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
06-09-2008, 08:46 PM
  #51
NYR Viper
Moderator
 
NYR Viper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: PA
Country: United States
Posts: 28,364
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edge View Post
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.
i will just say i agree with you here as you are the senior member and i value your opinion, although i do believe that some of the rangers prospects are a bit better than you portray them, however, like i said, you have been around longer than i have so i will give you the road as they used to say

NYR Viper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-09-2008, 08:54 PM
  #52
Edge
Registered User
 
Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sin City
Country: United States
Posts: 13,196
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyviper87 View Post
i will just say i agree with you here as you are the senior member and i value your opinion, although i do believe that some of the rangers prospects are a bit better than you portray them, however, like i said, you have been around longer than i have so i will give you the road as they used to say
I just think it's very easy to fall in love with a good player and project him at being great because he does so many things good. It tends to lead to a little bit of "over" projecting as it were.

I think we have some good prospects. I think they'll back an excellent group of supporting players. The challange is and will be finding young stars. Particularly at least one top young goal scorer.

Right now it's Cherapanov or bust on that. 20 goals is just not "great." It's good, but you need someone great. Even the teams that have good players, have one or two great players they can build around.

In some ways the Rangers rebuild has almost been the opposite of what a lot of teams go through. Many teams get one or two young studs and then have to find a way to build around them. The Rangers seem to have great support guys, but don't yet have one or two guys to build around.

And one thing that is getting lost here is that while we mention Cherapanov as a great savior, he's never really been projected to an "elite" player. As the Rangers struggle to score it seems to have taken on a life of it's own, but even last year he was seen as being a notch below the "elite" of the NHL.

Edge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-09-2008, 09:02 PM
  #53
Nemchinov13
Registered User
 
Nemchinov13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Gravesend
Country: Russian Federation
Posts: 1,726
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyviper87 View Post
i will just say i agree with you here as you are the senior member and i value your opinion, although i do believe that some of the rangers prospects are a bit better than you portray them, however, like i said, you have been around longer than i have so i will give you the road as they used to say
Edge, Draft Guru and Jonathan used to cover the Rangers on HockeysFuture.com. Edge was the original writer for the Rangers, with Brandon and Jon coming in later. Edge also knows people in NHL.

It's just a heads up.

Nemchinov13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-09-2008, 10:37 PM
  #54
Son of Steinbrenner
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Tromelin
Posts: 9,481
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edge View Post
I just think it's very easy to fall in love with a good player and project him at being great because he does so many things good. It tends to lead to a little bit of "over" projecting as it were.

I think we have some good prospects. I think they'll back an excellent group of supporting players. The challange is and will be finding young stars. Particularly at least one top young goal scorer.

Right now it's Cherapanov or bust on that. 20 goals is just not "great." It's good, but you need someone great. Even the teams that have good players, have one or two great players they can build around.

In some ways the Rangers rebuild has almost been the opposite of what a lot of teams go through. Many teams get one or two young studs and then have to find a way to build around them. The Rangers seem to have great support guys, but don't yet have one or two guys to build around.

And one thing that is getting lost here is that while we mention Cherapanov as a great savior, he's never really been projected to an "elite" player. As the Rangers struggle to score it seems to have taken on a life of it's own, but even last year he was seen as being a notch below the "elite" of the NHL.
With the free agency age being lower and with the impact of Restricted Free Agency becoming a legit way of teams improving missed draft picks IMO is no longer as big of an issue as it used to be. You make pretty legit points but I don't think you've given due credit to what the Rangers have developed already. (Brandon Dubinsky and Marc Staal combined with the role players, and Drury and Gomez make a nice nucleus to build around) I also totally disagree with your assessment of Korpikowski (who I've loved since i first really saw him in Hartford, i think like Dubinsky he will put up unexpected numbers in the NHL)

Also as I said in another thread we need to take into account the Girardi signing when it comes to our evaluation of the 2003 draft. If the Rangers had drafted Girardi that year instead of signing him that draft looks a lot better.

I don't think the future comes down to how Anisimov and Cherapanov develop. To me and this isn't an insult to you in anyway but I think it's a bit of melodramatic viewpoint...

I've read you for months say you had a feeling that the Rangers best success will come post Jagr and Shanahan. What were you basing that on if didn't see any impact guys in the system? I'm curious because I do think that was probably a correct statement but as I said above I think the nucleus of guys is good enough to build around.


Last edited by Son of Steinbrenner: 06-09-2008 at 10:54 PM.
Son of Steinbrenner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-10-2008, 01:25 AM
  #55
eco's bones
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Elmira NY
Country: United States
Posts: 12,464
vCash: 500
Beyond developing an elite forward threat is going out and getting one through trade or free agency which over the years seems to be the way the Rangers most often have filled that need at least in recent years--Messier, Jagr--didn't work so well with Bure, Fleury or Lindros. In the next two years the likes of Le Cavalier, Nash, Kovalchuk might become available--the teams these three play for are not very good and it's likely through free agency--though not a sure thing that all of them will want to move somewhere else. This seems to me how the Rangers will most likely fill that need though for 08-09 unless Jagr signs the Rangers might be stuck without a legit goalscoring threat. To sign one of them though the Rangers will have to be able to make cap space for them which is the major reason I'd steer clear of Marian Hossa. Hopefully Cherepanov will also turn into a threat in time but considering his size and frame I think some might be expecting too much out of the gate.

eco's bones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-10-2008, 05:32 AM
  #56
GarretJoseph*
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 7,604
vCash: 500
all depends on Cherpanov, if hes the real deal then we might have the final pieces within our own organization (sangs, cherry, ect)...

