HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   New York Rangers (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=24)
-   -   Official Draft Picks Thread (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=149557)

Nich 07-05-2005 08:06 PM

Official Draft Picks Thread
 
what picks do we have in the next draft? don't we have other teams picks this year? Been to long since the season ended...lol

NYRangers 07-05-2005 08:10 PM

TOR 2nd and PHI 2nd are the extras. The rest are all normal NYR picks.

Nich 07-05-2005 08:11 PM

ok thanks. i knew we had atleast one.

BLACKBURN 07-06-2005 04:36 AM

Three seconds is pretty good, we could use them to trade up or take some risky picks in the 2nd on high end potential, offensive players who have bust concerns.

Nich 07-06-2005 09:00 AM

i say we just use them all to make picks...i mean with the theory of the lottery snaking, having three seconds could produce some really good picks.

Levitate 07-06-2005 09:09 AM

i could see sather using a pick or two in a trade if he sees a good young player another team is having trouble signing because of cap reasons

dedalus 07-06-2005 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Levitate
i could see sather using a pick or two in a trade if he sees a good young player another team is having trouble signing because of cap reasons

Holy crap! That's almost sounding like NFL-style thinking! (Whether that's a good thing or bad will depend on how you see a cap, I suppose.)

Levitate 07-06-2005 02:48 PM

yup, welcome to the new NHL.

Potted Plant 07-13-2005 09:54 AM

I have this bizarre fantasy of us winning the Crosby lottery, with Toronto and Philly coming out 29th and 30th, giving us the 31st, 32nd, and 60th picks (pending compensatories). We then draft Crosby, and trade our second round picks plus one of our many complementary prospects to get us into position to pick Jack Johnson.

Right now, we have very good quantity of prospects, but we lack quality everywhere except at goal. We have plenty of people who project to be complementary players. Second liners, 3rd liners, 4th liners, top 4 or top 6 defensemen. What we lack are people with the potential to be cornerstone type players; the guys you build a team around. Top-pairing d-men; 1st line centers; high scoring wingers.

I realize that it is utter fantasy to come out of the draft with Crosby and Johnson, but let me have my fantasy dammit!

Anthony Mauro 07-13-2005 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HighlyRegardedRookie
I have this bizarre fantasy of us winning the Crosby lottery, with Toronto and Philly coming out 29th and 30th, giving us the 31st, 32nd, and 60th picks (pending compensatories). We then draft Crosby, and trade our second round picks plus one of our many complementary prospects to get us into position to pick Jack Johnson.

Right now, we have very good quantity of prospects, but we lack quality everywhere except at goal. We have plenty of people who project to be complementary players. Second liners, 3rd liners, 4th liners, top 4 or top 6 defensemen. What we lack are people with the potential to be cornerstone type players; the guys you build a team around. Top-pairing d-men; 1st line centers; high scoring wingers.

I realize that it is utter fantasy to come out of the draft with Crosby and Johnson, but let me have my fantasy dammit!

Do you think 3 2nds and Balej would get it done though?

Going back to the Brendl deal to get to number 4:

On Rangerfan Central someone brought this up:

Sundstrom, Cloutier, 1st and 3rd in 2000...I believe.

And they proposed

Rachunek, Lundqvist, 1st and 3rd in 2006?

I think Henrik has more value than did Cloutier. Maybe switch the 3rd to a second and make the 1st a swap of 1sts?

Rachunek, Lundqvist, 2nd in 2006, swap of 1sts for a top 5 pick.

Even if we don't get the first overall, I'd be thrilled with a combo of Johnson & Brule. And add in not touching the 2nd's so we'd have atleast two top flight prospects plus three shots at adding guys who may have taken an unreasonable dive out of the first. Especially if its a snake draft and TOR and PHILLY get screwed.

SingnBluesOnBroadway 07-13-2005 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Balej's Dance
Do you think 3 2nds and Balej would get it done though?

Going back to the Brendl deal to get to number 4:

On Rangerfan Central someone brought this up:

Sundstrom, Cloutier, 1st and 3rd in 2000...I believe.

And they proposed

Rachunek, Lundqvist, 1st and 3rd in 2006?

I think Henrik has more value than did Cloutier. Maybe switch the 3rd to a second and make the 1st a swap of 1sts?

Rachunek, Lundqvist, 2nd in 2006, swap of 1sts for a top 5 pick.

