Confirmed Signing with Link: Vesey signs with the New York Rangers Part 2

[Beacon]

How does a team become "up and coming" in the NHL? It's not by having prospects. It's by having those prospects get to the NHL and do something.

Theoretically yes, but in reality, the phrase is used to describe every team that just drafted in the top-10 or so. Bad teams also have more spots for youth, so guys like Hrivik, Skjei, maybe Graves would've played for the bottom-feeders last year instead of waiting their turn in the minors where nobody knows their names. The bad teams then get to say, "look at all the youth we have, and not only that, but we even have a pair of top-10 picks from the last 2 drafts."

Then it turns out that some of their youth sucks, the other teams' quality youth catch up to their quality youth in the NHL, and half the picks from 4 to 10 become role players or less. End result is that the "up and coming" team is like Brazil: it's a country of the future and will always remain that way, meaning they always will hear how the future is bright, but the present remains terrible.

I assure you, having two teen prospects drafted at #5 and #7 is NOT better than having a 26-year-old center who averaged 61 points per 82 games over the last 3 seasons and another 50 point 23-year-old center. It just seems that way to fans who think "top-10" means future superstar, ignoring how the players drafted in the same spots in the past actually performed.

 

[Dogewow]

People try so hard to prove they are not overestimating him, they underestimate him. I read all the posts on Vesey and its like a competition between people on who estimates him less.

Hayes scored 45 points as a rookie and Vesey is a better prospect, so why is his career ceiling only 40 points? As a 23 year old, Kreider also scored 46 points and he was not viewed as a better prospect when he was in college than Vesey is now.

Why not Vesey? He can easily get 40-50 points as a rookie, 60-70 at his peak. Maybe he wont reach his ceiling, but thats his potential. Let's be very clear here: the odds of him being a top-6 guy in his prime are a hell of a lot better than the odds of him peaking as a role player.

I think 40ish points is within grasp, but he's just not that good.

I don't think people are "afraid to overrate him", I think some people recognize that the media attention went overboard, and that he's a solid prospect, and nothing more. I would be shocked if he got 60 or more points. He's competing with other wingers and will likely spend time on the third line.

 

[Beacon]

I think 40ish points is within grasp, but he's just not that good.

I don't think people are "afraid to overrate him", I think some people recognize that the media attention went overboard, and that he's a solid prospect, and nothing more. I would be shocked if he got 60 or more points. He's competing with other wingers and will likely spend time on the third line.

I think having a similar offensive output as Hayes did in the rookie year (45 points) is very plausible and 40-45 points would be my ballpark of what would be a good estimate. He won't score 60 in his rookie season, but nothing says he can't do that in his prime. Nothing also says he will do it, but it's not out of his ceiling. I don't see how Vesey is a worse prospect at this stage than Hayes or Kreider.

 

[Ola]

Considering the Rangers haven't had a 1st rd pick in like 4 drafts, snagging Hayes 2 years ago and now Vesey is actually quite brilliant.....albeit lucky to recoup quality young, highly touted guys that they failed to be able to draft. So I get that anyone who is upset their team didn't land Vesey is displaying sour grapes.....but lets not kid ourselves, any team who was told Vesey had an interest in playing there.....foamed at the mouth at the prospect of signing him. At the very least, the Rangers got a free, highly touted prospect......any gm that could do it, would show interest or they would simply be bad at their job.

Yeah, and I also got to add, I think its very refreshing that Vesey didn't go to one of those clown organizations with no fans that can really tank and throw away many seasons to get top talent and then go for it during a few years before they stop competing against.

Vesey wanted the real stuff.

 

[Ola]

No one is arguing that the Rangers farm system is amazing. What we're saying is that they have better prospects than what people are giving credit for.

I wouldn't care about it.

In rankings, quantity beats quality but in the real world quality always beat quantity. There are exceptions, but in general a team really gets 1-2 difference makers from their farm. The player that made it and lasted 2-3 years or the sexy looking kid that came close but not close enough will not impact an organization much if at all. Its the same with the decent to good kid that made it but just had the wrong attitude or what not.

