HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   New York Rangers (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=24)
-   -   Changing our draft strategy (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1336269)

Beacon 01-29-2013 01:17 PM

Changing our draft strategy
 
Since 2004, our drafting has been great and we've achieved a lot of success. However, as many people here have pointed out, we've failed to land an offensive star player.

This was a necessary and a good strategy to take in 2004. Other land Lundqvist and Tyutin, our cupboard was empty and we needed get make sure that we draft guys who will turn into actual players. Taking chances just did not make any sense.

But the situation is different today. We have plenty of solid NHLers already.


CENTERS

NHL: Brad, Step and Boyle are 3 young enough to be here long-term.

PROSPECTS: It's safe to assume that Lindberg, Jean, Nieves or Foggy become the 4th center. Even Wiebe has potential if he gets a two-way contract.


LEFT WINGS

NHL: Hagelin is already in the NHL.

PROSPECTS: It's safe to assume that Kreider will make it, making it two LWs. I think it's safe to assume that at least one (probably 2) of our skill guys Miller, Hrivik or Bourque will make it as top-9 LWs, and and for the last line, one of the big guys Yogan, Wilson or Mash crack it. Worst case, we sign one 4th liner.


RIGHT WINGS

NHL: Nash and Callahan are already great top-6 guys.

PROSPECTS: It's safe to assume that one of Fasth, Thomas or St. Croix make it as a top-9 guy. Then there are guys like Ferriero and McColgan, or alternatively, signing a 4th liner can't be that tough.


DEFENSE

NHL: McDonagh, Staal, Girardi and Del Zotto are great top-4. Stralman is useful as well. Bickel can be a #7. That's 6 guys.

PROSPECTS: McIlrath will probably make it. I assume so will one of Skjei, Noreau or Andersson. That's more than enough defensemen.


CONCLUSION

Our depth isn't a problem. Sure, I'll take another Anisimov or another Pyatt, but that just isn't what the team is desperate for. Once we lose Gaborik, scoring will become an issue once again. We need a quality offensive winger. We need someone like Giroux.

Everyone here knows that you can't expect the team to draft superstars at #25. However, what you can do is go for the high-risk, high-return guys. Guys who have a 50-75% chance of not making the NHL obviously will not go in the top-5 because teams can draft safe players with first line potential in those spots.

However, by the time you get to the end of the first round, the prospect only has a 40% chance of making the NHL, with safe prospects having a higher percentage and risky prospects lower. So instead of having a 50-50 prospect with limited potential, why can't we draft someone who is a 25-75 prospect with a much higher potential?

Your average kid drafted in the second round has a 20% shot of making the NHL, while a high-risk, high-return prospect has maybe a 10-12% chance. But which strategy makes more sense for us?

Sure, you don't want to go for that when the cupboard is empty, but it most certainly isn't empty right now. We can afford to swing for the fences in the next couple of drafts.

The response to this is that we need a constant in-flow of youth for the cap. Ok, I agree and that's what our current prospects will do. However, when the team is lacking top-end talent, they inevitably wind up trading the young, inexpensive guys for expensive talent. See: Nash for 3 players and 3 draft picks from the top 2 rounds (including the Erixon trade in this since it was also an attempt to get top-end talent). Trading away so many assets to get a guy making almost $8 is not exactly a way to keep our cap costs low.

Now imagine if we have to do the same to replace Gaborik. Imagine if we have to trade away Kreider, Lindberg, McIlrath and a #1 to replace Gabby. How great would that be for our future? How great would that be for our cap?

We are better off swinging and missing on our draft picks than doing this.

In 2013 in particular, we don't have a first, so let's draft another Thomas in the second, another Bourque in the 3rd, another St. Croix in the 4th, another Horak in the 5th, another Fasth in the 6th (and maybe a couple of defensemen with the extra picks since they take long to develop and who knows what the future holds). Sure, most of the draft picks won't work out, but if we get a home run with just one, it will be a game-breaker for us.

ecemleafs 01-29-2013 01:27 PM

i think we took less risk on players since the lockout because we had no depth and very few prospects that u cud consider to be NHL potential since we missed on virtually every pick from the mid 90s til 2004. with a far more stable organization and one with a good amount of depth i think we should be taking a bit more risk on creative skill players that might have other flaws needed to be corrected to be an impact NHL player.

