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

Rangers farm still disrespected

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-20-2008, 01:02 AM
  #101
chappie
lemon snow!
 
chappie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 196
vCash: 500
Anisimov is on track for about a 70 point season, and is already 5 goals away from tying his netted shots from last year. He is amazingly defensively responsible. He may not have a great first step, but he is fast once his wheels get moving, and it makes him very deceptive. He knows how to make the key pass, and he is consistently probably the best PP player we have in our organization. Though I believe his first year up he will not be as "invigorating" as guys like Malkin/Ovechkin/Kovalchuk were their first year up, he will be the picture of consistency, and will net some very key goals/assist for this team, proving why he has been given the amount of hype that he has, to this point, ascertained.

Grachev is 5 goals away from tops in the league in the OHL, and is tops amongst rookies and top 20 overall in points. go to youtube, you can watch videos of him, the kid is something like a freight train. He also has proven he can do whatever coaches ask of him, as his two key linemates recently went to practice for Canada's WJC team, before team russia arrived, and he was able to adapt to new line mates and contribute, not just by relying on them but by also making his own plays and creating space with his own skills.

The Rangers have some great prospect with great potential, most of them though are in Juniors at the moment. Don't speak about what you don't know, because you obviously don't know about our prospects, and you are looking to get on your soap box and spit out a fact-less based rant.

chappie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-20-2008, 01:16 AM
  #102
Cherepanov 71
Registered User
 
Cherepanov 71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Albany, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 921
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrooklynHockey99 View Post
I was just looking at the HF rankings and I must say, we really do belong in the bottom half a dozen.

Defense is ok with Sang, DZ and lesser prospects, such as Sauer who's awfully overrated on this board.

Up front, we got nothing. Anisimov is nothing special. Third liner with a second line potential, kinda like Korps. Maybe they'll play on our third line together in a few years, if we are lucky. Or together on our second line if we suck.

Zaborsky is our #6? Wow. He's in the ECHL and not even putting up impressive numbers there. He literally has no trade value.

Grachev is in the top 5. I know a lot of people are giddy about him, but come on, there's a reason he just fell to the third round. Draft position isn't that important after a few years, but it is after less than half a season. If the Rangers tried to trade him, they'd get... a third round pick.

Byers is #7. He's projected as a 4th line player. Come on, boys and girls. Really? He's our next Betts - a perfect 4th liner, but a 4th liner nonetheless.

All those other guys like Hagelin, Hillier and Weise are worthless trade-wise. I am not looking to trade them, but the fact that nobody would give us anything for them is a sign that they are... worthless.

So besides Sang and DZ (probably just 1 of them since they are both high-risk, high-return), we really have nobody who would be in the top-6 or the top 2 pairs. Maybe Anisimov will get there. Maybe not. At most, it's 3 new guys in the next few years. Maybe just 1.

And let's remember that we don't have any young top-6 wings either in the Garden or among the prospects. [RIP Cherry]

People talk about all the players we've brought up. Fine. We are good at center (in large part because Gomez will stick around for a while or else we'd have Dubi on the first line, Anisimov on second and Betts on third). We are good in the net. We will probably be good on defense. But what's up on the wing? What happens when Naslund is gone? We are already weak on the top 2 lines among wings.

This team will have to rely heavily on free agency in the coming years.
I'm pretty sure you can say something bad about any prospect, doesn't mean your right.

Cherepanov 71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-20-2008, 01:22 AM
  #103
Beacon
Sent to HF Minors
 
Beacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 8,272
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cherepanov 71 View Post
I'm pretty sure you can say something bad about any prospect, doesn't mean your right.
1) Doesn't mean that you are wrong either.

2) You can say something bad and something good always, but you compare good (potential) v. bad (risk), and you judge. And if you don't think our forward prospects suck (as a group, not each player), then you are just blind.

Beacon is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-20-2008, 01:22 AM
  #104
silverfish
Mr. Glass
 
silverfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Standing on a Train
Country: United States
Posts: 14,934
vCash: 500
No one can deny that our system is weak. But this Brooklyn poster is pointing fingers at the wrong prospects.

