HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Bright Future

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-05-2008, 06:45 PM
  #26
BDubinskyNYR17*
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: New York
Posts: 10,761
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to BDubinskyNYR17*
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nemchinov13 View Post
2003. You, guys, want an impact/franchise forward? Well, we've had a chance.
Edit:
why did u remind me

BDubinskyNYR17* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-05-2008, 08:36 PM
  #27
eco's bones
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Elmira NY
Country: United States
Posts: 13,678
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fletch View Post
the top five scorers were over the age of 28, four of whom were over 30. Those guys enabled the young guys to succeed. Out of these kids, Dubi led the way with 40 points while playing extensively on a top line with Jagr. The defense is nice and young, but there's only three young guys and I'm not sure what's really in Hartford in regards to NHL potential. I think there are a lot of question marks currently in the organization and this team has a ways to go to take shape.

Dubi really picked it up in the second half and throughout the playoffs though Fletch. He was often as much a force as his superstar linemate. Having said that I don't think he's ready to carry a line but there's no doubt that he's part of the solution. I think Dawes is going to do better next year as well--maybe becoming a legit 2nd line player.

eco's bones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-05-2008, 09:03 PM
  #28
RangersFan
Registered User
 
RangersFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: LA, CA & NY, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 7,619
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to RangersFan Send a message via MSN to RangersFan
Is the future really that bright? Some nice players in our farm and on our roster, but all I see is a lot of complimentary players. Hank, Dubi, and Staal are nice players, and Sangs, Cherry, AA show promise, but I really don't see a core that we can slot our slew of complimentary players around and hope for a Championship team any time soon. Gomez, Drury, and Hanks contracts have really taken away any flexibility we will have in the future. And watching the 2 teams in the finals this season made it very clear this organization isn't even close to competing for a cup any time soon. Can't be anything but envious with all the top end talent those teams have. Unbelievable that the Wings have almost their entire roster under contract for next season as well, scary. I pray to god one of these days we'll draft that impact player in the mid to late 1st round that so many teams seem to do but us, or in the latter rounds that Detroit seems to do a lot.

RangersFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-06-2008, 08:47 AM
  #29
Trxjw
Retired.
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Land of no calls..
Country: United States
Posts: 17,171
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerseyRangers View Post
True but during that same period we've drafted a stud goalie and a stud d-man. Whose done better? I've never said that the Rangers have done an incredible job drafting these last 4 or 5 seasons. I'm just saying that Sather & Co. have done a credible job -- much better than teams such as the Isles, Devils, Canes, etc. Time to give credit where credit is due.

Can't compare our drafting to Pitt, Washington, the Yotes or the Hawks. If we start to do that then I agree -- Rangers have drafted alot worse than those teams. But I also hope we are all intelligent enough to know why that is!
They did. The won a cup last season, remember? Those two players had a massive impact on that achievement.

I can't say we did a better job drafting based on Staal and Lundqvist. Staal was more or less a no-brainer and Lundqvist was a steal in a late round. We got very lucky with Lundqvist, it wasn't great drafting by any means.

Even in Staal's draft year, we could have done better. We could have had Statsny and Letang in the 2nd round with our two picks, but we wound up with Sauer and Cliche. I know hind-sight is 20-20, but we still didn't draft very well that year other than Staal.

Trxjw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-06-2008, 12:07 PM
  #30
JerseyRangers
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Jersey City, NJ
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 1,619
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trxjw View Post
They did. The won a cup last season, remember? Those two players had a massive impact on that achievement.

I can't say we did a better job drafting based on Staal and Lundqvist. Staal was more or less a no-brainer and Lundqvist was a steal in a late round. We got very lucky with Lundqvist, it wasn't great drafting by any means.

Even in Staal's draft year, we could have done better. We could have had Statsny and Letang in the 2nd round with our two picks, but we wound up with Sauer and Cliche. I know hind-sight is 20-20, but we still didn't draft very well that year other than Staal.
Yes but everyone forgets how unlucky we got with Blackburn. Blackburn doesn't get injured we don't draft Montoya. You can't seperate out the parts you like and those you don't like. Also, Anaheim didn't win the cup cause they drafted better. Two guys by the name of Neidermeyer and Pronger had much more to do with it then anything they ever drafted.

