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

[Pavel Buchnevich]

Eh, I think it was probably a bit more than just the tournament. The tournament just confirmed a lot of the concerns that were increasingly apparent --- defense, judgement, etc.

That's not a death sentence for the kid, but it's not necessarily the signs scouts want to see heading into the draft. In this case, he also wasn't helped by the depth of the draft. So if you're a scout, and you like a bunch of guys, you're going to have to be pretty blown away to take the kid who you feel didn't progress over the kid who did. That's a big part of what happened with a guys like Wilde and Miller.

You have kids who kept developing and improving and advancing, and then you had kids who kind of flatlined, or regressed, or seemed to look increasingly concerning against tougher competition.

There's a tendency to point out of the Tolvanens or other prospects who fell and rose again. We like to point to them as examples of not giving up on a prospect. And there's some truth to that.

But the ability to do primarily stands out because we lose count of the prospects who fall and then just keep falling.

Yes there are Tolvanens. And there also Angelo Espositos, and Charlie Stephens, and Jeff Browns, and a long, long list of names on the other side of the coin.

And people making almost the exact same argument you are today.

In the 20+ years I've followed prospects, I find there are certain constants that remain generation after generation. And one of those constants is that "things are different now."

Often times, they really aren't.

I was bringing up Tolvanen because I believe its especially relevant. I think they fell for the same reason, grades. They both dropped a lot right at the end once it came out that they weren't going to be playing college hockey. Like Wilde, Tolvanen was a very highly touted prospect who had a really good season and would've went higher, otherwise.

You can say Wilde falling was coming, but I think that ignores 95% of what happened during the season. He had a really good season. It seems like most try to conveniently ignore this. There would've been risk in picking Wilde in the second round, but there's risk in picking every prospect. There are no sure things. However, I think it would've made a lot more sense to pick a player who had a really good season and has some of the highest potential in the draft at a position of need over a player at our deepest position who had a pretty mediocre season, and had one great tournament at a big tournament near the end of the season.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

Frankly, I think the draft is 90% voodoo anyway. I don’t fully buy that a higher quality staff is that much more likely to result in a higher quality team. Too much luck. Even if you get the high picks, the timing of those picks matters more than anything.

The only thing scouts can really do effectively, is let the GM know if a player fits the overall vision of what he wants the team to be. On and off the ice.

Fair enough. But if you believe that, don't you think picking closer to the consensus makes more sense? If its mostly just luck, chances are that you will get more lucky on the consensus than the opinion of one or two who are making decisions.

 

[Tawnos]

Fair enough. But if you believe that, don't you think picking closer to the consensus makes more sense? If its mostly just luck, chances are that you will get more lucky on the consensus than the opinion of one or two who are making decisions.

The consensus is as often wrong as it is right.

 

[WesMcCauley]

The consensus is as often wrong as it is right.

That i agree with atleast to a certain extent. When it comes to this pick, its awful because the chances of Lindbom beeing available in the 3rd or 4th round were very high. No reason to "waste" a 2nd on him, specially after trading another second to move up and take Miller.

 

[eco's bones]

Yeah, and I’d even that this extends all the way to the top of the first round. Like you said, it’s easy for us to overlook how each team ranks players since it’s never public information and to fuss about trading up or down.

Back to Lindblom, I just don’t think goalies are that valuable, and it’s statisitically more likely to find a goalie later in the draft than a good skater. The run on goalies suggests that Gorton kind of sent teams into scramble mode, but I’ll still remain adamant that goalies shouldn’t even be a thought until the 3rd, preferably the 4th.

I think it’s also important that I mention that I do think Lindblom is a helluva goalie and his WJC performance was very impressive. It’s not a knock on him as a prospect, it’s the process about drafting hum that has me frustrated.

The thing with the Lindblom pick that bugs me is Talbot and Georgiev--guys we picked up as free agents. Talbot might not be a great No. 1 NHL goaltender but he's decent and he's a great No. 2 which is to say he's a legit NHL goaltender. Georgiev looks like he's at least going to be the same if not better.

Henrik has kept the Rangers afloat for years keeping in mind that a goaltender is not going to put his team over the top. To get the team over the top to win a championship the Rangers need to have a much better offense and a very good defense. In the Lundqvist years we've not been able to put all those elements together and we're starting from scratch again. Goaltending is certainly very important--you're not going to win without it---but just looking at '94 Richter was great but it was really Leetch and Messier who carried the team.

