one of those guys is potentially the difference in that 2012-2015 time frame.

To some extent, I get fans frustration over the last decade and a half about how we always seem to be close to make that one move for a young talent that potentially changes the whole conversation.

Whether its the Getzlaf/Tarasenko conversations, or the ability to come away with either Keller or Pettersson, there's something to those "what if" questions.

I avoid those because they were never in our organization to begin with. We drafted Cherepanov and had him ready to come over soon. That was the direct scoring touch they needed from a young player after Jagr jettisoned himself to Russia. It sucks, man.

 

[Levitate]

And that's why I think the board also tends to bring up Getzlaf/Tarsenko more often. Not just because they were popular, and somewhat obvious choices, but because either one of those guys is potentially the difference in that 2012-2015 time frame.

To some extent, I get fans frustration over the last decade and a half about how we always seem to be close to make that one move for a young talent that potentially changes the whole conversation.

Whether its the Getzlaf/Tarasenko conversations, or the ability to come away with either Keller or Pettersson, there's something to those "what if" questions.

And why people are going to place so many expectations on Chytil and Kravtsov...Andersson to a lesser extent but the first two in particular because they LOOK like they could be those high powered high scoring forwards that the team has lacked one way or another.

 

[Edge]

I avoid those because they were never in our organization to begin with. We drafted Cherepanov and had him ready to come over soon. That was the direct scoring touch they needed from a young player after Jagr jettisoned himself to Russia. It sucks, man.

Rangers have had some strange incidents over the last 20 years with prospects.

One first round pick devastated by injuries less than dozen games into his pro career.

Another first round pick lost to a freak injury before he was 21.

A third first round pick dies during a game.

A prospect commits suicide, another is knocked out of the game at 23 with concussion problems.

 

[nyr2k2]

I get what you are saying, but my feeling is that the outcome is primarily due to their draft position / luck and not their drafting effectiveness.

1) Firstly, the Rangers have had unbelievably bad draft spot / lottery luck. They haven't had a top 3 pick since 1966 and there were only 6 teams in the league at the time. Theoretically, in a league that has averaged about 20 teams, a team should end up with one top-3 pick every 7 years and 7-8 top-3 picks every 50 years, so for the Rangers to go 50+ years without getting a single top 3 pick is just extremely unlucky.

2) I think analysis of the current management should be limited to the picks under their tenure. In the case of Gordie Clarke, this starts with the 2006 draft.

3) Their draft spots have been especially low during Gordie Clarke's tenure due to having a competitive team and a go-for-it mindset. In the 11 drafts Clarke ran before 2017, we traded away 4 first round picks and 3 second round picks. We only had one lottery pick and didn't win. Every single team in the league had a higher draft pick than our highest pick (10th) during that time period, except for Detroit. 26 of the 30 teams in the NHL had at least 2 picks higher than any pick the Rangers have had. Arizona, Columbus, Edmonton, the Islanders, Toronto, and Winnipeg have all had at least 5 picks higher than a single pick Gordie Clarke has had.

This is a big deal. By my count, there are only 6 (Tarasenko, Kuznetsov, Giroux, Benn, Kucherov, Gadreau) star forwards who have been available among the ~3,000 players drafted after the Rangers got their name called during Gordie Clarke's tenure and there have been 30 other teams (who have had better draft positions than we did) targeting them. The odds of us picking one of those players were materially below 20%, so I think it's tough to fault management for not finding one of those players when the odds were so stacked against them.

4) Cherepanov's death was extremely lucky. My personal belief is that, despite the odds being stacked against them, the Rangers actually did draft a star forward and it's only because of an incredibly unfortunate tragedy that he never played for us.


On the whole, the Rangers have performed pretty well under Sather / Clarke. Despite our horrible draft positions, from 2011 - 2015, we finished with the best record in the eastern conference twice, made the conference finals three times, and made the cup finals once. We've been one of the winningest teams in the league over that time period. I think that is pretty impressive given the cards we were dealt. But it was inevitable that years of trading away picks and drafting low would catch up to us at some point (as mentioned above, it has caught up to basically every other team in the NHL at some point already).

I think it's tough to rank management teams accurately because luck in the draft lottery and luck in long-shot draft picks becoming stars has a bigger impact on their outcomes than skill, but based on their track record with the draft picks they've had and the overall success of the Rangers over the past decade, I think it's tough to argue that Sather / Clarke aren't a very good management team. Furthermore, I think they are doing the right thing to proactively get value for players who aren't a part of our future to accelerate our rebuild and even if I don't necessarily agree with every single decision they make, I think they are doing the absolute right thing from a big picture perspective. I think the rebuild in front of us will take time, but realistically, I think it's tough to ask for much more than a management team with a very good track that is doing the right thing from a big picture perspective.

