Problem is, many of the individuals harping on the Korpikoski/Sanguinetti picks and trying to discredit management for them are not simultaneously recognizing & crediting management for selections like Lundqvist (7th round) and future Captain Ryan Callahan (4th round).
Confirmed with Link: Rangers trade Ethan Werek to Phoenix for Oscar Lindberg
- Thread starter silverfish
- Start date
-
Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
- Status
Problem is, many of the individuals harping on the Korpikoski/Sanguinetti picks and trying to discredit management for them are not simultaneously recognizing & crediting management for selections like Lundqvist (7th round) and future Captain Ryan Callahan (4th round).
we want cup
Registered User
I don't think this is a road you want to go down, because for every Henrik Lundqvist or Ryan Callahan (and we only have one of each), there is a Hugh Jessiman, Antoine Lafleur, etc. Fact is, we've made far more bad draft choices than good ones, and we've blown way more picks than many other teams, which is unacceptable.
HFsNumber1Heel
FKA Roo Returns...Still A Contrarian Apparently
I have to say this every two months and remind people that it's different regimes who have been drafting.
End of the Smith Era=Smith, Rockstrom, and some guy named Brodeur
Maloney and Renney had a big impact in many of the 02-05 picks.
Gordie, Gorton, Luchenko, Hedberg, and a little Graves have been the regime since 2006.
Del Z is far from a bust. Him and Carlson haven't had that much of a playoff impact for either team in their young careers. Maybe one day in the near future Del Z's PP ability helps to win a series; it sure would've against the Caps.
I'm a big fan of the work Gordie has done with finding Anisimov, Stepan, Kreider, Thomas, Horak, Hagelin, etc.
McLIrath we shall see.
Cherry was just a sad situation, rest in peace buddy.
The Rangers haven't been perfect in the draft but no team is and since 2004 the drafting went from a D- to about a B now. Maybe Krieder, Thomas, Grachev and a darkhorse like Yogan who had 3 points for the Whale after missing nearly all of the year and being unfairly put in his coach's doghouse move this up to a B+/A-.
End of the Smith Era=Smith, Rockstrom, and some guy named Brodeur
Maloney and Renney had a big impact in many of the 02-05 picks.
Gordie, Gorton, Luchenko, Hedberg, and a little Graves have been the regime since 2006.
Del Z is far from a bust. Him and Carlson haven't had that much of a playoff impact for either team in their young careers. Maybe one day in the near future Del Z's PP ability helps to win a series; it sure would've against the Caps.
I'm a big fan of the work Gordie has done with finding Anisimov, Stepan, Kreider, Thomas, Horak, Hagelin, etc.
McLIrath we shall see.
Cherry was just a sad situation, rest in peace buddy.
The Rangers haven't been perfect in the draft but no team is and since 2004 the drafting went from a D- to about a B now. Maybe Krieder, Thomas, Grachev and a darkhorse like Yogan who had 3 points for the Whale after missing nearly all of the year and being unfairly put in his coach's doghouse move this up to a B+/A-.
Define "more" in this context with the understanding that many drafted players do not turn into NHL players.... If "more" in your context is based on the number of players that don't make it to the NHL, I would take issue with that because it does not take into account the very nature of the draft process.
- Sep 17, 2007
- 24,918
- 22,827
Well, Lundqvist wasn't really a Sather pick, but I'm not going to argue it either way. I really don't understand why people bring up every little move when discussing management and the direction of this team. Even the most incompetent GM is going to get some stuff right, and even the best GM is going to be wrong often. It's the nature of the business.
A GM can't be judged on the basis of a single move. Yeah, Sather has made some really bad ones. And he's made some really good ones. But the bottom line is, has he built a winning team? To this point, the answer is an emphatic NO. That's the only criteria on which I judge him. Everything else is just pissing in the wind.
In that context, is the reason we haven't built a winning team because of our drafting or our UFA signings? I'd argue it's the latter... In that case, the brunt of the criticism should be related to the UFA signings and not our drafting, which I feel has been above average.
we want cup
Registered User
Of course most drafted players don't make it into the NHL, but it seems pretty reasonable to say we've done a worse job of producing quality NHL players over the last 10 years than many other teams. We've gotten a lot less value out of our 1st/2nd rounders, and we haven't found as many mid to late round gems as other teams have, either.