I think a good example of what I mean is how NJDs farm functioned in the late 90's and early 00's. Nobody where drooling because they drafted Elias or signed Madden and so forth and so forth and so forth. But they get the infusion of new players onto their roster that they needed to stay competetive.

 

[SingnBluesOnBroadway]

because it doesn't address their needs. their money should be going to Dmen not another forward.

What money? The less than 1M they gave Vesey? What D man was going to fill a need at that price?

The Rangers need to add young talent. Regardless of what he plays. They also signed John Gilmour, a defenseman.

 

[Der Jaeger]

Theoretically yes, but in reality, the phrase is used to describe every team that just drafted in the top-10 or so. Bad teams also have more spots for youth, so guys like Hrivik, Skjei, maybe Graves would've played for the bottom-feeders last year instead of waiting their turn in the minors where nobody knows their names. The bad teams then get to say, "look at all the youth we have, and not only that, but we even have a pair of top-10 picks from the last 2 drafts."

Then it turns out that some of their youth sucks, the other teams' quality youth catch up to their quality youth in the NHL, and half the picks from 4 to 10 become role players or less. End result is that the "up and coming" team is like Brazil: it's a country of the future and will always remain that way, meaning they always will hear how the future is bright, but the present remains terrible.

I assure you, having two teen prospects drafted at #5 and #7 is NOT better than having a 26-year-old center who averaged 61 points per 82 games over the last 3 seasons and another 50 point 23-year-old center. It just seems that way to fans who think "top-10" means future superstar, ignoring how the players drafted in the same spots in the past actually performed.

You're reverse engineering the argument to support what the Rangers have done over the past decade. Doesn't work like that. Teams strike out everywhere in the draft. The idea that a team that drafts picks in the lottery is going to get the same outcome eventually as a playoff drafting team is bunk.

The Rangers' team building method isn't the only way. You say it's not as desirable to get lottery picks? I wonder how Chicago, Pittsburgh, and LA feel about that. The core of their teams were built at the top of the draft: Toews, Kane, Crosby, Malkin, Staal, Fleury, Kopitar, Doughty. All top ten picks, except for Kopitar (11th overall).

Being bad, drafting high quality players in the top ten to build the core of your team, and then contending is exactly how teams rebuilt and won 7 of the last 8 Stanley Cups. Lots of other contenders do it too. Tampa doesn't regret being bad and taking a shot on "teenagers" like Stamkos and Hedman, do they?

Which is exactly why Buffalo sold off their team starting in 2012. That directly led to having three centers (Eichel, Reinhart, and picks that eventually became O'Reilly) and a #1D (Ristolainen). You tank to draft the core of your team. Buffalo did it and now has their three high picks producing at the NHL level. Toronto is doing it. It works.

The Rangers' method is just the way they do it... but I'd argue that even the Rangers don't live by that method. Montoya (6), Blackburn 10), and Malhotra (8) were top ten picks (selected by picks the Rangers got by virtue of their record, not traded for). So even the Rangers have down years. They just missed on picks.

Detroit is actually closer to what you think the Rangers are than the Rangers. But even the Red Wings had to suck to draft their captain, Steve Yzerman, 3rd overall.

The Rangers are doing well with what they are doing. It's not the only way. The "suck, then draft talented teenagers in the top ten method" worked for 7 of the last 8 teams that lifted the Cup.

 

[Levitate]

I think 40ish points is within grasp, but he's just not that good.

I don't think people are "afraid to overrate him", I think some people recognize that the media attention went overboard, and that he's a solid prospect, and nothing more. I would be shocked if he got 60 or more points. He's competing with other wingers and will likely spend time on the third line.

I think having a similar offensive output as Hayes did in the rookie year (45 points) is very plausible and 40-45 points would be my ballpark of what would be a good estimate. He won't score 60 in his rookie season, but nothing says he can't do that in his prime. Nothing also says he will do it, but it's not out of his ceiling. I don't see how Vesey is a worse prospect at this stage than Hayes or Kreider.

First, yeah Vesey is not scoring 60 points this season. Maybe not ever, but if he becomes a 50 point guy that's quite good 2nd line production.