SingnBluesOnBroadway 01-29-2013 01:30 PM

Draft strategy: take the best player available.

Beacon 01-29-2013 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway (Post 58601903)
Draft strategy: take the best player available.

The question is what's better: a player who has a 75% chance of becoming another Taylor Pyatt, a player who has a 50-50 chance of becoming another Callahan or a player who has a 25% chance of becoming Giroux?

Brian Boyle 01-29-2013 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway (Post 58601903)
Draft strategy: take the best player available.

It sounds risky.

Brian Boyle 01-29-2013 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beacon (Post 58602035)
The question is what's better: a player who has a 75% chance of becoming another Taylor Pyatt, a player who has a 50-50 chance of becoming another Callahan or a player who has a 25% chance of becoming Giroux?

Easy.

http://cdn.sportsoverdose.com/thumbs...att-14-nhl.jpg

SupersonicMonkey* 01-29-2013 01:37 PM

In a normal draft...better off drafting a player that may never play in the NHL, than drafting a player who has a higher probability of playing in the NHL, even as a 3rd-4th line player is not at all a good strategy. And, they probably won't do it in the first round. It's not what Clark and Gorton have done recently.

We don't have a first round pick in June. We have a 2nd and three 3rds(?).

It's VERY important to pull out one NHL player per draft.

This June, I agree in this case. With no first round pick, unless they pull a deal involving Gaborik at the draft, taking a chance with the 2nd round pick on a high skill player would be a good idea.

Though, I differ in what position to add that skill to. I'd like to see a real offensive defenseman, that can skate the puck, shoot the puck, and be a consistent offensive threat from the back end. It's something we haven't had since 2004. And it could add a completely new dimension to our attack and transition game.

Imagine what this team would look like right now had we landed Schultz?

We NEED that kind of threat from the back end.

I like our crop of forwards on the way. Kreider, Miller, Fast, Lindberg, Nieves, St. Croix, Hrivik, Jean. Really good players and skill level in there.

NYR Viper 01-29-2013 01:38 PM

The Rangers are all about taking players who they see making the NHL. That gives them many options and many trade chips (as we just saw with the Nash trade). Due to the fact that they will practically never draft in the top-10, I think it's a good philosophy. Keep the price of the lower line players down by integrating youth and go out and get that key UFA to balance the line-up.

The Rangers will always be involved in the UFA process.

SupersonicMonkey* 01-29-2013 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beacon (Post 58602035)
The question is what's better: a player who has a 75% chance of becoming another Taylor Pyatt, a player who has a 50-50 chance of becoming another Callahan or a player who has a 25% chance of becoming Giroux?

It's always better to come away with an NHL player. Plain and simple.

You can rant about not drafting our own Nash or Giroux. But the Rangers come away with players who can fill an NHL roster and contribute. And if a trade for a Nash arises, they have the depth to make that deal and continue with the process.

NYR Viper 01-29-2013 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SupersonicMonkey (Post 58602219)
In a normal draft...better off drafting a player that may never play in the NHL, than drafting a player who has a higher probability of playing in the NHL, even as a 3rd-4th line player is not at all a good strategy. And, they probably won't do it in the first round. It's not what Clark and Gorton have done recently.

We don't have a first round pick in June. We have a 2nd and three 3rds(?).

It's VERY important to pull out one NHL player per draft.

This June, I agree in this case. With no first round pick, unless they pull a deal involving Gaborik at the draft, taking a chance with the 2nd round pick on a high skill player would be a good idea.

Though, I differ in what position to add that skill to. I'd like to see a real offensive defenseman, that can skate the puck, shoot the puck, and be a consistent offensive threat from the back end. It's something we haven't had since 2004. And it could add a completely new dimension to our attack and transition game.