JerseyRangers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-06-2008, 12:14 PM
  #31
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,473
vCash: 500
I hope so, eco's...

without the proper wingers, I can see Dubi taking a step back in production - he's not a natural goal scorer and isn't a gifted playmaker - whatever he gets comes from hard work, but he's not going to be able to do it all alone. With him slated as possibly a third line centerman, what wingers will be there with whom he can play? Right now, only Cally and Dawes are signed among top 9 wingers. If Dawes is a legit #2 guy, he may play with Gomez, perhaps Cally with Drury, and then who's left? Obviously holes can be filled, but right now, they are not and I really don't see those holes getting filled from within.

Fletch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-06-2008, 12:21 PM
  #32
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,473
vCash: 500
Jersey...

the Ducks did draft Getzlaf(21), Penner (was he drafted or undrafted UFA? who was 24) and Perry (21) - were three of their top six forwards. Getzlaf led the team in points in the playoffs. Perry was tied for second. Not a bad showing from the kids.

Fletch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-06-2008, 12:34 PM
  #33
Trxjw
Retired.
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Land of no calls..
Country: United States
Posts: 17,171
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerseyRangers View Post
Yes but everyone forgets how unlucky we got with Blackburn. Blackburn doesn't get injured we don't draft Montoya. You can't seperate out the parts you like and those you don't like. Also, Anaheim didn't win the cup cause they drafted better. Two guys by the name of Neidermeyer and Pronger had much more to do with it then anything they ever drafted.
You were the one saying we drafted well with Lundqvist and Staal. If the Rangers were so confident in Lundqvist as a draftee, why would they draft another goalie the year after?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fletch View Post
the Ducks did draft Getzlaf(21), Penner (was he drafted or undrafted UFA? who was 24) and Perry (21) - were three of their top six forwards. Getzlaf led the team in points in the playoffs. Perry was tied for second. Not a bad showing from the kids.
Bingo.

Trxjw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-06-2008, 03:11 PM
  #34
JerseyRangers
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Jersey City, NJ
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 1,619
vCash: 500
[QUOTE=Trxjw;14330660]You were the one saying we drafted well with Lundqvist and Staal. If the Rangers were so confident in Lundqvist as a draftee, why would they draft another goalie the year after?

Because even with Lundqvist in the organization at the time coupled with the uncertainty surrounding Blackburn the organization was woefully thin in net. This organization had been burned once before when we got caught without a understudy for Richter. Remember the horrible trades we made trying to patch up the hole when Richter got injured? Sather and Co. where making sure that didn't happen again. Lundqvist developed better then anyone could have predicted and Montoya became expendable. I can live with taking that risk.

Also, I agree that Anaheim did a great job drafting and developing Getzlaf and Perry. However, its not like they won the cup because they drafted so well. The two biggest parts of that team (Pronger and Neidermeyer) where brought in via trade or free agency. These days, unless you luck out like the Pens, Caps or Hawks you have to draft well, handle the cap well, and make wise FA signings. Given where the Rangers have drafted over the last 5 or so years the organization has done a pretty solid job at the draft table. There are alot of teams who have done much, much worse during that time!

JerseyRangers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-06-2008, 03:23 PM
  #35
Nemchinov13
Registered User
 
Nemchinov13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Gravesend
Country: Russian Federation
Posts: 1,726
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fletch View Post
the Ducks did draft Getzlaf(21), Penner (was he drafted or undrafted UFA? who was 24) and Perry (21) - were three of their top six forwards. Getzlaf led the team in points in the playoffs. Perry was tied for second. Not a bad showing from the kids.
And those two came from the same draft - the generational 2003. Yes, I know, I'm still beating a dead horse, but Lord have mercy - we've fallen behind everybody, based on that draft alone.

Nemchinov13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-07-2008, 11:00 AM
  #36
donpaulo
Capt Barry Beck
 
donpaulo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: nihon
Country: Japan
Posts: 1,620
vCash: 500
I think Bourret's issues were more about language than talent. Well that and the ATL hasn't really been that successful at developing talent...
I am hoping he will surprise us next season

donpaulo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-07-2008, 06:44 PM
  #37
BobMarleyNYR
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Alphabet
Country: Iraq
Posts: 3,182
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to BobMarleyNYR
Quote:
Originally Posted by eco's bones View Post
Should also mention Josh Gratton who I believe is an RFA. He has NHL experience and might make a run at a 4th line job.
Gratton is a goon and.5, Orr is better.

