Prospect Info: With the 39th Overall Pick the New York Rangers Select Olof Lindbom

[NYR Viper]

Is it possible the Rangers see the future of the NHL as not only a league where you can't overpay your goaltender but you also need (2) legitimate starters? That would make sense as Shestyorkin and Georgiev, around 29-30, would most likely be looking for long-term high paying deals around that time. Perhaps their hoe is to have another young developed goalie who could take over to minimize the cap hit at that position?

I have no issue with them taking a goalie every draft. They should have 5-9 picks in every draft so taking 1 goalie isn't a big deal. I;m not in love with taking a goalie in the 2nd round but if this is Allaire's guy and they think he can be a starter in this league down the road whereas the others are not as impressive, I can understand it.

 

[Sarge13]

Glad you finally found your new McIlrath/Nash now that both are gone

Found?

He was gift wrapped by the idiots in charge.

Again, look up the last 10 years of 2nd round goalies. The list is terrible.

This organization has fallen ass backwards into goaltenders for about 50 years, it's an important position but probably the toughest to gauge at 18 years old, that's why there's so many bust goalies. It would've been much easier to take with two 2nd rounders, but once the other 2nd was traded the idea of taking a goalie should've been vetoed by the gm.

 

[haveandare]

this will be a unique pick.

i will hate it from the moment it was announced until the end of time.

no amount of pontificating or preaching will change my mind

Doesn't that happen to like two picks a year?

 

[haveandare]

Found?

He was gift wrapped by the idiots in charge.

Again, look up the last 10 years of 2nd round goalies. The list is terrible.

This organization has fallen ass backwards into goaltenders for about 50 years, it's an important position but probably the toughest to gauge at 18 years old, that's why there's so many bust goalies. It would've been much easier to take with two 2nd rounders, but once the other 2nd was traded the idea of taking a goalie should've been vetoed by the gm.

I'm willing to trust Allaire overall, but Gorton really should have told him he'd use a third on him instead since the second round had some fallers that would have been good to take a risk on.

 

[offdacrossbar]

Glad you finally found your new McIlrath/Nash now that both are gone

yes and .......

mcilrath i was dead on right, thank you. would have preferred to have been wrong or to have had either of the russians back in 2010. any who.... that ship has sail.....er... sunk.

as for nick rash. i said he was done a long time ago. it was an easy call. dudes legs were toast as was his will. he had spurts but then went full invisible for too long. trend was negative and production failing. for what he was paid, he was both unproductive and stealing money. glad he's gone and still laughing at those wanting him back for any reason.

on to better things, like time for gordie clark to retire.

 

[offdacrossbar]

So in other words, it doesn't matter if the ranger scouts were right or if the FO read the draft boards of other teams correctly? I don't like the pick but while we'll never know what the other teams' had on their boards we will eventually know whether these picks pan out or not. I hope I'm wrong and Lindbom becomes an HoF goalie. You of course will still think you're right regardless.

hate that player at 39. period.

you DO NOT take a goalie at 39. ever. and then on top of that, they double down and take a goalie that isnt even the top rated player at THAT POSITION. it boggles. again, and i know what you are going to say, benny liked him so duh..... yeah well, again more of the NYR know more than everyone else stuff.

not drinking that koolaide.

bad pick.
bad player
bad decision

so many better SKATERS avail at 39. too many to list.

NYR. hockey (drafting) is different here ...

 

[Sarge13]

I'm willing to trust Allaire overall, but Gorton really should have told him he'd use a third on him instead since the second round had some fallers that would have been good to take a risk on.

Allaire had his chance to win me over with Lafleur and Halverson. He needs to stick to developing.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

hate that player at 39. period.

you DO NOT take a goalie at 39. ever. and then on top of that, they double down and take a goalie that isnt even the top rated player at THAT POSITION. it boggles. again, and i know what you are going to say, benny liked him so duh..... yeah well, again more of the NYR know more than everyone else stuff.

not drinking that koolaide.

bad pick.
bad player
bad decision

so many better SKATERS avail at 39. too many to list.

NYR. hockey (drafting) is different here ...

While I agree with your sentiment about the 39th overall pick, we should not get carried away. The first round was great and we got some good players in late rounds like Keane and Hughes. We had 1 pick that made 0 sense (Lindbom) and 1 pick that was just out of left field (Kjellberg). Other than that, we picked a lot of guys around where they were projected and I have no problem with those.