Imagine what this team would look like right now had we landed Schultz?

We NEED that kind of threat from the back end.

I like our crop of forwards on the way. Kreider, Miller, Fast, Lindberg, Nieves, St. Croix, Hrivik, Jean. Really good players and skill level in there.

I am not sure that is the better way to go. Is it better to get a defenseman who can actually play DEFENSE at the NHL level and hope he develops that offensive game? Or is it enough to possibly get a player who may not skate one shift due to his defensive deficiencies?

I would rather draft (4) Skjei/Staal/McDonagh and be sure they can make the NHL due to their defense and hope their offensive games develop.

SupersonicMonkey* 01-29-2013 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYR Boyler87 (Post 58602405)
I am not sure that is the better way to go. Is it better to get a defenseman who can actually play DEFENSE at the NHL level and hope he develops that offensive game? Or is it enough to possibly get a player who may not skate one shift due to his defensive deficiencies?

I would rather draft (4) Skjei/Staal/McDonagh and be sure they can make the NHL due to their defense and hope their offensive games develop.

Rangers have a defense corp that can play defense.

McDonagh, Staal, Girardi, Del Zotto, with Skjei (who is going to be very good), and McIlrath...

What they don't have is any consistent offensive threat.

Every Stanley Cup champion that I can recall off the top of my head in the last 20+ years had one.

Also, one reason our PP sucks, and have trouble consistently sustaining an attack is because we have no real threat from the back end.

SingnBluesOnBroadway 01-29-2013 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beacon (Post 58602035)
The question is what's better: a player who has a 75% chance of becoming another Taylor Pyatt, a player who has a 50-50 chance of becoming another Callahan or a player who has a 25% chance of becoming Giroux?

Taking the best player available should answer that question on its own.

NYR Viper 01-29-2013 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SupersonicMonkey (Post 58602481)
Rangers have a defense corp that can play defense.

McDonagh, Staal, Girardi, Del Zotto, with Skjei (who is going to be very good), and McIlrath...

What they don't have is any consistent offensive threat.

Every Stanley Cup champion that I can recall off the top of my head in the last 20+ years had one.

Of course I agree with you. But the fact of the matter is that drafting an offensive defenseman is often times more difficult. Teams put a premium on that offense from the back-end which means they are taken higher than other types of players. On top of that, they play a position, defense, where their main trait may not be defense. For some teams that's ok because of the way they play. For the Rangers, at least the past couple of years, that won't get that player any playing time.

Boom Boom Geoffrion* 01-29-2013 01:47 PM

I prefer the OP's old username.

Old things rock. Except for Jason Arnott. **** that noise.

HatTrick Swayze 01-29-2013 01:48 PM

I will start by saying that I agree that the Rangers are at a stage where they should be taking some more risks.

But I don't believe the risks should correlate directly to size & mental makeup but rather to defensive play and quality of competition.

Players like Thomas, St Croix, etc are classified as "high risk/reward". What is the realistic breakdown of what that means? Once every 20 years you may get St Louis or Giroux, Briere once every decade; if you get PAP you're doing well and JAM is about average.

Good players, no doubt. Useful. But aside from St Louis & Giroux not anyone who will be replacing Gabby or who you build a team around.

On the flip side, if*the player with "size" or who "lacks high end skill" can develop other areas of their game they will be infinitely more valuable than the flawed (size, defensive play, physicality) offensive perimeter dynamo.

Players like the aforementioned Briere, JAM, PAP who have top-flite talent but come with other deficiencies are available on the trade and FA market each summer. Alex Semin is a top-10 NHL talent on offensive game alone. He was available this summer for only a one year commitment.

The players that rarely, if ever, become available via trade or FA are the obvious superstars (which the NYR will ne'er be able to draft) and the players who combine defensive play, leadership, and physicality with top-6 skill. The rare exception being a guy like Mike Richards but think him, Kesler, Lucic, Backes, Callahan, Dustin Brown, TJ Oshie, Ryan O'Reilly, Morrow, etc.

