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

2003 Draft looks a lot better now...

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-03-2008, 11:40 AM
  #26
Son of Steinbrenner
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Tromelin
Posts: 9,500
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edge View Post
I don't see how. The Rangers didn't stand a chance to Zherdev then and had to pay a price to get him now.

That's like saying the Rangers made up for 98 draft when they got Gomez.

I just don't see the connection because the debate will always be about who the Rangers should've had in the first place, not who they traded for later.

They key is to add guys via trades and signings to the players you've already drafted and/or developed.

To me this trade is unrelated to how we drafted. Just like going out and getting a good player from the 2002 draft doesn't magically make up for that circus situation.
Hasn't the debate always been how the Rangers are the only team not to have a player in the NHL for the 1st round of the draft?

Hasn't the debate always been about the embarasment associated with having Jessiman not playing in the NHL vs every other pick?

It took 5 years but Sather got more value out of that draft than most teams. I'm not defending the Jessiman pick i'm just saying that most of the points the anti-jessiman crowd had are now moot...

also the rangers traded a guy who they developed for a 1st and 2nd round pick..i don't know about you but i'd rather have the guys that are developed at 22 than guys who are unknown at 18..

yesterday was a final good bye to the jessiman debate...the rangers made up for the missed asset.....i don't know how anybody can see it another way...

Son of Steinbrenner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-03-2008, 11:53 AM
  #27
Bluenote13
Believe In Henke
 
Bluenote13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: BKLYN, NYC
Posts: 23,762
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Son of Steinbrenner View Post
Hasn't the debate always been how the Rangers are the only team not to have a player in the NHL for the 1st round of the draft?

Hasn't the debate always been about the embarasment associated with having Jessiman not playing in the NHL vs every other pick?

It took 5 years but Sather got more value out of that draft than most teams. I'm not defending the Jessiman pick i'm just saying that most of the points the anti-jessiman crowd had are now moot...

also the rangers traded a guy who they developed for a 1st and 2nd round pick..i don't know about you but i'd rather have the guys that are developed at 22 than guys who are unknown at 18..

yesterday was a final good bye to the jessiman debate...the rangers made up for the missed asset.....i don't know how anybody can see it another way...
See it however you want, we still didnt DRAFT a guy in the 1st round that made it from that year.

Whats next, we won the '79 draft cause we ended up getting Messier in 91 !!!???

Lunacy......

Bluenote13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-03-2008, 11:56 AM
  #28
chosen
Registered User
 
chosen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 5,691
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluenote13 View Post
See it however you want, we still didnt DRAFT a guy in the 1st round that made it from that year.

Whats next, we won the '79 draft cause we ended up getting Messier in 91 !!!???

Lunacy......
Precisely.

chosen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-03-2008, 12:02 PM
  #29
NYR Viper
Moderator
 
NYR Viper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: PA
Country: United States
Posts: 28,745
vCash: 500
people are on edge here.....my goodness.....i understand your point SoS......i think it is valid....however i do agree with the others saying it doesnt replace jessiman...however if the rangers were to have made the trade at the draft for these two players i would have thought they won the draft......so.......THEY WIN!!...i think it does cover up the 2003 draft as jessiman has turned itno CLB....so now they have a 2003 1st rounder on their team

NYR Viper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-03-2008, 12:09 PM
  #30
Son of Steinbrenner
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Tromelin
Posts: 9,500
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluenote13 View Post
See it however you want, we still didnt DRAFT a guy in the 1st round that made it from that year.

Whats next, we won the '79 draft cause we ended up getting Messier in 91 !!!???

Lunacy......
So wait the Rangers did get hurt by the 03 draft?

your realize the draft is an entry draft for the entire league not just the rangers...

Son of Steinbrenner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-03-2008, 12:17 PM
  #31
Bluenote13
Believe In Henke
 
Bluenote13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: BKLYN, NYC
Posts: 23,762
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Son of Steinbrenner View Post
So wait the Rangers did get hurt by the 03 draft?

your realize the draft is an entry draft for the entire league not just the rangers...
Translate, this means what...?

Bluenote13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-03-2008, 12:18 PM
  #32
chosen
Registered User
 
chosen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 5,691
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Son of Steinbrenner View Post
So wait the Rangers did get hurt by the 03 draft?

your realize the draft is an entry draft for the entire league not just the rangers...
Where some of us disagree with you is that getting a player years later after a miserable failure does not square the deal to us. The Rangers could have (should have) just as easily picked a winner in that infamous draft and still gotten Zherdev now.

When so many outstanding players come out in one year and your team somehow manages to find the single piece of coal in a bag of overflowing diamonds it is a monumental failure whether or not you acquire one of those players years later.

While Zherdev may or may not turn out to be a jewel in the future (he certainly isn't so far), a whole bunch of that class are already jewels.