Second, competing with other wingers and 3rd line icetime isn't really that big of a deal...Hayes (who most people thought wasn't terribly good either, or at least initially projected lower than Vesey) spent his rookie season on the third line and put up 45 points.

The Rangers roll their lines fairly evenly at even strength and the 3rd line is another scoring line, not a low minute checking line. It generally gets softer minutes if possible which can help a rookie forward like Vesey ease in and score some points. He'd also likely be playing with Hayes on that line, who is a good puck distributor. Being on the 3rd line isn't a death sentence for offensive players anymore...lots of teams try to run most scoring lines these days rather than the 2 scoring lines, 1 checking line, and 1 useless fourth line to punch guys. That model is pretty outdated at this point but fans haven't quite wrapped their heads around that.

e: big thing for someone like Vesey in terms of icetime and points production will be whether he can push his way onto the power play. Most NHL scorers manage a good chunk of their points on the power play, it's not easy to score 50-60 points with no power play time

 

[Levitate]

Words

What he's really saying is basically that just stockpiling talent and draft picks doesn't make a team "up and coming", but it is something we've seen tossed around a whole lot, most recently with Edmonton for the past several years. People looked at their draft picks and said "with that talent, how can they not be up and coming and ready to make the playoffs and rise to the top of the league soon?"

And of course Edmonton mis-managed it away and some of their picks turned out to not be nearly as good as people thought they'd be, etc.

I think Buffalo has done a pretty decent job in recent years working to turn their team around and should be on the up and up, but they still finished 14 out of 16 in their conference and 23rd overall in the league. They still have work to do, it may be pre-mature to call them up and coming. I personally would probably view bubble playoff teams that obviously have talent that is still maturing and some easy moves to make to shore up deficiencies as really up and coming.

Toronto even moreso seems to be a case of "hey they drafted well recently according to my opinion and therefor have a lot of talent that will surely all develop into star players and be awesome soon so they have a really bright future!" when we're way too early in the game to see how it'll turn out. With good management one would hope that a lot of talent and picks will get them back into things but it's a ways off.

As for the Rangers, I don't think their "method" is the only way or the best way to do it, but it is kind of the only way to do it if you never have really bad years. They've done a pretty good job drafting and developing a core of the team that they've then tried to supplement with FA's and trades when necessary. It made them a contender for a few years and they're still overall a young team with a chance to re-open their window with 1 or 2 savvy moves.

 

[Der Jaeger]

What he's really saying is basically that just stockpiling talent and draft picks doesn't make a team "up and coming", but it is something we've seen tossed around a whole lot, most recently with Edmonton for the past several years. People looked at their draft picks and said "with that talent, how can they not be up and coming and ready to make the playoffs and rise to the top of the league soon?"

And of course Edmonton mis-managed it away and some of their picks turned out to not be nearly as good as people thought they'd be, etc.

I think Buffalo has done a pretty decent job in recent years working to turn their team around and should be on the up and up, but they still finished 14 out of 16 in their conference and 23rd overall in the league. They still have work to do, it may be pre-mature to call them up and coming. I personally would probably view bubble playoff teams that obviously have talent that is still maturing and some easy moves to make to shore up deficiencies as really up and coming.

Toronto even moreso seems to be a case of "hey they drafted well recently according to my opinion and therefor have a lot of talent that will surely all develop into star players and be awesome soon so they have a really bright future!" when we're way too early in the game to see how it'll turn out. With good management one would hope that a lot of talent and picks will get them back into things but it's a ways off.

As for the Rangers, I don't think their "method" is the only way or the best way to do it, but it is kind of the only way to do it if you never have really bad years. They've done a pretty good job drafting and developing a core of the team that they've then tried to supplement with FA's and trades when necessary. It made them a contender for a few years and they're still overall a young team with a chance to re-open their window with 1 or 2 savvy moves.

I'll address the Rangers first (last paragraph). Agreed. I do not think the NYC market would be supportive of a Sabres-style tank and being the worst team in the league for two straight seasons. It's a method they probably can't use.

Stockpiling picks and being "up-and-coming:" I also agree that stock piling picks doesn't necessarily make a team up and coming. Which team is stockpiling picks right now and isn't seen as up and coming?

