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

A Unique Review of Ranger Drafting since the lockout

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-23-2011, 09:04 AM
  #1
Beacon
Sent to HF Minors
 
Beacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 8,862
vCash: 500
A Unique Review of Ranger Drafting since the lockout

I know people hate when I try to analyze things using statistics, especially if they contradict the long-held, overly optimistic beliefs that fans like to hold on to. But I think it's the best way of judging things.

And now onto the Ranger drafting record since 2005.

A. FIRST ROUND

Standard: I am looking at who the Rangers chose followed by the next 10 players because players who fell more than 10 spots below were probably not seriously considered at draft time to be chosen in the Rangers' spot.

2005

Ranger pick: Staal
Next 10 picks: Zagrapan, Pokulok, O'Marra, Bourret, Hanzal, Parent, Kindl, McArdle, Rask, Lashoff.

Result: 8 out of 10 players are busts; Rask is a backup goalie and Hanzal is nothing more than a third liner. Staal is the best player of the bunch.

2006

Ranger pick: Sanguinetti
Next 10 picks: Giroux, Varlamov, Persson, Berglund, Irving, Vishnevsky, Foligno, Summers, Corrente, Kana.

Result: Sanguinetti was a bust, but so were 6 out of 10 players who followed him. Foligno is a third liner, Varlamov is a good backup (or a below average starter on another team), Berglund is a solid player who will be either a second liner or at least a tweener, and the only impact guy is Giroux who was a high-risk, high-reward prospect with a lot of talent, but small size. Let's just say that I have been savaged on this forum for advocating getting guys like that instead of all-around guys (with a limited upside) like Foligno. If Slats had chosen Giroux in 2007, 90% of this forum would have been screaming bloody murder because it's easier to pretend that a kid has more skill than he really has than to pretend that he has more size.

2007

Ranger Pick: Cherepanov
Next 10 picks: Cole, McMillan, Esposito, Riley Nash, Pacioretty, Blum, Backlund, White, Perron, Brandan Smith.

Result: Cherry died, but looked like an excellent prospect at the time. Backlund is a third liner, and Pacioretty and Perron look like they may turn into solid top-6 forwards. My guess is that Cherry would have been the best player chosen had he not died, but I obviously can't prove it.

2008

Ranger Pick: Del Zotto
Next 10 picks: Gustafsson, Eberle, Cuma, Tedenby, Nemisz, Ennis, Carlsson, Tikhonov, Leveille, McCollum.

Result: MDZ so far played more NHL games than anyone else. We can argue about Eberle, Ennis and Carlsson, as well as MAYBE Tedenby. The other 5 players (right now) look clearly like inferior prospects than MDZ. We'll see how things turn up, but I am hopeful that this was just a sophomore slump and MDZ will be better than 7-9 out of the 10 players chosen immediately after him.


=============================

First Round Overall Result: The Rangers did well. Most the players available on the board at the time they were choosing turned out to be busts, and most of those who actually made the NHL are below average players. The only bust the Rangers got was Sanguinetti (and even he was turned into Erixon+Fasth).

==============================

B. SECOND ROUND

Standard: All the second rounders available when the Rangers were choosing.

2005

Ranger Picks: Sauer, Cliche
Other NHLers: McQuaid is a third pair defenseman, Raymond is a 2-3 line tweener, Latendresse is a solid defenseman, Stastny is great, AbdelKader is a bottom feeder, Pavelec is a nice goalie. Another 14 players were busts.

Result: About 30% of the players drafted in the second round after Sauer made the NHL. The Rangers went 50-50 with Sauer and Cliche. Other than Stastny there wasn't anyone who I would say is *much* better than Sauer. I would definitely prefer Sauer over McQuaid and AbdelKader, and depending on how he progresses, he may in the end become the best player not name Stastny.

2006

Ranger pick: Anisimov
Other NHLers: Jamie McBain is a nice defenseman, Mike Weber can hit. Going into the third round (because Anisimov was drafted late in the second), Steve Mason does his best impression of Swiss cheese for CBJ and Clutterbuck is an ok role player, as is Peckham.

Anisimov was the best player available. He was literally the only thing resembling an impact player who was available when the Rangers were choosing.

2007

Ranger pick: LaFleur
NHLers: Oscar Moller is a part-time NHLer though I don't believe he'll stay long-term, T.J. Galiardi is a nice player, Spaling is a bottom feeder, Simmonds is a good third liner.

Result: Lefleur was a bust, but so were 10 of the next 13 picks, and Spaling is nothing to write home about. There were 2 available players, Galiardi and Simmonds who would have been nice to have, but let's keep in mind that the odds overall were about 15% that any team would pick up one of these players in the middle or late second rounder.