I try not to go back 10 years... I mostly focus on what this team has done since the lockout. Some of our unfavorable picks were credited to individuals no longer with the organization (Tom Renney said Jessiman was all him, and I believe Korpikoski was a player Maloney advocated). Cherepanov would have changed a lot about how our drafting is perceived.
What teams are we using as a measuring stick in terms of our drafting success? What teams in comparable draft positions as the Rangers have done much better? I think context is important. Hockeysfuture, take it for what it's worth, has been ranking our organization's draft pool within the top 10 of the league the last couple years... Sure we don't draft elite talent, but we also don't ever have Top 5-7 overall picks. I'm not saying our drafting has been excellent, but I think it's been good. UFA signings have been the achilles heal of this organization post-lockout, not our drafting IMHO.
NikC
Registered User
- Oct 7, 2008
- 5,202
- 1,156
i agree with the above to a degree. We passed on Chara and Pronger at the time, and pursued Redden, which was a disaster considering his declining play his last years in Ottawa.
It was disappointing when the Rangers didn't resign Nylander, but Sather brought in two of the best centers available at the time in Drury and Gomez. Neither of which were half bad their first years as rangers. Not much of a support cast going forward.
Whether or not you agree with that is not important. Right now imo, it's really crucial that we bring in the "right" players. Richards is one of those players. Not sure what UFAs after him would be worth pursuing, but another trade for a quality scorer is crucial.
It was disappointing when the Rangers didn't resign Nylander, but Sather brought in two of the best centers available at the time in Drury and Gomez. Neither of which were half bad their first years as rangers. Not much of a support cast going forward.
Whether or not you agree with that is not important. Right now imo, it's really crucial that we bring in the "right" players. Richards is one of those players. Not sure what UFAs after him would be worth pursuing, but another trade for a quality scorer is crucial.
we want cup
Registered User
Really?
Can't have it both ways, big guy.
Well what's the one thing all of those mistakes have in common? Glen Sather and the New York Rangers. If we hadn't been so horrendous at drafting for so long the loss of Cherepanov wouldn't have destroyed us as much as it did. When you're relying on a single 18/19 year old to vindicate years of bad drafting, it isn't gonna work out too often.
I don't care about position. How many teams have failed to draft a single star offensive player over the course of this past decade? I don't care how they do it. Trade up, trade down for more picks to increase the number of chances, however it happens. Produce good players. If they think the only way to do that through the draft is to suck, then it's their fault for not being willing to endure major suckage for a few years. We wouldn't need to rely on UFA signings if we could produce talent in the draft.
Big guy? It goes both ways in case you aren't paying attention. There's been strengths and weaknesses to our drafting, as there are with every team. If you only want to see the negative, then that's your misguided view.
Destroyed us? Pretty strong words... How exactly did his loss destroy the team? Bad UFA signings hurt the team
Well there's your problem right there.
You tell me. So if you can tell me a bunch of team that drafted exactly 1 star player in that time, and we concede Cherepanov may have made that potential, what say you now? Looks like we made the right selection, but forces outside our control, resulted in no reward for the organization.... How many of the players that we have drafted over the "past decade" have completely finished developing, let alone the ones who have yet to make it to the professional hockey ranks yet.
There's really two parts to the draft though. There's the first round, where over 60% of players become career NHL players, and then there's the rest. Less than 25% of second round picks become career NHL players, and past that, we're talking low single digits.
I don't think it's unreasonable to have a discussion about a team's drafting and limit it to round one. That's not to say that management doesn't deserve credit for picks outside of round one, rather that it could/should be a separate discussion.