Edmonton isn't stockpiling picks at all. They are just drafting high, and their picks come right in and play. And the last two, McDavid and Draisaitl, are NHL level players doing well. They aren't up and coming because of draft picks.

Buffalo isn't up and coming because of stockpiling either, though they've certainly had the most picks over the past 2-3 seasons. They're up and coming for the same reasons as Edmonton: they finished low enough to draft Eichel, Reinhart, and Ristolainen. And they are trading picks for NHL-level talent, like O'Reilly.

Teams like Florida and Tampa Bay are coming out of the stockpile period and doing pretty well, but only due to their picks panning out.

Quickly scanning teams that are stockpiling currently picks: Toronto and Buffalo. Buffalo's up-and-coming status has nothing to do with their future picks. Toronto isn't yet considered up and coming. They're about a year away from that if their picks pan out (Marner, Nylander, Matthews). All signs point to yes.

I don't see any teams stockpiling picks with bloated prospect pools that we're considering truly up and coming. The teams that tank to stockpile tend to see their return immediately.

 

[Levitate]

Well I did say talent AND picks, not just picks, but I didn't emphasize it a lot. I'd also say that Beacon's way of putting it is somewhat needlessly antagonistic.

I'm kinda waiting on Buffalo to show they've really put together a competitive team and not just a team of some potential and a couple of real good/star players. I think it could be coming but not there yet IMO.

 

[Beacon]

• Last year, McIlrath and Lindberg were introduced as rookies.
• The year before that, it was Miller, Hayes and Fast.
• One more year before that, Zuccarello, Kreider, Talbot became full-time Rangers.
• This year it will be Buchnevich, Vesey and Skjei.
• Next year, it's likely going to be Graves, Hrivik, maybe Nieves or Jensen.

The Rangers are adding prospects at a very good rate, and this year's group should be as good as any after McDonagh+Stepan+Sauer 6 years ago.

 

[Beacon]

You're reverse engineering the argument to support what the Rangers have done over the past decade. Doesn't work like that. Teams strike out everywhere in the draft. The idea that a team that drafts picks in the lottery is going to get the same outcome eventually as a playoff drafting team is bunk.

Where did I write that? Why would you put words in my mouth that I never said?

Obviously a #5 has a better chance than #45. But #5 has only a 50% chance of being a top-6 player whereas a #45 has less than 10% chance. This is where the problem comes in: you get a #5 and #35, you also acquire #25, #45 and #55 in a fire sale, and now you sit there thinking you have a monster future. You don't.

• #5 is just as likely to be a role player as a top-6 guy
• #25 is more likely never to play in the NHL than to be top-6, and most likely will be a role player
• #45 has a 20% chance to crack the NHL and about 8% to be top-6
• #55 is a bit worse than #45

So from this plethora of picks, from having this great farm, statistically, you're likely to wind up with one second liner and one third liner. If your team drafts worse than average (due to luck or skill), you may get nothing or a scrub NHLer. If your team is really good, maybe you'll get a solid but unspectacular first liner like Stepan (averaged 61 points per 82 games the last 3 season) plus a solid but unspectacular second liner like Kreider.

These are wonderful additions to already strong teams, but if you're a team that finished among the worst half a dozen in the NHL, adding Kreider+Fast (most likely outcome) or even Kreider+Stepan (above average outcome) won't make you a Cup contender, it may not even be good enough to put you in the playoffs.

In 2004 the Rangers had a firesale the resulted in #8, #19, 5 second round picks (one was traded to move up) and a bunch of prospects. The farm looked spectacular. Of all that bunch, they wound up with Dubinsky, Korpikoski (traded away for nothing), and backup goalie Montoya. Not exactly life changing additions. The only thing that put that team in the playoffs in the coming years were the additions of Lundqvist and Jagr, both of which were incredible strokes of luck.

You say it's not as desirable to get lottery picks?

No, it's obviously true that the higher the pick, the better the odds of pulling a good player. The difference is that if I have a 23-year-old Mika Zibanejad and you have an 18-year-old who was just drafted at #6, odds are I wind up with a better player when all is said and done because Zbad turned out better than most #6 overalls. But for now, you get to be up and coming since your farm includes a 6th overall draftee and the Rangers farm does not.