BobMarleyNYR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-07-2008, 09:23 PM
  #38
bobbop
Henrik & Pop
 
bobbop's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Suburban Phoenix
Country: United States
Posts: 5,145
vCash: 500
My hope for future is less rooted in the individiual players, talents and needs of the young guns but rather the culture that the organization has labored so hard to to institute. I think specific talent needs (i.e. a sniper to play with Gomez) are far less important than a cohesive, hard working, team oriented culture. I think that is why Detroit is so good. They certainly don't have a world class second line, their goaltender has bounced around the league for years and their personnel is not the best in the league. What they do have is respect for each other, care for each other and the willingness to work hard for their sweater. Individually some very good players but the team is greater than the sum of the parts. That is what I hope is happening here.

bobbop is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-07-2008, 11:47 PM
  #39
Edge
Registered User
 
Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Amish Paradise
Country: United States
Posts: 13,398
vCash: 500
I think the truth is somewhere in the middle of this discussion.

On the one hand, this is a team that's going to be built around rolling lines and having depth.

On the other hand, they're still going to need impact players to put the puck in the net.

That's really where the development of a kid like Cherepanov is going to be crucial.

I think we have some talented kids who can help a team win but I'm still concerned about top end forward talent who is going to finish chances.

They key part of building a team is getting the most value out of your picks.

The 2002 draft is only being held up by Petr Prucha at the moment. As he goes, so goes anything redeemable about the draft.

The 2003 draft seems to be hinging on the development of Nigel Dawes at this point.

2004 has a chance to be the turning point of this organization as it has a pretty got shot at producing four legit NHL players.

If 2005 can produce one more legit NHL'er in addition to Staal, it will be viewed as a success.

Ditto for 2006 if it can produce two quality NHL players for the team.

2007 is too early to tell, but my early reaction is that it might be a one player draft for us.

The 2003 draft is going to hurt for a while. You could argue the team could've benefited from not trying to rebuild/make the playoffs at the same time and you'd make a good point. On the other hand you can look at Detroit and the job they did with uncovering talent with late picks, keeping the right vets and building a system that made average/good players better.

Edge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2008, 10:49 AM
  #40
NYR Viper
Moderator
 
NYR Viper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: PA
Country: United States
Posts: 29,535
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edge View Post
I think the truth is somewhere in the middle of this discussion.

On the one hand, this is a team that's going to be built around rolling lines and having depth.

On the other hand, they're still going to need impact players to put the puck in the net.

That's really where the development of a kid like Cherepanov is going to be crucial.

I think we have some talented kids who can help a team win but I'm still concerned about top end forward talent who is going to finish chances.

They key part of building a team is getting the most value out of your picks.

The 2002 draft is only being held up by Petr Prucha at the moment. As he goes, so goes anything redeemable about the draft.

The 2003 draft seems to be hinging on the development of Nigel Dawes at this point.

2004 has a chance to be the turning point of this organization as it has a pretty got shot at producing four legit NHL players.

If 2005 can produce one more legit NHL'er in addition to Staal, it will be viewed as a success.

Ditto for 2006 if it can produce two quality NHL players for the team.

2007 is too early to tell, but my early reaction is that it might be a one player draft for us.

The 2003 draft is going to hurt for a while. You could argue the team could've benefited from not trying to rebuild/make the playoffs at the same time and you'd make a good point. On the other hand you can look at Detroit and the job they did with uncovering talent with late picks, keeping the right vets and building a system that made average/good players better.
i agree that the reason we arent seeing the top-end talent right now is because of the op-end picks not working oit however:

2004(korpikoski, byers)
2005(staal, sauer, bourret)
2006(sanguinetti, anisimov, hillier)
2007(cheraponov, hagelin)

i would consider those as pretty good drafts, and we are seeing a lot of these players battling for spots as soon as next season....granted, the only high-end forward on that list is cheraponov IMO players like anisimov, hillier, bourret, hagelin, and korpikoski, if they reach their could be second liners.....however, i do agree that drafts like 2004 with montoya, and 2003 with jessimanwhere there were better picks available at the time are going to hurt this organization for a long time however if the players i listed can turn out to be good players, i think the team will be fine...considering drury and gomez are here for a long time, players like callahan, dawes, and dubinsky are already playing onthe rangers and girardi and tyutin and staal are there as well and the hardest position to fill is filled most likely for the next 10 years in goalie with hank....i just hope the rangers dont try to do something stupid like try and pay for hossa so they cant pay players like staal and dubi when there time comes....let the kids play, sign someone like hagman who complimeants the aggressive style renney wants to play with the forwards and let the younger players from within take on bigger roles