 

[Joey Bones]

The root of the issue here is that there was first round talent left on the board

What other 39th overall picks have done in the last 15 years is irrelevant imo

If he turns into an NHL player, whether it be a starter or backup, I’ll eat my words and say the pick was fine.

But at this moment, he was a poor selection where he was taken and will continue to be until proven otherwise.

You have to pick for value in the 2nd to 7th rounds and if a first round talent falls to your pick you take them. For all the busts you’ll have your hits like DeBrincat who was taken 39th in 2016

As much as I agree with this, you have to see both sides of the spectrum, too....

No matter how much we all wanted one of the falling first round talents (McLeod, Wilde, Iskhakov, Tychonick, Addison, Groulx, Thomas, Wise, etc.), the organization thought that Lindbom was the best available player at that pick. At this time, it obviously should be extremely controversial, but it's all on Lindbom now if he wants to be better than those mentioned.

FWIW, Lindbom does indeed have qualities to his game that Benoit Allaire can help with. He's not a Shesterkin, in terms of athleticism, instead he plays from the back of the net out. Not so much on the top of the crease going in. Stylistically, he looks like Lundqvist, but his issues are glaring. Needs to work on lateral movement, recovery, post-to-post coverage. He does have very good sense of open tracking and rebound control, but could hone in on those skills some more.

A project pick, for sure, but IMO it was an unnecessary pick at 39th....

PS: It hurt to look back at all those players the Rangers passed on for Lindbom. Here's hoping he becomes something in the NHL.

 

[Joey Bones]

Do you guys think Allaire pushed for this pick?

I would think so. Allaire has had his fair share of success and Gordie even mentioned that this pick would make Benny happy....

Stylistically, Lindbom looks like Lundqvist, but he needs work on A LOT of his game....

 

[RangerBlues]

Im all in for Ollie the goalie.
Let the haters hate.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

That i agree with atleast to a certain extent. When it comes to this pick, its awful because the chances of Lindbom beeing available in the 3rd or 4th round were very high. No reason to "waste" a 2nd on him, specially after trading another second to move up and take Miller.

Olivier Rodrigue (EDM) and Justus Annunen (COL) were picked after Lindbom and before our next pick. Is it really that certain that neither of these teams would have gone with Lindbom had he been available, based on his u18 WC performance?

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

The consensus is as often wrong as it is right.

I agree, but I think you didn't understand my point.

If you are going to come from the perspective that the draft is mostly luck and not skill, wouldn't that negate most of the work done from going off the board? Going off the board is highly reliant on certain decision makers having a high degree of ability to evaluate talent relative to their peers. And certainly going off the board is the more risky choice, whether the draft is more luck or skill, unless the consensus is incredibly wrong compared to the opinion of one person. Usually, its only an isolated example or two, not such a big difference.

I'm not even questioning your opinion, but I think if someone is going to take that opinion that the draft is more luck than skill, it would seem to make sense to then make sure you pick closer to the consensus. I think if you are taking that position, you should also be acknowledging that given a consideration of the positives and negatives of going off the board, there are less positives of going off the board with that type of opinion.

 

[KirkAlbuquerque]

Im all in for Ollie the goalie.
Let the haters hate.

We dont hate Ollie and want him to succeed obv. We just hate how badly Gorts and Clarke beefed the second round, as usual. Just threw away 2 high quality picks. Look around the league, there are tons of quality players and Blue chip prospects who were taken in the 2nd. Far far far fewer from the 3rd or later. 2nd round picks are valuable, you can't be throwing them away like this even if you have 3 1st rounders.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

We dont hate Ollie and want him to succeed obv. We just hate how badly Gorts and Clarke beefed the second round, as usual. Just threw away 2 high quality picks. Look around the league, there are tons of quality players and Blue chip prospects who were taken in the 2nd. Far far far fewer from the 3rd or later. 2nd round picks are valuable, you can't be throwing them away like this even if you have 3 1st rounders.

