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 have best & worst picks of the decade

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-10-2009, 04:10 PM
  #26
Bluenote13
Believe In Henke
 
Bluenote13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: BKLYN, NYC
Posts: 23,911
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey is Blue View Post
I understand that, but that doesn't make the gamble any less of a 50/50 roll of the dice. You're not combating my point – you're adding to an aspect of it that I'm not even debating.

Personally, I'd have gone after Getzlaf, or traded up to try snagging Phaneuf. We had plenty of talent on the 2003 roster who we could have packaged with the 12th overall pick to slide up three spots.

We could have enticed Calgary to take some combination variation of Greg deVries, Darius Kasparaitis or Fedor Tyutin (especiallly) to try snaking up to select Phaneuf.
Calgary wasn't gonna be that stupid, Tyutin was the only good asset you just mentioned, and even Toots and #12 wouldnt have gotten it done, IMO. Phaneuf was a kid from their backyard at a time they needed help on defense. Sutter tried twice to trade up to land Phaneuf.

Bluenote13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-10-2009, 04:14 PM
  #27
Rome
Registered User
 
Rome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 295
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluenote13 View Post
Calgary wasn't gonna be that stupid, Tyutin was the only good asset you just mentioned, and even Toots and #12 wouldnt have gotten it done, IMO. Phaneuf was a kid from their backyard at a time they needed help on defense. Sutter tried twice to trade up to land Phaneuf.
The roster had enough talent to convince them, IMO. Tyutin and Lundmark (who they ended up with anyway) were both bargaining chips.

It's only "stupid" in hindsight, which is 20/20. At the time, the draft still had a slew of quality caliber defensemen still available (like Seabrook and Burns) beyond Phaneuf, and they'd have ended up with Tyutin as well.

Rome is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-10-2009, 04:18 PM
  #28
Bluenote13
Believe In Henke
 
Bluenote13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: BKLYN, NYC
Posts: 23,911
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey is Blue View Post
The roster had enough talent to convince them, IMO. Tyutin and Lundmark (who they ended up with anyway) were both bargaining chips.
But again, the cupboard was bare. In hindsight you do that deal everyday, but giving up the 2 youngins we did have for one didn't make sense. We shouldve stayed where we were and drafted Parise or Getzlaf. Both those guys had excellent draft years against way better competition.

Bluenote13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-10-2009, 04:20 PM
  #29
stempniaksen
Alright, I'm mad
 
stempniaksen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,846
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey is Blue View Post
As if Ranger fans wouldn't be moaning and groaning like bitter old men had we taken a dozen or so other names in that draft? They'd still be *****ing that we didn't take Richards, Getzlaf or Parise.

Had we taken Marc-Antoine Pouliot, Mark Stuart, Anthony Stewart, Brian Boyle, Jeff Tambellini, Patrick Eaves or Shawn Belle, or even more so had someone like Robert Nilsson, Andrei Kostitsyn or Steve Bernier fallen to us as well. All have been major disappointments.

People regurgitate that same partisan fact that "all the draft picks have played in the NHL except Jessiman", but never actually talk about just how much those picks actually played.
• Pouliot has been up and down with the Oilers since 2005 repeatedly, and seeds on their 6th on their club in centers behind Sam Gagner, Shawn Horcoff, Ryan Potulny, Ryan Stone and Mike Comrie. He's a third-liner on their club, and their club is weak. What kind of NHL value do you think he really has?

• Eaves was drafted 29th overall, and didn't play for Ottawa until the 2005-06 season because he finished his NCAA career with BC, and played a whopping 17 games in two years for them before they traded him to Carolina, who then turned around and 5 months later traded him to Boston who then waived him (IIRC), and he finally signed a 1-year deal with Detroit on August 4th - well into the free agent period. Real superstar ya got there.

• Kostitsyn and his enigmatic brother were chalked up to be the next friggin' Sedin twins, when in reality they were more like the Ferraro brothers. He's never scored more than 26 goals in the NHL, and never surpassed 53 points in a single season. Both are apparently on the block already in Montrιal.