I'd attribute our weak system to the tragic death of one of our prospects, and the fact that Slats never finished the rebuild that he started.

It all goes back to those two things.

silverfish is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-20-2008, 01:27 AM
  #105
Beacon
Sent to HF Minors
 
Beacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 8,272
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by chappie View Post

The Rangers have some great prospect with great potential, most of them though are in Juniors at the moment. Don't speak about what you don't know, because you obviously don't know about our prospects, and you are looking to get on your soap box and spit out a fact-less based rant.
Yes, obviously I don't know. And neither does anyone else. We got ranked #24 this year and everyone says we have a barren system because nobody knows. Just you do.

In fact, I've been one of the few people in this thread to present any kind of an argument.

Look at what you've said.

- You stated a conclusion ("we have some great talent").
- Then you insulted me.

How does it prove anything?

- We have great talent: that's a conclusion. You might as well put down "because I said so" at the end because nothing else backs the statement.
- No matter what you say about me, it doesn't change anything about the prospects. You attack the speaker when you can't attack his message. That's just a basic rule of debating.


Again, why is it that only Ranger fans think that the system has great prospects? If they were so great, wouldn't you think that someone, anyone, would think highly of them?

And if people who are not blinded by their homer bias think that the system is barren, wouldn't you think it might be a clue, rather than hammering away at homerism and hoping that the future won't come to prove you wrong?

Beacon is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-20-2008, 01:32 AM
  #106
Loto68
Registered User
 
Loto68's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 858
vCash: 500
It didn't even take me the first 3 posts by the OP to know that he understands nothing about judging talent. Stick to making ridiculous trade proposals or what ever you normally do.

Loto68 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-20-2008, 02:10 AM
  #107
Beacon
Sent to HF Minors
 
Beacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 8,272
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loto68 View Post
It didn't even take me the first 3 posts by the OP to know that he understands nothing about judging talent. Stick to making ridiculous trade proposals or what ever you normally do.
Yeah, stick to being a homer. That will make it all better.

Just remember: all the people whose eyes aren't tainted by homer bias agree with me.

A few people who'll never say anything bad about the team's system agree with you.

Stick to listening to your parents and playing video games, little boy. When you grow up, you'll have homerism bite you in the butt and you'll realize that you should take off your rose-colored glasses and judge objectively.

You'll wind up in agreement with non-homers a little more. But you'll be called names by little boys who want to hear, "our prospects are great, our prospects are great, our prospects are great".

Ultimately, it's a trade-off that you'll be willing to make ... when you grow up.

Beacon is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-20-2008, 02:14 AM
  #108
Beacon
Sent to HF Minors
 
Beacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 8,272
vCash: 500
It's amazing how little people have to say in response.

Really.

It's either attack the messenger or state conclusions ("Our prospects are great. You suck.")

Nothing was ever given to back up the conclusions (except some version of "you suck").

Maybe that's why non-Ranger fans agree with those Ranger fans who aren't blind behind their rose colored glasses.

Beacon is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-20-2008, 02:23 AM
  #109
Burlington Bomb 26
Louie Louie Oh oh
 
Burlington Bomb 26's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Green Mountain State
Country: United States
Posts: 16,615
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarkko Immonen View Post
I mean that's only if the philosophy doesn't change anytime soon. They like to fill their holes by signing free agents, we all know that.

And now I know Korpikoski isn't playing out of this world but I finally was able to watch the last few Rangers games and I can't believe this guy is stuck playing 10 minutes a game on the 4th line.

I don't know, maybe I'm wrong. I hope I'm wrong. Young players just don't seem to get their shots all that often with this organization.
Staal, Dubinsky, Girardi, Callahan, and Dawes are all playing in either there 1st full or second full NHL season this year.

Burlington Bomb 26 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-20-2008, 02:23 AM
  #110
chappie
lemon snow!
 
chappie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 196
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrooklynHockey99 View Post
Yes, obviously I don't know. And neither does anyone else. We got ranked #24 this year and everyone says we have a barren system because nobody knows. Just you do.