The exception to this rule are the first 2-3 picks of the draft, which are far more likely to produce stars than even the next few picks. Ovechkin, Crosby, Malkin, Fleury, Toews, Kane, Staal, Doughty, Bobby Ryan, Hedman, Tavares, Duchene, Hall, Seguin, McDavid, Eichel were all drafted in the top 3. But once you're out of the top 2/3 picks, you're more likely to get Al Montoya, Griffin Reinhart or Brett Connolly than Scheifele or Forsberg.

 

[Breakers]

• Last year, McIlrath and Lindberg were introduced as rookies.
• The year before that, it was Miller, Hayes and Fast.
• One more year before that, Zuccarello, Kreider, Talbot became full-time Rangers.
• This year it will be Buchnevich, Vesey and Skjei.
• Next year, it's likely going to be Graves, Hrivik, maybe Nieves or Jensen.

The Rangers are adding prospects at a very good rate, and this year's group should be as good as any after McDonagh+Stepan+Sauer 6 years ago.

Seriously?????

 

[Levitate]

Seriously?????

He means adding prospects to the team, as in graduating prospects, and yeah they are. They're not churning over the same roster with high priced vets added on, they're graduating prospects to the NHL who are making positive impacts.

 

[Beacon]

He means adding prospects to the team, as in graduating prospects, and yeah they are. They're not churning over the same roster with high priced vets added on, they're graduating prospects to the NHL who are making positive impacts.

Yeah, that was a typo. I meant, "The Rangers are adding rookies at a good rate."

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

Yeah, that was a typo. I meant, "The Rangers are adding rookies at a good rate."

Injecting rookies into the line-up every year. I love it. And it's not just 4th line plugs, backup goalies and 3rd pair D-men either

 

[Menzinger]

People are really overrating how much stock the kid and his agent but in team's prospect pools when making the decision.

He gets to be a multi millionaire that lives in Manhattan- I doubt anything else even mattered for a second

 

[Tawnos]

Up and coming should be any young team who has made important strides towards competitiveness. The Sabres made a 27 point improvement last season and they're young. That's after two seasons in the 50s in points. That's up-and-coming.

The Oilers, on the other hand, had an 8 point improvement last year, but their 70 points on represents a 3 point improvement over the season before last. To me, that's stuck in neutral. They could easily change that this year, of course.

In 14-15, the Panthers saw an improvement of 25 points. That's after 2 years as a bottom 2 team in the league. They were up-and-coming in 14-15 and solidified themselves in 15-16 by finishing 1st in the division.

Meanwhile, the Maple Leafs had 68 and 69 points in the last two years. If they see a major improvement, even if it's not Sabres/Panthers-sized, then I'll consider them up-and-coming.

Sometimes, up-and-coming teams fizzle out for one reason or another, as seems to be happening in Columbus.

 

[Tawnos]

He means adding prospects to the team, as in graduating prospects, and yeah they are. They're not churning over the same roster with high priced vets added on, they're graduating prospects to the NHL who are making positive impacts.

The Rangers have been good at it for over a decade now. The problem is, none of their prospects ever seem to be high-level offensive forwards. The best we get are guys like Stepan and Dubinsky. While they're nice, I think it colors the discussion a little bit.

Maybe Buchnevich is going to change all that. There's always hope!

 

[Levitate]

Yup, they haven't really "lucked" into a late round star forward

 

[Brock Radunske]

You're reverse engineering the argument to support what the Rangers have done over the past decade. Doesn't work like that. Teams strike out everywhere in the draft. The idea that a team that drafts picks in the lottery is going to get the same outcome eventually as a playoff drafting team is bunk.

The Rangers' team building method isn't the only way. You say it's not as desirable to get lottery picks? I wonder how Chicago, Pittsburgh, and LA feel about that. The core of their teams were built at the top of the draft: Toews, Kane, Crosby, Malkin, Staal, Fleury, Kopitar, Doughty. All top ten picks, except for Kopitar (11th overall).

