With how stacked next year's draft is...do we tank for one more year or try to make the playoffs?

[chosen]

Careful what you wish for. A losing attitude quickly creeps into a locker room and can mess up the mental development of a young player.
Tanking is bull**** and you should never play to "not lose". Always play to win or stop being a professional and join a pick up game.

Look no further than the Oilers to see what a "oh let's stockpile as many franchise players through the draft as we can" mentality gets you.
Heck, even Buffalo is still reeling from their "losing mentality".

They are not hurting from a losing mentality. They are losing because of horrendous management in Edmonton and meh management in Buffalo. I think Buffalo will be improved next season, though.

 

[chosen]

Is it possible, sure. Is it likely, absolutely not.

The expectations being heaped on this kid are just absurd. I believe he's an elite talent, but players often take some time to assimilate. Whether it's the difference in style between European and US leagues. The cultural differences that come with living in a new country and city like New York, etc.

Expecting him to just step in and hit 70+ points is really setting an incredibly high bar. And these are the kinds of expectations that lead to (unnecessary) disappointment throughout the season when players inevitably under-perform.

The same goes for Kravtsov, who people are just penciling in as a top 6 producer.

It doesn't matter one iota if we suck wind next year. What does matter is that these kids develop, so that in 2-3 years, we an finally talk the way you're talking today with the expected reality that it can come to fruition.

All over the league there are players stepping into top 6 roles as rookies. The 2-3 year narrative is a thing of the past, partially because the game is now predicated on quickness and the salary cap.

The Rangers just haven't had the needed talent until now.

 

[Edge]

I really don't understand why this is such a difficult concept for some in here to grasp.

Look, I get the concern about a losing culture seeping in. I get the concern about falling into the constantly rebuilding trap.

But I don't see that reflecting in the actions of the last 12 months.

I don't see it reflected in the trades, in the drafting, in what I'm hearing, in what I'm seeing, in who we have, etc.

There are concerns that are legit. And then there are concerns that are part of HFBoard anxiety where people feed into each other's insecurities and we sound like a recovery group.

We discuss some of these things, ad nauseam, give a list of reasons where it doesn't apply, and still it persists. The anti-vaxxers have nothing on the persistence of certain topics on here.

 

[Maximus]

Is it possible, sure. Is it likely, absolutely not.

The expectations being heaped on this kid are just absurd. I believe he's an elite talent, but players often take some time to assimilate. Whether it's the difference in style between European and US leagues. The cultural differences that come with living in a new country and city like New York, etc.

Expecting him to just step in and hit 70+ points is really setting an incredibly high bar. And these are the kinds of expectations that lead to (unnecessary) disappointment throughout the season when players inevitably under-perform.

The same goes for Kravtsov, who people are just penciling in as a top 6 producer.

It doesn't matter one iota if we suck wind next year. What does matter is that these kids develop, so that in 2-3 years, we an finally talk the way you're talking today with the expected reality that it can come to fruition.

First off, why can't these kids develop as they would naturally develop and at same time have high expectations for them? I don't get where there is a disconnect. Also what does us according to you "sucking wind" have to do with how my expectations for Kakko are? I'm not following that one at all. I mean Kakko very easily could score 65+ points and win the Calder and yet the Rangers miss the playoffs and finish as a bottom 10 team.

Anyways, here's some stats for you to help put this according to you "absurd" expectations of mine that Kakko scoring 70 or so points and winning the Calder in perspective. Here's the last 8 Calder winners their stats, age at time and where they were picked: Lets go backwards


2018...Elias Pettersson...5th overall....20 years old....28-38-66 in 71 games
2017...Mathew Barzal....16th overall...20 years old....22-63-85 in 82 games
2016...Austin Matthews..1st overall....19 years old....40-29-69 in 82 games
2015...Artemi Panarin...Not Drafted...24 years old....30-47-77 in 82 games
2014...Aaron Ekblad......1st overall......18 years old....12-27-39 in 81 games
2013...Nate MacKinnon.1st overall......18 years old....24-39-63 in 82 games
2012..Gabriel Landeskag..2nd overall...19 years old...22-30-52 in 82 games
2011..Jeff Skinner...........7th overall......18 years old....31-32-63 in 82 games

What do most of these recent Calder winners have in common and let's leave Panarin out of this seeing he wasn't even drafted and by time he came to Chicago, he was already 24. So what do these guys have in common.?