This is a really interesting and well-prepared post. It brings up a bunch of additional questions, particularly when you get to the successful period of 11-15 that you referenced, but I think your logic is sound and I appreciate you doing the research. This is really good stuff.

I, for one, believe that the Rangers have done a pretty good job under Clarke. Not without some misses, but in general, I'd argue we've done well when considering all the various contextual elements.

 

[Kovalev27]

Okay, I'll bite.

I'm curious as to how you view the way 2005- to now resembles 1990-2003.

Or for that matter, I'm curious as to how you view Eposito years in comparison to the Gorton years.

oh I still feel we have the same core values that we've always had. the salary cap has forced us to change the way we do SOME things, but we still like to go against the grain. we still feel we know better than the rest of the league and we still feel that we don't need to neccesarily draft stars we can buy or trade for them later. We had to sign drury and gomez to have a top line center we had to sign brad Richards to have a top line center. we didn't have our own. we had to get rick nash because we didn't have an actual star forward and to win that cup we had to go buy messier. so I see a lot of the same things that haven't changed. we were given a salary cap otherwise not much would have changed.

 

[Edge]

This is a really interesting and well-prepared post. It brings up a bunch of additional questions, particularly when you get to the successful period of 11-15 that you referenced, but I think your logic is sound and I appreciate you doing the research. This is really good stuff.

I, for one, believe that the Rangers have done a pretty good job under Clarke. Not without some misses, but in general, I'd argue we've done well when considering all the various contextual elements.

I think the Rangers have done good to very good overall under Clark.

Not the best, but not awful either. I tend to push back on the notion that they've been awful because I don't find that to be accurate at all.

2010 is a clear miss, there's no getting around that.

But when I consider where the Rangers were drafting most years, the odds were against them being able to find a bunch of superstar forwards --- that's reflected when we compile names from those drafts.

I also try and take into account just how much the draft has changed, even in the last 10 years or so. Talent is so front-loaded these days. Yes, you still find the occasional star in the later rounds, but not like you used to. Nowadays, finding a Gaudreau in the 4th or later is pretty few and far between. Generally, you're talking about players who might someday be support players.

Guys like Bergeron or ROR, second round picks a decade ago, are now guys you look at in the top 10. The end result is that you're a large percentage of first rounders make it in the NHL, but not as many gems left over for the subsequent rounds.

Teams know they have to build from the first round and they have to come away with NHL talent. You don't see firsts moved quite like you used to, and seconds are often doubled up or included as part of broader package deals.

 

[Kovalev27]

Buch gonna score 70 points this year anyways and put that "no star player, can't score over 60 points" talking point to rest

I hope so

 

[FJB]

Which is obviously why he signed off on the rebuild. Got to get that playoff money. Tearing the team down instead of going all in. It's a bold strategy Cotton. Let's see if it pays off for him.

I'm surprised it took so long. I remember the dark ages 97-04. It was so painful just throwing money and not building. I hope we go through a real rebuild and not just more bandaids. This team needs someone who can put 50+ f***ing goals in the net per season.

 

[Edge]

oh I still feel we have the same core values that we've always had. the salary cap has forced us to change the way we do SOME things, but we still like to go against the grain. we still feel we know better than the rest of the league and we still feel that we don't need to neccesarily draft stars we can buy or trade for them later. We had to sign drury and gomez to have a top line center we had to sign brad Richards to have a top line center. we didn't have our own. we had to get rick nash because we didn't have an actual star forward and to win that cup we had to go buy messier. so I see a lot of the same things that haven't changed. we were given a salary cap otherwise not much would have changed.

Yeah, but in that same vein, don't you have to have the talent to make a Nash trade in the first place?

I can't disagree that the cap changed the way we do business, but the reality is that we've done that business pretty well since the cap.

This is a team that's been one of the more successful teams in the league since the lockout. We haven't had any glaring trades where we shipped out a young talent and had them come back to haunt us, our core has routinely featured home grown talents, we've had our share of bad contracts, but that's just about every team in the league.

I can't help but feel that if this team wins in 2014, the post-lockout era is viewed substantially different around here than it is. But we didn't win those 3 extra games and so there's a tendency to overlook the success we had --- and that trickles down into the different aspects of how we judge this organization, including drafting.