GarretJoseph* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-10-2008, 06:04 AM
  #57
Ola
Registered User
 
Ola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 17,565
vCash: 500
We haven't drafted well lately at all aside from a few standout picks -- Anisimov, Chere, Sangs and co.

Zabrosky, Skokan, Kveton, Hiller and co just haven't achived anything so far; hyping them as likely's to make the big show is just not realistic. None of them have achived anything really.

Ola is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-10-2008, 08:14 AM
  #58
chosen
Registered User
 
chosen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 5,625
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ola View Post
We haven't drafted well lately at all aside from a few standout picks -- Anisimov, Chere, Sangs and co.

Zabrosky, Skokan, Kveton, Hiller and co just haven't achived anything so far; hyping them as likely's to make the big show is just not realistic. None of them have achived anything really.
Hyping any player before they make it to the NHL and perform as advertised means nothing to me. Some will never make it no matter what they are projected to do and the majority that do make it will perform below expectations.

It's the ones that turn out better than promised that matter. So far, Lundqvist has certainly filled that definition. Dubinsky appears to be a good bet to be another. Staal is what was advertised.

The jury is out on Dawes, Callahan and Tyutin, although I'm disappointed in Tyutin. He was hyped to be much better than we have seen so far.

All of these glowing reports about our defensive gems in the rough that are coming depend solely on if Sanguinetti becomes a major offensive contributor. If he does we look pretty good. If he doesn't we don't look good at all.

chosen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-10-2008, 08:44 PM
  #59
Edge
Registered User
 
Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sin City
Country: United States
Posts: 13,196
vCash: 500
[QUOTE=Son of Steinbrenner;14360965]
Quote:
With the free agency age being lower and with the impact of Restricted Free Agency becoming a legit way of teams improving missed draft picks IMO is no longer as big of an issue as it used to be. You make pretty legit points but I don't think you've given due credit to what the Rangers have developed already. (Brandon Dubinsky and Marc Staal combined with the role players, and Drury and Gomez make a nice nucleus to build around) I also totally disagree with your assessment of Korpikowski (who I've loved since i first really saw him in Hartford, i think like Dubinsky he will put up unexpected numbers in the NHL)
I tend to see it just the opposite in a salary capped world. The ability to get young talent on cheap contracts is essential in the NHL. If you have to go out and by scoring, you're going to find yourself without a lot of room real quick.

As for credit to the Rangers, I give them credit for assembling a nice collection of players. The concern, and what I've been talking about, are actual goal scorers. I think the Rangers are set in goal, will be fine on defense and aren't particularly hurting for playmaking centers. However, I don't see a high end goal scorer right now.

Neither Staal nor Dubinsky, for all their talent, is going to change that aspect.

Additionally, I'm curious as to what your assesment of Korpikoski is exactly. Since he was drafted, he's been pegged as a two way player who will contribute his share of offense but isn't a top line guy. Even the Rangers have essentially said as much.

Quote:
Also as I said in another thread we need to take into account the Girardi signing when it comes to our evaluation of the 2003 draft. If the Rangers had drafted Girardi that year instead of signing him that draft looks a lot better.
And if we drafted Getzlaf and not Jessiman we could say the same thing. Where do we draw the line on that?


Quote:
I don't think the future comes down to how Anisimov and Cherapanov develop. To me and this isn't an insult to you in anyway but I think it's a bit of melodramatic viewpoint...
If you're looking for a top line goal scorer, you darn well better believe it's going to be Cherapanov. Do you honestly believe we have another young player in our system outside of Cherapanov and possibly Dawes who looks like he could be a consistent 30 goal scorer on the wings?

In terms of top line talent you darn well better believe that we're going to be judged by the development of Chereapanov and Anisimov.

Quote:
I've read you for months say you had a feeling that the Rangers best success will come post Jagr and Shanahan. What were you basing that on if didn't see any impact guys in the system? I'm curious because I do think that was probably a correct statement but as I said above I think the nucleus of guys is good enough to build around.
I never said that I no longer believe better days and more success doesn't lay ahead. Having said that, it also doesn't mean that we are set in every position and we're part of the NHL elite.

We could be a good playoff team for the next 10 years and never win a cup. So long as we make it to the third round we'll have done better, but does that make us champions? No, it doesn't.

If the team is going to be a serious contender, it's going to need more than it has right now and it's going to need some goal scorers. It's going to need to develop an impact player or two.

What we have is good enough to compete, but what we have is not going to be good enough to overcome the NHL's elite.

The question is are we looking to build a good team that makes the playoffs for the next decade or are we more interested in building a team that wins a championship or several championships?

Right now I think we're good enough for the former and I think we'll be better than we are now.

I do not think we are good enough for the latter.