Even if we don't get the first overall, I'd be thrilled with a combo of Johnson & Brule. And add in not touching the 2nd's so we'd have atleast two top flight prospects plus three shots at adding guys who may have taken an unreasonable dive out of the first. Especially if its a snake draft and TOR and PHILLY get screwed.

I'd be hesistant to trade Lundqvist right now. Also, didn't Rachunek sign a contract to play in Russia? So it would be the rights to Rachunek.

Anthony Mauro 07-13-2005 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway
I'd be hesistant to trade Lundqvist right now. Also, didn't Rachunek sign a contract to play in Russia? So it would be the rights to Rachunek.

So would alot of people including myself, right now wouldn't be the best time to move him or Montoya...but it kind of is a pressing time. We'd get two studs, clear up the goalie situation(albeit a positive and good situation), and still have 3 rarin to go picks in the second. Couldn't help but see different scenario's like picking at say 30-40 and nabbing a faller like Rask, Vincent, Frazee or adding Dman and forwards and taking a sleeper like Jon Quick in the late 3rd or early 4th slot. No matter how bad of a season Montoya had, he's still franchise material and needs to bounce back. We have a tweener in Barb's who's too old to be a prospect but young enough to not be a vet. Holt should be something around a back-up in the NHL, starter in the AHL and anything more would be a tremendous lift. Even Lundqvuist carries some risk to him, and it wouldn't be like trading a known commodity(NHL wise).

Also, has anyone heard anything about the Ranger's being in love with Brule? Some guy on the prospects board (Stiffler's Mom, i think) has said a few times already that NYR like him a lot.

SingnBluesOnBroadway 07-13-2005 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Balej's Dance
So would alot of people including myself, right now wouldn't be the best time to move him or Montoya...but it kind of is a pressing time. We'd get two studs, clear up the goalie situation(albeit a positive and good situation), and still have 3 rarin to go picks in the second. Couldn't help but see different scenario's like picking at say 30-40 and nabbing a faller like Rask, Vincent, Frazee or adding Dman and forwards and taking a sleeper like Jon Quick in the late 3rd or early 4th slot. No matter how bad of a season Montoya had, he's still franchise material and needs to bounce back. We have a tweener in Barb's who's too old to be a prospect but young enough to not be a vet. Holt should be something around a back-up in the NHL, starter in the AHL and anything more would be a tremendous lift. Even Lundqvuist carries some risk to him, and it wouldn't be like trading a known commodity(NHL wise).

Also, has anyone heard anything about the Ranger's being in love with Brule? Some guy on the prospects board (Stiffler's Mom, i think) has said a few times already that NYR like him a lot.


Great. Leave it to Sather to get the first pick and pick Brule with it.

Anthony Mauro 07-13-2005 11:34 AM

When talking about the lottery and fixing it, is that possible? I remember the Knicks and the drama with Ewing going to them because of a fix but how did it happen? Did they put metal in the ball or something?

All balls should be created equal...

Potted Plant 07-13-2005 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Balej's Dance
Do you think 3 2nds and Balej would get it done though?

I said let me have my fantasy!

Seriously, I have no idea what sort of things will be important in the "new" NHL. Let's assume, just for the sake of even continuing this discussion, that we end up with two very high 2nd round picks and one rather low one. Who ends up in position to pick Johnson or Brule? As likely as not, it will be a team like Columbus or Minnesota or Atlanta. Those teams all have very good high end prospects.

Columbus has Nash, Zherdev, and others. Minnesota has Gaborik, Heatley, O'Sullivan, etc. Atlanta has Kovulchuk, Lehtonen, etc. Those guys might be looking to pick up multiple complementary players who can start contributing right away. Players like Ortmeyer, Kondratiev, and Lundmark, and might also be interested in stocking their prospect base with quantity of good prospects to go along with their great young players. Let's say you offer one of those teams our 3 second round picks, Kondratiev, and Balej. Would it be enough to pry away a top 5 pick from them? Maybe. I don't know.

BTW, the Prospect Board is talking about a "done deal" with a snaking draft and a big lottery, where the Rangers get 3 balls out of 48, and Toronto and Philly get 1 each.

monster_bertuzzi 07-13-2005 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Balej's Dance
Also, has anyone heard anything about the Ranger's being in love with Brule? Some guy on the prospects board (Stiffler's Mom, i think) has said a few times already that NYR like him a lot.

That was the Rangers head Western scout (cant recall his name) on radio here saying that Brule is easily the second best player in the draft - but most teams are scared by his size.

Anthony Mauro 07-13-2005 09:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by monster_bertuzzi
That was the Rangers head Western scout (cant recall his name) on radio here saying that Brule is easily the second best player in the draft - but most teams are scared by his size.