2008

Ranger pick: Stepan
Other NHLers: Hamonic, chosen two picks after Stepan, had a very solid rookie season. Then the next 25 players failed to play more than 21 NHL games so far.

Result: Everyone here hated Stepan when he was picked. He likes tap dancing, you see, which means he's not a man and won't be able to take or dish out hits. Turns out that professional scouts knew something amateurs did not.

Stepan and all the others are still young, but it looks like he was the best player available.

====================

Second Round Overall Result: Anisimov and Stepan were the best players available, and Sauer is as good or better than anyone except Stastny. Only Lefleur and Cliche were busts.

Normally, about 1 out of 5 second rounders make the NHL as regulars. The Rangers not only got 3 regulars, but all three of them are above average NHLers.

==========================
==========================

Overall results:

On three occasions (Staal, Anisimov, Stepan), the Rangers chose the best player available, and Sauer was almost the best player available where he was chosen.

Above Average Players drafted in 2005 and 2006 who were drafted after the Rangers first round pick and before the end of the second round:

1. Staal
2. Raymond
3. Oshie
4. Neal
5. Sauer
6. Giroux
7. Kulemin
8. Lucic
9. Anisimov
10. Berglund


Of these 10 players, 3 are Rangers.

2008 is a little early to count, but as far as I can see (and some may still pop up or bust) Ebere, Carlsson, Ennis, Hamonic, Stepan and MDZ are the only ones with above average NHL potential as a serious possibility.

Of these 6 players, 2 are Rangers. Together with 2005 and 2006, that's 5 out of 16 players.


In 2007, Cherry died, so we probably should not count it. Perron is an above average NHLer, so is Subban and Simmonds.

Even if we count 2007, it's still 5 out of 19 (probably would have been 6 out of 19).

As you can see, close to a third of all the above average NHLers were drafted by the Rangers. From 2005 to 2008, the Rangers had the best drafting record in the first round rounds, bar none.

You can agree or disagree with some of my estimations, but the fact remains that all in all, the Rangers produced better, significantly better, than a team in their position could've reasonably been expected.

You can complain about not choosing an elite player all you want, but when the only impact player available on the board is Anisimov or Stepan, what should the team do? Invent Wayne Gretzky out of nothing?

In 2005 (Staal), 2006 (Anisimov), 2008 (Stepan) and probably 2007 (Cherry), the Rangers chose the best player available to them in either the first or the second round. That's an enormous achievement.

Here, here Gordie. All hail the Prince!


Last edited by Beacon: 06-23-2011 at 01:35 PM.
Beacon is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-23-2011, 09:22 AM
  #2
UAGoalieGuy
Registered User
 
UAGoalieGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Long Island,New York
Country: United States
Posts: 8,752
vCash: 500
Good assessment. It may be a little early to count the 2008 draft year as players may come out of no where as they develop (see Sauer, who was drafted in 2005 and did not have an impact in the NHL until 5 years later). It would be best to do this type of assessment in another couple years (may be 2014?), looking back on close to 10 years of Gordie Clark drafting. The numbers might trend the other way if Kreider doesn't pan out and where McI was drafted.

Overall I agree with you. The Rangers did an excellent job drafting since 2005. Some people may say, "Well the team didn't draft a true impact player since Clark as taken over". I know i've seen that posted on here somewhere in a critisim to Clark. I think we can all agree that Staal is already or is very close to being an impact player in the NHL and Stepan has the potental to be one as well.

Even going back to before the lock out, the Rangers have done an excellent job of drafting (post Huge Speciman). They have two impact players in Lundqvist (Though he was drafted in 2000) and Staal. Then you have home grown talents in Callahan, Dubinksy, MDZ, Stepan, Anisimov, and Sauer. That's almost 50% of the 20 man NHL roster being home-grown players.

I think Kreider is going to turn out to be something special seeing him play a few times plus the write-ups I read on his development. McI i'm still up in the air about. Think it's 50/50 he can turn out to be a monster in the NHL or non-impact 5/6 guy (Which would still be great, but not for where he was drafted).

UAGoalieGuy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-23-2011, 09:26 AM
  #3
mullichicken25
Registered User
 
mullichicken25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: NJ
Posts: 2,592
vCash: 500
im with you man...their drafting post 2005 has been as good as anyone can realisticly ask for, and its the main reason i feel the team is on track to be a contender

mullichicken25 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-23-2011, 09:27 AM
  #4
x BEUKEBOOM x
Buuuuuuuuuuuk !
 
x BEUKEBOOM x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: NY Rangerville
Country: United States
Posts: 1,423
vCash: 500
Nice write up.

x BEUKEBOOM x is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-23-2011, 09:43 AM
  #5
SupersonicMonkey*
DROP THE PUCK
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 16,230
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerEsq View Post
I know people hate when I try to analyze things using statistics, especially if they contradict the long-held, overly optimistic beliefs that fans like to hold on to. But I think it's the best way of judging things.