• Bernier was drafted by the Sharks 16th overall and played 101 games for them in two years amassing an incredible – wait for it – 29 goals. Holy ****! He was traded to Buffalo for Brian Campbell at the deadline in 2008, scored 3 goals in 17 games with Buffalo, and was again traded to the Canucks where he seems to have found the same game he's always had – 15 goals in 82 games in 2008-09. On pace for 23 goals this season.

• Boyle couldn't crack the Kings lineup when they were a bottom-5 team in the NHL, and he's a fourth-line center by default on our club because we traded a 3rd round pick for him. On pace for 8 goals this season. He should have never been a first-round pick.

• Tambellini sucks. I'm not even going to bother with this one.

• Stewart and Belle are nothing to write home about either.
This draft and it's choices are always blown out of proportion.
I get your point, but figured I'd call you on that mistake.

Eaves played 157 games for the Sens over 3 years. He scored 38 goals and was developping really nicely before injuries hit and basically completely derailed his career.

I do agree with your overall point, but a guy like Kostisyn would look great on the Rangers, so I don't think he should be on this list.

stempniaksen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-10-2009, 04:21 PM
  #30
OverTheCap
Registered User
 
OverTheCap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 9,867
vCash: 500
I still think the Jessiman blunder may have been Sather's biggest mistake, even worse then the horrendous free agent signings.

And, yes, there were some mediocre guys drafted in the first round who haven't yet met expectations (Bernier, Nilsson). But at least they actually play in the NHL, which is more than we could say for Hugh. To pick the only guy in the first round who has never played a game in the NHL... that's really bad.

OverTheCap is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-10-2009, 04:29 PM
  #31
Rome
Registered User
 
Rome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 295
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluenote13 View Post
But again, the cupboard was bare. In hindsight you do that deal everyday, but giving up the 2 youngins we did have for one didn't make sense. We shouldve stayed where we were and drafted Parise or Getzlaf. Both those guys had excellent draft years against way better competition.
And I'd have been fine with that, but like I continue to say – it was a high risk/high reward roll of the dice. We just so happened to end up with high risk, and a bad roll.

Quote:
Originally Posted by OverTheCap View Post
I still think the Jessiman blunder may have been Sather's biggest mistake, even worse then the horrendous free agent signings.

And, yes, there were some mediocre guys drafted in the first round who haven't yet met expectations (Bernier, Nilsson). But at least they actually play in the NHL, which is more than we could say for Hugh. To pick the only guy in the first round who has never played a game in the NHL... that's really bad.
Who cares? The point is that people would still be complaining had we picked any from about a dozen of the draft picks I suggested. It's a lose-lose scenario. Ranger fans are insatiable – there is no pleasing them. Had we picked Pouliot, people would be screaming about how we didn't pick Getzlaf. Had we picked Stewart they'd cry that we should have picked Pouliot. Had we picked Brown and he went the way of Jessiman, they'd be whining we didn't pick Jessiman. It's a never ending cycle of finger pointing and blame designed to consistently insinuate that our management is and was incompetent and that we are simply incapable of making good choices.

What's funniest, is that those very same people lauded the picks of Del Zotto, Grachev, Prucha, Lundqvist, Tyutin, and about a dozen or so draft picks we've taken between the 1st and 7th rounds of the draft since the early 2000's, when it was the very same inept and inadequate management who made those choices as well.

So which is it? They're incapable of making the right choices, or – back in the land of realism – like so many other teams so many other years, did we just happen to **** the bed on a bad roll of the dice?

Rome is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-10-2009, 04:41 PM
  #32
OverTheCap
Registered User
 
OverTheCap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 9,867
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey is Blue View Post

Who cares? The point is that people would still be complaining had we picked any from about a dozen of the draft picks I suggested. It's a lose-lose scenario. Ranger fans are insatiable – there is no pleasing them. Had we picked Pouliot, people would be screaming about how we didn't pick Getzlaf. Had we picked Stewart they'd cry that we should have picked Pouliot. Had we picked Brown and he went the way of Jessiman, they'd be whining we didn't pick Jessiman. It's a never ending cycle of finger pointing and blame designed to consistently insinuate that our management is and was incompetent and that we are simply incapable of making good choices.

