Confirmed with Link: Rangers Select Brandon Halverson (G - OHL) with 59th Overall Pick

[Ghost of jas]

If there's one thing I've learned quickly, it's to never overreact to draft picks, whether good or bad. It's such a crapshoot, there's really no point.

Agreed. My belief is that draft picks are nothing more than potential assets until they prove otherwise, and historically, goalies appear to have less value than forwards or d-men.

 

[nyr2k2]

But, how many goalies picked in the top three rounds didn't make it? It's a bit flawed.

Statistically speaking, there is not enough info to make a very accurate statistical assessment.

You're both right, in that what I presented is far from enough evidence to make any conclusions. Like jas said--what is the "hit" or "miss" percentage for goalies drafted early vs. late? I don't know, and I don't really feel like gathering that information. I would say that anecdotally, more goalies come off the board in the middle-to-late rounds than the top two or three, and therefore I'd guess more guys taken late bust than guys taken early.

Let me turn the tables, though--is there any evidence to support jas' claim that you're as likely to find a good goalie in round four or later as you are in the first three rounds? What I brought to the tables in terms of statistical assessment was lacking, but hey, at least I brought something!

 

[AHB*]

Wow, can't believe the complaints in here. Goalies take a while to develop. Look at Lundqvist, his career started in the NHL at 24. Talbot is turning 27 next month. Quick wasn't a starter on the Kings until he was 23.

Realistically, if we assume this kid takes a standard amount of time to develop as a goalie, he is at the very least 4-5 years away (that would put him at 22-23). Hank is going to be 37 by then.

I realize Hank is amazing. I love the guy. He signed a 7 year deal. But anyone without blinders on should know that we are lucky if we get elite play out of him for 5 of those years, let alone 7.

By the time this kid is ready, Hank will likely be on his last legs. We can hope he is not, but the reality is, he probably will be, especially with his style of play and how many games he has played since coming here.

This is a very good pick. We have no goalies in the system. This isn't a wolfpack move, this is a move that could potentially help this franchise transition from Henrik to another great goalie.

Picks in this draft after the top 10 were basically a crap shoot. By the time 59 came around, it certainly was. From what I've read, this looks to be a smart pick for a guy who has shown a ton of promise and has an extremely high ceiling.

 

[broadwayblue]

Wow, can't believe the complaints in here. Goalies take a while to develop. Look at Lundqvist, his career started in the NHL at 24. Talbot is turning 27 next month. Quick wasn't a starter on the Kings until he was 23.

Realistically, if we assume this kid takes a standard amount of time to develop as a goalie, he is at the very least 4-5 years away (that would put him at 22-23). Hank is going to be 37 by then.

I realize Hank is amazing. I love the guy. He signed a 7 year deal. But anyone without blinders on should know that we are lucky if we get elite play out of him for 5 of those years, let alone 7.

By the time this kid is ready, Hank will likely be on his last legs. We can hope he is not, but the reality is, he probably will be, especially with his style of play and how many games he has played since coming here.

This is a very good pick. We have no goalies in the system. This isn't a wolfpack move, this is a move that could potentially help this franchise transition from Henrik to another great goalie.

Picks in this draft after the top 10 were basically a crap shoot. By the time 59 came around, it certainly was. From what I've read, this looks to be a smart pick for a guy who has shown a ton of promise and has an extremely high ceiling.

Well said.

 

[nyr2k2]

Wow, can't believe the complaints in here. Goalies take a while to develop. Look at Lundqvist, his career started in the NHL at 24. Talbot is turning 27 next month. Quick wasn't a starter on the Kings until he was 23.

Realistically, if we assume this kid takes a standard amount of time to develop as a goalie, he is at the very least 4-5 years away (that would put him at 22-23). Hank is going to be 37 by then.

I realize Hank is amazing. I love the guy. He signed a 7 year deal. But anyone without blinders on should know that we are lucky if we get elite play out of him for 5 of those years, let alone 7.

By the time this kid is ready, Hank will likely be on his last legs. We can hope he is not, but the reality is, he probably will be, especially with his style of play and how many games he has played since coming here.

This is a very good pick. We have no goalies in the system. This isn't a wolfpack move, this is a move that could potentially help this franchise transition from Henrik to another great goalie.

Picks in this draft after the top 10 were basically a crap shoot. By the time 59 came around, it certainly was. From what I've read, this looks to be a smart pick for a guy who has shown a ton of promise and has an extremely high ceiling.

Well said.