Edge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-10-2008, 08:57 PM
  #60
NYR Viper
Moderator
 
NYR Viper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: PA
Country: United States
Posts: 28,364
vCash: 500
[QUOTE=Edge;14370409]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Son of Steinbrenner View Post

I tend to see it just the opposite in a salary capped world. The ability to get young talent on cheap contracts is essential in the NHL. If you have to go out and by scoring, you're going to find yourself without a lot of room real quick.

As for credit to the Rangers, I give them credit for assembling a nice collection of players. The concern, and what I've been talking about, are actual goal scorers. I think the Rangers are set in goal, will be fine on defense and aren't particularly hurting for playmaking centers. However, I don't see a high end goal scorer right now.

Neither Staal nor Dubinsky, for all their talent, is going to change that aspect.

Additionally, I'm curious as to what your assesment of Korpikoski is exactly. Since he was drafted, he's been pegged as a two way player who will contribute his share of offense but isn't a top line guy. Even the Rangers have essentially said as much.



And if we drafted Getzlaf and not Jessiman we could say the same thing. Where do we draw the line on that?




If you're looking for a top line goal scorer, you darn well better believe it's going to be Cherapanov. Do you honestly believe we have another young player in our system outside of Cherapanov and possibly Dawes who looks like he could be a consistent 30 goal scorer on the wings?

In terms of top line talent you darn well better believe that we're going to be judged by the development of Chereapanov and Anisimov.



I never said that I no longer believe better days and more success doesn't lay ahead. Having said that, it also doesn't mean that we are set in every position and we're part of the NHL elite.

We could be a good playoff team for the next 10 years and never win a cup. So long as we make it to the third round we'll have done better, but does that make us champions? No, it doesn't.

If the team is going to be a serious contender, it's going to need more than it has right now and it's going to need some goal scorers. It's going to need to develop an impact player or two.

What we have is good enough to compete, but what we have is not going to be good enough to overcome the NHL's elite.

The question is are we looking to build a good team that makes the playoffs for the next decade or are we more interested in building a team that wins a championship or several championships?

Right now I think we're good enough for the former and I think we'll be better than we are now.

I do not think we are good enough for the latter
.
i would agree with this statement, however, most stanley cup champions add the right pieces to their teams at the right times...just off the top of my head(pronger, rafalski, brindamour etc.) i think the players the rangers have in the system are a good building block...they have the cheap young talent which will allow them to go out and sign a high-end scorer...

although, i would agree that besides cheraponov, and possibly players like dawes, dubinsky and anisimov who are more than likely going to top out as 2nd liners(which are very important) there arent any real top-end talents on offense....however like i said if they can keep the young cheap talent coming for spots like 4-7 defenseman, back-up goalie, and 3rd and 4th liners on offense i think they have the ability to compete every year.

NYR Viper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-10-2008, 09:12 PM
  #61
Edge
Registered User
 
Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sin City
Country: United States
Posts: 13,196
vCash: 500
[QUOTE=hockeyviper87;14370522][QUOTE=Edge;14370409]

Quote:
i would agree with this statement, however, most stanley cup champions add the right pieces to their teams at the right times...just off the top of my head(pronger, rafalski, brindamour etc.) i think the players the rangers have in the system are a good building block...they have the cheap young talent which will allow them to go out and sign a high-end scorer...
There's a difference between adding the right pieces, and adding the right pieces to impact players you already have.

Carolina added the right pieces to an players they already had (Staal and Brindamour).

The Ducks added the right pieces to players they already, same with Detroit.

If we want to go further back than that, Tampa did the same.

We've already added pieces in Gomez and Drury, to the tune of $12-million dollars a season.

But long-term, who exactly did we add them to? Shanahan and Jagr are both gone or will be within the next few years.

Dawes looks like a top six winger, but who else exactly is going to be the top end winger to play with them that we have?

We've even already been around the block on names like Korpikoski, Hiller and Bourret. So who exactly is shooting from the wings?


Quote:
although, i would agree that besides cheraponov, and possibly players like dawes, dubinsky and anisimov who are more than likely going to top out as 2nd liners(which are very important) there arent any real top-end talents on offense....however like i said if they can keep the young cheap talent coming for spots like 4-7 defenseman, back-up goalie, and 3rd and 4th liners on offense i think they have the ability to compete every year.[/
QUOTE]

I don't doubt that dubinsky and Anisimov could be second line centers, but who exactly is going to score the goals on those lines? That's the point we keep coming back to. I'm not concerned about who is setting up the plays, I'm concerned that I don't see many players who are going to finish them off. If Cherepanov doesn't pan out, we have Dawes and then a pretty big drop on the wings for goals.

The problem isn't adding one or two pieces, the problem is when you have to sign just about all of your top six forwards because you don't have any.

We're already got $12-million committed to long-term contracts at center. If you have to add scoring wingers, it's going to get pretty expensive pretty quickly. In which case than you've now gotten away from your originally point about "adding" final pieces. Forget final, under that plan you're not building via free agency again. And what happens if there isn't an impact winger? Or if the player doesn't pick the Rangers? What then becomes the backup plan.

That's the importance of actually developing and drafting your own top line talent. If you can get even 3 or 4 years of production on a smaller contract, it allows you to spread out your hits from free agent contracts. Without that luxury, you have to take your hits at the same time.