What I see is they pretty much all were between 18-20 when they won the Calder. Kakko is 18 and will be 19 in February and so he fits in just fine here.

5 of the past 7 drafted Calder winners were all top 5 overall picks with 4 of those 5 being either #1 or #2 overall. Kakko was obviously the #2 overall and so that fits as well.

If we leave out Ekblad seeing he was a defenseman and their #'s are obviously heavily skewed when compared to forwards, the average season for the past 7 Calder winners who were forwards looked something like this:

28.1 goals....39.7 assists....67.8 points. Let's just go with 28-40-68 as the average season for a Calder winning forward. The numbers I projected out for Kakko were I believe in that 35-35-70 range and so looking at the data, it looks like my predictions isn't really so cuckoo kakko after all.

For me or anyone to expect Kakko to hit 70 or so points is not an incredibly high bar at all. I just showed you from the numbers it isn't. Now if I had said I anticipate Kakko to score in the 106 point range that Ovechkin did back in 2005, well yeah you'd have a point...that would be absurd expectations on my part. But I'm not doing that here at all...far cry from it.

A 65-70 point Calder Trophy winning season is what I'm anticipating from Kakko. History has shown that it's quite reasonable for a rookie to put up #'s like that especially one's with the pedigree of a #2 overall such as Kakko and I anticipate he will. That is not unreasonable expectations at all in my book. It might be time for you to bump up your 40 point expectations as those are the #'s that seem quite reasonable for Kravtsov. For Kakko...totally different animal here.

 

[Tawnos]

In 12 months we've managed to assemble more promising depth than Edmonton has assembled in a decade.

We've also managed to trade players that organization has lacked, acquire players that they couldn't, and visit with a free agent who wouldn't give them the time of day.

There's an awful lot that would have to fall of a cliff for us to be in the category, no matter how many times a percentage of this board closes its eyes, sticks its fingers in its ears, and yells, "Nah, nah, nah. Can't hear you."

If you looked at Edmonton in 2011, you'd likely feel just as optimistic. 8 first round picks in 5 drafts, including two 1st overall. 3 2nd rounders in 2010. Traded 32YO Visnovsky for 26YO Whitney in 2010.

I'm sorry, but thinking for sure we aren't Edmonton is comparing a positive future outlook to a negative hindsight evaluation. Yes, we can sign UFAs to bolster things... but I don't really think that makes as big of a difference as you're implying. And this is coming from someone who is very optimistic about our future.

 

[chosen]

I think the challenge is that Kakko and Kravtsov could have super seasons as rookies, and we've essentially replaced the production of Hayes and Zucc.

The other kids could have really good seasons as well, and if we trade Kreider, we're a wash there.

So where were we with Hayes and Zucc and Kreider last season? That's the approximate neighborhood some are predicting this season.

The challenge with a team in transition, and this is very much a team in transition, is that some things improve and other things slide. That will probably continue for a little bit until more of the younger players start hitting their stride. Right now I'm banking on their being some starts and stops.

But I'm in the same boat as @jas. If the team does better, it will be because multiple young talents are really hitting it out of the park. In which case, I'm over the moon.

Where I disagree with your analysis is that I believe the D will be much improved next season. Trouba replacing Pionk is an enormous upgrade. If one or more of the young Dmen make it, the D is further improved. I would be surprised if none of them break through.

I also expect Chytil to take a nice step forward. If he doesn't, I don't think he's the talent we have thought he might be.

I suspect goal scoring may go up and goals against might go down. That's a nice formula.

Yeah, it's only my best guess how it will play out, but everyone else is guessing, too.

 

[Edge]

If you looked at Edmonton in 2011, you'd likely feel just as optimistic. 8 first round picks in 5 drafts, including two 1st overall. 3 2nd rounders in 2010. Traded 32YO Visnovsky for 26YO Whitney in 2010.