Drafts like that year is where teams get franchise, or close to it, players. That is why this whole topic remains so frustrating and contentious.

chosen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-03-2008, 12:26 PM
  #33
Son of Steinbrenner
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Tromelin
Posts: 9,500
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluenote13 View Post
Translate, this means what...?
Well at least you didn't hit me with the always classy....lol

It means that that draft which we've all thought would come back to haunt us isn't going too at all...infact it might end up helping this team in the long run...

Chosen,

I don't disagree with your logic they could've taken a better player...they should've (looking back on it) but in reality the draft didn't end up being that bad for team...

Son of Steinbrenner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-03-2008, 12:29 PM
  #34
Bob Clarke Fan Club
Registered User
 
Bob Clarke Fan Club's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,986
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jas View Post
Carter wasn't on the board; he went to Philly the pick right before us.

Oh, and if Potter and Moore make the lineup, we'd have 5 players picked in the 2003 draft in the lineup. I guess signing Gomez makes up for drafting Manny Malhotra...and signing Redden erases the awful pick of Jeff Brown...now how do we get rid of the stench that was the Falardeau pick?


There were better players picked after Carter. Flyers have also stockpiled talent from the 2003 Entry draft...It was truly an excellent class.

Bob Clarke Fan Club is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-03-2008, 12:30 PM
  #35
Bob Clarke Fan Club
Registered User
 
Bob Clarke Fan Club's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,986
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluenote13 View Post
See it however you want, we still didnt DRAFT a guy in the 1st round that made it from that year.

Whats next, we won the '79 draft cause we ended up getting Messier in 91 !!!???

Lunacy......

and there weren't many ways to blow a pick in that first round either.

Bob Clarke Fan Club is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-03-2008, 12:35 PM
  #36
Bluenote13
Believe In Henke
 
Bluenote13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: BKLYN, NYC
Posts: 23,762
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Son of Steinbrenner View Post
Well at least you didn't hit me with the always classy....lol

It means that that draft which we've all thought would come back to haunt us isn't going too at all...infact it might end up helping this team in the long run...

Chosen,

I don't disagree with your logic they could've taken a better player...they should've (looking back on it) but in reality the draft didn't end up being that bad for team...
How does it help us? Zherdev? We used assets to aquire him, Jessiman not being one of them.

Look at it anyway ya like, fact is we couldve had one of Getzlaf, Parise, Wolski on top of trading for Zman. Sather took a stab at bigtime project when we had nobody in the system, it was a lousy time to go after a wildcard.

Not to mention if we had that player from '03 we might not have spent alot of loot on free agents. We can go on and on like this, not gonna solve anything, so all i have left is Ya know, to class up the joint

Bluenote13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-03-2008, 01:09 PM
  #37
mschmidt64
Registered User
 
mschmidt64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 830
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluenote13 View Post
How does it help us? Zherdev? We used assets to aquire him, Jessiman not being one of them.

Look at it anyway ya like, fact is we couldve had one of Getzlaf, Parise, Wolski on top of trading for Zman. Sather took a stab at bigtime project when we had nobody in the system, it was a lousy time to go after a wildcard.

Not to mention if we had that player from '03 we might not have spent alot of loot on free agents. We can go on and on like this, not gonna solve anything, so all i have left is Ya know, to class up the joint
Spot on.

mschmidt64 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-03-2008, 01:41 PM
  #38
McRanger
Registered User
 
McRanger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,770
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluenote13 View Post
How does it help us? Zherdev? We used assets to aquire him, Jessiman not being one of them.

Look at it anyway ya like, fact is we couldve had one of Getzlaf, Parise, Wolski on top of trading for Zman. Sather took a stab at bigtime project when we had nobody in the system, it was a lousy time to go after a wildcard.

Not to mention if we had that player from '03 we might not have spent alot of loot on free agents. We can go on and on like this, not gonna solve anything, so all i have left is Ya know, to class up the joint
If the Rangers had picked up quality players in the 1998 draft (Gomez, Rozsival) or the 1994 draft (Drury) or the 1996 draft (Redden), or most of the other drafts....

Which is always what makes the 2003 draft argument so comical. It used to be "look at the standings", "look at the roster", "look at the farm system", "look at how old the team is"... Now those are said with a different connotation so its "look at how we failed in the 1st round of the 2003 draft. If anything its the biggest compliment to Sather that people need to look at a round in a draft a half decade ago to find something to cling to and complain about, regardless of how great the players were that we could have drafted.

I've always said this team has had much, much bigger failures, more specifically the entire late 90's, where the current "core" of our veterans should have come from.

We seem to be doing decent only getting Dawes out of the 2003 draft. Maybe struggling teams like Detroit (they currently have no one from the 2003 draft in the NHL) can follow our model of success.

McRanger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-03-2008, 01:46 PM
  #39
Bluenote13
Believe In Henke
 
Bluenote13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: BKLYN, NYC
Posts: 23,762
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by McRanger View Post
If the Rangers had picked up quality players in the 1998 draft (Gomez, Rozsival) or the 1994 draft (Drury) or the 1996 draft (Redden), or most of the other drafts....