Edge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-11-2008, 10:20 AM
  #62
NYR Viper
Moderator
 
NYR Viper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: PA
Country: United States
Posts: 28,364
vCash: 500
[QUOTE=Edge;14370645][QUOTE=hockeyviper87;14370522]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edge View Post



There's a difference between adding the right pieces, and adding the right pieces to impact players you already have.

Carolina added the right pieces to an players they already had (Staal and Brindamour).

The Ducks added the right pieces to players they already, same with Detroit.

If we want to go further back than that, Tampa did the same.

We've already added pieces in Gomez and Drury, to the tune of $12-million dollars a season.

But long-term, who exactly did we add them to? Shanahan and Jagr are both gone or will be within the next few years.

Dawes looks like a top six winger, but who else exactly is going to be the top end winger to play with them that we have?

We've even already been around the block on names like Korpikoski, Hiller and Bourret. So who exactly is shooting from the wings?


QUOTE]

I don't doubt that dubinsky and Anisimov could be second line centers, but who exactly is going to score the goals on those lines? That's the point we keep coming back to. I'm not concerned about who is setting up the plays, I'm concerned that I don't see many players who are going to finish them off. If Cherepanov doesn't pan out, we have Dawes and then a pretty big drop on the wings for goals.

The problem isn't adding one or two pieces, the problem is when you have to sign just about all of your top six forwards because you don't have any.

We're already got $12-million committed to long-term contracts at center. If you have to add scoring wingers, it's going to get pretty expensive pretty quickly. In which case than you've now gotten away from your originally point about "adding" final pieces. Forget final, under that plan you're not building via free agency again. And what happens if there isn't an impact winger? Or if the player doesn't pick the Rangers? What then becomes the backup plan.

That's the importance of actually developing and drafting your own top line talent. If you can get even 3 or 4 years of production on a smaller contract, it allows you to spread out your hits from free agent contracts. Without that luxury, you have to take your hits at the same time.
i understand what you are saying, however the rangers have a lot of players in the system who can score from 15-20 goals...and if your 2nd and 3rd lines have 6 players who score 15- 20 goals thats 90-120 goals just from those two lines....looking at the types of players who would be on them;

dubinsky
anisimov
bourret
korpikoski
drury
dawes
hillier
byers
avery
callahan(possibly)

looking at those players i would say all of them could put in 15-20 goals in a year on average...obviously callahan might get 15 and drury might get 25 or what have you however that doesnt even include the top line, which should produce 70-80 goals anyways, and that woul be without HUGE talent added;

gomez
cheraponov
UFA

i mean gomez had over 50 assists this year playing with shanahan, dawes, avery....mainly 3rd liners(this year)....imagine him with an actual scorer....plus the scoring from the defense.....thats about 200 goals a year...thats pretty darn good......i still think the rangers talents are second liners as players like hillier, dawes, dubinsky, anisimov, bourret(possibly), avery, drury...looking at the pure # of players the rangers have who will most likely top out as second liners they could make two 2nd lines instead of having a 2nd and a 3rd....thats more production....all im saying is that they have a lot of depth, and that although i think they need one more top-end winger on offense, i think they will be fine

NYR Viper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-11-2008, 10:27 AM
  #63
jas
Unsatisfied
 
jas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NJ
Posts: 13,051
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyviper87 View Post
i understand what you are saying, however the rangers have a lot of players in the system who can score from 15-20 goals...and if your 2nd and 3rd lines have 6 players who score 15- 20 goals thats 90-120 goals just from those two lines....looking at the types of players who would be on them;

dubinsky
anisimov
bourret
korpikoski
drury
dawes
hillier
byers
avery
callahan(possibly)

looking at those players i would say all of them could put in 15-20 goals in a year on average...obviously callahan might get 15 and drury might get 25 or what have you however that doesnt even include the top line, which should produce 70-80 goals anyways, and that woul be without HUGE talent added;
I like Hillier, but, the three players highlighted are nowhere near the presumption you've made.

jas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-11-2008, 10:42 AM
  #64
NYR Viper
Moderator
 
NYR Viper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: PA
Country: United States
Posts: 28,364
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jas View Post
I like Hillier, but, the three players highlighted are nowhere near the presumption you've made.
i said there were some borderline players on there, although i think they all could get 10-15 goals, whereas some of those players on that list like dawes and drury could get 25 to make up for that....plus there were about 10 players on that list for 6 spots, so whoever can score should be on those lines

NYR Viper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-11-2008, 10:55 AM
  #65
jas
Unsatisfied
 
jas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NJ
Posts: 13,051
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyviper87 View Post
i said there were some borderline players on there, although i think they all could get 10-15 goals, whereas some of those players on that list like dawes and drury could get 25 to make up for that....plus there were about 10 players on that list for 6 spots, so whoever can score should be on those lines

The following players are the only ones I consider be a big part of the Rangers' future at forward:

Dubisnky
Cherepanov
Anisimov
Korpikoski

anyone else, IMO, is no guarantee to be here long term...aside from Gomez and Drury, of course.

jas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-11-2008, 10:55 AM
  #66
Nemchinov13
Registered User
 
Nemchinov13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Gravesend
Country: Russian Federation
Posts: 1,726
vCash: 500
I think that we should hold off on presumptions of players that haven't even made an impact at the AHL level, let alone pegging them in as such-and-such NHL players. Let's just make our analysis on what we already have in the big leagues, instead off assigning future goals scored and points produced.