In fact, I've been one of the few people in this thread to present any kind of an argument.

Look at what you've said.

- You stated a conclusion ("we have some great talent").
- Then you insulted me.

How does it prove anything?

- We have great talent: that's a conclusion. You might as well put down "because I said so" at the end because nothing else backs the statement.
- No matter what you say about me, it doesn't change anything about the prospects. You attack the speaker when you can't attack his message. That's just a basic rule of debating.


Again, why is it that only Ranger fans think that the system has great prospects? If they were so great, wouldn't you think that someone, anyone, would think highly of them?

And if people who are not blinded by their homer bias think that the system is barren, wouldn't you think it might be a clue, rather than hammering away at homerism and hoping that the future won't come to prove you wrong?
I did not insult you, I said your position is stupid and unfounded. You forget to include the first part of my response, which included Grachev's/Anisimov's numbers/progression so far, which has been absolutely awesome, and tells us a lot of what could be a potential future line (Grachev - Anisimov - Zherdev)

The problem with Hockey's Future's ranking is, that while they comprehensively give a very good assessment of overall talent in ones organization (specifically at the AHL level) they can not be particularly accurate at all to one team.

Guys like Tomas Kundratek have 7 points in 21 games, in their first season in the WHL, as a defenseman, with a plus 5 is very good, and is a good benchmark to a defenseman who has not yet even turned 19. (his birthday will be on the 26th)

Micheal Del Zotto is obviously our second offensively talented defenseman picked in the first round, and currently (I believe he still is, if not he is right there) is tops amongst dman in scoring in the OHL, at the age of only 18, with still a lot of years for him to develop his defensive game. This kid may very well turn out to be better then Bobby Sangs if that can happen.

Obviously we have Sanguinetti, who is finally starting to come around, and his offensive game is starting to open up. in the last 3 weeks or so, he's really shown that he is starting to progress, and if the wolf pack actually had a vet presence on this team like Hutch was last year, he might be in an even better position . Right now though, his shot is starting to show some confidence behind it, and he's making better passes. Defensively, he still needs to work, but he also needs a guy who can help teach him, something that is not there on this team right now.

Carl Hagelin has 15 points in 18 games with Michigan U and is currently their third highest point getter. The kid is fast as hell and a shot that he is starting to finally use so far this season. He is another two way, responsible guy and if he can put some muscle on, could become a very good NHL player.

We have a couple of other guys, such as Max Campbell and David Skokan, but I must say I don't know much about either of them, and it's not fair for me really to comment one way or another. I think Skokan was supposed to play for Hartford this year, but got injured, don't know for sure though.

chappie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-20-2008, 02:41 AM
  #111
gravytrain6t
Registered User
 
gravytrain6t's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 2,867
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrooklynHockey99 View Post
"Why do you have to say that they "suck" when they clearly don't. Sure there are teams that have better prospects, but I don't think all of our prospects suck. "

I hate when people do that. I didn't say all of them suck. Please read. They suck as a bunch. Together. Take out top 20. Take most teams' top 20. Combined they suck when compared to others.

"Also, let's not forget how many of them graduated to the NHL in just the last 2-3 years."

I addressed that... and the conclusion was that we are lacking severely on both wings.

"With his hockey smarts and skill he could have been a 80 point forward in this league."

Maybe, maybe not. I remember pinning my hopes on Dube being a superstar. You can never expect, just hope.
The name of this post is "Our Prospects suck." Whats the difference between that and "they suck as a bunch." And Dube still may be a ss? Whats the problem?
Why in the world do people even respond to such idiotic threads like this. Besides, shouldn't this be on the prospects board. Our team hasn't sucked enough through the years to get an Ovechkin, Malkin, Crosby, or whoever else you want. Seriously do you have a crystal ball or something. You come on here and say our prospects suck. What do you watch all of these kids play in their games. Give me a break. We have kids on this team that are so young and still developing, we're not sure how high the sky's the limit. Dam. We're still in first place. Sather has picked up a lot of young talent thus far and whats good about all of it. Is he's keeping it or trading it for other young kids with talent. You think this guy doesn't know what he's doing with this mess that was left here by Smith but you do? So far, Sather has come up with young promising players such as: Callahan, Zherdev, Sjostrom, Lundqvist, Girardi, Staal, Dubinsky,Dawes, Cherepanov (may he R.I.P), Anisimov, Grachev, Doyle, Del Zotto, Sangs, Hillier, Zaborsky, Kveton, Sauer, Hagelin (good young swede in Michigan), Stepan (another young kid moving through the college ranks in Wisconsin)....etc...