And now onto the Ranger drafting record since 2005.

A. FIRST ROUND

Standard: I am looking at who the Rangers chose followed by the next 10 players because players who fell more than 10 spots below were probably not seriously considered at draft time to be chosen in the Rangers' spot.

2005

Ranger pick: Staal
Next 10 picks: Zagrapan, Pokulok, O'Marra, Bourret, Hanzal, Parent, Kindl, McArdle, Rask, Lashoff.

Result: 8 out of 10 players are busts; Rask is a backup goalie and Hanzal is nothing more than a third liner. Staal is the best player of the bunch.

2006

Ranger pick: Sanguinetti
Next 10 picks: Giroux, Varlamov, Persson, Berglund, Irving, Vishnevsky, Foligno, Summers, Corrente, Kana.

Result: Sanguinetti was a bust, but so were 7 out of 10 players who followed him. Foligno is a third liner, Varlamov is a backup and the only impact guy is Giroux who was a high-risk, high-reward prospect with a lot of talent, but small size. Let's just say that I have been savaged on this forum for advocating getting guys like that instead of all-around guys (with a limited upside) like Foligno. If Slats had chosen Giroux in 2007, 90% of this forum would have been screaming bloody murder because it's easier to pretend that a kid has more skill than he really has than to pretend that he has more size.

2007

Ranger Pick: Cherepanov
Next 10 picks: Cole, McMillan, Esposito, Riley Nash, Pacioretty, Blum, Backlund, White, Perron, Brandan Smith.

Result: Cherry died, but looked like an excellent prospect at the time. Backlund is a third liner, and Pacioretty and Perron look like they may turn into solid top-6 forwards. My guess is that Cherry would have been the best player chosen had he not died, but I obviously can't prove it.

2008

Ranger Pick: Del Zotto
Next 10 picks: Gustafsson, Eberle, Cuma, Tedenby, Nemisz, Ennis, Carlsson, Tikhonov, Leveille, McCollum.

Result: MDZ so far played more NHL games than anyone else. We can argue about Eberle, Ennis and Carlsson, as well as MAYBE Tedenby. The other 5 players (right now) look clearly like inferior prospects than MDZ. We'll see how things turn up, but I am hopeful that this was just a sophomore slump and MDZ will be better than 7-9 out of the 10 players chosen immediately after him.


=============================

First Round Overall Result: The Rangers did well. Most the players available on the board at the time they were choosing turned out to be busts, and most of those who actually made the NHL are below average players. The only bust the Rangers got was Sanguinetti (and even he was turned into Erixon+Fasth).

==============================

B. SECOND ROUND

Standard: All the second rounders available when the Rangers were choosing.

2005

Ranger Picks: Sauer, Cliche
Other NHLers: McQuaid is a third pair defenseman, Raymond is a 2-3 line tweener, Latendresse is a solid defenseman, Stastny is great, AbdelKader is a bottom feeder, Pavelec is a nice goalie. Another 14 players were busts.

Result: About 30% of the players drafted in the second round after Sauer made the NHL. The Rangers went 50-50 with Sauer and Cliche. Other than Stastny there wasn't anyone who I would say is *much* better than Sauer. I would definitely prefer Sauer over McQuaid and AbdelKader, and depending on how he progresses, he may in the end become the best player not name Stastny.

2006

Ranger pick: Anisimov
Other NHLers: Jamie McBain is a nice defenseman, Mike Weber can hit. Going into the third round (because Anisimov was drafted late in the second), Steve Mason does his best impression of Swiss cheese for CBJ and Clutterbuck is an ok role player, as is Peckham.

Anisimov was the best player available. He was literally the only thing resembling an impact player who was available when the Rangers were choosing.

2007

Ranger pick: LaFleur
NHLers: Oscar Moller is a part-time NHLer though I don't believe he'll stay long-term, T.J. Galiardi is a nice player, Spaling is a bottom feeder, Simmonds is a good third liner.

Result: Lefleur was a bust, but so were 10 of the next 13 picks, and Spaling is nothing to write home about. There were 2 available players, Galiardi and Simmonds who would have been nice to have, but let's keep in mind that the odds overall were about 15% that any team would pick up one of these players in the middle or late second rounder.

2008

Ranger pick: Stepan
Other NHLers: Hamonic, chosen two picks after Stepan, had a very solid rookie season. Then the next 25 players failed to play more than 21 NHL games so far.

Result: Everyone here hated Stepan when he was picked. He likes tap dancing, you see, which means he's not a man and won't be able to take or dish out hits. Turns out that professional scouts knew something amateurs did not.

Stepan and all the others are still young, but it looks like he was the best player available.