What's funniest, is that those very same people lauded the picks of Del Zotto, Grachev, Prucha, Lundqvist, Tyutin, and about a dozen or so draft picks we've taken between the 1st and 7th rounds of the draft since the early 2000's, when it was the very same inept and inadequate management who made those choices as well.

So which is it? They're incapable of making the right choices, or – back in the land of realism – like so many other teams so many other years, did we just happen to **** the bed on a bad roll of the dice?
Oh, so you seem to think that management has made some good choices and can do no wrong.

It's not even worth arguing with you because I am so far removed from that mentality.

OverTheCap is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-10-2009, 04:45 PM
  #33
Bluenote13
Believe In Henke
 
Bluenote13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: BKLYN, NYC
Posts: 23,911
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey is Blue View Post
And I'd have been fine with that, but like I continue to say – it was a high risk/high reward roll of the dice. We just so happened to end up with high risk, and a bad roll.



Who cares? The point is that people would still be complaining had we picked any from about a dozen of the draft picks I suggested. It's a lose-lose scenario. Ranger fans are insatiable – there is no pleasing them. Had we picked Pouliot, people would be screaming about how we didn't pick Getzlaf. Had we picked Stewart they'd cry that we should have picked Pouliot. Had we picked Brown and he went the way of Jessiman, they'd be whining we didn't pick Jessiman. It's a never ending cycle of finger pointing and blame designed to consistently insinuate that our management is and was incompetent and that we are simply incapable of making good choices.

What's funniest, is that those very same people lauded the picks of Del Zotto, Grachev, Prucha, Lundqvist, Tyutin, and about a dozen or so draft picks we've taken between the 1st and 7th rounds of the draft since the early 2000's, when it was the very same inept and inadequate management who made those choices as well.

So which is it? They're incapable of making the right choices, or – back in the land of realism – like so many other teams so many other years, did we just happen to **** the bed on a bad roll of the dice?
We're just talking 2003 draft.

Its a fact that draft we had no business taking the wild card player. HF had us as one of the worst ranked prospect pools(if not the worst) for a reason at that time. There was no room for error for good reason too. You add Getlaf/Parise/Brown to the last 3 years of Rangers hockey and you'd see a much better/different team.

And I guess you dont care cause you keep ignoring that next on our list was Getzlaf and Brown, I know this for a fact.

Bluenote13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-10-2009, 04:48 PM
  #34
Rome
Registered User
 
Rome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 295
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OverTheCap View Post
Oh, so you seem to think that management has made some good choices and can do no wrong.

It's not even worth arguing with you because I am so far removed from that mentality.
Yeah, that's exactly what I said.

The point I made is that in spite of the obvious errors we've made in the past since Sather has gotten here, there have been a very large number of great choices made in addition that simply don't receive any level of praise because this fan base is too preoccupied with spitting at management every shot they get because of the mistakes; so much so that they apply some of the most ludicrous and illusionary reasoning to our history – like the 2003 draft – just to fit their argument (like the fact that all the first-round picks have played in the NHL, which I touched on earlier).

Rome is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-10-2009, 04:51 PM
  #35
Rome
Registered User
 
Rome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 295
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluenote13 View Post
We're just talking 2003 draft.

Its a fact that draft we had no business taking the wild card player. HF had us as one of the worst ranked prospect pools(if not the worst) for a reason at that time. There was no room for error for good reason too. You add Getlaf/Parise/Brown to the last 3 years of Rangers hockey and you'd see a much better/different team.

And I guess you dont care cause you keep ignoring that next on our list was Getzlaf and Brown, I know this for a fact.
I've gone over that – I told you I'd have personally taken Getzlaf or tried trading up. It's irrelevant. I just don't think the mistake is as egregious as it's made out to be on the basis that despite the fact that Getzlaf and Brown turned out to be better choices, plenty of draftees are chalked to be something they never end up as, as well as many are chalked down to be something they surpass.