I have no problem with trading up, using a 2nd round pick. With regards to picking Lindbom, I'm torn. In the one hand you could say he wouldn't be available in the 3rd with 2 other goalies picked before we were on the clock again. But on the other hand, the value of a good backup or fringe starter is at best a 2nd round pick. So, unless Lindbom turns into a solid starter or better, he won't exceed the value of the pick that was used to take him.

 

[kovazub94]

...

FWIW, Lindbom does indeed have qualities to his game that Benoit Allaire can help with. He's not a Shesterkin, in terms of athleticism, instead he plays from the back of the net out. Not so much on the top of the crease going in. Stylistically, he looks like Lundqvist, but his issues are glaring. Needs to work on lateral movement, recovery, post-to-post coverage. He does have very good sense of open tracking and rebound control, but could hone in on those skills some more.
....

This doesn’t belong in this thread per se, but it looks like that there’s a new internet meme about Shestyorkin relying on his athleticism (primarily for his success).

 

[Tawnos]

I agree, but I think you didn't understand my point.

If you are going to come from the perspective that the draft is mostly luck and not skill, wouldn't that negate most of the work done from going off the board? Going off the board is highly reliant on certain decision makers having a high degree of ability to evaluate talent relative to their peers. And certainly going off the board is the more risky choice, whether the draft is more luck or skill, unless the consensus is incredibly wrong compared to the opinion of one person. Usually, its only an isolated example or two, not such a big difference.

I'm not even questioning your opinion, but I think if someone is going to take that opinion that the draft is more luck than skill, it would seem to make sense to then make sure you pick closer to the consensus. I think if you are taking that position, you should also be acknowledging that given a consideration of the positives and negatives of going off the board, there are less positives of going off the board with that type of opinion.

Well, you are ignoring part of what I said earlier. What scouts can do effectively is identify players who fit the vision the GM has of the team he wants to build.

 

[Ranger Ric]

I'm not sure this has been mentioned but Lindbolm is now the third goalie that Gordie Clark has taken in the 2nd round. In addition to Brandon Halverson, who can forget the acrobat saves that 2007 2nd round pick, Antoine Lefleur, has made at MSG? I think Clark has done a good overall job but I am with all of you who question taken a goalie in the second round.

As much as I agree with this, you have to see both sides of the spectrum, too....

No matter how much we all wanted one of the falling first round talents (McLeod, Wilde, Iskhakov, Tychonick, Addison, Groulx, Thomas, Wise, etc.), the organization thought that Lindbom was the best available player at that pick. At this time, it obviously should be extremely controversial, but it's all on Lindbom now if he wants to be better than those mentioned.

FWIW, Lindbom does indeed have qualities to his game that Benoit Allaire can help with. He's not a Shesterkin, in terms of athleticism, instead he plays from the back of the net out. Not so much on the top of the crease going in. Stylistically, he looks like Lundqvist, but his issues are glaring. Needs to work on lateral movement, recovery, post-to-post coverage. He does have very good sense of open tracking and rebound control, but could hone in on those skills some more.

A project pick, for sure, but IMO it was an unnecessary pick at 39th....

PS: It hurt to look back at all those players the Rangers passed on for Lindbom. Here's hoping he becomes something in the NHL.

 

[Ranger Ric]

In thinking about this draft pick I have a theory about what happened. I think the Rangers had a plan going into the draft to take Kravtsov at 9, pick Miller by moving up using a third round pick, pick Lindquist at 28, pick another forward at 39 and then take Lindbolm at 48. I just can't believe the Rangers really had targeted Lindbolm at 39 when no other goalies had been taken but I also think the Rangers realized, as Amazing K says, that goalies would start going in the second round as they did and that Lindbolm might not make it to their 3rd round pick.

The problem with this plan was that the Rangers assumed based on past experience that a 3rd round pick and 26 would allow them to move up. But since the Rangers showed film of Gorton being turned down trying to move up, perhaps Ottawa or another team picking before Ottawa, the Rangers realized they were going to lose Miller unless they gave the second round pick. Now without the two second round picks, the Rangers were concerned they would not be able to take Lindbolm in the third round. And perhaps the forwards the Rangers were looking at were gone. Berggren, Noel and Ylonen were 3 wingers taken a few picks before pick 39.

I could be completely off base and while I agree with Amazing K that trading up is not an issue if they really were that high on Miller, I think using the second round pick to get Miller changed the Rangers strategy and lead to the Lindbolm pick.