When your first pick is at 59, you shouldn't be focusing on current needs, or even needs in the next few years. The guys you're going to pick will almost certainly have no impact in that time frame, regardless of their position. You pick the best guy on your board. On top of being a good value at this spot, it's a position of organizational need--and hell, by the time the guy is ready, it may be a current need!

 

[AHB*]

Well said.

When your first pick is at 59, you shouldn't be focusing on current needs, or even needs in the next few years. The guys you're going to pick will almost certainly have no impact in that time frame, regardless of their position. You pick the best guy on your board. And on top of being a good value at this spot, it's a position of organizational need--and hell, by the time the guy is ready, it may be a current need!

We all want a guy who can contribute on an ELC next year, but that's not realistic, especially in the later picks.

At that point, anyone who can contribute soon is way off the board. I like the fact we take guys that project years out, because it means they have higher end potential, usually.

Hags is a perfect example. Let this kid take his time, don't rush him and hopefully in 5-7 years we are having a debate about whether he should be starting over Hank.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

What makes a player interesting to you, and is being interesting an important thing?

Again, if you have the best in the game, signed for a long time, how is using your first pick - whenever it is - a smart move towards restocking?

The system has been thought of as one of, if not the weakest. I didn't read the article surrounding this assessment, but I will guess that it wasn't a lack of goalie depth that made this assessment so negative.

Now, when you add another goalie to the same draft, it only makes it seem comical.

The tea leaves of this draft certainly are pointing to Talbot being moved sometime next season, though.

You do know that Talbot is a UFA, correct?

 

[Hunter Gathers]

Well said.

When your first pick is at 59, you shouldn't be focusing on current needs, or even needs in the next few years. The guys you're going to pick will almost certainly have no impact in that time frame, regardless of their position. You pick the best guy on your board. On top of being a good value at this spot, it's a position of organizational need--and hell, by the time the guy is ready, it may be a current need!

Agreed. I really have to roll my eyes at he lack of understanding why we would pick a goalie. It's comical.

 

[Bluenote13]

I'm sorry, but a team with Lundqvist and really not a whole lot of talented forward/defense prospects on the way should NOT be taking a goalie when they are trading 1st and 2nd rounders every year.

I live by BPA, but not when it comes to goalies. Henrik's backups have been fine, even better than most backups, finding goalies has rarely been this organizations problem, they practically fall in our lap. But Centers, RH dmen we just have no room for it seems

Its clear the MO of this organization is to sign scorers at forward and defense. They use the draft to fill in niche positions like the MciLrath pick, forget scoring, they'll sign someone who did that 5 years ago in their prime.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

Its clear the MO of this organization is to sign scorers at forward and defense. They use the draft to fill in niche positions like the MciLrath pick, forget scoring, they'll sign someone who did that 5 years ago in their prime.

So Duclair, Buchnevich, and Tambo are all niche position players? Interesting. I thought those guys were scorers / offensive guys.

 

[Ghost of jas]

Agreed. I really have to roll my eyes at he lack of understanding why we would pick a goalie. It's comical.

If Clark and company believe Halverson is the best value at that spot, so be it, I always prefer value over need. I do not subscribe to the idea that you draft to fill needs. The majority of the players drafted by an organization do not end up playing for that organization . I just want as many players that can develop into valuable assets. Again, I recognize that the perception of the value of goalies has changed in recent history. But, I still maintain that goalies do not hold as much value as skaters, which is why I prefer spending picks after the 3rd round on goalies. Given that this organization has spent a 1st and 2nd round pick on goalies that have respectively become a perennial backup and a washout, within the past decade, while the current goaltending team consists of a 7th round pick and a college UFA, I think there is veritable that this franchise is better off not spending higher draft picks on goalies. And, again, I like the pick of the Russian goalie in the fourth round.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

If Clark and company believe Halverson is the best value at that spot, so be it, I always prefer value over need. I do not subscribe to the idea that you draft to fill needs. The majority of the players drafted by an organization do not end up playing for that organization . I just want as many players that can develop into valuable assets. Again, I recognize that the perception of the value of goalies has changed in recent history. But, I still maintain that goalies do not hold as much value as skaters, which is why I prefer spending picks after the 3rd round on goalies. Given that this organization has spent a 1st and 2nd round pick on goalies that have respectively become a perennial backup and a washout, within the past decade, while the current goaltending team consists of a 7th round pick and a college UFA, I think there is veritable that this franchise is better off not spending higher draft picks on goalies. And, again, I like the pick of the Russian goalie in the fourth round.

I am fairly sure that they draft for a mix. If you have 5 guys who you value pretty much equally, you'll end up going for need.

