So, what's the problem, then? Instead of debating the fact that this guy probably sucks like most guys taken in his spot, we're talking about whether the fact that he's a scout's kid had anything to do with him being drafted? Unless someone has an intense desire to defend the integrity of the Rangers' draft process, what difference does it make? Once these kids start playing and and we get a semimonthly update on Kjellberg in the USHL, no one will really care anymore.
Andersson is different. The high picks, people really care about. Kjellberg will fade from memory soon enough, unless we continue to have these protracted discussions.
For the record, I made this point myself as it related to why we might not have taken Drury.
I have never stated that the Rangers drafted Simon Kjellberg solely because he was Patric's kid. I never stated that we scouted him solely for that reason. I have merely highlighted the connection and pointed out that it may have influenced things. If that's totally unreasonable, fine; I don't think it is. But as a member of the "select few" who are apparently pushing a narrative, I just want to clarify my actual position on this.
Debating the kid's merits, fine. His skating isn't great, he doesn't show much creativity, and he's as raw as a Spicy Tuna Roll.
But when we start flat out throwing out the conclusion that it was nepotism, and done as a favor to a scout, then that's a different story. And yes, that claim has been made on these boards. Not debated. Not implied. It
was made (not by you).
And yeah, I do feel the need to defend the integrity of the Rangers' draft process a little, because I know quite a few of those people. I've worked with them, I've seen the insane hours they put in, the time they spend away from their families, and the (surprisingly) modest pay they receive for their work.
So when people, (not you), start putting stuff out that there isn't based in fact, or doesn't have any evidence to support its claims, yeah I'm a little more likely to throw a flag on the play.
Look, I'm in a somewhat unique spot in the sense that if we're talking about players from the mid 90s to around 2003, I probably directly worked with them in some capacity, at some point. Additionally, when we're talking about some of the behind the scenes people, there's a reasonable chance I know some of them.
So when people throw rumors and innuendo out there, I don't find that to be fair. People are entitled to their own opinions, but I think we need a reasonable amount of proof before accusations are made. Whether it's accusing a player of substance abuse, or scouts of nepotism, that's a very direct and somewhat personal accusation to make. We have to be careful with that. It's way too easy to do these days, and yes people are watching more than we realize.