NYR Viper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2008, 12:14 PM
  #41
SaveByLundqvist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 262
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eco's bones View Post
I'm cautiously optimistic on Byers. He's a combative player. Not having watched any Hartford games last year--the picture I have of him might not conform to reality but this is what it is. 142 shots on goal--23 goals. The shots number is not very high for an everyday forward--looking at his size, penalty minutes I would infer that he does a lot of corner and board work--that he gets to the front of the net. It strikes me that he's not the kind that shoots all that often off the rush that scoring literally on one out of 6 shots that he gets most of his goals in close. Getting to the net and staying there at the NHL level will be harder than at the AHL level--but the Rangers lack bigger players that set up around the crease. He got our first goal in preseason on the pwp (against Martin Brodeur I believe) doing exactly that. The Rangers got outplayed physically in the 2nd round by the Penguins. We didn't have as much top end talent either but the physical gap is an area that we could close more easily and Byers might be part of the solution.
im pretty sure that goal byers scored was against weekes in the preseason, i think that was the game were he hit his head on the post

SaveByLundqvist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2008, 06:32 PM
  #42
Edge
Registered User
 
Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Amish Paradise
Country: United States
Posts: 13,398
vCash: 500
Quote:
i agree that the reason we arent seeing the top-end talent right now is because of the op-end picks not working oit however:

2004(korpikoski, byers)
2005(staal, sauer, bourret)
2006(sanguinetti, anisimov, hillier)
2007(cheraponov, hagelin)
Right now as far forwards go, the only two who look like legit top 6 forwards are Cherapanoc and Anisimov. And of those two, Cherapanov is the only who projects as a high-end finisher.

Korpikoski projects safely as a nice two-way third line player. Byers potentially a nice fourth liner.

Staal and Saur don't address our new for forward scorers/finishers and Bourret needs to make himself a good AHL'er before we can even talk about the NHL.

Sanguinetti falls into the category of Staal and Sauer as not helping our need for a good scoring forward and Hillier projects as a possible nice bottom six forward aka Ryan Callahan.

Hagelin also doesn't appear to be a top six forward prospect at this time either.

Quote:
i would consider those as pretty good drafts, and we are seeing a lot of these players battling for spots as soon as next season....granted, the only high-end forward on that list is cheraponov IMO players like anisimov, hillier, bourret, hagelin, and korpikoski, if they reach their could be second liners.....however, i do agree that drafts like 2004 with montoya, and 2003 with jessimanwhere there were better picks available at the time are going to hurt this organization for a long time however if the players i listed can turn out to be good players,
For me the question isn't whether we have nice or even good players, the challange is cheap scoring talent with the potential to give you 10 good years. That's the difference between the contenders and the also rans and it's going to be something that is going to be VERY dependent on both Cherapanov AND Anisimov developing.

Korpikoski is going to be a nice player, but we need to be VERY careful about pegging him too highly. I can see that movement picking up steam around here in the last 3 months and I think we risk putting the carriage before the horse like we often do.

I also think expectations for Hillier and Hagelin are a bit high and Bourret has yet to tap into his potential.

That's not to say it's impossible, I just think it's pretty unreasoable and I think a bit overly optimistic.


Quote:
i think the team will be fine...considering drury and gomez are here for a long time, players like callahan, dawes, and dubinsky are already playing onthe rangers and girardi and tyutin and staal are there as well and the hardest position to fill is filled most likely for the next 10 years in goalie with hank....i just hope the rangers dont try to do something stupid like try and pay for hossa so they cant pay players like staal and dubi when there time comes....let the kids play, sign someone like hagman who complimeants the aggressive style renney wants to play with the forwards and let the younger players from within take on bigger roles
Again I think that's very optimistic, but who exactly is putting Dury and Gomez's passes in the nets?

Dubinsky is a center.

Dawes has a shot, but his top end is probably a good second line winger.

Our young defense is very good, but the question is about offense. Obviously we proved we could play solid defense this year, but I don't see our scoring troubles getting any better in a post-Jagr, Straka, Shanahan world.