====================

Second Round Overall Result: Anisimov and Stepan were the best players available, and Sauer is as good or better than anyone except Stastny. Only Lefleur and Cliche were busts.

Normally, about 1 out of 5 second rounders make the NHL as regulars. The Rangers not only got 3 regulars, but all three of them are above average NHLers.

==========================
==========================

Overall results:

On three occasions (Staal, Anisimov, Stepan), the Rangers chose the best player available, and Sauer was almost the best player available where he was chosen.

Above Average Players drafted in 2005 and 2006 who were drafted after the Rangers first round pick and before the end of the second round:

1. Staal
2. Raymond
3. Oshie
4. Neal
5. Sauer
6. Giroux
7. Kulemin
8. Lucic
9. Anisimov


Of these 9 players, 3 are Rangers.

2008 is a little early to count, but as far as I can see (and some may still pop up or bust) Ebere, Carlsson, Ennis, Hamonic, Stepan and MDZ are the only ones with above average NHL potential as a serious possibility.

Of these 7 players, 2 are Rangers. Together with 2005 and 2006, that's 5 out of 16 players.


In 2007, Cherry died, so we probably should not count it. Perron is an above average NHLer, so is Subban and Simmonds.

Even if we count 2007, it's still 5 out of 19 (probably would have been 6 out of 19).

As you can see, close to 30% of all the above average NHLers were drafted by the Rangers. From 2005 to 2008, the Rangers had the best drafting record in the first round rounds, bar none.

You can agree or disagree with some of my estimations, but the fact remains that all in all, the Rangers produced better, significantly better, than a team in their position could've reasonably been expected.

You can complain about not choosing an elite player all you want, but when the only impact player available on the board is Anisimov or Stepan, what should the team do? Invent Wayne Gretzky out of nothing?

In 2005 (Staal), 2006 (Anisimov), 2008 (Stepan) and probably 2007 (Cherry), the Rangers chose the best player available to them in either the first or the second round. That's an enormous achievement.

Here, here Gordie. All hail the Prince!
Awesome post. Really.

Detractors will come out and try to discredit this.

But facts are facts. The Rangers have been doing a very good job of talent analysis post-lockout. And not just in drafts. They've been able to turn some mistakes into win/win situations. Like Gomez - McDonagh, Sanguinetti - Erixon.

Dan Girardi undrafted.

Brian Boyle for a 4th.

Prust for Kotalik.

The more recent drafts need more time to see how they start to pan out.

We dont agree on what to do in this years draft, but that doesnt matter. You make solid points.

Again, great post.

SupersonicMonkey* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-23-2011, 10:11 AM
  #6
Krampus
Call me Nils
 
Krampus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: NYC
Country: Austria
Posts: 18,661
vCash: 420
Good read!

Krampus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-23-2011, 10:31 AM
  #7
GAGLine
HFBoards Sponsor
 
GAGLine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 9,652
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SupersonicMonkey View Post
Brian Boyle for a 4th.
3rd.

GAGLine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-23-2011, 10:37 AM
  #8
Levitate
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 21,344
vCash: 500
I think you're cherry picking a few things, like saying Varlamov is just a backup (he has the skill to be a starter but he also has a weaker groin than Gaborik)

Same with Rask. Legitimately talented enough to be a starter.

2008 is a little tough at the moment. People could easy say they'd take Carlson and Eberle or Tedenby, because we saw Del Zotto struggle last year. Yet if he returns to form and puts up 45+ points next year, suddenly he looks like a great pick again.

edit: but overall I agree the case is there that the Rangers have been a pretty good drafting team lately

Levitate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-23-2011, 10:39 AM
  #9
Poozer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Vermont
Country: United States
Posts: 405
vCash: 500
Awesome post, thanks for doing that, I really enjoyed the read

Now I will go back to being bitter about Jessiman and all the awesomeness we could have had.

Poozer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-23-2011, 10:46 AM
  #10
Beacon
Sent to HF Minors
 
Beacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 8,862
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SupersonicMonkey View Post
Awesome post. Really.

Detractors will come out and try to discredit this.

But facts are facts. The Rangers have been doing a very good job of talent analysis post-lockout. And not just in drafts. They've been able to turn some mistakes into win/win situations. Like Gomez - McDonagh, Sanguinetti - Erixon.

Dan Girardi undrafted.

Brian Boyle for a 4th.

Prust for Kotalik.

The more recent drafts need more time to see how they start to pan out.

We dont agree on what to do in this years draft, but that doesnt matter. You make solid points.

Again, great post.

Yes, the acquisitions of young talent in trades and signings of undrafted prospects certainly helped a lot.

Defense: Girardi, Erixon, McDonagh, Valentenko, Gilroy.
The Rangers have great defense now, but they would not have without these acquisitions. The team would have only Staal, Sauer, MDZ and Kundratek. Not horrible, but not good either.