Nemchinov13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-11-2008, 11:59 AM
  #67
NYR Viper
Moderator
 
NYR Viper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: PA
Country: United States
Posts: 28,364
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jas View Post
The following players are the only ones I consider be a big part of the Rangers' future at forward:

Dubisnky
Cherepanov
Anisimov
Korpikoski

anyone else, IMO, is no guarantee to be here long term...aside from Gomez and Drury, of course.
see thats why i put down 4 extra players...of course not all of them will be around, or make it, however there are others in the system that might susprise in a few years(hagelin, zaborksy) all i was trying to get across is that if a team can have good depth that relieves the pressure on the top line considering the rangers as an organization dont have much top-line talent...i was no way saying that all of those players wil be all-stars, just saying they can contribute

NYR Viper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-11-2008, 12:01 PM
  #68
Nich
Registered User
 
Nich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Wantagh
Country: Croatia
Posts: 6,895
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jas View Post
The following players are the only ones I consider be a big part of the Rangers' future at forward:

Dubisnky
Cherepanov
Anisimov
Korpikoski

anyone else, IMO, is no guarantee to be here long term...aside from Gomez and Drury, of course.
i would add sauer and sangs, and david and wiiki

really, we need to add at least 2 dmen in our first 4 picks, and then at least one goalie for depth

Nich is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-11-2008, 12:23 PM
  #69
jas
Unsatisfied
 
jas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NJ
Posts: 13,051
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nich View Post
i would add sauer and sangs, and david and wiiki

really, we need to add at least 2 dmen in our first 4 picks, and then at least one goalie for depth
My emphasis was on forwards. I like the depth of the organization, but, we all know the weakness is a lack of bona fide blue chippers. I wouldn't even put either goalie in that category.

jas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-11-2008, 05:24 PM
  #70
Son of Steinbrenner
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Tromelin
Posts: 9,481
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edge View Post

I tend to see it just the opposite in a salary capped world. The ability to get young talent on cheap contracts is essential in the NHL. If you have to go out and by scoring, you're going to find yourself without a lot of room real quick.
The Rangers have drafted cheap DEPTH talent and they have decent young defenseman. If they had a young talented RW on the roster today they would still have to pay him at whatever the market rate is. If the Rangers had Perry right now and he was about to become a restricted free agent they would have to pay him. In the old days when free agency was at 31 years old and very few teams signed Restricted Free agents the draft was much more important..The only real way a team can get into salary cap trouble is by giving no movement clauses or signing guys over 35 to multi year contracts.

Quote:
As for credit to the Rangers, I give them credit for assembling a nice collection of players. The concern, and what I've been talking about, are actual goal scorers. I think the Rangers are set in goal, will be fine on defense and aren't particularly hurting for playmaking centers. However, I don't see a high end goal scorer right now.

Neither Staal nor Dubinsky, for all their talent, is going to change that aspect.
The Rangers have a good young team to build around. They also have a system that helps out an awful lot. I don't see a high end goalscorer but I don't have a problem with those players being brought in through trades, Restricted Free Agency, and Unrestricted Free Agents. If you can spread out when contracts are going to end AND with the salary cap climbing yearly the Rangers can be players for need players every year. if they are smart about it...

Quote:
Additionally, I'm curious as to what your assesment of Korpikoski is exactly. Since he was drafted, he's been pegged as a two way player who will contribute his share of offense but isn't a top line guy. Even the Rangers have essentially said as much.
I think Korpikoski is going to be a fantastic two way second line player. I've thought his ceiling was higher then most from the moment i saw him. He adapts to any league and any line he plays on. I thought this before the goal against Pittsburgh... (which is no sample size in my book)


Quote:
And if we drafted Getzlaf and not Jessiman we could say the same thing. Where do we draw the line on that?
I think this topic is has been beaten to death for 5 years now. The Rangers screwed up the pick but 5 years later and if the Rangers make the right moves this offseason they could easily be Stanley Cup contenders. Would Getzlaf help right now, no doubt...but they would also be paying him a market contract...something they are going to have to pay a free agent or players aquired in trades anyway.

Quote:
If you're looking for a top line goal scorer, you darn well better believe it's going to be Cherapanov. Do you honestly believe we have another young player in our system outside of Cherapanov and possibly Dawes who looks like he could be a consistent 30 goal scorer on the wings?
I'm looking for a top line scorer on all the teams not just what's in the system. I do think/hope Cherapanov is a 30 to 40 goal guy but if he doesn't work out the Rangers can replace his lost value with somebody from the outside....

Quote:
In terms of top line talent you darn well better believe that we're going to be judged by the development of Chereapanov and Anisimov.
Edge, if the Cherepanov and Anisimov don't work out do you think the Rangers are totally screwed? I just don't see that being the case...We don't even know if Cherapanov is going to be here after next season. Then is the battle cry going to be who the Rangers should've taken insted of Cherapanov?