You don't feel we were in any position to be taking that risk? Fine, I disagree, and I raise you that it's easy to look at how well someone like Getzlaf developed in Anaheim's system, and how well Brown developed in Los Angeles' system whereas it's much more difficult (and improbable) to simply presume the same would have occurred had they been raised here.

Rome is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-10-2009, 05:03 PM
  #36
Bluenote13
Believe In Henke
 
Bluenote13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: BKLYN, NYC
Posts: 23,911
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey is Blue View Post
I've gone over that – I told you I'd have personally taken Getzlaf or tried trading up. It's irrelevant. I just don't think the mistake is as egregious as it's made out to be on the basis that despite the fact that Getzlaf and Brown turned out to be better choices, plenty of draftees are chalked to be something they never end up as, as well as many are chalked down to be something they surpass.

You don't feel we were in any position to be taking that risk? Fine, I disagree, and I raise you that it's easy to look at how well someone like Getzlaf developed in Anaheim's system, and how well Brown developed in Los Angeles' system whereas it's much more difficult (and improbable) to simply presume the same would have occurred had they been raised here.
But it was certainly more likely those players wouldve developed bcause they were more known, more seasoned and also more highly regarded. These are facts that you are ignoring. We were starving, not just hungry, so instead of buying the food we gambled on a possible feast - that was terrible management.

You were probably not here on these boards then but if you were you wouldve seen plenty of discussion on who to take leading up to that draft. We all knew Jessiman was a Ranger fan and also big wildcard. Most predictions had him going at #20 or later. He was a stretch before, during and after the draft. Others like Parise and Getzlaf were ranked much higher by just about everyone.

Bluenote13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-10-2009, 05:06 PM
  #37
ECL
Very slippery slope
 
ECL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Middle America
Country: United States
Posts: 78,268
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to ECL
I'll go to the grave saying that Jessiman's career was ruined after he broke his ankle. A raw prospect like that missing a full year? Simply never recovered.

I 100% believe that he'd be at least a 3rd line NHL player had it not been for missing that nearly full year.

__________________
"Of course giving Sather cap space is like giving teenagers whiskey and car keys." - SBOB
"Watching Sather build a team is like watching a blind man with no fingers trying to put together an elaborate puzzle." - Shadowtron
"Used to be only Twinkies and cockroaches could survive a nuke. I'd add Habs to that. I'm convinced the CH stands for Club du Hypocrisy." - Gee Wally
ECL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-10-2009, 05:15 PM
  #38
McRanger
Registered User
 
McRanger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,912
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by chosen View Post
Interesting, because I've always viewed Lundqvist as a goalie who had a chance to be a Hasek-type impact player.

Hasek was to goaltending as Orr was to defensemen. Well, not quite that, but it's not a patently absurd statement either.
100% accurate, in my opinion. Not simply the best ever, but revolutionized (in a way) the position.

McRanger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-10-2009, 05:30 PM
  #39
Ranger Angst
Registered User
 
Ranger Angst's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 480
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey is Blue View Post
Yeah, that's exactly what I said.

The point I made is that in spite of the obvious errors we've made in the past since Sather has gotten here, there have been a very large number of great choices made in addition that simply don't receive any level of praise because this fan base is too preoccupied with spitting at management every shot they get because of the mistakes; so much so that they apply some of the most ludicrous and illusionary reasoning to our history – like the 2003 draft – just to fit their argument (like the fact that all the first-round picks have played in the NHL, which I touched on earlier).
Get real - great choices Any top 6 forwards ? MDz could be good but it's too early. I get the feeling that you think this team hasn't been that bad in the last few years. Sather & his buddies have had their chance . It's time to move on .

Ranger Angst is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-10-2009, 05:33 PM
  #40
McRanger
Registered User
 
McRanger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,912
vCash: 500
Sathers biggest mistake was not drafting Jessiman. Not even close, it goes much deeper than that. Sathers biggest mistake, the mistake that should have led to his firing, was not rebuilding at or before the '03 deadline.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/hoc...0/trade_recap/

Look at some of the deals and think about who we had at the time. Leetch, Nedved, Lindros. Bure was healthy and tearing it up. We probably could have landed at least landed another late 1st rounder and a handful of 2-3rd rounders. Which would have been HUGE.