Being bad, drafting high quality players in the top ten to build the core of your team, and then contending is exactly how teams rebuilt and won 7 of the last 8 Stanley Cups. Lots of other contenders do it too. Tampa doesn't regret being bad and taking a shot on "teenagers" like Stamkos and Hedman, do they?

Which is exactly why Buffalo sold off their team starting in 2012. That directly led to having three centers (Eichel, Reinhart, and picks that eventually became O'Reilly) and a #1D (Ristolainen). You tank to draft the core of your team. Buffalo did it and now has their three high picks producing at the NHL level. Toronto is doing it. It works.

The Rangers' method is just the way they do it... but I'd argue that even the Rangers don't live by that method. Montoya (6), Blackburn 10), and Malhotra (8) were top ten picks (selected by picks the Rangers got by virtue of their record, not traded for). So even the Rangers have down years. They just missed on picks.

Detroit is actually closer to what you think the Rangers are than the Rangers. But even the Red Wings had to suck to draft their captain, Steve Yzerman, 3rd overall.

The Rangers are doing well with what they are doing. It's not the only way. The "suck, then draft talented teenagers in the top ten method" worked for 7 of the last 8 teams that lifted the Cup.

Heads up! This guy is dropping some truth bombs up in here!

 

[Lindberg Cheese]

Heads up! This guy is dropping some truth bombs up in here!

Maybe but being bad for a long time sucks major donkey you know what

 

[Der Jaeger]

Well I did say talent AND picks, not just picks, but I didn't emphasize it a lot. I'd also say that Beacon's way of putting it is somewhat needlessly antagonistic.

I'm kinda waiting on Buffalo to show they've really put together a competitive team and not just a team of some potential and a couple of real good/star players. I think it could be coming but not there yet IMO.

27 point improvement last season. Last 41 games they played at a 94 point pace. The core players are on the team: Eichel, Reinhart, O'Reilly, and Ristolainen. Plenty of complementary players and most are still young: Girgensons, Larsson, Kulikov, Bogosian, McCabe, Foligno, and then Okposo in his prime years. The pipeline is still going with Nylander, Guhle, Fasching, Petersen, and Bailey.

They'll move Kane at some point and probably try to trade Vegas some picks to take Moulson. I think they contend for a playoff spot this season, even if it's only 8th.

 

[Der Jaeger]

Where did I write that? Why would you put words in my mouth that I never said?

Obviously a #5 has a better chance than #45. But #5 has only a 50% chance of being a top-6 player whereas a #45 has less than 10% chance. This is where the problem comes in: you get a #5 and #35, you also acquire #25, #45 and #55 in a fire sale, and now you sit there thinking you have a monster future. You don't.

• #5 is just as likely to be a role player as a top-6 guy
• #25 is more likely never to play in the NHL than to be top-6, and most likely will be a role player
• #45 has a 20% chance to crack the NHL and about 8% to be top-6
• #55 is a bit worse than #45

Are you guessing on this, or do you have anything to back these numbers up? Let me lay out how this really goes for a tanking team, as opposed to speculation:

EDIT: changed the way info was presented, up the the 55th selection:

2012:
12: Grigorenko (traded for O'Reilly)
14: Girgensons (top 6 forward, played with Eichel at the end of the season)
44: Jake McCabe (top 4 defenseman)

2013:
8: Ristolainen (top pairing defenseman on the Sabres)
16: Zadarov (traded for O'Reilly)
35: Compher (traded for O'Reilly)
38: Hurley (still at Notre Dame)
52: Bailey (20 goal scorer in his first season in the AHL, #2 Sabres prospect)

2014:
2: Reinhart (20 goal scorer as a rookie last season)
31: Lemieux (traded for Kane and Bogosian)
44: Eric Cornel (upcoming AHL rookie season)
49: Vaclav Karabacek (upcoming AHL rookie season)

2015:
2: Eichel (20 goal scorer as a rookie last season)
51: Brendon Guhle (almost made the Sabres as an 18 year old)

I won't include 2016, but Alex Nylander (8) and Rasmus Ashland (33) have lots of potential.

End up with three top 6 centers, a number one defenseman, and a still flowing pipeline. Most of the Sabres picks are beating the odds you posted. By a lot.