Quote:
I never said that I no longer believe better days and more success doesn't lay ahead. Having said that, it also doesn't mean that we are set in every position and we're part of the NHL elite.
Then why do you think success is coming post Jagr and Shanny? Do you think the Rangers as is with the guys under contract and in the system right now are a team to build around? What sort of players would you bring in? Edge, you know i think the world of your opinion so i'm curious what your plan would be with what the Rangers ahve right now...Forget what they could've had but if you were in Sathers shoes for the next 2 months what's the plan?
Quote:
We could be a good playoff team for the next 10 years and never win a cup. So long as we make it to the third round we'll have done better, but does that make us champions? No, it doesn't.
I don't know anyway I could disagree with this point. I'll say this...It wouldn't shock me if the Rangers made the playoffs for 10 years and didn't win anything...That's the Rangers....
Quote:
If the team is going to be a serious contender, it's going to need more than it has right now and it's going to need some goal scorers. It's going to need to develop an impact player or two.
I think the Rangers have developed a collection of guys that make a up a team to build around. Going forward it would be great to draft an impact player every year but that's not realistic. It never happens....The Rangers have a team to build around now it's bringing back and bringing in the right parts.
Quote:
What we have is good enough to compete, but what we have is not going to be good enough to overcome the NHL's elite.
Edge, the league is so year to year now it's impossible to agree with that statement.
Quote:
The question is are we looking to build a good team that makes the playoffs for the next decade or are we more interested in building a team that wins a championship or several championships?
I think the Rangers can build that championship team but i don't think it has to be JUST through the draft...

Quote:
Right now I think we're good enough for the former and I think we'll be better than we are now.

I do not think we are good enough for the latter.
Right now in mid-june i don't think anybody can say what next years team is going to look like. Me, you, anybody...I think the Rangers have the right parts to build around...Now they just need to be smart with what they do...Will they? who knows..

Son of Steinbrenner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-11-2008, 10:15 PM
  #71
Edge
Registered User
 
Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sin City
Country: United States
Posts: 13,196
vCash: 500
[QUOTE=hockeyviper87;14374667][QUOTE=Edge;14370645][QUOTE=hockeyviper87;14370522]

Quote:
i understand what you are saying, however the rangers have a lot of players in the system who can score from 15-20 goals...and if your 2nd and 3rd lines have 6 players who score 15- 20 goals thats 90-120 goals just from those two lines....looking at the types of players who would be on them;
That is true to some extent but I don't think it's as clear cut as that.

In order for your depth guys to score more points, there has to be impact players at higher lines that draw the other teams top players and (on a team that wins) usually outscores them.

Very rarely do you ever see second and third lines score like that if they don't have a top line taking the pressure off of them.

Take Detroit as an example. Playing behind a guy like Zetterberg helps a guy like Cleary because that impact player is still the main guy scoring and so Clearly can fit his role comfortably.

Rod Brindamour is one of the top second line centers in the game. He's at his best when he's playing behind an impact player/star who centers the line in front of him (Lindros, Staal).

Support guys work their best when they are doing just that, supporting the stars. Without the impact players, their numbers go down. Their production is not a constant, it is directly affected by the players they play behind. That's exactly why the last 3 championship teams have had those impact players, because everything else falls in line behind them.

Quote:
dubinsky
anisimov
bourret
korpikoski
drury
dawes
hillier
byers
avery
callahan(possibly)

looking at those players i would say all of them could put in 15-20 goals in a year on average...obviously callahan might get 15 and drury might get 25 or what have you however that doesnt even include the top line, which should produce 70-80 goals anyways, and that woul be without HUGE talent added;

gomez
cheraponov
UFA
But again there are several problems with your approach.

For starters you need to get Bourret out of the discussion at this point in time. When he hits 20 goals at the AHL level, we'll start debating what he can do at the NHL level.

I also think Byers projects as a probably nice fourth liner, I think asking for 15-20 goals might be on the overstated side.

Also, we are right back to the same problem - who is scoring from the wings? You've got four centers on their who are all more playmaker than finisher/sniper. Furthermore, if they're all on the same team they're not each going to score 20 goals.

When you isolate the wingers on that list, you have one two guys who have good odds to get 25 or more goals. And once again the plan requires Cherapanov to become one of those players.

If we start getting into UFA's then you're talking about a player who is going to command at least $4 or $5 million per season.

I think you've got a list full of very good third liners who are going to pop in the odd point, but that doesn't mean that having 3 guys score 15 goals is equal to having one guy who can score 45. If that were the case we could trade any three of them for Zetterberg. But that's not going to happen because having that one guy who scores at a higher level allows a team team's other players to have freedom to do their role.

So we're right back to where we started again where we're not actually developing an impact player, we're buying one to go along with two top line centers we bought.

In which case then we could say that the future is as bright as our checking account will allow.