That said I still think it is highly questionable for the Rangers to have taken a goalie at 39 given the organizational strength in goalies and the need for wingers and right handed defensemen.

I have no problem with trading up, using a 2nd round pick. With regards to picking Lindbom, I'm torn. In the one hand you could say he wouldn't be available in the 3rd with 2 other goalies picked before we were on the clock again. But on the other hand, the value of a good backup or fringe starter is at best a 2nd round pick. So, unless Lindbom turns into a solid starter or better, he won't exceed the value of the pick that was used to take him.

 

[Cag29]

The thing with the Lindblom pick that bugs me is Talbot and Georgiev--guys we picked up as free agents. Talbot might not be a great No. 1 NHL goaltender but he's decent and he's a great No. 2 which is to say he's a legit NHL goaltender. Georgiev looks like he's at least going to be the same if not better.

Henrik has kept the Rangers afloat for years keeping in mind that a goaltender is not going to put his team over the top. To get the team over the top to win a championship the Rangers need to have a much better offense and a very good defense. In the Lundqvist years we've not been able to put all those elements together and we're starting from scratch again. Goaltending is certainly very important--you're not going to win without it---but just looking at '94 Richter was great but it was really Leetch and Messier who carried the team.

In the 94 playoff run there were many crucial games where Richter kept the Rangers in it. Mess bad Leetch have said it many times. Game 6 against NJD. Before Mess Hatrick they were dominating us and Richter kept the score 2-1 Nj before Mess erupted. Goalie is equally important to every other position. IMHO. And yes I was A goalie. But I played every position and have watched it.

 

[TheTakedown]

Elite Prospects - WJC-18 Stats 2017-2018

HE was one of the best goalies of the WJCU18 tournament

 

[RangerBlues]

We dont hate Ollie and want him to succeed obv. We just hate how badly Gorts and Clarke beefed the second round, as usual. Just threw away 2 high quality picks. Look around the league, there are tons of quality players and Blue chip prospects who were taken in the 2nd. Far far far fewer from the 3rd or later. 2nd round picks are valuable, you can't be throwing them away like this even if you have 3 1st rounders.

You have to trust the process. Rangers cant spend money on salary but they can spend all they want on analytics and scouting. You invest that much into a system you have to trust it. Hes the best player on the board, you take him, regardless of position.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

Well, you are ignoring part of what I said earlier. What scouts can do effectively is identify players who fit the vision the GM has of the team he wants to build.

I agree with that. Forgot to mention it, but that goes without saying.

 

[Joey Bones]

This doesn’t belong in this thread per se, but it looks like that there’s a new internet meme about Shestyorkin relying on his athleticism (primarily for his success).

I don't understand what you mean?

 

[Joey Bones]

I'm not sure this has been mentioned but Lindbolm is now the third goalie that Gordie Clark has taken in the 2nd round. In addition to Brandon Halverson, who can forget the acrobat saves that 2007 2nd round pick, Antoine Lefleur, has made at MSG? I think Clark has done a good overall job but I am with all of you who question taken a goalie in the second round.

Great.... Gordie is 0/2 so far with goalies taken in the 2nd round....

 

[kovazub94]

I don't understand what you mean?

Reports on Shestyorkin has always been that he’s very technically sound, especially in contrast to Isles Russian goalie prospect. Then out of nowhere there’s one report from someone who admittedly never seen him play that Shestyorkin primarily relies on his athleticism.

 

[Joey Bones]

Reports on Shestyorkin has always been that he’s very technically sound, especially in contrast to Isles Russian goalie prospect. Then out of nowhere there’s one report from someone who admittedly never seen him play that Shestyorkin primarily relies on his athleticism.

He's not that technical. His reflexes are amazing and lateral movement is superb. Look for yourself....



And to further exemplify his reflexes....

 

[kovazub94]

He's not that technical. His reflexes are amazing and lateral movement is superb. Look for yourself....



And to further exemplify his reflexes....

Shestyorkin is athletic bu it’s not his primary strength. @Pavel Buchnevich or @Kovalev27 probably could find it faster but I recall about a year ago there was a very good link to a video and analysis of Shestyorkin vs Sorokin there it’s been pretty well broken down.