There wasn't much in the second worth taking over this kid. The main guy I would have liked is Glover.

It's a pretty mediocre draft, anyway. They swung for the fences here and with the Q kid.

 

[Ghost of jas]

You're both right, in that what I presented is far from enough evidence to make any conclusions. Like jas said--what is the "hit" or "miss" percentage for goalies drafted early vs. late? I don't know, and I don't really feel like gathering that information. I would say that anecdotally, more goalies come off the board in the middle-to-late rounds than the top two or three, and therefore I'd guess more guys taken late bust than guys taken early.

Let me turn the tables, though--is there any evidence to support jas' claim that you're as likely to find a good goalie in round four or later as you are in the first three rounds? What I brought to the tables in terms of statistical assessment was lacking, but hey, at least I brought something!

Can I use the Rangers of the past fifteen years for my example?

 

[Bluenote13]

So Duclair, Buchnevich, and Tambo are all niche position players? Interesting. I thought those guys were scorers / offensive guys.

Outside that 3rd round, yes, we've done a hell of a job avoiding talented scorers.

And neither one of those guys will play Center at the NHL level. You miss out on Centers when you don't draft any.

No first rounder for 3 years straight years and we are taking goalies.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

Outside that 3rd round, yes, we've done a hell of a job avoiding talented scorers.

And neither one of those guys will play Center at the NHL level. You miss out on Centers when you don't draft any.

No first rounder for 3 years straight years and we are taking goalies.

We have drafted centers.

 

[Hire Sather]

Gotta say I agree with the goalie comments. The BEST case outcome is this guy has a Talbot season for us in what, 4 years and then we have a good backup goalie for a couple years after that or trade him for maybe a 2nd rounder at best.

I'll take my chances with a skater.

 

[Machinehead]

I don't get signing Lundqvist to a 7 year deal and then using a 2nd on a goalie.

Clark says he protects to be a number 1. Yeah, that's nice, not here.

It could happen down the line, but it wouldn't have been my first pick in the draft.

 

[Bluenote13]

We have drafted centers.

Go ahead and list those beauties for us....

Gotta say I agree with the goalie comments. The BEST case outcome is this guy has a Talbot season for us in what, 4 years and then we have a good backup goalie for a couple years after that or trade him for maybe a 2nd rounder at best.

I'll take my chances with a skater.

Exactly, this guy will be traded for a pick in 5 years. GREAT !

 

[Hunter Gathers]

I don't get signing Lundqvist to a 7 year deal and then using a 2nd on a goalie.

Clark says he protects to be a number 1. Yeah, that's nice, not here.

In 5 years, he'll be 23. If he is good, you have him splitting time with Hank. Or you move him. Or Hank gets injured and has to retire. Who knows? The stupid thing is to not address it and just assume all will be well.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

Go ahead and list those beauties for us....

You just said we don't draft centers. I pointed out that you're wrong.

 

[Ghost of jas]

We have drafted centers.

This franchise has been horrid at drafting and developing centers for as far back as I can remember. Stepan and Savard are the best of the past 25 years. Anisimov is probably 3rd best and the book is still out on Miller, (as much as I like the kid.). It is just a blind spot they seem to have.

 

[Machinehead]

In 5 years, he'll be 23. If he is good, you have him splitting time with Hank. Or you move him. Or Hank gets injured and has to retire. Who knows? The stupid thing is to not address it and just assume all will be well.

Like I said, I get the need for a goalie, but it wouldn't have been my first pick.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

This franchise has been horrid at drafting and developing centers for as far back as I can remember. Stepan and Savard are the best of the past 25 years. Anisimov is probably 3rd best and the book is still out on Miller, (as much as I like the kid.). It is just a blind spot they seem to have.

Anisimov, Stepan, Savard, and Dubinsky are all pretty damn successful center picks

 

[Hunter Gathers]

Like I said, I get the need for a goalie, but it wouldn't have been my first pick.

I would agree with you if we passed on someone unbelievable for a goalie. We didn't.

 

[Bluenote13]

In 5 years, he'll be 23. If he is good, you have him splitting time with Hank. Or you move him. Or Hank gets injured and has to retire. Who knows? The stupid thing is to not address it and just assume all will be well.

The Devils goalie situation and drafting while Brodeur was there, look it up. You probably don't have to. It was a disgrace, they picked goalies in round one with the same diatribe you are spewing here about 'in 5 years....'. Yeah right, in 5 years this kid will probably be worth as much as Ari Ahonen and JP Damphousse.