Well, of our first round picks from the past thirteen years, we have:
Manny Malhotra
Pavel Brendl
Jamie Lundmark
Dan Blackburn
Hugh Jessiman
Al Montoya
Lauri Korpikoski
Marc Staal
Bob Sanguinetti
Alexei Cherepanov
----------
Michael Del Zotto
Chris Kreider
Dylan McIlrath
I'm going 13 years, as we'll exclude the past three classes, since it's impossible to make any type of reasonable conclusions as to what they'll become. So for the ten years that we're counting, we've drafted one impact player. ONE. That's incomprehensibly bad. Worst in the NHL? I don't know, as I'm not fully aware of ever other team's drafts. I can't under any circumstances though believe that one in ten is anything other than well below average.
We don't even have to talk about star players....just impact players. We're left with Marc Staal, a second/third line tweener in Korpikoski, a third line checking center in Malhotra, and a bunch of crap. It's not good. Not even passable.
Last edited:
BlueshirtBlitz
Foolish Samurai
Our round one drafting has been sub-par to average at best.
Our round 2+ drafting has been superb, at least IMO.
Also i'm in the camp that Cherepanov would've been a first liner. but oh well.
Our round 2+ drafting has been superb, at least IMO.
Also i'm in the camp that Cherepanov would've been a first liner. but oh well.
RangerFan10
Registered User
That's every team though. Find me one team that doesn't have a Jessiman or Lafleur for every Lundqvist or Callahan.
Most people on this board, for some reason, have no perspective or understanding of just how hit or miss the NHL draft really is.
RangerFan10
Registered User
IMO Blackburn, Staal, Cherapanov, Del Zotto and Kreider are all great picks. Bad luck has made it feel like our drafting was worse than it's been considering Blackburn and Cherapanov both weren't in the system for long for the respective reasons. I have no doubt Cherapanov wouldn't have been a top 6 player, and you can't tell me Blackburn isn't a starter in this league somewhere if he doesn't hurt himself in the weight room.
I also don't think the Malholtra pick was terrible...he was mishandled pretty badly here, and to this day he's a very solid NHL player (hoping he can come back from his eye injury). Obviously you hope a pick that high is a top 6 forward/top 4 D/starting goalie, but it doesn't suck too bad if you get someone that's still an NHLer...it's usually boom or bust.
It's tough to say our round 2+ drafting has been "superb" when we've had guys that didn't even get ELC's like Lafleur int he higher rounds. I'd say round 3+ is more accurate.
TrollololBoyle
Registered User
Exactly, people here have no clue. People here think that they are always right and management is always wrong. The only thing people here are good at is making lame excuses.
A few pages back, I did a breakdown of our second round picks, how they've panned out, and how it compares to the NHL average. We're drafting at a 40% success rate in round two, compared to about 25% league-wide.
RangerFan10
Registered User
Well my time frame for my above stated opinions is strictly the past 6 years or so, post lock-out. That was a major turning point for this organization and I generally avoid dwelling on all the dark seasons of Rangers fandom. Post lockout time frame I have a favorable opinion of the Rangers drafting history.....
Lots of elements of the game can be viewed in different lights depending on your time frame of reference. For example, Brodeur and the Devils just flat out DOMINATED the Rangers for several years between the late 90's and early 2000's. 23 game (15-0-8) unbeaten streak against us, humiliating. But over the last 4-5 years the Rangers have fared significantly better against the Devils to the point where it's Lundqvist who has the impressive record against our rivals and not Brodeur. Looking at the Rangers/Devils rivalry leaves you with quite a different impression depending on whether you go back 5 years, or 13.... On that note, overall I'm pleased with the Rangers drafting over the last several years.... Beyond that, not so much. A large bulk of the fan base wasn't really even paying attention to who the Rangers drafted in those years because you never saw them play.
Nothing really positive about what happened with this organization after the '93-'94 season.
Last edited:
They aren't separate issues. We haven't drafted an offensive difference maker this decade, and that has forced us to overpay for crappy UFA players who are overrated as well as overpaid and underwhelming.
Obviously the crappy drafting doesn't excuse the UFA bombs but we essentially tried to fix our terrible 1st Round picks with terrible UFAs.
Either way, the results have been awful, though there is reason to hope. Though there was reason to hope 3 years ago with Korpikoski, Sanguinetti etc.