I'm sorry, but thinking for sure we aren't Edmonton is comparing a positive future outlook to a negative hindsight evaluation. Yes, we can sign UFAs to bolster things... but I don't really think that makes as big of a difference as you're implying. And this is coming from someone who is very optimistic about our future.

I'm not even going to run down the financial, cultural, or management differences at work here. It's too easy and well-documented.

But let just say this, even Edmonton in 2011, would've loved to have been able to even consider the possibility of guys like Fox, Trouba, or Panarin, to say nothing about the ability to engage teams concerning deals that included names like Buch, Kreider, Hayes, McD, Zucc, adding additional firsts, etc.

So while we may comparing a optimistic future outlook to a negative hindsight evaluation, we're also comparing an apple to an orange.

 

[Edge]

Where I disagree with your analysis is that I believe the D will be much improved next season. Trouba replacing Pionk is an enormous upgrade. If one or more of the young Dmen make it, the D is further improved. I would be surprised if none of them break through.

I also expect Chytil to take a nice step forward. If he doesn't, I don't think he's the talent we have thought he might be.

I suspect goal scoring may go up and goals against might go down. That's a nice formula.

Yeah, it's only my best guess how it will play out, but everyone else is guessing, too.

I think parts of the D will be better. But that's where that mixed bag possibility comes in for me.

Trouba should be a big upgrade, I expect improvement from Skjei and ADA.

I expect a net decrease from Smith, Shatty, and Staal, and some hiccups from Hajek, Fox and any other rookies on the swuad.

I expect Georgiev to be better, I expect Lundqvist to be worse.

I expect the overall team to be better, but I don't know if we're going to be leading the league in loser points. And in a tight grouping, that difference can have a significant impact on the standings.

 

[GAGLine]

This remains to be seen. It's easy to be optimistic right now and it's been easy to be optimistic in the past for the Oilers.

The Oilers didn't accumulate assets the way we have. Their drafting has been bad and they've made many terrible trades. Check out their trade history:

History of NHL trades by the Edmonton Oilers - NHL Trade Tracker

They have brought in no impact players via trade. Perron was probably the best they acquired, but they flipped him a year and a half later to Pittsburgh for a 1st (16th overall), which they then traded to the Islanders (along with pick #33) for Griffin Reinhart and the Isles took Barzal.

Edmonton has been terribly managed for the last 12+ years and free agents don't want to go there. If you can't sign free agents, then you better draft and trade well. It's no wonder they have sucked for so long.

 

[Tawnos]

The Oilers didn't accumulate assets the way we have. Their drafting has been bad and they've made many terrible trades. Check out their trade history:

History of NHL trades by the Edmonton Oilers - NHL Trade Tracker

They have brought in no impact players via trade. Perron was probably the best they acquired, but they flipped him a year and a half later to Pittsburgh for a 1st (16th overall), which they then traded to the Islanders (along with pick #33) for Griffin Reinhart and the Isles took Barzal.

Edmonton has been terribly managed for the last 12+ years and free agents don't want to go there. If you can't sign free agents, then you better draft and trade well. It's no wonder they have sucked for so long.

Again, this is all in hindsight. Their drafting didn't look bad at the time.

 

[Leetch3]

anyone still worried about a 'loser mentality' creeping in, I would like to introduce you to David Quinn...

 

[Tawnos]

BTW, I'm not saying that I believe Edmonton is well-managed. They're not. But we can say that with the benefit of knowing how poorly their drafting went, combined with their lack of proactiveness in addressing their shortfalls.

 

[Ghost of jas]

First off, why can't these kids develop as they would naturally develop and at same time have high expectations for them? I don't get where there is a disconnect. Also what does us according to you "sucking wind" have to do with how my expectations for Kakko are? I'm not following that one at all. I mean Kakko very easily could score 65+ points and win the Calder and yet the Rangers miss the playoffs and finish as a bottom 10 team.

