HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   New York Rangers (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=24)
-   -   Rangers have best & worst picks of the decade (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=712878)

Doyle 12-10-2009 01:56 PM

Rangers have best & worst picks of the decade
 
http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/blog/puc...urn=nhl,207947

Glad to see our scouting judged fairly...

Loffen 12-10-2009 02:00 PM

Jessiman was a bust? Really!? That's bs....

Lundqvist was quite a catch. Why he was taken in the 7th Round still baffles me.

NYRangers09 12-10-2009 02:21 PM

****ing Jessiman!!! it kills me every time I think about who we passed up on. Parise, Brown, Getzlaf, Richards, Perry. Ugh.

t3hg00se 12-10-2009 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYRangers09 (Post 22578825)
****ing Jessiman!!! it kills me every time I think about who we passed up on. Parise, Brown, Getzlaf, Richards, Perry. Ugh.

Any of those players would completely revolutionize this team.

Doyle 12-10-2009 02:26 PM

I would have been happy with Zherdev :sarcasm:

Bluenote13 12-10-2009 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LoFFeN (Post 22578479)
Jessiman was a bust? Really!? That's bs....

Lundqvist was quite a catch. Why he was taken in the 7th Round still baffles me.

Look at the Krahn pick, big goalies were the 'sexy' pick at that point. Still are in some ways.

Man did I trash that Krahn pick at the time, one of the few I got right I guess ;)

Synergy27 12-10-2009 02:27 PM

The funny thing is, an argument can be made that both of those picks have hurt the franchise. The Jessiman pick, for obvious reasons, and the Lundqvist pick because he is so good he has almost single-handedly kept us from seriously rebuilding. Imagine the 05-06 team without Lundqvist. I really wonder where they would be right now had they really, really sucked that year like they were supposed to.

Bluenote13 12-10-2009 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t3hg00se (Post 22578862)
Any of those players would completely revolutionize this team.

Thats why its so hard to let go of.

Chimp 12-10-2009 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LoFFeN (Post 22578479)
Jessiman was a bust? Really!? That's bs....

Lundqvist was quite a catch. Why he was taken in the 7th Round still baffles me.

According to Rangers own scouts, it was because the year the draft occured, Lundqvist's numbers weren't that impressive.

From the tournament where scout Jan Dusek spotted him, he wrote though: "Never before have I seen a goalie this good, at this age, since Dominik Hasek." (or something along those lines). So, the Rangers took a chance in the 7th. A goalie they knew had great talent under the radar, but whose future was uncertain.

Bluenote13 12-10-2009 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Synergy27 (Post 22578923)
The funny thing is, an argument can be made that both of those picks have hurt the franchise. The Jessiman pick, for obvious reasons, and the Lundqvist pick because he is so good he has almost single-handedly kept us from seriously rebuilding. Imagine the 05-06 team without Lundqvist. I really wonder where they would be right now had they really, really sucked that year like they were supposed to.

No, they had the chance during 7 years of no playoffs, not when Henke got here.

They shouldnt have signed FA's, traded for Lindros/Bure. We wouldve had at least 1 or 2 chances at the cream of the draft crop from one of those great years IMO.

allstar3970 12-10-2009 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Synergy27 (Post 22578923)
The funny thing is, an argument can be made that both of those picks have hurt the franchise. The Jessiman pick, for obvious reasons, and the Lundqvist pick because he is so good he has almost single-handedly kept us from seriously rebuilding. Imagine the 05-06 team without Lundqvist. I really wonder where they would be right now had they really, really sucked that year like they were supposed to.

Yeah! lets get bad players so we can rebuild and get draft picks!! then we can trade those players for MORE draft picks. Then we win the stanley cup. Simple.