Haha, well, it's tough. The big issue with evaluating success rates between particular teams and against the league average is that we're talking extremely small sample sizes. Unfortunately, there's no way around it when we're focusing on a particular front office regime--as they're only around for a few years to two decades.
As we're talking statistics and sample sizes, it's important to consider the role that luck plays. What if Blackburn didn't hurt himself? I doubt then that we take Al Montoya. Maybe we take Smid, and then pass on Sanguinetti a few years later. What if Cherepanov is still alive? Luck absolutely plays a factor here.
With that said, it wasn't luck that turned Hugh Jessiman into a bust. It was a dumb pick at the time, one that looks even worse in retrospect. Was Montoya a smart pick? I'm not a fan of drafting goalies in the top ten. I didn't like the pick, and I think I've been proved right.
Bad luck coupled with a few questionable decisions has made our first round drafting into something of a horror show. It's a bit unfair to pin it all on poor decision making, I will grant that.
Yes, the NHL draft is hit or miss, that's fine. But my thought is that the 'hits' have to be much bigger than they've been for this team. Other teams find a John Carlson, Parise, Eberle, Getzlaf, Perry, Carter, Richards, Letang, Subban, Stastny, Giroux etc..
Yes, the Rangers have their hits in guys like Dubinsky, Callahan, Lundqvist, Stepan and Anisimov, but no one in that group outside of Lundqvist (and possibly Stepan) can really compare to anyone in the group above.
Every team in the league has their boneheaded picks and misses, but the draft picks that'll win you cups are the steals and gems you get mid-1st round/ 2nd round. Our hits haven't come close to that as of yet and that's the issue I have. In my opinion outside of the 1st round we've done well, but not great.
NYR Viper
Registered User
The Rangers have been building from the back-end out. That much should be obvious. Staal, McIlrath, MDZ, Sanguinetti
Kreider and Cheraponov have been the only forwards taken in the 1st round in the past 6 years. Cheraponov would have been elite. Kreider has that potential.
Anisimov was the 2nd rounder the year Sanguinetti was drafted. He is going to be a good 2nd line center in the NHL for a LONG time.
Sauer was the 2nd rounder the year of Staal. He has solidified himself, at the very least, as a NHL defenseman.
Lafleur was the 2nd rounder the year Cheraponov was a 1st rounder. He was a total bust. It happens.
Werek was the 2nd rounder when Kreider was selected. He was just dealt for another 2nd round pick in Lindberg, too early to tell.
Stepan was the 2nd rounder when MDZ was selected. He has solidified himself as, at the very least, a 3rd line center at the NHL at age 20-21.
Thomas was last years 2nd rounder, the year McIlrath was selected. He looks like a steal but it is too early to tell.
Someone, please tell me how, as a whole, the last 7 years of drafting have gone for the Rangers by just looking at the first 2 rounds:
Staal + Sauer
Sanguinetti + Anisimov
Cheraponov + Lafleur
MDZ + Stepan
Kreider + Werek(Lindberg)
McIlrath + Thomas
That is 4 NHL regulars, already, out of those 10 players. Obviously the Cheraponov draft hurt. But the Ranger drafting has been MUCH better.
Did you look at how this team was constructed in 2005-2006? The majority of the players had never played a single game for the Rangers prior to that season. We had a ton of stop-gap players, young and old. A bigger contributing factor to making those 'UFA bombs' was the lack of an established core of players. We had significant roster turnover for a handful of years of players who had helped carry the team. There was an urgency to remain competitive and not take a step back and Sather made some serious goofs. I'm not arguing the team has been well run for a decade or any lengthy period of time. All I'm saying is that our drafting the last several years has been good/above-average, that's my opinion.
offdacrossbar
misfit fanboy
Drafting 17 and 18 yr old kids after the first 5 picks in any draft is a crap shoot. Once the blue chippers come off, things get sketchy.
Our first round results have been weak but all teams have suffered the same fate. Take a look at some of the names that you never heard from after draft day.
It ain't easy folks.
Our first round results have been weak but all teams have suffered the same fate. Take a look at some of the names that you never heard from after draft day.
It ain't easy folks.
- Status
