: Confirmed with Link:
Corey Potter Signs With Penguins
View Single Post
07-17-2010, 01:47 PM
Join Date: Feb 2002
Originally Posted by
We got Dubinsky and Ryan Callahan in 2004....still have Dane Byers.
We got Staal in 2005, Sauer and Dupont are still in the system, Tom Pyatt was in the Gomez deal that brought Valentenko and McDonagh over, MA Cliche was in the Sean Avery deal.
2006 We got a 2nd rounder and another prospect for Sangs. Artem Anisimov is already an NHLer, now it's time to see what his ceiling is.
2007 is a bit of a wash, Cherapanov's death is bad luck and all you can wonder is what if? Imagine he panned out and was our 2nd line RWer by now? Lafleur was an awful pick, then we didn't pick again until the 4th round. Hagelin's a pretty highly regarded prospect though.
2008 yielded another NHLer already in Del Zotto. He's established himself where others at his position picked before him haven't (although the Rangers were helped by a deep draft on defense...Doughty, Bogosian, Schenn, Pietrangelo, Myers). Derek Stepan is already one of our top 3 prospects, Grachev as well, Kundtratek is still considered someone that's on track for the NHL, Dale Weise could crack the 4th line this season and looked good in limited action last year...
I can't help but laugh that my final point was that you should save your red herring ... and then you immediately post nothing but a continuation of your red herring.
More humorous still is that you question others for using "hindsight" to evaluate past failures ... and then you offer the same "hindsight" to evaluate past successes.
So which is it? Are we allowed to talk about the past or not? Or are you saying that failures are mere "hindsight" but successes are current and important? Because right now it seems you rather want it both ways: You want to laud the "excellence" of the 2004 draft, but if a critique of the 2003 draft is offered, well, that's just "hindsight."
Originally Posted by
And I think what's funny is that you say that's how you judge a draft, but at the time of these drafts so many of the picks the Rangers made could have and were great picks in the eyes of many.
Exactly my point. Everybody's a winner on draft day because everbody gets a bunch of prospects they think have a chance of making it to the NHL ... otherwise they wouldn't have drafted the kids they did. Only time and the judgment of history will actually tell us whether and to what degree a draft is successful. That's something that's as true of the 2010 draft as it is for the 2003. Time has yielded its final judgment on the class of 2003 where the Rangers are concerned. We can now render a fair and complete verdict on that draft ... even if such a verdict offends some fans.
As an extension of my first point, one interesting fan behavior is this: when picks ARE critiqued on draft day (as happened with Jessiman) there are always those who leap about and say "You can't do that!!! It takes FIVE years to find out about these players!!!!!!" (As happened with Jessiman)
And when, five years or more later, these drafts are revisited and critiqued, it is inevitably those who once screamed "You can't judge NOOOOOOOWWWWWW!" who begin to scream "That's old news! That's beating a dead horse! That's just hindsight!" (As is happening at this very moment.)
Isn't it funny how things work sometimes?
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by dedalus