Quote:
i mean gomez had over 50 assists this year playing with shanahan, dawes, avery....mainly 3rd liners(this year)....imagine him with an actual scorer....plus the scoring from the defense.....thats about 200 goals a year...thats pretty darn good......i still think the rangers talents are second liners as players like hillier, dawes, dubinsky, anisimov, bourret(possibly), avery, drury...looking at the pure # of players the rangers have who will most likely top out as second liners they could make two 2nd lines instead of having a 2nd and a 3rd....thats more production....all im saying is that they have a lot of depth, and that although i think they need one more top-end winger on offense, i think they will be fine
The question has never been about playmakers, the question is about finishers. And yes I can imagine him with an actual scorer, but this year was not exactly the example we should be striving for. This is a team that struggled to score this season. Frankly outside of the potential of Cherapanov and Dawes, there isn't one name on the list that seems to solve that problem. So best case scenario is that they MATCH what we had this year, which simply wasn't enough.

And once again, depth is a wonderful thing but let's play devil's advocate for a second.

If three of those guys score 15 goals and 30 points, do you think Detroit would trade us Zetterberg for them?

Do you think Calgary would trade us Iginla?

The reason they wouldn't? Because they know that that kind of production is contingent on those guys playing behind an impact player. Once again, getting 45 goals and 90 points out of three players does not have the same impact on a team that getting them out of one player does.

If it did, impact players wouldn't be getting paid what they do. Teams would be trading high draft picks for lesser value than they go for and teams like Detroit, Anaheim and Pitts would be begging us to take their stars off their hands for our depth players.

Now matter how many ways we try to add it all up, the math just doesn't work. This team is going to need a young(er) impact player to score goals, draw the other teams top players and buy their depth players some room/allow them to fit in their SUPPORT roles.

The key compenent of having depth/support players is that they have to play behind someone and actually have someone to support.

Edge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-11-2008, 11:06 PM
  #72
Edge
Registered User
 
Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sin City
Country: United States
Posts: 13,196
vCash: 500
[QUOTE=Son of Steinbrenner;14379564]
Quote:
The Rangers have drafted cheap DEPTH talent and they have decent young defenseman. If they had a young talented RW on the roster today they would still have to pay him at whatever the market rate is. If the Rangers had Perry right now and he was about to become a restricted free agent they would have to pay him. In the old days when free agency was at 31 years old and very few teams signed Restricted Free agents the draft was much more important..The only real way a team can get into salary cap trouble is by giving no movement clauses or signing guys over 35 to multi year contracts.
Would the Rangers have to pay that player? You bet. But they also know that when they resign him that he's there's for the next decade and that they have a shot at avoiding a bidding war.

It also means that if they have to move him, he's young enough to get a good return. There aren't going to be many teams signing up to trade for a guy you just signed or trade for him when he's older.

Secondly, we come right back to a point I made earlier. Until you have to sign Perry, you can focus on other contracts. You can time your moves so that one big contract comes to an end when Perry's might be coming up. So let's say for arguments sake that Perry was a Ranger.

This summer Perry would be do for a big contract, however you'd have some balance because a guy like Jagr's contract (or Shanahan's) would be ending.

Quote:
The Rangers have a good young team to build around. They also have a system that helps out an awful lot. I don't see a high end goalscorer but I don't have a problem with those players being brought in through trades, Restricted Free Agency, and Unrestricted Free Agents. If you can spread out when contracts are going to end AND with the salary cap climbing yearly the Rangers can be players for need players every year. if they are smart about it...
Trades are going to cost you resources. Which is the whole point of building through the draft to begin with. The idea of developing your own players means you don't have to trade for those pieces as often.

Second problem is that your needs depend on who is available. If it's a down year, you're basically screwed for the upcoming season unless you trade assets. Which brings us right back to my first point about the point of developing your own players in the first place.

Quote:
I think Korpikoski is going to be a fantastic two way second line player. I've thought his ceiling was higher then most from the moment i saw him. He adapts to any league and any line he plays on. I thought this before the goal against Pittsburgh... (which is no sample size in my book)
And maybe that is, but even if I buy into that he still maxies out as a 25 goal scorer and I'll be honest with you SOS, I just don't see that. The problem with this plan is that it keeps coming back to players overachieving over what most experts and even the team seems to project.

If we go with that approach and over-project a lot of our guys, of course the picture is going to be nicer.

I can't say it's not going to happen, but I don't think I'd be thrilled about the odds either.


Quote:
I think this topic is has been beaten to death for 5 years now. The Rangers screwed up the pick but 5 years later and if the Rangers make the right moves this offseason they could easily be Stanley Cup contenders. Would Getzlaf help right now, no doubt...but they would also be paying him a market contract...something they are going to have to pay a free agent or players aquired in trades anyway.
It's all a matter of timing though. Would we have to pay Getzlaf? Sure, but that probably means we wouldn't have had to overpay for another center. It means you could've spent that money on a high end winger for the future and Getzlaf's contract would've been absorbed by the money you save when Shanny or Jagr's contract runs out.

Winning the cup can come down to having just enough money to get the right player at the right time. Sometimes it comes down to that small window that exists right before a young player is due for a new contract and an old player is finishing out a contract.

Those are the small windows a team has to be able to jump at.


Quote:
I'm looking for a top line scorer on all the teams not just what's in the system. I do think/hope Cherapanov is a 30 to 40 goal guy but if he doesn't work out the Rangers can replace his lost value with somebody from the outside....
Which means once again we have to hope that to either trade or sign someone.