The problem with not having sure-fire players to fill holes is that you have to keep going out and signing them which eats into your budget in a salary capped league. Furthermore, why would a player sign with the Rangers for a shorter contract when they go and get long-term job security somewhere else? If you offer them a short contract you're going to pay them more money, which brings us right back to the first point about operating in a salary capped league.

The dilemma we are in right now is that for years we stockpiled great systems guys (of which we have some REALLY good options) and young defenseman. The challange is adding guys who can actually put the puck in the back of the net at a regular pace. Of those, we have few options and even fewer that aren't going to command top dollars and many years as free agent signings. We don't even have too many of those types in the system right now so it's not even a matter of bridging a gap.

If we do a checklist, we have the following:

1. A star goalie.
2. A very good group of young defensemen.
3. A solid stable of bottom six forwards who bring energy and other attributes.
4. One legit potential star winger, MAYBE two offensive minded but small second line wingers.
5. Potentially four centers. Two of which are locked into long-term contracts, two of which are younger.

The challange is going to be points 4 and 5.

For point four, we have to hope Cherapanov developes and that Prucha can consistently become that 25-goal threat.

Point number five is a bit trickier. Gomez and Anisimov are playmakers first, goal scorers second so moving them to the wing just doesn't strike me as a solid option.

I like Drury and Dubinsky on faceoffs and while they are more balanced as shooters/playmakers, I don't think either is at their best on the wings.

So the trick then becomes getting good value out of either Dubinsky and Anisimov in a trade, which is difficult considering Drury and Gomez are going to impact their icetime.

Right now I think the Rangers have some good elements, however I'm just not sure we've managed our assets the best way possible. I think we've got enough to make us a good team, but for where I stand now it's going to take some shrewd deals to take us to that next level - especially in the same conference as the Penguins.

Edge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2008, 06:44 PM
  #43
mike14
Registered User
 
mike14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Melbourne
Country: Australia
Posts: 4,651
vCash: 500
Edge I'd like to thank you for saying what I've been thinking, but much clearer than I could have

mike14 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-09-2008, 03:42 PM
  #44
Hockey2000nyr
Registered User
 
Hockey2000nyr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 838
vCash: 500
what the rangers need to do is go out and make a big splash with a trade or something. yea we can hope that cherepanov develops the way hes projected to, but lets get him to NA first. i can see a guy like korpikoski beng a 20-goal player. and even with that we still need a young energetic goal scorer to play with gomez. if we are gonna be able to maximize gomez's abilities then he needs that goal scorer who can skate with him

Hockey2000nyr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-09-2008, 04:09 PM
  #45
SupersonicMonkey*
DROP THE PUCK
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 16,230
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edge View Post
Right now as far forwards go, the only two who look like legit top 6 forwards are Cherapanoc and Anisimov. And of those two, Cherapanov is the only who projects as a high-end finisher.

Korpikoski projects safely as a nice two-way third line player. Byers potentially a nice fourth liner.

Staal and Saur don't address our new for forward scorers/finishers and Bourret needs to make himself a good AHL'er before we can even talk about the NHL.

Sanguinetti falls into the category of Staal and Sauer as not helping our need for a good scoring forward and Hillier projects as a possible nice bottom six forward aka Ryan Callahan.

Hagelin also doesn't appear to be a top six forward prospect at this time either.



For me the question isn't whether we have nice or even good players, the challange is cheap scoring talent with the potential to give you 10 good years. That's the difference between the contenders and the also rans and it's going to be something that is going to be VERY dependent on both Cherapanov AND Anisimov developing.

Korpikoski is going to be a nice player, but we need to be VERY careful about pegging him too highly. I can see that movement picking up steam around here in the last 3 months and I think we risk putting the carriage before the horse like we often do.

I also think expectations for Hillier and Hagelin are a bit high and Bourret has yet to tap into his potential.

That's not to say it's impossible, I just think it's pretty unreasoable and I think a bit overly optimistic.




Again I think that's very optimistic, but who exactly is putting Dury and Gomez's passes in the nets?

Dubinsky is a center.

Dawes has a shot, but his top end is probably a good second line winger.

Our young defense is very good, but the question is about offense. Obviously we proved we could play solid defense this year, but I don't see our scoring troubles getting any better in a post-Jagr, Straka, Shanahan world.

The problem with not having sure-fire players to fill holes is that you have to keep going out and signing them which eats into your budget in a salary capped league. Furthermore, why would a player sign with the Rangers for a shorter contract when they go and get long-term job security somewhere else? If you offer them a short contract you're going to pay them more money, which brings us right back to the first point about operating in a salary capped league.