I don't care what HF boards has to say or where they rank us. Take a look at Sathers track record and what he did for the Oilers. You know how many guys he picked up in the later rounds that were pretty big pieces to Stanley Cup dynasty. Messier, Anderson, Kurri come to mind? All three of them happen to be in Hall of Fame none the less, just to name a few.

Are all of these prospects going to work out? no. But who knows who Sather and his scouting staff will come up with in the 09 draft. We don't even know exactly what we have now. Many of are young players are still a work in progress. And as far as drafting Russian players. After seeing Nashville get completely ****** out of that first round pick in Radulov, who decided to jump ship and join the KHL. Yea there's good reason for these guys getting drafted in the later rounds.
And LEVITATE. Who cares if it seems "people go a bit over board and have to high of expectations of our draft picks." As a Ranger fan, I'd love to see optimism and patience from our fans when it comes to the kids. Not, "these guys suck." "we should have signed Sundin for a billion dollars" "what is wrong with Sather?"
I hate that **** It's like little kids whining. It's gotta be agitating to those who want to just sit back and root for the team and wait and see what Ranger prospects we have to look forward too!!! Then other teams fans will be wanting our guys in the fa market all the time.

gravytrain6t is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-20-2008, 02:48 AM
  #112
chappie
lemon snow!
 
chappie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 196
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gravytrain6t View Post
The name of this post is "Our Prospects suck." Whats the difference between that and "they suck as a bunch." And Dube still may be a ss? Whats the problem?
Why in the world do people even respond to such idiotic threads like this. Besides, shouldn't this be on the prospects board. Our team hasn't sucked enough through the years to get an Ovechkin, Malkin, Crosby, or whoever else you want. Seriously do you have a crystal ball or something. You come on here and say our prospects suck. What do you watch all of these kids play in their games. Give me a break. We have kids on this team that are so young and still developing, we're not sure how high the sky's the limit. Dam. We're still in first place. Sather has picked up a lot of young talent thus far and whats good about all of it. Is he's keeping it or trading it for other young kids with talent. You think this guy doesn't know what he's doing with this mess that was left here by Smith but you do? So far, Sather has come up with young promising players such as: Callahan, Zherdev, Sjostrom, Lundqvist, Girardi, Staal, Dubinsky,Dawes, Cherepanov (may he R.I.P), Anisimov, Grachev, Doyle, Del Zotto, Sangs, Hillier, Zaborsky, Kveton, Sauer, Hagelin (good young swede in Michigan), Stepan (another young kid moving through the college ranks in Wisconsin)....etc...

I don't care what HF boards has to say or where they rank us. Take a look at Sathers track record and what he did for the Oilers. You know how many guys he picked up in the later rounds that were pretty big pieces to Stanley Cup dynasty. Messier, Anderson, Kurri come to mind? All three of them happen to be in Hall of Fame none the less, just to name a few.