The former will once again require moving more depth to get a player we don't have in the first place. The latter requires a player to

A. Actually be available
B. Willing to sign
C. Us bidding against other teams.

But if the future is so bright, why do we have to keep signing so many guys to fill crucial positions we didn't fill? If that's the case, than maybe the future isn't so bright as we'd like to believe.

Under the sign a free agent approach we will now have constructed at least 1/2 of our top lines from guys we bought.

Quote:
Edge, if the Cherepanov and Anisimov don't work out do you think the Rangers are totally screwed? I just don't see that being the case...We don't even know if Cherapanov is going to be here after next season. Then is the battle cry going to be who the Rangers should've taken insted of Cherapanov?
Totally screwed? No. But I also don't think they're good enough to win it all.

So if this team exists as a number 4 or 5 seed for the next six years, is that considered a good thing?

Obviously if they make the playoffs they aren't awful, but they aren't great either. So what exactly constitutes a "bright" future. Being good but not great? Or would bright be a team that can win some championships?

I'm shooting for the second of those options. But I don't see it happened without this developing an impact player or two. In this case, those two would be Cherapanov and Anisimov.


Quote:
Then why do you think success is coming post Jagr and Shanny? Do you think the Rangers as is with the guys under contract and in the system right now are a team to build around? What sort of players would you bring in? Edge, you know i think the world of your opinion so i'm curious what your plan would be with what the Rangers ahve right now...Forget what they could've had but if you were in Sathers shoes for the next 2 months what's the plan?
I think the Rangers will be a better team without Jagr and Shanahan. Whether or not they will be a GREAT team depends on the development of two impact players.

I think there is a pretty wide margin of where this team could end up. If Cherapanov and Anisimov develop to their potential, I think this team could be dangerous. But I'm still concerned that they're going to have too many centers and not enough icetime.

If those two don't develop, I think the team will be above average but a notch below the great teams. I think they'll be better than they are now, but I don't see them overcoming the top teams.

As for the second part of your question about Sather, to be honest with you, I don't know if I have a cure-all. Once certain decisions have been made, un-doing them gets tricky. The plan to cover our holes now will come down to waiting to see if other team's sign a player, who becomes a free agent and who is available. In essence we have to wait before we can act. That's yet another reason I'm not crazy about going with the trading/signing approach.

I think Sather has to take a look at Hossa and Campbell. How signable they are is another question. The problem is, Sather's not going to be alone in looking at those guys. So one scenario is Sather find's a way to trade into the 10-12 spot and adds a top end prospect at either forward or defense. He then finds a way to sign Hossa and Campbell and brings in a veteran forward on the cheap.

Is that enough? I don't know and I lean towards probably not. But it's difficult to give an answer that solves everything when so much as already been put into motion.


Quote:
I think the Rangers have developed a collection of guys that make a up a team to build around. Going forward it would be great to draft an impact player every year but that's not realistic. It never happens....The Rangers have a team to build around now it's bringing back and bringing in the right parts.
I like the collection of kids we have, but to be a winner you have to develop more than one impact forward over a 5-8 year span and right now we haven't. I think we have a lot of guys who would compliment the guy to build around. In a sense it's almost like we've built a really nice car but now can't find an engine and transmission.

We could try and get by and it'll look nice enough to fool some people, but in the end we won't get anywhere without good parts in those key areas.

I'm not looking for a system full of impact players, I'm looking for more than what we've seen. That's what seperates us from the good teams. And unless that changes, it is what will continue to seperate us from them.

The problem is that we're not talking about bringing in one or two parts. We're talking about having to sign two centers and at least one wingers. That's not building a team, that's buying one and those parts gets very expensive.

Find the right pieces implies finding a final piece, maybe two. Well last summer we spent final piece money on two guys who apparently aren't the final pieces. In fact I don't even think we're talking about final pieces right now, we're actually talking about having to re-find centerpieces. And that is something completely different.


Quote:
Edge, the league is so year to year now it's impossible to agree with that statement.


I think the Rangers can build that championship team but i don't think it has to be JUST through the draft...
I don't disagree with that. But the last three champions each had at least two impact players at forward who they drafted. Furthermore they were able to add the final pieces because they had the young players to begin with and were able to take advantage of their windows.

Right now we've already spent final piece/ impact player money on two centers who would block two guys we need to develop (Anisimov, Dubinsky) for us to even be a contender in the first place.

Secondly, unlike the teams who win we don't even currently have an impact player who is young and not yet to their first big contract which means we have to spend even more money to sign a wing who score goals.

We've now moved out of the final piece mode when we do that because we've now signed 1/2 of our core players rather than develop them.

That goes beyond signing guys to put us over the top, now we're talking about signing guys to get to the starting gate.

Detroit bringing in a final piece is them adding depth with a guy like Cleary. They can't do that if they had to sign free agents to play the roles manned by their developed impact players.

That's why they are the champions and we are team that hasn't even figured out who exactly we're going to build around. All the support pieces in the world, now matter how great, isn't going to change that fundamental flaw.

Case in point, this team NEEDS Cherapanov and Anisimov to be one of the elite. If the goal is too simply be good, than we'll be okay with what we have.

If the key is to lift the cup, our current team makeup and approach isn't going to do it.

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 12:54 AM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.