Hanke 12-10-2009 03:12 PM

my vote

best 3
1. lundqvist
2. delzotto (so far)
3. Staal

worst 3
1. Jessiman (god im not even gunna say who we coulda gotten, just destroys me ! ;()
2. Al Montoya
3. Pavel Brendl?

pwoz 12-10-2009 03:27 PM

I have Getzlaf and Gaborik on my NHL 10 Be-a-GM-mode Team. We won the cup!

Lundqvist was relieved!

jniklast 12-10-2009 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaborik Scores (Post 22579711)
my vote

best 3
1. lundqvist
2. delzotto (so far)
3. Staal

worst 3
1. Jessiman (god im not even gunna say who we coulda gotten, just destroys me ! ;()
2. Al Montoya
3. Pavel Brendl?

Brendl wasn't this decade. I guess it would be Korpikoski 3rd

King of cool 12-10-2009 03:31 PM

Yeah Korpikoski deserves a vote here. Easy to say with the hindsight tho.

Rome 12-10-2009 03:33 PM

As if Ranger fans wouldn't be moaning and groaning like bitter old men had we taken a dozen or so other names in that draft? They'd still be *****ing that we didn't take Richards, Getzlaf or Parise.

Had we taken Marc-Antoine Pouliot, Mark Stuart, Anthony Stewart, Brian Boyle, Jeff Tambellini, Patrick Eaves or Shawn Belle, or even more so had someone like Robert Nilsson, Andrei Kostitsyn or Steve Bernier fallen to us as well. All have been major disappointments.

People regurgitate that same partisan fact that "all the draft picks have played in the NHL except Jessiman", but never actually talk about just how much those picks actually played.
• Pouliot has been up and down with the Oilers since 2005 repeatedly, and seeds on their 6th on their club in centers behind Sam Gagner, Shawn Horcoff, Ryan Potulny, Ryan Stone and Mike Comrie. He's a third-liner on their club, and their club is weak. What kind of NHL value do you think he really has?

• Eaves was drafted 29th overall, and didn't play for Ottawa until the 2005-06 season because he finished his NCAA career with BC, and played a whopping 17 games in two years for them before they traded him to Carolina, who then turned around and 5 months later traded him to Boston who then waived him (IIRC), and he finally signed a 1-year deal with Detroit on August 4th - well into the free agent period. Real superstar ya got there.

• Kostitsyn and his enigmatic brother were chalked up to be the next friggin' Sedin twins, when in reality they were more like the Ferraro brothers. He's never scored more than 26 goals in the NHL, and never surpassed 53 points in a single season. Both are apparently on the block already in Montrιal.

• Bernier was drafted by the Sharks 16th overall and played 101 games for them in two years amassing an incredible – wait for it – 29 goals. Holy ****! He was traded to Buffalo for Brian Campbell at the deadline in 2008, scored 3 goals in 17 games with Buffalo, and was again traded to the Canucks where he seems to have found the same game he's always had – 15 goals in 82 games in 2008-09. On pace for 23 goals this season.

• Boyle couldn't crack the Kings lineup when they were a bottom-5 team in the NHL, and he's a fourth-line center by default on our club because we traded a 3rd round pick for him. On pace for 8 goals this season. He should have never been a first-round pick.

• Tambellini sucks. I'm not even going to bother with this one.

• Stewart and Belle are nothing to write home about either.
This draft and it's choices are always blown out of proportion.

Bluenote13 12-10-2009 03:38 PM

Actually Blue, our scouts at the time liked Getzlaf alot, with Dustin Brown not too far behind. If not Hugh, Getzlaf/Brown wouldve been our pick, i'm almost certain of it.

Rome 12-10-2009 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bluenote13 (Post 22580078)
Actually Blue, our scouts at the time liked Getzlaf alot, with Dustin Brown not too far behind. If not Hugh, Getzlaf/Brown wouldve been our pick, i'm almost certain of it.

Because we were in the market for a power forward, which the NHL was still built around at the time Jessiman was drafted. Brown would probably fit the power forward mold by default, but he didn't have the same size as Jessiman and Getzlaf – so when you look at this realistically, we took a 50/50 roll of the dice and lost. It's not nearly as poor of a pick as the melodramatics like to make it out to be.