If we had picked Lauko/Addison/Marchenko, this would be a wonderful draft.

 

[offdacrossbar]

Doesn't that happen to like two picks a year?

not really.

its the top pick that gets me. organizations that fail to maximize top picks fail.

our prospect pool has been pretty shallow recently. thats on the boys doing the drafting.

other teams build from within, theres a reason why we havent drafted a stud in recent memory.

so-so drafting

 

[haveandare]

not really.

its the top pick that gets me. organizations that fail to maximize top picks fail.

our prospect pool has been pretty shallow recently. thats on the boys doing the drafting.

other teams build from within, theres a reason why we havent drafted a stud in recent memory.

so-so drafting

Could also be because Sather went bonkers trading away picks.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

not really.

its the top pick that gets me. organizations that fail to maximize top picks fail.

our prospect pool has been pretty shallow recently. thats on the boys doing the drafting.

other teams build from within, theres a reason why we havent drafted a stud in recent memory.

so-so drafting

Our top picks are fine. And you can't really blame the drafting when you don't have a 1st round pick for 4 years and in some years not even a 2nd rounder.

 

[sbjnyc]

hate that player at 39. period.

you DO NOT take a goalie at 39. ever. and then on top of that, they double down and take a goalie that isnt even the top rated player at THAT POSITION. it boggles. again, and i know what you are going to say, benny liked him so duh..... yeah well, again more of the NYR know more than everyone else stuff.

not drinking that koolaide.

bad pick.
bad player
bad decision

so many better SKATERS avail at 39. too many to list.

NYR. hockey (drafting) is different here ...

It's not like I disagree with you that the pick seems really bad in context, I don't (caveat: I don't follow prospects at all so my opinion is just based on what I read here and elsewhere). But if it turns out that the kid becomes a good/great goalie, none of the other consensus picks pan out and other teams were going to draft him later in the round, then they were right with the pick regardless of the above. Of course that doesn't seem likely but who knows - stranger things have happened.

 

[offdacrossbar]

Our top picks are fine. And you can't really blame the drafting when you don't have a 1st round pick for 4 years and in some years not even a 2nd rounder.

its an organizational failure. top to bottom.

when you have fewer picks- due to trading them away, you need to make sure they are sound picks.

cherepanov was sad. what can you do ?

but.... mcilrath, sanguinetti, del zotto, montoya, jessiman, korpikoski and the list goes on.

the latter traded for one Enver Lisin.... we won't even go there

and as usual, its not only who you picked.... its who you didnt. ugh.

 

[McRanger]

When I first started following hockey goalies were the consolation prize for teams late in the 1st or early in the 2nd that missed out on the top tiers of skaters. They were decent consolation prizes. They might sneak into the teens, but it was rare.

Luongo in 97 changed all that. And as crazy as it seemed at the time that was an amazing pick.

Cherneski aside, 97 is still one of my favorite drafts.

 

[Sarge13]

When I first started following hockey goalies were the consolation prize for teams late in the 1st or early in the 2nd that missed out on the top tiers of skaters. They were decent consolation prizes. They might sneak into the teens, but it was rare.

Luongo in 97 changed all that. And as crazy as it seemed at the time that was an amazing pick.

Cherneski aside, 97 is still one of my favorite drafts.

That was a fun draft to follow and the first one I ever followed online.

But for every Luongo after that were your Desrochers, Finleys, and Krahns.

Vasilevski is the last goalie I liked in the first round. He's 1 of 5 I liked as first rounders over the last 15 years.

 

[GeorgeKaplan]

Found?

He was gift wrapped by the idiots in charge.

Again, look up the last 10 years of 2nd round goalies. The list is terrible.

This organization has fallen ass backwards into goaltenders for about 50 years, it's an important position but probably the toughest to gauge at 18 years old, that's why there's so many bust goalies. It would've been much easier to take with two 2nd rounders, but once the other 2nd was traded the idea of taking a goalie should've been vetoed by the gm.

I’ve literately never said it was a good pick or a good strategy behind it

 

[Mac n Gs]

Look, if this kid is a good goalie, I'll be happy and root for him, but that's not why I don't like him as a pick. It basically boils down to asset management, similar to with the K'Andre Miller trade. We gave up a mid-round 2nd pick to move up a few spots at the end of the first round and took a goalie with the 8th pick in the second round. There's prior history to show that we overpaid to take Miller and the laundry list of goalies taken that early is not pretty.