Which is always what makes the 2003 draft argument so comical. It used to be "look at the standings", "look at the roster", "look at the farm system", "look at how old the team is"... Now those are said with a different connotation so its "look at how we failed in the 1st round of the 2003 draft. If anything its the biggest compliment to Sather that people need to look at a round in a draft a half decade ago to find something to cling to and complain about, regardless of how great the players were that we could have drafted.

I've always said this team has had much, much bigger failures, more specifically the entire late 90's, where the current "core" of our veterans should have come from.

We seem to be doing decent only getting Dawes out of the 2003 draft. Maybe struggling teams like Detroit (they currently have no one from the 2003 draft in the NHL) can follow our model of success.
You whole post is way out of context, so yeah, lets agreee to disagree.

Bluenote13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-03-2008, 01:59 PM
  #40
McRanger
Registered User
 
McRanger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,770
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluenote13 View Post
You whole post is way out of context, so yeah, lets agreee to disagree.
This:

Quote:
If the Rangers had picked up quality players in the 1998 draft (Gomez, Rozsival) or the 1994 draft (Drury) or the 1996 draft (Redden), or most of the other drafts....
was a response to this:

Quote:
Not to mention if we had that player from '03 we might not have spent alot of loot on free agents.
The rest was a commentary on how idiotic the entire argument is, one that is not directed specifically at you.

McRanger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-03-2008, 02:51 PM
  #41
Bluenote13
Believe In Henke
 
Bluenote13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: BKLYN, NYC
Posts: 23,762
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by McRanger View Post
This:



was a response to this:



The rest was a commentary on how idiotic the entire argument is, one that is not directed specifically at you.
Those other drafts are not whats in question, only 2003, ya know where almost everyone of those 1st rounders are now legit NHL'ers.

Bluenote13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-03-2008, 02:55 PM
  #42
we want cup
We do not Sow
 
we want cup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Minneapolis
Country: United States
Posts: 10,720
vCash: 500
How about everyone just stops talking about this and basks in the glory of youtube videos of Zherdev making fools out of goalies and defensemen?

__________________

RANGERS =
we want cup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-03-2008, 03:07 PM
  #43
Pizza
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,057
vCash: 500
This thread is verging on string theory coupled with an almost political fervor in both complexity and tone.

Let's all breathe a little. I'll mix the drinks and chill the beers.

We got thru two 2.5 days of this craziness and the teams future is looking pretty bright.

Pizza is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-03-2008, 03:11 PM
  #44
dedalus
Registered User
 
dedalus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 7,215
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edge View Post
I don't see how. The Rangers didn't stand a chance to Zherdev then and had to pay a price to get him now.

That's like saying the Rangers made up for 98 draft when they got Gomez.

I just don't see the connection because the debate will always be about who the Rangers should've had in the first place, not who they traded for later.

They key is to add guys via trades and signings to the players you've already drafted and/or developed.

To me this trade is unrelated to how we drafted. Just like going out and getting a good player from the 2002 draft doesn't magically make up for that circus situation.
Why must you inject logic into this apologetic? We all know the purpose of trades is to make up for poor drafting, so when a trade does that, it negates the poor drafting, and everyone should shut up about failed draft picks.

dedalus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-03-2008, 08:30 PM
  #45
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 Son of Steinbrenner View Post
Hasn't the debate always been how the Rangers are the only team not to have a player in the NHL for the 1st round of the draft?

Hasn't the debate always been about the embarasment associated with having Jessiman not playing in the NHL vs every other pick?

It took 5 years but Sather got more value out of that draft than most teams. I'm not defending the Jessiman pick i'm just saying that most of the points the anti-jessiman crowd had are now moot...

also the rangers traded a guy who they developed for a 1st and 2nd round pick..i don't know about you but i'd rather have the guys that are developed at 22 than guys who are unknown at 18..

yesterday was a final good bye to the jessiman debate...the rangers made up for the missed asset.....i don't know how anybody can see it another way...
I just don't think it works like that. Signing or trading for a guy from the same draft class as a bust (or at the very least someone who will probably not justify that draft position) doesn't erase the pick that was made.

Make no mistake, I really like do like taking a shot on a kid like Zherdev and getting Fritsche is a super bonus in my eyes, but it just doesn't erase the Jessiman pick.

Again, the key for me is adding guys when needed AND drafting wisely. One without the other just isn't complete. While I have zero expectation that EVERY player the Rangers draft will make it, the 2002 and 2003 drafts are not favorites of mine. At least not for this team's top picks.

Adding Zherdev and Fritsche gives this team some options and younger players with upside. It doesn't make up for the fact that we could've had them AND a kid we drafted in 2003. The reason 2003 comes up so often is because of the level of talent that was available. Just like people will remember who made the bad picks in 1979, the same will hold true for 2003.

No matter who the Rangers trade for, that one is going to linger for a very long time. The only thing that will help subdue that anger is if this team wins a cup. Winning erases bad memories, trades by themselves usually do not.

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 12:24 PM.

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.