Forwards: Wolski, Zuccarello, Boyle, Prust.

Not as great as the additions to the defense, but definitely very useful for our depth. Without these acquisitions, our lineup last year would have been:

Frolov, then Prospal (due to injuries) - Christ - Gabby
Dubi - AA - Callahan
Feds - Stepan - Avery
Kennedy - Newbury - Weise


With the rash of injuries hitting the team, the Rangers would have been reaching very deep into Hartford, looking at guys like Kolarik and John Mitchell to play a meaningful number of NHL games, with guys like Kennedy, Weise and Newbury often playing very significant minutes when injuries were at their worst.

And on defense:

Staal - Sauer
Rosie - Eminger
MDZ - Kundratek/McCabe/Redden

I am not saying every acquisition was great. Certainly Gilroy and probably Wolski didn't work out as hoped, but even they were worth a shot at the time. You take out the two of them and the rest of the acquired youth, and the Rangers are absolutely not a playoff team.

The depth would be terrible, the scoring worse than it already was last year, and the defense would not be any good either.

=================

If the Rangers replaced Boyle and Prust with a pair of minor leaguers who scored 3 goals each (not an unreasonable expectation), they would have been the 5th worst offensive team in the league, pretty much guaranteeing a playoff miss.


Last edited by Beacon: 06-23-2011 at 11:19 AM.
Beacon is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-23-2011, 10:55 AM
  #11
Darrelle Lundqvist
Swagelin
 
Darrelle Lundqvist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 1,782
vCash: 500
Great post, thanks.

Darrelle Lundqvist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-23-2011, 11:46 AM
  #12
Muh
Beadle
 
Muh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Sloatsburg, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 7,344
vCash: 500
Good job. I enjoyed reading that.

Muh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-23-2011, 11:54 AM
  #13
Bulls9220
Registered User
 
Bulls9220's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 340
vCash: 500
What ever happened to Antoine Lafleur??

Bulls9220 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-23-2011, 12:00 PM
  #14
bernmeister
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,057
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerEsq View Post
...

Overall results:

On three occasions (Staal, Anisimov, Stepan), the Rangers chose the best player available, and Sauer was almost the best player available where he was chosen.

Above Average Players drafted in 2005 and 2006 who were drafted after the Rangers first round pick and before the end of the second round:

1. Staal
2. Raymond
3. Oshie
4. Neal
5. Sauer
6. Giroux
7. Kulemin
8. Lucic
9. Anisimov

Of these 9 players, 3 are Rangers.

Here, here Gordie. All hail the Prince!

Terrific post
Thanks for taking the time so all of us could enjoy the analysis.

In interests of being thorough, was there a compensatory pick for Cherepanov that Rangers were awarded? Did he need be figured in if so? {I don't think if that was the case it will skew the results.}

Relative to the 1-9 ranking above, if that is based on some statistic, then I yield to your calculation. But otherwise, IMO, Anisimov is well ahead of 9th in that order.

Thanks again.
Agree, Hail Gordie Clark!!
And kudos to you for the composite!!

bernmeister is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-23-2011, 12:12 PM
  #15
NYR Sting
Heart and Soul
 
NYR Sting's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 9,506
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerEsq View Post
I know people hate when I try to analyze things using statistics, especially if they contradict the long-held, overly optimistic beliefs that fans like to hold on to. But I think it's the best way of judging things.

2005

Ranger pick: Staal
Next 10 picks: Zagrapan, Pokulok, O'Marra, Bourret, Hanzal, Parent, Kindl, McArdle, Rask, Lashoff.

Result: 8 out of 10 players are busts; Rask is a backup goalie and Hanzal is nothing more than a third liner. Staal is the best player of the bunch.
Rask is a a backup goalie? Rask is a backup goalie because his team has Tim Thomas. Rask could be a starter, and will be once Thomas retires, on most teams in the league. Hanzal is nothing more than a third liner? Hanzal is one of the best young defensive centers in the game, and will probably be a Selke candidate later in his career.

What I hate is when people use ignorant and subjective opinion and try to pass it off as "analysis" or fact.

Quote:
2006

Ranger pick: Sanguinetti
Next 10 picks: Giroux, Varlamov, Persson, Berglund, Irving, Vishnevsky, Foligno, Summers, Corrente, Kana.