The dilemma we are in right now is that for years we stockpiled great systems guys (of which we have some REALLY good options) and young defenseman. The challange is adding guys who can actually put the puck in the back of the net at a regular pace. Of those, we have few options and even fewer that aren't going to command top dollars and many years as free agent signings. We don't even have too many of those types in the system right now so it's not even a matter of bridging a gap.

If we do a checklist, we have the following:

1. A star goalie.
2. A very good group of young defensemen.
3. A solid stable of bottom six forwards who bring energy and other attributes.
4. One legit potential star winger, MAYBE two offensive minded but small second line wingers.
5. Potentially four centers. Two of which are locked into long-term contracts, two of which are younger.

The challange is going to be points 4 and 5.

For point four, we have to hope Cherapanov developes and that Prucha can consistently become that 25-goal threat.

Point number five is a bit trickier. Gomez and Anisimov are playmakers first, goal scorers second so moving them to the wing just doesn't strike me as a solid option.

I like Drury and Dubinsky on faceoffs and while they are more balanced as shooters/playmakers, I don't think either is at their best on the wings.

So the trick then becomes getting good value out of either Dubinsky and Anisimov in a trade, which is difficult considering Drury and Gomez are going to impact their icetime.

Right now I think the Rangers have some good elements, however I'm just not sure we've managed our assets the best way possible. I think we've got enough to make us a good team, but for where I stand now it's going to take some shrewd deals to take us to that next level - especially in the same conference as the Penguins.
Hillier has more talent then Callahan. A lot more.

Callahan really is a 4th line player, and the only reason he plays on the third is lack of ready depth.

Sorry, but single digit in goals and barely reaching over 10 points is not going to cut it.

Hillier is an offensive forward.

Callahan is only slightly better then Ortmeyer. If he proves me wrong and scores 20 goals, that would be fantastic. But really, he scurries about the ice like a chicken with it's head cut off, running into people, a lot of the times falling down in the process... sounds a lot like Ortmeyer. The only thing that separates the two is that Callahan has better hands then Ortmeyer.

SupersonicMonkey* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-09-2008, 04:27 PM
  #46
Bluenote13
Believe In Henke
 
Bluenote13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: BKLYN, NYC
Posts: 24,035
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PukkuMikku View Post
Hillier has more talent then Callahan. A lot more.

Callahan really is a 4th line player, and the only reason he plays on the third is lack of ready depth.

Sorry, but single digit in goals and barely reaching over 10 points is not going to cut it.

Hillier is an offensive forward.

Callahan is only slightly better then Ortmeyer. If he proves me wrong and scores 20 goals, that would be fantastic. But really, he scurries about the ice like a chicken with it's head cut off, running into people, a lot of the times falling down in the process... sounds a lot like Ortmeyer. The only thing that separates the two is that Callahan has better hands then Ortmeyer.
You can't say that about Hillier for certain.

Callahan and Hillier are two guys who play a similar style and put up the same amount of points in Juniors. If anything Callahan looked like the more offensive of the two if you ask me.

Bluenote13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-09-2008, 07:21 PM
  #47
Edge
Registered User
 
Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Amish Paradise
Country: United States
Posts: 13,398
vCash: 500
Quote:
Hillier has more talent then Callahan. A lot more.
Natural talent? Perhaps. Results are about equal. While the Q doesn't have the offensive slant it once did, it is still a bit more open. That being the case, their numbers and style of play is pretty similar.

Quote:
Callahan really is a 4th line player, and the only reason he plays on the third is lack of ready depth.

Sorry, but single digit in goals and barely reaching over 10 points is not going to cut it.
Callahan is still developing his game and has a legit shot at being a nice third line player. Second line is pushing it, but this kid put up points in Juniors and the AHL. I don't think he's a fourth line player lost because of our lack of depth. The wingers playing ahead of him were Jagr, Straka, Shanahan and a mix of Dawes, Drury and even Prucha.

Quote:
Hillier is an offensive forward.
Hiller has offensive abilities, but he isn't a sniper or playmaker per say. He projects more as a grinder who plays with some sandpaper and chips in some goals. Basically a poor man's Erik Cole.

The kid had one season with more than a ppg, and that was by about two points.
If you're expecting him to safely be a top six forward, you're probably going to be disappointed.