I can live with the Miller pick because he's a very good prospect, but we're just seeing how volatile goalies are as we watch the last goalie we took with a 2nd round pick bust. At 39, there were much better options available to draft a F or even two dmen I really liked in Wilde and Tychonik. I know they said they went for their best pick on their board, but what are the honest odds that this kid would've been there in the third round? The top-rated goalie went two picks after the Ragnarsson pick, so my guess is pretty likely.

The other reason I'm arguing against it is because we have obvious success finding goalies that went undrafted or taken with later picks.

 

[SingnBluesOnBroadway]

Is it possible the Rangers see the future of the NHL as not only a league where you can't overpay your goaltender but you also need (2) legitimate starters? That would make sense as Shestyorkin and Georgiev, around 29-30, would most likely be looking for long-term high paying deals around that time. Perhaps their hoe is to have another young developed goalie who could take over to minimize the cap hit at that position?

I have no issue with them taking a goalie every draft. They should have 5-9 picks in every draft so taking 1 goalie isn't a big deal. I;m not in love with taking a goalie in the 2nd round but if this is Allaire's guy and they think he can be a starter in this league down the road whereas the others are not as impressive, I can understand it.

Great post. I think bolded is the biggest part. We all love Hank but I think we can also see how the team hamstring's itself from a contract/cap space perspective.

 

[JT Kreider]

Great post. I think bolded is the biggest part. We all love Hank but I think we can also see how the team hamstring's itself from a contract/cap space perspective.

Ridiculous. Lundqvists cap hit didn't hold them back from winning a Cup.

It was their inability to draft and develop an elite offensive talent.

Or at the very least a 60+ point player. The only team in the league unable to do so.

Lundqvist contract is just an excuse.

 

[frisland]

He was not imported by CHL in todays import draft, so that rumor dies....

 

[Edge]

I may be in the minority, but I never really saw Lundqvist's salary as the problem.

The Girardi contract was a problem.

The Staal contract is a problem.

The Smith contract is currently a problem.

Nash's declining offensive production was a problem.

The fact that this team hasn't had someone score more than 61 points or more since 2016 is a problem.

The fact that this team has produced one 30+ goal season since 2012 is a problem.

The defense was a problem.

I don't know if there was some amazing move out there we missed out on because of Lundqvist's contract. If there was, I tend to lean towards the contracts of some of the other players on our roster as more of a hindrance.

 

[Irishguy42]

So either stays in Sweden or tries to go NCAA

He was not imported by CHL in todays import draft, so that rumor dies....

 

[JayMan82]

Ridiculous. Lundqvists cap hit didn't hold them back from winning a Cup.

It was their inability to draft and develop an elite offensive talent.

Or at the very least a 60+ point player. The only team in the league unable to do so.

Lundqvist contract is just an excuse.

I think I get the point on the previous post. When working against the cap, you're simply limited... A lot of things have to fall right, and if you look at the most recent cup winners, they had lower amounts invested in goaltending. The trend has been investing in elite forwards (i.e. Ovechkin, Backstrom, Kuznetsov, Crosby, Malkin, Kessel, Toews, Kane, Hossa, Kopitar, Carter, etc) along with one elite/franchise level defenseman (Carlson, Letang, Keith, Doughty) and a goaltender that although not elite, can make the necessary saves ala Richter (Holtby, Murray, Crawford, Quick). Most of those teams were heavier in the forward talent than anything. I don't remember a Rangers team since the '94 cup that had that type of structure ('14 was close, but too many non-finishers in the finals and '15 was running into a team with same structure in Tampa but could have gone either way).

 

[LORDE]

I have an honest question here not sure if anyone brought it up but:

Is there any way we (and the organization) look back on this pick and say "Wow, that paid off"

If the answer is "No, there's really nothing that could happen to make that the case" then we have the answer about poor scouting and asset management... at least on this pick.

I find it indefensible at best and incompetent realistically.

But I'm probably beating a dead horse.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

I have an honest question here not sure if anyone brought it up but:

Is there any way we (and the organization) look back on this pick and say "Wow, that paid off"

If the answer is "No, there's really nothing that could happen to make that the case" then we have the answer about poor scouting and asset management... at least on this pick.

I find it indefensible at best and incompetent realistically.

But I'm probably beating a dead horse.

I think this is the only pick we all agree on. It was a bad pick. Best case scenario, Lindbom becomes an elite goalie. Anything worse than that, even a regular starting goalie, and his value won't be more than a 2nd round pick.