Draft What Grade Would You Give Our 2020 Draft?

[Edge]

Just realized that at some point in the last couple years I've transitioned from hating the idea of trading up, to being excited when we do and trusting that our guys are going to nail their late first round picks.

One thing I will say for this front office group --- whether one agrees with their assessments or not, they have a very clear idea of what they're looking for, what they value, and pundit perception be damned.

They're not afraid to be aggressive to get their guys, and they tend to value quality over quantity whenever possible. There's also a tendency to look for guys who are on the same path as more heralded prospects, albeit not as far along or quite as developed.

In this draft they landed three players in their top 30 (1, 12, and 30), and a total of 6 guys in their top 100. They knew who they were looking for, and they went out and got them.

 

[Kakko Schmakko]

One thing I will say for this front office group --- whether one agrees with their assessments or not, they have a very clear idea of what they're looking for, what they value, and pundit perception be damned.

They're not afraid to be aggressive to get their guys, and they tend to value quality over quantity whenever possible. There's also a tendency to look for guys who are on the same path as more heralded prospects, albeit not as far along or quite as developed.

In this draft they landed three players in their top 30 (1, 12, and 30), and a total of 6 guys in their top 100. They knew who they were looking for, and they went out and got them.

they kind of flip flop a lot on their draft strategy/philosophy. First they decide of crap we are soft, need to draft muscle, then they are like damn too many penalties and suspensions lets draft all Europeans, then all college, then screw it we suck at drafting lets trade the picks, then oh crap our pool is empty of talent lets trade for pics, then oh crap we got too many picks what are we going to do with them, let's trade some for some young players or trade up in the draft, then oh no not enough scorers lets get some offensive players, then speed kills let's not draft anybody that can't fly, then they realize speed without hockey sense doesn't really do much then they go after hockey sense, then they have Lias Andersson and they are like oh no we have to pay attention to speed and character, now we are back to being soft and needing physical players.

 

[Edge]

they kind of flip flop a lot on their draft strategy/philosophy. First they decide of crap we are soft, need to draft muscle, then they are like damn too many penalties and suspensions lets draft all Europeans, then all college, then screw it we suck at drafting lets trade the picks, then oh crap our pool is empty of talent lets trade for pics, then oh crap we got too many picks what are we going to do with them, let's trade some for some young players or trade up in the draft, then oh no not enough scorers lets get some offensive players, then speed kills let's not draft anybody that can't fly, then they realize speed without hockey sense doesn't really do much then they go after hockey sense, then they have Lias Andersson and they are like oh no we have to pay attention to speed and character, now we are back to being soft and needing physical players.

See now I don't think they flip flop at all. I think fan perception changes based on whether or not they like what they're seeing, or whether they are mis-interpreting what they're seeing.

I don't believe the moves fall into broader buckets so much as the Rangers operate within the confines of what is available and when it is available. Generally speaking, they tend to value awareness, coachability and projectibility and aren't necessarily going to value a player strictly on pure "skill" for lack of a better term. I don't think they suddenly realized they needed IQ or speed. None of their picks the last three years show any deviation on their thinking that skating is about more than winning foot race --- that especially holds true for players like Lafreniere, Kakko, etc. So I don't know where that's coming from.

If anything, I think the search for value is why you have periods where there are more left defense drafted, or more wings, or why the Rangers aren't going out of their way to draft a center just because they could use one.

The leagues are all about opportunity and who is available. This year our top three picks were from the CHL. But if the pieces fall differently, our top pick easily could've been from Finland again, our second pick from Sweden, and we could've opted for a prospect rather than the second round pick we used on Cuylle.

I will say that the Rangers are always on the lookout for the leagues that can provide solids ROIs and that might be under-valued. As the rest of the league has focused on the US program in recent years, you'll see the Rangers explore what league might be the next "value" league for them. To that point, I expect they'll be watching the Q very closely the next few years.

 

[AlternateSideParking]

They get an A+ but 99% of it for Lafreniere. Berard is fun to watch but he’s a long-term project.

I’d love to know who on the staff is driving the “big defenseman” requirement for the early rounds.

Winnipeg desperately needs help on defense and Cheveldayoff is a former big himself. Always loves physical dmen. They have elite firepower up front; far from a need.

They only had four picks, yet the Jets draft Perfetti, Torgersson, and a small puck rusher in Johannesson. They didn’t address their biggest need until their last pick — physical dman Tyrell Bauer. Feel like the Rangers in that same situation still draft Schneider and Cuylle at 10 & 40.

Perfetti-Torgersson-Johannesson or Lafreniere-Schneider-Cuylle?

Rangers are just weird drafters. Always have been. Not good. Not bad. Just weird. Tons of bad luck as well.

Just for fun, they should neglect scouting an entire class and have an MSG janitor go off the Central Scouting list with no goalies allowed. Guarantee history will be kinder to his draft than at least two dozen of the Rangers’ since the 1970s.

 

[True Blue]

See now I don't think they flip flop at all. I think fan perception changes based on whether or not they like what they're seeing, or whether they are mis-interpreting what they're seeing.

I think that more now than ever, the front office has a clear view of who they want and what roles they are looking for. Gorton has showed that when his guy is available, he will be aggressive. That was true for both Fox and Schneider. Gorton has had a vision all along, and it appears that JD shares it.

 

[Edge]

I think the Rangers, in general, generate a lot of interest for reporters/sites/etc. That can be a good thing, or a somewhat frustrating thing.

On the one hand, you know your team is going to get attention. On the other hand, you know your team is going to get attention.

At some some point there is a certain understanding that not everyone is going to love what the Rangers do.

If they reach for a guy, some people are going to love the gamble and some people are going to accuse them of thinking they're the smartest guys in the room.

If they take the guy who falls, or is in his range, then they didn't swing hard enough and it's wasted opportunity to add an undervalued talent.

They take the guys ranked first and ninth in North America by CSB, and they didn't do the homework of independent sites.

They take the guys ranked higher by independent sites, and you hear about how they don't understand asset value/managment.

If they lean heavy on North American leagues, it's seen as a rebuke of the European prospects. If they lean on European prospects, they need "North American types" in the system.

It's a hard balance to find from a fan appreciation standpoint.