Result: Sanguinetti was a bust, but so were 7 out of 10 players who followed him. Foligno is a third liner, Varlamov is a backup and the only impact guy is Giroux who was a high-risk, high-reward prospect with a lot of talent, but small size. Let's just say that I have been savaged on this forum for advocating getting guys like that instead of all-around guys (with a limited upside) like Foligno. If Slats had chosen Giroux in 2007, 90% of this forum would have been screaming bloody murder because it's easier to pretend that a kid has more skill than he really has than to pretend that he has more size.
Aside from the fact that Varlamov, like Rask, is only a backup because of the team he plays on, your writing off of players like Vishnevsky, Summers, and to a lesser extent, Corrente, as busts demonstrates how invalid your opinion is. You don't know anything about these players, or the defense position in general, if you are ready to call them busts at this point. Berglund had 52 points last year and will probably be a solid second line center.

Quote:
2007

Ranger Pick: Cherepanov
Next 10 picks: Cole, McMillan, Esposito, Riley Nash, Pacioretty, Blum, Backlund, White, Perron, Brandan Smith.

Result: Cherry died, but looked like an excellent prospect at the time. Backlund is a third liner, and Pacioretty and Perron look like they may turn into solid top-6 forwards. My guess is that Cherry would have been the best player chosen had he not died, but I obviously can't prove it.
How convenient of you to not mention anything Jon Blum, who is one of the best defensive prospects in the game today, the highest rated prospect in the Predators system. Backlund is a third liner? Sorry, but after one season in the league, on a dysfunctional Flames team, no less, I'm not ready to call him a third liner. Ian Cole and Brendan Smith, like the defensemen in the previous year who you undermined, are still developing.

Also, any analysis of this particular draft must not ignore the fact that the Rangers, more than any other team in the league, were at an advantage and because of it could come away with Cherepanov, who was a top 5 prospect. Picking him, given the fact that they don't have to worry about the things other teams do, was a no brainer.

Quote:
2008

Ranger Pick: Del Zotto
Next 10 picks: Gustafsson, Eberle, Cuma, Tedenby, Nemisz, Ennis, Carlsson, Tikhonov, Leveille, McCollum.

Result: MDZ so far played more NHL games than anyone else. We can argue about Eberle, Ennis and Carlsson, as well as MAYBE Tedenby. The other 5 players (right now) look clearly like inferior prospects than MDZ. We'll see how things turn up, but I am hopeful that this was just a sophomore slump and MDZ will be better than 7-9 out of the 10 players chosen immediately after him.
Finally, one where your "analysis" appears to actually be credible. Not surprisingly, 50% of the players are desirable.
Quote:
2006

Ranger pick: Anisimov
Other NHLers: Jamie McBain is a nice defenseman, Mike Weber can hit. Going into the third round (because Anisimov was drafted late in the second), Steve Mason does his best impression of Swiss cheese for CBJ and Clutterbuck is an ok role player, as is Peckham.

Anisimov was the best player available. He was literally the only thing resembling an impact player who was available when the Rangers were choosing.
Anisimov was a first round prospect. He slipped to the second because of the Russian factor. Again, advantage Rangers. And calling Clutterbuck an ok role player, and then likening him to Peckham is, again, ridiculous. He's one of the best role players in the league.

Quote:
2008

Ranger pick: Stepan
Other NHLers: Hamonic, chosen two picks after Stepan, had a very solid rookie season. Then the next 25 players failed to play more than 21 NHL games so far.

Result: Everyone here hated Stepan when he was picked. He likes tap dancing, you see, which means he's not a man and won't be able to take or dish out hits. Turns out that professional scouts knew something amateurs did not.

Stepan and all the others are still young, but it looks like he was the best player available.
Um, who hated the Stepan pick? Who are you even arguing against?

NYR Sting is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-23-2011, 12:13 PM
  #16
SouvenirCity
Registered User
 
SouvenirCity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wading River, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 622
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by empirestateofmind8 View Post
What ever happened to Antoine Lafleur??
this. Never really heard anything of him much after the draft

SouvenirCity is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-23-2011, 12:21 PM
  #17
Beacon
Sent to HF Minors
 
Beacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 8,862
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bernmeister View Post
In interests of being thorough, was there a compensatory pick for Cherepanov that Rangers were awarded?
We got a second rounder and gave it away for Antropov.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bernmeister View Post
Relative to the 1-9 ranking above, if that is based on some statistic, then I yield to your calculation. But otherwise, IMO, Anisimov is well ahead of 9th in that order.
Sorry for not being clear, but that list was in no particular order, except maybe their draft order (2005 first rounders, then 2005 second rounders, then 2006 firsts, then 2006 seconds).

Beacon is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-23-2011, 12:22 PM
  #18
clmetsfan
Registered User
 
clmetsfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 3,817
vCash: 500
Nice to see Sting hasn't lost his proclivity for condescension.

Good analysis, RangersEsq.

clmetsfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-23-2011, 12:25 PM
  #19
Thirty One
portnor, pls
 
Thirty One's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Victoria, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,020
vCash: 420
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerEsq View Post
Next 10 picks: Giroux, Varlamov, Persson, Berglund, Irving, Vishnevsky, Foligno, Summers, Corrente, Kana.