Anyways, here's some stats for you to help put this according to you "absurd" expectations of mine that Kakko scoring 70 or so points and winning the Calder in perspective. Here's the last 8 Calder winners their stats, age at time and where they were picked: Lets go backwards


2018...Elias Pettersson...5th overall....20 years old....28-38-66 in 71 games
2017...Mathew Barzal....16th overall...20 years old....22-63-85 in 82 games
2016...Austin Matthews..1st overall....19 years old....40-29-69 in 82 games
2015...Artemi Panarin...Not Drafted...24 years old....30-47-77 in 82 games
2014...Aaron Ekblad......1st overall......18 years old....12-27-39 in 81 games
2013...Nate MacKinnon.1st overall......18 years old....24-39-63 in 82 games
2012..Gabriel Landeskag..2nd overall...19 years old...22-30-52 in 82 games
2011..Jeff Skinner...........7th overall......18 years old....31-32-63 in 82 games

What do most of these recent Calder winners have in common and let's leave Panarin out of this seeing he wasn't even drafted and by time he came to Chicago, he was already 24. So what do these guys have in common.?

What I see is they pretty much all were between 18-20 when they won the Calder. Kakko is 18 and will be 19 in February and so he fits in just fine here.

5 of the past 7 drafted Calder winners were all top 5 overall picks with 4 of those 5 being either #1 or #2 overall. Kakko was obviously the #2 overall and so that fits as well.

If we leave out Ekblad seeing he was a defenseman and their #'s are obviously heavily skewed when compared to forwards, the average season for the past 7 Calder winners who were forwards looked something like this:

28.1 goals....39.7 assists....67.8 points. Let's just go with 28-40-68 as the average season for a Calder winning forward. The numbers I projected out for Kakko were I believe in that 35-35-70 range and so looking at the data, it looks like my predictions isn't really so cuckoo kakko after all.

For me or anyone to expect Kakko to hit 70 or so points is not an incredibly high bar at all. I just showed you from the numbers it isn't. Now if I had said I anticipate Kakko to score in the 106 point range that Ovechkin did back in 2005, well yeah you'd have a point...that would be absurd expectations on my part. But I'm not doing that here at all...far cry from it.

A 65-70 point Calder Trophy winning season is what I'm anticipating from Kakko. History has shown that it's quite reasonable for a rookie to put up #'s like that especially one's with the pedigree of a #2 overall such as Kakko and I anticipate he will. That is not unreasonable expectations at all in my book. It might be time for you to bump up your 40 point expectations as those are the #'s that seem quite reasonable for Kravtsov. For Kakko...totally different animal here.

Which one of those players’ teams made the playoffs?

 

[chosen]

I think parts of the D will be better. But that's where that mixed bag possibility comes in for me.

Trouba should be a big upgrade, I expect improvement from Skjei and ADA.

I expect a net decrease from Smith, Shatty, and Staal, and some hiccups from Hajek, Fox and any other rookies on the swuad.

I expect Georgiev to be better, I expect Lundqvist to be worse.

I expect the overall team to be better, but I don't know if we're going to be leading the league in loser points. And in a tight grouping, that difference can have a significant impact on the standings.

I think Shat will be better. I think he wasn't fully recovered from injury. Admittedly, I don't know that he ever will be.

If Staal is worse, I don't think he'll be in the lineup. Smith is a mystery to me from one game to the next.

 

[chosen]

Again, this is all in hindsight. Their drafting didn't look bad at the time.

Reversing the Taylor Hall trade alone makes them much better. They were also allergic to finding good defensemen.

 

[doomscroll]

All this fear of a “losing mentality” makes me think some posters are detached from the fact that an influx of six or seven top-U23 talents will likely invigorate any locker room.

 

[GAGLine]

Again, this is all in hindsight. Their drafting didn't look bad at the time.

Their drafting looked good because they were picking in the top 10 every year. I'm sure if we were to look back at the draft grades given out, they would get their fair share of criticism for the picks they made outside of the top 10.

Maybe our draft picks won't look as good in hindsight as they do now, but I'd be willing to bet we'll end up better off than Edmonton did. It would be hard to be that bad.

 

[Tawnos]

Their drafting looked good because they were picking in the top 10 every year. I'm sure if we were to look back at the draft grades given out, they would get their fair share of criticism for the picks they made outside of the top 10.