And thats ignoring the fact that we probably would have ended the season with a higher pick (so maybe no Hugh) and the next season we would have been terrible and probably landed either Ovechkin and Malkin.

It was truly one of the most moronic decisions ever made a Rangers GM.

McRanger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-10-2009, 05:38 PM
  #41
WhipNash27
Quattro!!
 
WhipNash27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Westchester, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 15,947
vCash: 500
The Rangers should have started to rebuild in 2000 when Sather first arrived. However, that's another story.

WhipNash27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-10-2009, 05:55 PM
  #42
ReggieDunlop68
Hey Hanrahan!
 
ReggieDunlop68's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 2,014
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey is Blue View Post
As if Ranger fans wouldn't be moaning and groaning like bitter old men had we taken a dozen or so other names in that draft? They'd still be *****ing that we didn't take Richards, Getzlaf or Parise.

Had we taken Marc-Antoine Pouliot, Mark Stuart, Anthony Stewart, Brian Boyle, Jeff Tambellini, Patrick Eaves or Shawn Belle, or even more so had someone like Robert Nilsson, Andrei Kostitsyn or Steve Bernier fallen to us as well. All have been major disappointments.

People regurgitate that same partisan fact that "all the draft picks have played in the NHL except Jessiman", but never actually talk about just how much those picks actually played.
• Pouliot has been up and down with the Oilers since 2005 repeatedly, and seeds on their 6th on their club in centers behind Sam Gagner, Shawn Horcoff, Ryan Potulny, Ryan Stone and Mike Comrie. He's a third-liner on their club, and their club is weak. What kind of NHL value do you think he really has?

• Eaves was drafted 29th overall, and didn't play for Ottawa until the 2005-06 season because he finished his NCAA career with BC, and played a whopping 17 games in two years for them before they traded him to Carolina, who then turned around and 5 months later traded him to Boston who then waived him (IIRC), and he finally signed a 1-year deal with Detroit on August 4th - well into the free agent period. Real superstar ya got there.

• Kostitsyn and his enigmatic brother were chalked up to be the next friggin' Sedin twins, when in reality they were more like the Ferraro brothers. He's never scored more than 26 goals in the NHL, and never surpassed 53 points in a single season. Both are apparently on the block already in Montrιal.

• Bernier was drafted by the Sharks 16th overall and played 101 games for them in two years amassing an incredible – wait for it – 29 goals. Holy ****! He was traded to Buffalo for Brian Campbell at the deadline in 2008, scored 3 goals in 17 games with Buffalo, and was again traded to the Canucks where he seems to have found the same game he's always had – 15 goals in 82 games in 2008-09. On pace for 23 goals this season.

• Boyle couldn't crack the Kings lineup when they were a bottom-5 team in the NHL, and he's a fourth-line center by default on our club because we traded a 3rd round pick for him. On pace for 8 goals this season. He should have never been a first-round pick.

• Tambellini sucks. I'm not even going to bother with this one.

• Stewart and Belle are nothing to write home about either.
This draft and it's choices are always blown out of proportion.
rationalize |ˈra sh ənlˌīz; ˈra sh nəˌlīz|
verb [ trans. ]
1 attempt to explain or justify (one's own or another's behavior or attitude) with logical, plausible reasons, even if these are not true or appropriate : she couldn't rationalize her urge to return to the cottage.


I may be true that not every player in that draft turned out to be an all star but it was still a major bust.

ReggieDunlop68 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-10-2009, 06:41 PM
  #43
silverfish
KEVIN!
 
silverfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Standing on a Train
Country: United States
Posts: 17,698
vCash: 500
Knowing what they knew on draft day, I probably would have drafted Jessiman too.

Hard to pass up on a 6'6" 220+lbs kid who just put up 47 points in 34 games as a freshman at Dartmouth.