But when we dig deeper, there's really not a whole lot of names we can throw out there. Looking at the team since the cap, maybe Giroux comes to mind as that first line center we could've drafted? But it's a fairly short list.

It's also important to note that not all of our trades were youth for age, something pretty unique to modern Rangers' history.

We traded Gaborik for a package that included Brassard, who had his best seasons as a Rangers, and then in turn flipped Brassard for a 23 year old center with first line potential in Zibanejad.

Our current roster features three centers who have never played for another NHL franchise, and one who was acquired at the same age that some of our rookies started at over last two years.

I just don't see a ton of comparisons from this team's approach to what is considered the "norm" for the franchise. That's not to say it's going to work, but there really isn't much familiarity either.

 

[Levitate]

I'm surprised it took so long. I remember the dark ages 97-04. It was so painful just throwing money and not building. I hope we go through a real rebuild and not just more bandaids. This team needs someone who can put 50+ ****ing goals in the net per season.

I have to wonder what things would have been like if Lundqvist hadn't arrived right after the lockout and Jagr and his buddies hadn't ended up being one of the best lines in the NHL and dragged that team to the playoffs over and over.

What kind of "rebuild" might we have seen in the early years of the salary cap...

 

[Kovalev27]

Yeah, but in that same vein, don't you have to have the talent to make a Nash trade in the first place?

I can't disagree that the cap changed the way we do business, but the reality is that we've done that business pretty well since the cap.

This is a team that's been one of the more successful teams in the league since the lockout. We haven't had any glaring trades where we shipped out a young talent and had them come back to haunt us, our core has routinely featured home grown talents, we've had our share of bad contracts, but that's just about every team in the league.

I can't help but feel that if this team wins in 2014, the post-lockout era is viewed substantially different around here than it is. But we didn't win those 3 extra games and so there's a tendency to overlook the success we had --- and that trickles down into the different aspects of how we judge this organization, including drafting.

But when we dig deeper, there's really not a whole lot of names we can throw out there. Looking at the team since the cap, maybe Giroux comes to mind as that first line center we could've drafted? But it's a fairly short list.

It's also important to note that not all of our trades were youth for age, something pretty unique to modern Rangers' history.

We traded Gaborik for a package that included Brassard, who had his best seasons as a Rangers, and then in turn flipped Brassard for a 23 year old center with first line potential in Zibanejad.

Our current roster features three centers who have never played for another NHL franchise, and one who was acquired at the same age that some of our rookies started at over last two years.

I just don't see a ton of comparisons from this team's approach to what is considered the "norm" for the franchise. That's not to say it's going to work, but there really isn't much familiarity either.

ehhh I mean you see what you have to give up to get a Nash. rarely does anyone give up a top prospect. we certainly didn't.

I have zero argument with you regarding our success since the lockout however the reason we did not win a Cup was and still is because we didn't have any elite talent up front. we were missing homegrown star talent. that still holds true from the beginning of my argument thru this conversation here.

 

[Edge]

ehhh I mean you see what you have to give up to get a Nash. rarely does anyone give up a top prospect. we certainly didn't.

I have zero argument with you regarding our success since the lockout however the reason we did not win a Cup was and still is because we didn't have any elite talent up front. we were missing homegrown star talent. that still holds true from the beginning of my argument thru this conversation here.

I dunno, I personally thought the reason we didn't win was because our strategy didn't work or adjust for L.A. and to a lesser extent because a number of guys were banged up pretty badly.

I didn't and still wouldn't rank a lack of homegrown star talent as the difference between falling 3 games short of a cup.

 

[GAGLine]

I'm surprised it took so long. I remember the dark ages 97-04. It was so painful just throwing money and not building. I hope we go through a real rebuild and not just more bandaids. This team needs someone who can put 50+ ****ing goals in the net per season.

No doubt. I just think it's a fallacy that ownership actually cares that much about playoff revenue.

 

[GAGLine]

I have to wonder what things would have been like if Lundqvist hadn't arrived right after the lockout and Jagr and his buddies hadn't ended up being one of the best lines in the NHL and dragged that team to the playoffs over and over.

What kind of "rebuild" might we have seen in the early years of the salary cap...

I don't think Sather wanted anything to do with a rebuild. Remember what he said when he was with Edmonton?

"If I had the Rangers payroll, I'd never lose a game."

The only reason he sold off assets in 2004 is because the writing was on the wall with the lockout and the salary cap. The trades he made amounted to very little.