Are all of these prospects going to work out? no. But who knows who Sather and his scouting staff will come up with in the 09 draft. We don't even know exactly what we have now. Many of are young players are still a work in progress. And as far as drafting Russian players. After seeing Nashville get completely ****** out of that first round pick in Radulov, who decided to jump ship and join the KHL. Yea there's good reason for these guys getting drafted in the later rounds.
And LEVITATE. Who cares if it seems "people go a bit over board and have to high of expectations of our draft picks." As a Ranger fan, I'd love to see optimism and patience from our fans when it comes to the kids. Not, "these guys suck." "we should have signed Sundin for a billion dollars" "what is wrong with Sather?"
I hate that **** It's like little kids whining. It's gotta be agitating to those who want to just sit back and root for the team and wait and see what Ranger prospects we have to look forward too!!! Then other teams fans will be wanting our guys in the fa market all the time.
As I said, most people rather get on their soap box and start a rant when they see Hartford, a team full of young guns with ONE vet now in Patrick Rissmiller, who was NOT there for most of the year, and assume that our prospect pool is horrible. This is the kind of crap that gets on my nerves, at least, because I like to follow these guys, specifically OHL/AHL, up as much as possible and it's almost insulting in a way to have to listen to this dribble on a fairly consistent basis in many Rangers circles. Our prospects are very good, but you have to give them time, something most people in Ranger land, a land were prospect development is rare, and only the sure things or the long shots seem to come through, don't understand.

chappie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-20-2008, 05:46 AM
  #113
jniklast
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Country: Germany
Posts: 4,713
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrooklynHockey99 View Post
"I don't think you can quantify the "Russian effect" like you want, and you seem to be arguing about it for the sake of arguing. It does have an effect."

You can't do it precisely, but you can do it to some degree. I am not arguing for arguing sake. The point is that we need to know what effect it has.

Because to just say, "transfer agreement caused Russians to fall" could mean anything from they will fall 10 picks like Cherry or it could be an excuse for every Russian who failed to get drafted.

I'd like to know one thing: would the lack of transfer agreement, alone and without any other reason, cause a player to drop from top-10 to the third round? Or even from the first round to the third? Because if it won't, then we have a recognition that Grachev is not a top-10 or even a top-30 talent, meaning he's just another marginal prospect who should've gone in the second round, but fell to the third.

And let's stop pretending that a second round quality prospect is our savior.
i think nobody said grachev was a top-10 pick. but that seems to be what you expect the rangers to have, "a sure fire elite prospect". But how exactly do you expect them to have that, when they drafted at 21, 17 and 20 in the last drafts?
they had that chance with cherepanov but we know what happened.

jniklast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-20-2008, 06:15 AM
  #114
jas
Unsatisfied
 
jas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NJ
Posts: 13,048
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pizza View Post
No problem with what Dowd is saying at all. Though we do seem to get under rated a bit.

As much as I like some our prospects in Hartford, (Anisimov, Sangs, Sauer, Weiss) I can't pick out a sure fire game breaker there.

Our prospect pool, although pretty good is in need of replenishing over all.

In junior I think Del Z and Gratchev have pretty good potential. Beyond them it's weak IMO.

I really thought Bourett would turn out great and losing Cherepanov...well what is there to say. Draft wise we could use a really nice break, like the Staal pick. Only up front.
Unfortunately, that break was used on Cherepanov, only to have it taken away.

The truth is, the Rangers have solid players, but, Cherepanov was the only chance at having a playing with elite talent. Zherdev is a player with elite talent, and Del Zotto is a heckuva talent from the backline. But, what the Rangers have most of is good talent -2nd liners - that work hard.

I still think that the Rangers might end up going after Radulov. He is a quick fix in the securing young talent department (like Zherdev), and because he'd be coming to NY, with his buddy already here, I think it's an easier sell to bring him back over.

Am\nd, aside from Grachev, the prospect I have the highest hopes for right now in the forward position is Stepan. He comes from a hockey factory in MSM-Shattuck. And, as a freshman, he's a top six forward playing important minutes at a major hockey program at Wisconsin. The key is patience. He still needs to fill out, but, from the reports I've read, he's quick, sees the ice well, and has a high hockey IQ. Ideally, he should play the full four years at Wisconsin, and just let him develop, although I'm sure the Rangers will keep a close eye on his proceedings.

jas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-20-2008, 06:17 AM
  #115
dedalus
Registered User
 
dedalus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 7,215
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Melnyk View Post
I was very surprised and impressed by the responses in this post. No homer blinders on at all.
Me too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Melnyk View Post
This wouldn't be thet bad if any of the young forwards that have "graduated" like Dawes, Cally, Pruchs, Korp really have the chance to be all that much, but all are very limited
And this is the surprising part. Back in 04 and 05 when THN was ranking the Rangers mediocre in terms of prospects, the magazine was ripped: "anti-Ranger bias; The Hockey News knows nothing; etc."