Sure Parise put up better numbers at his school, but he's a smallfry.

Size went a long way pre-lockout.

(and still does really).

It's a shame he didn't pan out.

silverfish is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-10-2009, 06:54 PM
  #44
BrandNewDream
Registered User
 
BrandNewDream's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Bayonne, NJ
Country: Poland
Posts: 1,278
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by silverfish View Post
Knowing what they knew on draft day, I probably would have drafted Jessiman too.

Hard to pass up on a 6'6" 220+lbs kid who just put up 47 points in 34 games as a freshman at Dartmouth.

Sure Parise put up better numbers at his school, but he's a smallfry.

Size went a long way pre-lockout.

(and still does really).

It's a shame he didn't pan out.
Exactly. Lots of people couldn't have anticipated how the game was going to change. Look at the Flyers, signing Hatcher and Rathje to huge contracts right before the lockout. Same with the Devils signing Dan McGillis and Richard Matvichuk. Kasparaitis here in NY. Who could have known the game would pass them up so easily?

BrandNewDream is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-11-2009, 12:19 AM
  #45
In The Flesh
Registered User
 
In The Flesh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 9,738
vCash: 500
anybody else ever go waaaay back and look at old threads?

http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=71344
http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=69902
http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=69756
http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=76315

In The Flesh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-11-2009, 12:24 AM
  #46
Rangerfan4life90
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: College Point, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 5,379
vCash: 500
I wonder where that guy is that claimed Parise would be nothing

Rangerfan4life90 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-11-2009, 02:39 AM
  #47
RegalRangers
Registered User
 
RegalRangers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Country: United States
Posts: 1,453
vCash: 783
Man, its really depressing to see that list of prospects after Tyutin and Lundqvist. No one really panned out...

WE'RE BETTER AT DRAFTING NOW, RIGHT?!

You'd think Sather would have learned his lesson with the risky picks but we're still taking some big chances every year. I hope Jessiman was the exception to the rule. I still feel good about Kreider...

RegalRangers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-11-2009, 08:53 AM
  #48
HockeyStickHomicide
Registered Abuser
 
HockeyStickHomicide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 714
vCash: 500

HockeyStickHomicide is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-11-2009, 01:08 PM
  #49
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,469
vCash: 500
I don't think you can blame the changing on the game as a reason for Jessiman being a pick that didn't work out. He wouldn't work out if this was 1990 either. Surprisingly, he didn't have the drive, nor did he have the skill (and perhaps skating ability) to play in the NHL. And while big, he couldn't play big enough to be in the NHL. If so, we'd see him on a fourth line, somewhere. This "new" NHL still welcomes power forwards - so long as they can skate and have skill. Jessiman was supposed to be a guy who could skate, has size, skill and was smart and driven. Not sure he had any of those in the end and thus the reason why he's a bust.

I was mixed on the pick when it happened, knowing the draft is a crapshoot. The Rangers did lack size - and size is still relevant, as mentioned. But when you think of the flyer they were taking, as well as the risk, it's tough to justify such a pick given where the organization was at the time, and how bare the cupboard was (I believe Bluenote mentioned that somenwhere in this thread). Sure, a bit of what I'm saying is hindsight, but to be honest, scouts' and GMs' jobs are evaluated solely based on hindsight, so hindsight is relevant here. They blew this pick and should've picked Parise, Getzlaf or another. That's the evaluation of the drafting staff on that day.

Fletch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-11-2009, 01:49 PM
  #50
Trxjw
Retired.
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Land of no calls..
Country: United States
Posts: 16,992
vCash: 500
There's no denying the Jessiman pick is going to haunt us for the next decade, but it's water under the bridge. The potential reward with Hugh was incredible. His upside was Dustin Penner with a good head on his shoulders. It's hard to pin-point what went wrong there, but he was undoubtedly a reach at #12. There were much safer picks at that spot, and a 'safe' pick in that draft is now a valuable asset to an NHL club.

Does Henrik make up for it? Yes and no, I guess.

Trxjw 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 06:22 AM.

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

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