Result: Sanguinetti was a bust, but so were 7 out of 10 players who followed him. Foligno is a third liner, Varlamov is a backup and the only impact guy is Giroux who was a high-risk, high-reward prospect with a lot of talent, but small size.
you know who Patrik Berglund is right?

Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerEsq View Post
The only bust the Rangers got was Sanguinetti (and even he was turned into Erixon+Fasth)
oh boy is that a stretch.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerEsq View Post
Latendresse is a solid defenseman
nope

Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerEsq View Post
Clutterbuck is an ok role player
I think that's downplaying it a bit, don't you?

Thirty One is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-23-2011, 12:27 PM
  #20
NYR Sting
Heart and Soul
 
NYR Sting's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 9,506
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by clmetsfan View Post
Nice to see Sting hasn't lost his proclivity for condescension.

Good analysis, RangersEsq.
People believe what they want to believe. When so much of the "analysis" is blatantly incorrect, then I guess the verdict provided by the "analysis" isn't worth much. I don't think Gordie Clark has done a bad job per se (although he certainly hasn't been the savior that some paint him as). But the fact of the matter is, this particular analysis doesn't prove anything, since so much of it is baseless opinion.

NYR Sting is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-23-2011, 12:34 PM
  #21
pld459666
Registered User
 
pld459666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Danbury, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 17,121
vCash: 500
The only problem I have is that you breezed over Patrik Berglund in the 2006 draft.

2 45+ point seasons with 52pts last year.

pld459666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-23-2011, 12:35 PM
  #22
JimmyStart*
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,569
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sting36e View Post
Rask is a a backup goalie? Rask is a backup goalie because his team has Tim Thomas. Rask could be a starter, and will be once Thomas retires, on most teams in the league. Hanzal is nothing more than a third liner? Hanzal is one of the best young defensive centers in the game, and will probably be a Selke candidate later in his career.

What I hate is when people use ignorant and subjective opinion and try to pass it off as "analysis" or fact.



Aside from the fact that Varlamov, like Rask, is only a backup because of the team he plays on, your writing off of players like Vishnevsky, Summers, and to a lesser extent, Corrente, as busts demonstrates how invalid your opinion is. You don't know anything about these players, or the defense position in general, if you are ready to call them busts at this point. Berglund had 52 points last year and will probably be a solid second line center.



How convenient of you to not mention anything Jon Blum, who is one of the best defensive prospects in the game today, the highest rated prospect in the Predators system. Backlund is a third liner? Sorry, but after one season in the league, on a dysfunctional Flames team, no less, I'm not ready to call him a third liner. Ian Cole and Brendan Smith, like the defensemen in the previous year who you undermined, are still developing.

Also, any analysis of this particular draft must not ignore the fact that the Rangers, more than any other team in the league, were at an advantage and because of it could come away with Cherepanov, who was a top 5 prospect. Picking him, given the fact that they don't have to worry about the things other teams do, was a no brainer.



Finally, one where your "analysis" appears to actually be credible. Not surprisingly, 50% of the players are desirable.


Anisimov was a first round prospect. He slipped to the second because of the Russian factor. Again, advantage Rangers. And calling Clutterbuck an ok role player, and then likening him to Peckham is, again, ridiculous. He's one of the best role players in the league.



Um, who hated the Stepan pick? Who are you even arguing against?
Jesus kid he understated what 3 or 4 guysand you're throwing a fit like he punched your dog? And at least one of the instances he said 7 out of 10 were busts meaning 2 weren't likely 1 being your guy. He's looking at the percentage of first and 2nd round busts vs successes and he did a great job of it. He chose to highlight the busts (or likely busts) and undervalued some goalie prospects who so far are backups(and both lost their starter jobs at some point tho Rask is obviously good) You missed the forest for the trees on this one man. Yes he did wrongly dismiss Rask and I'd say 2 other guys but he made an overall great and valid point that is certainly not invalidated because of 2 or 3 mistakes.
I'll say it again b/c I know you're going to rave and whine more at me but I agree he seriously undersold a few guys but it's also not nearly enough of a "bad analysis" to undermine his overall point.