Levitate 12-10-2009 03:41 PM

yeah but most of those guys were drafted a fair bit later than Jessiman

I do agree with your overall point though...he's the worst pick out of a great draft, but there are still a fair amount of other guys who aren't very good from that first round

Bluenote13 12-10-2009 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hockey is Blue (Post 22580109)
Because we were in the market for a power forward, which the NHL was still built around at the time Jessiman was drafted. Brown would probably fit the power forward mold by default, but he didn't have the same size as Jessiman and Getzlaf – so when you look at this realistically, we took a 50/50 roll of the dice and lost. It's not nearly as poor of a pick as the melodramatics like to make it out to be.

I disagree.

When your cupboard is bare, you don't pick the biggest question mark, and that was Hugh at the time.

chosen 12-10-2009 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chimp (Post 22578957)
According to Rangers own scouts, it was because the year the draft occured, Lundqvist's numbers weren't that impressive.

From the tournament where scout Jan Dusek spotted him, he wrote though: "Never before have I seen a goalie this good, at this age, since Dominik Hasek." (or something along those lines). So, the Rangers took a chance in the 7th. A goalie they knew had great talent under the radar, but whose future was uncertain.

Interesting, because I've always viewed Lundqvist as a goalie who had a chance to be a Hasek-type impact player.

Hasek was to goaltending as Orr was to defensemen. Well, not quite that, but it's not a patently absurd statement either.

Rome 12-10-2009 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bluenote13 (Post 22580137)
I disagree.

When your cupboard is bare, you don't pick the biggest question mark, and that was Hugh at the time.

Like I said, we took a roll of the dice and had a 50/50 shot. Jessiman was high risk/high reward.

The melodramatics like to make it out to be as if we somehow knew as a matter of fact that Jessiman would bust and that we wanted to screw the team over.

Next they'll say we knew Cherepanov had his heart condition and that we should have taken Max Pacioretty or David Perron.

Revisionist history is fun! :laugh:

Bluenote13 12-10-2009 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hockey is Blue (Post 22580176)
Like I said, we took a roll of the dice and had a 50/50 shot. Jessiman was high risk/high reward.

The melodramatics like to make it out to be as if we somehow knew as a matter of fact that Jessiman would bust and that we wanted to screw the team over.

Next they'll say we knew Cherepanov had his heart condition and that we should have taken Max Pacioretty or David Perron.

Revisionist history is fun! :laugh:

Its a fact though ! Hugh was the biggest wild card, literally ! Everything from his history, skill, and his competition were being questioned. Compared to guys like Parise, Brown, Getzlaf, etc he was a big question mark.

When you have nothing to build on, that is the worst possible time to gamble. You can't run a business that way, much less build a successful hockey team.

Rome 12-10-2009 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bluenote13 (Post 22580259)
Its a fact though ! Hugh was the biggest wild card, literally ! Everything from his history, skill, and his competition were being questioned. Compared to guys like Parise, Brown, Getzlaf, etc he was a big question mark.

When you have nothing to build on, that is the worst possible time to gamble. You can't run a business that way, much less build a successful hockey team.

I understand that, but that doesn't make the gamble any less of a 50/50 roll of the dice. You're not combating my point – you're adding to an aspect of it that I'm not even debating.

Personally, I'd have gone after Getzlaf, or traded up to try snagging Phaneuf. We had plenty of talent on the 2003 roster who we could have packaged with the 12th overall pick to slide up three spots.

We could have enticed Calgary to take some combination variation of Greg deVries, Darius Kasparaitis or Fedor Tyutin (especiallly) to try snaking up to select Phaneuf.

WhipNash27 12-10-2009 04:00 PM

Would have been something if Jessiman ended up working out like he was supposed to. He would have been a beast with that frame.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:01 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.