The names you just cited were the very ones being tossed around to show how stupid and wrong the "experts" were about the superior state of the the Ranger prospect pool.

We seem to be finding out that the experts were actually pretty accurate.

dedalus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-20-2008, 08:31 AM
  #116
Ola
Registered User
 
Ola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 17,545
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dedalus View Post
Me too.

And this is the surprising part. Back in 04 and 05 when THN was ranking the Rangers mediocre in terms of prospects, the magazine was ripped: "anti-Ranger bias; The Hockey News knows nothing; etc."

The names you just cited were the very ones being tossed around to show how stupid and wrong the "experts" were about the superior state of the the Ranger prospect pool.

We seem to be finding out that the experts were actually pretty accurate.
It would be interesting to see a real look back, like what exactly diffrent farms have produced.

I was very critical of how our farm was ranked when it had Lundqvist and co.

I do really think that we have had strong farms in competition with the other teams in the past 2-4 years. Players like Lundqvist, Staal, Dubinsky, Girardi and several others who have made it to the NHL.

But now it is weaker. Not very weak IMO. I would bet on that it will produce atleast 1 very good hockeyplayer. And possibly up to 3-4, but thats the top end. But a farm that produces 2 good players isn't all that bad.

Ola is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-20-2008, 08:35 AM
  #117
Ola
Registered User
 
Ola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 17,545
vCash: 500
I think that our big problem have been that we have drafted the wrong types.

We have gone after speed, attitude and professionalism. The kids who are having success are the gutsy ones who dangles with the puck. Kids who are 6'0 tall, but stands still in a corner waiting for a D to put pressure on him, and then just breaks away from the D. We haven't looked for types like that at all really.

Ola is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-20-2008, 08:47 AM
  #118
dedalus
Registered User
 
dedalus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 7,215
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ola View Post
It would be interesting to see a real look back, like what exactly diffrent farms have produced.
You might have to split it, too, into WHAT the teams are producing. The Blueshirts have done a nice job of finding and developing second-tier prospects; they've not found impact players, and that's a killer. It's the single biggest reason we have to keep going out and signing older UFAs to overvalued contracts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ola
a farm that produces 2 good players isn't all that bad.
I'm inclined to agree. Once again: "pretty good."

This comes down to the question I keep asking though: For how long is "pretty good" good enough?

dedalus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-20-2008, 09:23 AM
  #119
jas
Unsatisfied
 
jas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NJ
Posts: 13,048
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dedalus View Post
You might have to split it, too, into WHAT the teams are producing. The Blueshirts have done a nice job of finding and developing second-tier prospects; they've not found impact players, and that's a killer. It's the single biggest reason we have to keep going out and signing older UFAs to overvalued contracts.
Well, it's very clear now, (as many people pointed out), that the 2003 draft, and to a lesser extent, the 2004 draft, have dramatically hurt the Rangers in this regard. The last two games were painful reminders of that fact, facing the likes of Getzlaf, Perry and Brown. Now add in the mistake (which I was on record as disliking at the time) of drafting Montoya, passing up of Mike Green for Korpikoski (who I do like as a player), and the wasted picks of Olver and Graham when David Booth (another player many of us liked at the time) was available. Right now, only the rapid growth of Dubinsky and Callahan save 2004 from being another disaster. And, I'll go as far as saying I was for the Rangers drafting Patrik Berglund in 2006 in the 1st round, who was available when the Rangers selected Bobby Sanguinetti. Now add in the loss of Cherepanov, and we are looking at a lot of what could have been, in the area that you mention.

jas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-20-2008, 09:43 AM
  #120
BrooklynRangersFan
Change is good.
 
BrooklynRangersFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brooklyn of course
Country: United States
Posts: 10,203
vCash: 500
Okay, I'm confused - what exactly are you criticizing, BH99? The fact that the Rangers haven't drafted in the top 5 over the last several years? 'Cause after reading through all of this, what you're *****ing about is not having prospects that are from the moment they're drafted sure-fire, top-line all star forwards - and you ONLY get those guys if you suck bad enough to draft in the top 5. The Rangers haven't been there (which as a fan is generally a good thing) since Smith traded up to grab Brendl. (The one year we should've been there the lockout happened and effed it all up.)

The only other way to get top line forwards is to shrewdly draft guys who will develop into that status over time a la the Red Wings and players like Johan Franzen. Those guys are not obviously all stars the moment they're drafted - otherwise they'd obviously be drafted higher. So, if you're looking for those top line guys to come from the Rangers organization, you need to trust that Grachev, Doyle, Hagelin, etc. are becoming those players because our scouts saw something no one else did. In Grachev's case particularly, it's looking (admittedly very early on) like they might have.

Given the timing of when this thread was begun and the viciousness it started out with, I'm guessing that there may have been some alcohol involved, but c'mon man - your basic premise is kinda hard to address. I mean, of course we don't have an Alex Ovechkin - we haven't finished last in the league! I mean, good Lord, what do you want from our staff? To magically find a player dominating everyone he plays against in a major junior league - that somehow no one else is aware of? Come on. Our prospect pool IMO is actually pretty good given where we have drafted and the number of players that have graduated to the big squad.

Yeah, I'd love to have another Cherry or two ready to jump up to the wing next year, but we haven't been bad enough to have those guys on the board when we drafted. (And by the way, I DO recall him being ranked in the top 3 in his draft year.) So, in the meantime, we have to wait for Anisimov, Grachev, Stepan, et. al. to develop.

BrooklynRangersFan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-20-2008, 09:54 AM
  #121
thescout23
Registered User
 
thescout23's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 63
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrooklynHockey99 View Post
You still haven't addressed my point, just created an impression that you did.

How much of a drop does this problem cause? 5 picks? 20 picks? 3 rounds? How much?

Why did Cherry drop only about 10 picks down while Grachev dropped to the third round? Could it be that Grachev just isn't a blue chip talent?

If a team is wary, they'd be at least a little concerned about Filatov too because he can always change his mind. Petrov had a contract. Grachev was something between Petrov and Filatov.

He was not really seen as a first rounder, but more as a second rounder by those in the know. So he dropped because of the transfer agreement.

But he didn't drop from top-10 to the middle of the third round.

Let's stop pretending like we have a blue-chipper here. We have a second rounder who went in the third round. Kinda like Billy Ryan in 2004.

I dont get this part. Was Billy Ryan really considered a 2nd rounder?

thescout23 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-20-2008, 09:57 AM
  #122
Levitate
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 20,528
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrooklynHockey99 View Post
Yes... I actually really wanted to draft an offensive defenseman this time and was VERY happy with DZ.

There's no certainty with offensive defensemen, so I preferred to double-up on Sang. I just wanted to make sure that we got at least one good offensive defenseman. It's much easier to get a good forward than a good offensive defenseman.

But now that we got him (and lost Cherry), I think it's pretty clear that we should be going for an offensive winger.
definitely need to draft a forward this year. Best player available and all is a good idea, but it doesn't do you any good if you have no forwards at all and are drafting defensemen. This draft year is supposed to be deep for forwards, so hopefully they can get a good one that won't take 4 years to develop either.

I agree that the Rangers forward prospect pool is nothing too interested right now, but there are a few guys with an outside shot at becoming good, so I keep an eye on them. Who knows? Maybe Grachev is one of those later round picks that surprises people and turns out to be a legit 1st/2nd liner. It'd be great if that somehow happened and we had some crazy Russian power forward for the future. I know the odds are against it, but it'd be pretty fun. And since I don't have Cherepanov to watch anymore, and it'll be a long while until the next draft, I might as well hope that Grachev will be good

Levitate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-20-2008, 09:58 AM
  #123
hlundqvist30*
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,520
vCash: 500
It's really unbelievable how stupid people can be.