Quote:
Callahan is only slightly better then Ortmeyer. If he proves me wrong and scores 20 goals, that would be fantastic. But really, he scurries about the ice like a chicken with it's head cut off, running into people, a lot of the times falling down in the process... sounds a lot like Ortmeyer. The only thing that separates the two is that Callahan has better hands then Ortmeyer.
If he scores 20 goals, he's a second line winger. What you're looking at is more along the lines of 10-15, which is about double or triple what you'd get from Ortmeyer which says nothing about dropping the gloves and being considerably younger.

Speaking of which, Callahan already has 12 goals in 66 career games and that includes his slow start and trip to the minors this season. Not bad for a rookie playing in a defense first system.

BTW Jed Ortmeyer has 13 goals in 228 games, so I think the "slightly better hands" view could use a second look.

Edge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-09-2008, 07:47 PM
  #48
NYR Viper
Moderator
 
NYR Viper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: PA
Country: United States
Posts: 29,535
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edge View Post
Right now as far forwards go, the only two who look like legit top 6 forwards are Cherapanoc and Anisimov. And of those two, Cherapanov is the only who projects as a high-end finisher.

Korpikoski projects safely as a nice two-way third line player. Byers potentially a nice fourth liner.

Staal and Saur don't address our new for forward scorers/finishers and Bourret needs to make himself a good AHL'er before we can even talk about the NHL.

Sanguinetti falls into the category of Staal and Sauer as not helping our need for a good scoring forward and Hillier projects as a possible nice bottom six forward aka Ryan Callahan.

Hagelin also doesn't appear to be a top six forward prospect at this time either.



For me the question isn't whether we have nice or even good players, the challange is cheap scoring talent with the potential to give you 10 good years. That's the difference between the contenders and the also rans and it's going to be something that is going to be VERY dependent on both Cherapanov AND Anisimov developing.

Korpikoski is going to be a nice player, but we need to be VERY careful about pegging him too highly. I can see that movement picking up steam around here in the last 3 months and I think we risk putting the carriage before the horse like we often do.

I also think expectations for Hillier and Hagelin are a bit high and Bourret has yet to tap into his potential.

That's not to say it's impossible, I just think it's pretty unreasoable and I think a bit overly optimistic.




Again I think that's very optimistic, but who exactly is putting Dury and Gomez's passes in the nets?

Dubinsky is a center.

Dawes has a shot, but his top end is probably a good second line winger.

Our young defense is very good, but the question is about offense. Obviously we proved we could play solid defense this year, but I don't see our scoring troubles getting any better in a post-Jagr, Straka, Shanahan world.

The problem with not having sure-fire players to fill holes is that you have to keep going out and signing them which eats into your budget in a salary capped league. Furthermore, why would a player sign with the Rangers for a shorter contract when they go and get long-term job security somewhere else? If you offer them a short contract you're going to pay them more money, which brings us right back to the first point about operating in a salary capped league.

The dilemma we are in right now is that for years we stockpiled great systems guys (of which we have some REALLY good options) and young defenseman. The challange is adding guys who can actually put the puck in the back of the net at a regular pace. Of those, we have few options and even fewer that aren't going to command top dollars and many years as free agent signings. We don't even have too many of those types in the system right now so it's not even a matter of bridging a gap.

If we do a checklist, we have the following:

1. A star goalie.
2. A very good group of young defensemen.
3. A solid stable of bottom six forwards who bring energy and other attributes.
4. One legit potential star winger, MAYBE two offensive minded but small second line wingers.
5. Potentially four centers. Two of which are locked into long-term contracts, two of which are younger.

The challange is going to be points 4 and 5.

For point four, we have to hope Cherapanov developes and that Prucha can consistently become that 25-goal threat.

Point number five is a bit trickier. Gomez and Anisimov are playmakers first, goal scorers second so moving them to the wing just doesn't strike me as a solid option.

I like Drury and Dubinsky on faceoffs and while they are more balanced as shooters/playmakers, I don't think either is at their best on the wings.

So the trick then becomes getting good value out of either Dubinsky and Anisimov in a trade, which is difficult considering Drury and Gomez are going to impact their icetime.