The odds of that happening are admittedly slim, but it can be worth taking the chance because there is almost no opportunity to acquire those players otherwise. Not to mention if they don't reach their potential they still become valuable
NHL assets.

Boom Boom Geoffrion* 01-29-2013 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway (Post 58602483)
Taking the best player available should answer that question on its own.

BPA is what most successful teams do in various sports. We shouldn't stray. Especially when you consider how long it takes for players to develop into every day players, and how quickly rosters turn over.

KingWantsCup 01-29-2013 01:49 PM

I want high risk high reward drafting. No more D-men in the first round for a long time. I will bang my head through a wall if we draft another D-man in the first round this year. It's super rare to get a Giroux level player late, but since the team is competitive now this is a good time to roll the dice on maybe an undersized guy with very high potential like Giroux had.

Man we ****ed the '06 draft up so bad. :facepalm:

SingnBluesOnBroadway 01-29-2013 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KingWantsCup (Post 58602787)
I want high risk high reward drafting. No more D-men in the first round for a long time. I will bang my head through a wall if we draft another D-man in the first round this year. I would love to draft an elite center late like Giroux.

Again, take the BPA. They have needs in all areas even on defense.

dmjt4160 01-29-2013 01:53 PM

Just draft a 35g-40a winger in the second round, thats what I'd do

Capitain Midnight 01-29-2013 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KingWantsCup (Post 58602787)
I would love to draft an elite center late like Giroux.

Yup, none of the other teams are thinking that....just take the best player available and stock pile talent. That is what drafting is about.

SupersonicMonkey* 01-29-2013 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYR Boyler87 (Post 58602621)
Of course I agree with you. But the fact of the matter is that drafting an offensive defenseman is often times more difficult. Teams put a premium on that offense from the back-end which means they are taken higher than other types of players. On top of that, they play a position, defense, where their main trait may not be defense. For some teams that's ok because of the way they play. For the Rangers, at least the past couple of years, that won't get that player any playing time.

Who is to say that this player can't play adequately on the defensive side of the puck?

What if he's more positionally sound then anything else? If he isn't directly hurting the team there, fine. And chances are if he has the puck you wouldn't have to worry about it anyway, the beauty of a good transition game.

They ARE a premium, but it doesn't mean they don't come from later then the first round.

There will be guys like that available in this draft. And i already suggested one of them. Will Butcher for example, has a ton of potential. That's just an example.

We are not talking about a 1st round pick here. Rangers have taken some gambles with their 2nd round picks.

NYR Viper 01-29-2013 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KingWantsCup (Post 58602787)
I want high risk high reward drafting. No more D-men in the first round for a long time. I will bang my head through a wall if we draft another D-man in the first round this year. It's super rare to get a Giroux level player late, but since the team is competitive now this is a good time to roll the dice on maybe an undersized guy with very high potential like Giroux had.

Man we ****ed the '06 draft up so bad. :facepalm:

Staal and Girardi are UFA's in the near future. What happens if either or both walk? Are you going to lean THAT heavily on McIlrath and Skjei at that point?

The Rangers defensive depth is actually piss poor right now.

McIlrath
Noreau
Skjei

That's pretty much it...

Dorado* 01-29-2013 01:58 PM

The Jessiman and Montoya picks were the two bad ones as D Mac as controversial as it is on here as tremendous character and at some point will be an NHL d man . He's too athletic , too big and strong and too smart and teachable not to be . Not That I don't lament picking Tarasenko or Fowler who are already NHL talent and were at draft day but D Mack will be a Ranger eventually

mschmidt64 01-29-2013 01:59 PM

Given the Rangers market advantage and lure for drawing big name FA's, I think their strategy of drafting building blocks and then sprinkling in high profile FA's on top is not a bad strategy.

The problem is more along the lines of Brad Richards being locked into a contract until he's 54. If you're going to give Sidney Crosby or Steven Stamkos that deal, it's another thing.

bogans 01-29-2013 02:00 PM

I would just take the prettiest guy, look at how well it worked out in Lundqvist's case.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:29 AM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.