Of course our prospect pool isn't very good right now. What the hell do you expect after we graduate double digit players within the last 3 years and our top prospect dies?

-Marc Staal
-Dan Girardi
-Ryan Callahan
-Nigel Dawes
-Fedor Tyutin
-Dominic Moore
-Brandon Dubinsky
-Henrik Lundqvist
-Petr Prucha
-Ryan Hollweg

That is a ton of players to have graduated from 2000-2005. Two players per year is an unbelievable success rate, and the only thing that is really lacking from this pool is a top-6 forward, which Tyutin was used to pull in anyway. When you graduate 2 players per year where the hell are do you expect prospects to come in from to immediately fill in the holes? The weaker prospect pool only shows our success and developing talent, not our failure. In the next few years you'll see our pool gain top status yet again. Of course not all of Campbell, Hagelin, Grachev, Del Zotto, Sanguinetti, Anisimov, Doyle, etc. will all develop, but some of them will. We've been incredible in the draft the last few years, and our scouts aren't stupid. They know what are needs are, and unless there is some insane situation where it's a no brainer to take an available defenseman, I fully expect a forward with our first round pick next year. Our drafting of forwards this year shows they know our holes. We'll be fine, I'm not worried.

And BrooklynHockey99, I think you're missing the point. Cherepanov had top 5 pick potential . Grachev was late first round potential. To make a comparison, there's a complete difference between Jonathan Toews (top 5 pick) dropping to the 3rd round and Bob Sanguinetti (late first rounder) dropping to the 3rd round. General consensus around HF is that Grachev based on his abilities alone should have gotten him a late first round pick, at worst early second rounder.


Last edited by hlundqvist30*: 12-20-2008 at 10:03 AM.
hlundqvist30* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-20-2008, 09:58 AM
  #124
dedalus
Registered User
 
dedalus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 7,215
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jas View Post
Well, it's very clear now, (as many people pointed out), that the 2003 draft, and to a lesser extent, the 2004 draft, have dramatically hurt the Rangers in this regard.
I wouldn't leave the '01 and '02 drafts out of that either. I remember when all of the following were being touted as reasons to laud the Rangers' drafting:
Murray, Lampman, Collymore, Preucil, and Guenin. (Many will still argue Prucha.) Time has shown that they're anything BUT reasons to tout Ranger drafting.

In the end, the only player that might be labeled an impact player from those drafts is Zidlicky, and IMO it's a stretch to call him an "impact" player. He's genuinely good and so is Tyutin, but these are not the top talent any team needs to win a championship.

That talent has not been drafted since Smith's people took Lundqvist in '00, although Cherepanov might have become that.

dedalus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-20-2008, 10:10 AM
  #125
BrooklynRangersFan
Change is good.
 
BrooklynRangersFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brooklyn of course
Country: United States
Posts: 10,203
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Levitate View Post
definitely need to draft a forward this year. Best player available and all is a good idea, but it doesn't do you any good if you have no forwards at all and are drafting defensemen. This draft year is supposed to be deep for forwards, so hopefully they can get a good one that won't take 4 years to develop either.

I agree that the Rangers forward prospect pool is nothing too interested right now, but there are a few guys with an outside shot at becoming good, so I keep an eye on them. Who knows? Maybe Grachev is one of those later round picks that surprises people and turns out to be a legit 1st/2nd liner. It'd be great if that somehow happened and we had some crazy Russian power forward for the future. I know the odds are against it, but it'd be pretty fun. And since I don't have Cherepanov to watch anymore, and it'll be a long while until the next draft, I might as well hope that Grachev will be good
Agreed - the solution is to trade into spots where the forward is the best player available next year.

Given how good the draft class of 08 appears to be, I don't think we need depth. And since it's clear we could use some bolstering at top 6 winger and the 09 draft appears to be very deep at forward, the team's approach to next year's draft (in my humble opinion) should be to wind up with no more than 4 high quality, targeted picks - trading all our other picks, future considerations and perhaps even one or two prospects/players to get those specific, targeted players (3 of which should be forwards).

BrooklynRangersFan is online now   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 04:02 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.