Right now I think the Rangers have some good elements, however I'm just not sure we've managed our assets the best way possible. I think we've got enough to make us a good team, but for where I stand now it's going to take some shrewd deals to take us to that next level - especially in the same conference as the Penguins.
i agree with pretty mucnh everything except i think you are selling some of the rangers prospects a bit short....it seems like the rangers have a TON of borderline 2nd liners and 3rd liners, which would be good for filling the bottom 6 possibly having one or two boil over to the 2nd line if they are better like dawes and say hillier, anisimov, bourret.....the nice thing is that the rangers of the future look like a team full of a bunch of players who can score on nay night but night not put in over 15-20 goals....thinking of a 3rd line that puts in 50-60 goals would be very good for the team and a 2nd line who scores 70-75 would be good as well....i think the team will be built on depth on the bottom 3 lines and scoring being spread out so that players like cheraponov, gomez and whoever else is on that first line to not need to score every night, however i think the rangers wont have a problem scoring if they sign one more top-end player for the first line like a hossa or a kovalchuk....either way although im not overly impressed with the top-end talent i think the depth is more than adequate for a winner to be built with

NYR Viper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-09-2008, 08:33 PM
  #49
Edge
Registered User
 
Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Amish Paradise
Country: United States
Posts: 13,398
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyviper87 View Post
i agree with pretty mucnh everything except i think you are selling some of the rangers prospects a bit short....it seems like the rangers have a TON of borderline 2nd liners and 3rd liners, which would be good for filling the bottom 6 possibly having one or two boil over to the 2nd line if they are better like dawes and say hillier, anisimov, bourret.....the nice thing is that the rangers of the future look like a team full of a bunch of players who can score on nay night but night not put in over 15-20 goals....thinking of a 3rd line that puts in 50-60 goals would be very good for the team and a 2nd line who scores 70-75 would be good as well....i think the team will be built on depth on the bottom 3 lines and scoring being spread out so that players like cheraponov, gomez and whoever else is on that first line to not need to score every night, however i think the rangers wont have a problem scoring if they sign one more top-end player for the first line like a hossa or a kovalchuk....either way although im not overly impressed with the top-end talent i think the depth is more than adequate for a winner to be built with

For me I don't really know if it's selling people short. You follow prospects long enough and you just start to see the odds.

Playing Devil's advocate - we've named Cherapanov, Anisimov, Hillier, Dawes and Bourret.

Of those five only Cherapanov has a legit shot at being a dangerous goal scorer.

Anisimov is a playmaker, his strength is not in his shooting (same as Gomez). That's not to say he doesn't have 60 or even 70 point potential, it's saying that a big majority are going to be assists.

Dawes looks like a very nice second line winger.

Bourret is struggling at the AHL level, so we can't even being to pencil him into a top two line spot, regardless of his potential.

Hillier, projects as a third line winger. His career arch is very similar to Callahan.

In terms of actual goal scorers we are banking on Cherapanov and Dawes at the moment. And the big emphasis will be on Cherapanov.

As for a team full of 15-20 goal scorers, I just don't see that happening. The third liners who chip in those kind of points have the freedom to do so because they have scorers in front of them who help ease that burden and buy them some room. Without those guys in front of them, they aren't likely to score at that pace.

You look at a team that can do that (Detroit being a solid example) and you see that they drafted and developed two YOUNG, 90-point forwards and have arguably one of the greatest defenseman of all-time.

That is what the Rangers will need in order to be able to put together a scenario in which the third line can perform like that. So once again we are back to the hope that Cherapanov becomes that dynamic scorer and Anisimov becomes his playmaker. Because without Zetterberg or Datsyuk, the wings don't have enough in place with their forwards to win. No matter how you slice it, this team doesn't have enough without Cherapanov and Anisimov hitting their highest potentials.

Edge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-09-2008, 08:45 PM
  #50
Edge
Registered User
 
Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Amish Paradise
Country: United States
Posts: 13,398
vCash: 500
Here's some more food for thought:

Post lockout, no team has won the championship that didn't at least have one player score 94 points.

Additionally, no team has won the cup without at least one player scoring 43 goals.

Two of the last three champions had ELITE defenseman who scored at least 69 points. The third didn't have anyone close to that, but featured four guys with at least 30 goals and three who scored 17 or more goals (and that would've been more if not for games missed).

So we can talk about a team-first approach, but you still need lots of scoring. This is especially important when you look at the young talent that the Pens, Flyers and even the Caps posses.

Right now, the Rangers have one guy projects on that kind of level. And they better hope he's everything his talent says he is. Anything less, and this team just doesn't have the firepower to overcome the big boys.

Edge is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:02 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.