For real? That news lol. I guess I like it, Brule is quite a competitor but I've brought up a Jamie Lundmark comparison before.

Did it seem like the whole Ranger scouting staff was in agreement or was it just his view? I'm not sure if other ranger scouts would write off his opinion with a Johnson is better vote between them all.

Also, it is quite disturbing that our future is partly in the hands of Glen's little boy Shannon. Does he have any credentials?

monster_bertuzzi 07-14-2005 12:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Balej's Dance
For real? That news lol. I guess I like it, Brule is quite a competitor but I've brought up a Jamie Lundmark comparison before.

Did it seem like the whole Ranger scouting staff was in agreement or was it just his view? I'm not sure if other ranger scouts would write off his opinion with a Johnson is better vote between them all.

Also, it is quite disturbing that our future is partly in the hands of Glen's little boy Shannon. Does he have any credentials?

It was just one of their scouts, but he sure talked like it was the opinion of the Rangers as a whole, not just him. And why not? All the scouting services say that Brule is the most talented other than the big guy - but he's portrayed as an individualist and well he's kinda small at 5'10/5'11.

BTW where do you get this Lundmark comparison from?

Anthony Mauro 07-14-2005 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by monster_bertuzzi
It was just one of their scouts, but he sure talked like it was the opinion of the Rangers as a whole, not just him. And why not? All the scouting services say that Brule is the most talented other than the big guy - but he's portrayed as an individualist and well he's kinda small at 5'10/5'11.

BTW where do you get this Lundmark comparison from?

Thanks.

The comparison is one of my ramblings. Both are/were small and lean, offensive whiz's, gritty as heck and captain material on the junior level, good to great skaters but Lundmark has flopped greatly and been a disappointment in the NHL. I guess its more of Brule's style not translating to the pro's like Lundmark's didnt. We all wonder where Lundmark's fire and physicality disappeared to. He was a beast like Brule in juniors.

bathgate 07-14-2005 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by monster_bertuzzi
It was just one of their scouts, but he sure talked like it was the opinion of the Rangers as a whole, not just him. And why not? All the scouting services say that Brule is the most talented other than the big guy - but he's portrayed as an individualist and well he's kinda small at 5'10/5'11.

BTW where do you get this Lundmark comparison from?

I was in Vancouver on business and happened to see Brule play one game. He had previously been BENCHED for indifferent play(do I hear Lundmark). However, the game I saw he scored a goal and had three assists.He clearly was the best player. The next day the Vancouver papers praised his play of the previous night but chided him for his immature and selfish attitude. He reminds me of Robbie Schremp. If his head is screwed on straight, he may be the third best player in the draft.

Anthony Mauro 07-14-2005 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bathgate
I was in Vancouver on business and happened to see Brule play one game. He had previously been BENCHED for indifferent play(do I hear Lundmark). However, the game I saw he scored a goal and had three assists.He clearly was the best player. The next day the Vancouver papers praised his play of the previous night but chided him for his immature and selfish attitude. He reminds me of Robbie Schremp. If his head is screwed on straight, he may be the third best player in the draft.

How big did he look in person? In a shot with he and Cherry, they were the same height and Cherry is 5'10'' by what some people say.

bathgate 07-14-2005 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Balej's Dance
How big did he look in person? In a shot with he and Cherry, they were the same height and Cherry is 5'10'' by what some people say.

It is hard to say on skates. However I thought he looked about 5' 9''. He is not big. Nevertheless, he skates well and he was totally involved,hitting and being hit ,in the one game I saw. His teammates seem to love him from the newspaper quotes. If we have the third pick or lower, I would take a chance on him. Could become a Marcel Dionne type player. No second guessing from me if he is selected third or lower.

Nich 07-14-2005 06:50 PM

hey, how tall is st. louis? heart > size

Anthony Mauro 07-15-2005 06:37 PM

Picture this best case scenario:

Crosby, 31st, 32nd, 60th, 61st.

Broadway Brett 07-23-2005 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Balej's Dance
When talking about the lottery and fixing it, is that possible? I remember the Knicks and the drama with Ewing going to them because of a fix but how did it happen? Did they put metal in the ball or something?

All balls should be created equal...

They did not fix the Ewing Lottery. But it would be very easy to fix a Lottery. All you would have to do is put helium into one of the lotto balls, or weigh every other ball down with water, or put a magnet near where the ball would come out and put metal in one of the lotto balls.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:16 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.