Maybe our draft picks won't look as good in hindsight as they do now, but I'd be willing to bet we'll end up better off than Edmonton did. It would be hard to be that bad.

Likely, but the whole point of bringing them up is as a cautionary tale. Yes, there are differences, but that doesn't mean our rebuilding failing is an impossibility or even an improbability. And there are things we can do beyond the advantages of free agency that can prevent what happened in Edmonton from what happening here. One of them is providing our kids with solid veteran leadership. I think others involve our development approach, which clearly wasn't/isn't good in Edmonton.

It's not an apples and oranges comparison. It's a granny smith and royal gala comparison.

 

[Maximus]

Which one of those players’ teams made the playoffs?

Not sure but from top of head and quick glance probably not many. What is your point...I must be missing it. Your not suggesting making or not making the playoffs has anything to do with a rookie having a Calder winning season.

Like I said...have no idea where your question was going and so takin a guess on my part

 

[Edge]

Their drafting looked good because they were picking in the top 10 every year. I'm sure if we were to look back at the draft grades given out, they would get their fair share of criticism for the picks they made outside of the top 10.

Maybe our draft picks won't look as good in hindsight as they do now, but I'd be willing to bet we'll end up better off than Edmonton did. It would be hard to be that bad.

The challenge for a team like the Oilers is that they really have to nail it at the draft, especially outside the first round, because signing free agents is not as viable of an option for them.

So when the Oilers struggle to find impact players outside the first, or even outside the top of the draft, it has a trickle down impact on them. Within a few years they lack depth to either roll our on their roster, or to package and trade to help fill holes.

 

[Off Sides]

Some cautionary tales,

Don't trade really good players for mediocre ones.

Must draft and develop players past the 1st round.

Having some vets around helps

The market/location may dictate who wants to sign with you, and who may want to leave regardless of their contract status

If you make a trade do not assume the incoming player actually wants to be on your team

Ownership influencing hockey choices is a dicey proposition.

The team's financial status may limit or open up moves.

Pick your GMs and coaches wisely



Rangers seem to have all that down, no?






Some other cautionary tales where I am more iffy if the Rangers (or some of their fans) have down

You can spend to the cap ceiling, yet you do not need to.

Signing players to 4 years can be a long time, longer, is well, a longer time

Pure long term expensive imported UFA signing do not often lead to a Championship

Decline and Clauses are real things

Just because you remember how a player once was does not mean he is, or will be the same player on your team

Having cap space allows you to make moves you otherwise may not be able to.

Progress among the prospects is not linear nor will it often be instantaneous

Youth can provide leadership too

The best performance value per cap dollar is often not found in a players UFA years.

Other teams who have had a losing culture, which led to them drafting early for several years, have won a Cup(s)

 

[Ghost of jas]

Not sure but from top of head and quick glance probably not many. What is your point...I must be missing it. Your not suggesting making or not making the playoffs has anything to do with a rookie having a Calder winning season.

Like I said...have no idea where your question was going and so takin a guess on my part

The point is the rookies could have excellent seasons, but that doesn’t mean this team is a playoff caliber team.

 

[Tawnos]

Edmonton did manage to sign Justin Schultz.

 

[IamNotADancer]

Trading for Trouba. Considering Panarin. Being able to get Fox. Etc. Etc. Etc.

For the millionth time:

WE ARE NOT EDMONTON OR BUFFALO!

Never said we were. I gave Edmonton and Buffalo as an example of what can happen if your desire to "stock up on young talent" outweighs the desire to actually win a few games.

I could have mentioned Jersey during their infancy or Tampa Bay in the early/mid-90s.
Losing, just like winning can become a habit, that's all. Not sure why you guys are reacting so hostile to a simple statement.

 

[Maximus]

The point is the rookies could have excellent seasons, but that doesn’t mean this team is a playoff caliber team.

Ok...we are in agreement here...unless I’m missing something in the translation.

I was told tho by another poster that my expectations for the #2 overall pick in the draft Kakko to have a Calder winner type of season was way to high and “absurd”. Where did it say Rangers needed to be a playoff team for that to occur?