JimmyStart* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-23-2011, 12:38 PM
  #23
silverfish
KEVIN!
 
silverfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Standing on a Train
Country: United States
Posts: 17,362
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by empirestateofmind8 View Post
What ever happened to Antoine Lafleur??
As far as I know he hasn't played since the 08/09 season...I could be wrong tho

silverfish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-23-2011, 12:46 PM
  #24
Beacon
Sent to HF Minors
 
Beacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 8,862
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sting36e View Post
Rask is a a backup goalie? Rask is a backup goalie because his team has Tim Thomas.
He is still a backup. He has potential for more, but that's what he are right now. Rask can be a starter, but I would assume that if someone (Philly?) thought he were someone's answer in the net, they would acquire him. I may be wrong, but I assume that when Boston was gearing up for a Cup run, they were willing to move their backup goalie if they could get significant players in return. My guess is that Rask will be a dime a dozen starter, which is why he can't fetch a significant return: whatever other teams have is not significantly worse, so they won't give up assets for him. (This is why it's so hard to get value for goalies. If you have one, it's enough it's not worth giving up assets unless you can get a major upgrade.)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Sting36e View Post
Hanzal is nothing more than a third liner? Hanzal is one of the best young defensive centers in the game, and will probably be a Selke candidate later in his career.
Granted I am not as familiar with him as a Coyotes fan would be, but from what I've seen, he's a terrific third liner in the old sense: defense-first player who goes up against the other team's first line, but does not himself score a lot.

The assignments given to lines mangled in recent years, but in my mind, someone who scores 26 points in a season, but plays excellent defense is a prototypical third liner, even though he may be more valuable than an offense first player on the (predominantly offensive) second line.

If you don't like the characterization as a third liner, how about checking center?

Also, I just missed Berglund when I was reviewing who was drafted each year. I can't remember exactly when each NHLer was drafted and if my eye accidentally missed a player, just let me know.

As far as other players go, you have your opinion and I have mind. Obviously I am not a professional scout and I don't see these guys every day. Maybe you are. Maybe you should just correct me then. No need for a hissy fit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sting36e View Post
Um, who hated the Stepan pick? Who are you even arguing against?
Check out the thread from 2008 for our second round pick. First, everyone was calling for other players to be drafted (including Grachev) in the second round. Then everyone went, "who?" when Stepan was drafted, and more than a few people were outraged that the Rangers went "off-the-board" in choosing him.

Then someone posted that he likes tap dancing, and there were 3-4 pages of hysteria. Then people began reading up more on him and suddenly saw some stuff that they liked. Nevertheless, most of those writing were outraged that the Rangers chose some no-name tap dancer when a blue-chip future star Kirill Petrov was still available. A few others couldn't believe that Slats refused to trade up to get Jared Staal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sting36e View Post
50% of the players are desirable.
Nope. It's just that not enough time passed since 2008 to proclaim many kids a bust. Look at Sanguinetti 3 years after the draft. He was our #6 prospect in 2009, ahead of Kreider, the same as MDZ and just a little below Stepan. No doubt you will now say that you always knew that he was a bust. But if you did, would you like to show me a post where you said it?

As time goes by, several of the current "top prospects" will turn into busts. Look at Wolski. He looked like a great prospect in his rookie year, but doesn't exactly look like a game-breaker anymore.
http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=676939


Last edited by Beacon: 06-23-2011 at 12:58 PM.
Beacon is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-23-2011, 12:51 PM
  #25
NYR Sting
Heart and Soul
 
NYR Sting's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 9,506
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimmyStart View Post
Jesus kid he understated what 3 or 4 guysand you're throwing a fit like he punched your dog? And at least one of the instances he said 7 out of 10 were busts meaning 2 weren't likely 1 being your guy. He's looking at the percentage of first and 2nd round busts vs successes and he did a great job of it. He chose to highlight the busts (or likely busts) and undervalued some goalie prospects who so far are backups(and both lost their starter jobs at some point tho Rask is obviously good) You missed the forest for the trees on this one man. Yes he did wrongly dismiss Rask and I'd say 2 other guys but he made an overall great and valid point that is certainly not invalidated because of 2 or 3 mistakes.
I'll say it again b/c I know you're going to rave and whine more at me but I agree he seriously undersold a few guys but it's also not nearly enough of a "bad analysis" to undermine his overall point.
Do you know how to read? I know you don't know anything about hockey, but do you know how to read?

Let me clear this up for you. His analysis only works because of the incorrect analysis of 3-4 players PER draft, not 3-4 players in total. He chose to provide faulty reports about a bunch of players. Given an honest assessment of those players, his "analysis" falls flat on its face.

Perhaps you might like to re-read both posts, since obviously you totally missed the point. Let me explain it to you again, like I might to a small child:

Ranger pick: Sanguinetti
Next 10 picks: Giroux, Varlamov, Persson, Berglund, Irving, Vishnevsky, Foligno, Summers, Corrente, Kana.

You see those 10 names? The guy who made the first post on this message board thread said 7 of them were busts. That's 3 less than 10. Sorry, honey, but that's wrong. Today, maybe 2 or 3 are busts. 3 others are young players who take a longer time than other players to be ready to play with the best players. Calling them busts is wrong. Got that?

NYR Sting 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 03:38 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.