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, 11:52 AM
  #26
Beacon
Sent to HF Minors
 
Beacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 8,235
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pld459666 View Post
The only problem I have is that you breezed over Patrik Berglund in the 2006 draft.

2 45+ point seasons with 52pts last year.

I missed him by accident. I placed him back.

Beacon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-23-2011, 12:06 PM
  #27
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
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.)
I don't agree. I think Rask is a solid goalie. No Roy or Hasek, but he will be a starter in this league, and I doubt the Bruins wanted to deal him. The last thing you want in a Cup run is to have your starter go down to injury and have some scrub playing.

Quote:
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?
Calling him "nothing more than a third liner" denotes him as some sort of dime a dozen player. You're right, he is a third liner. But he's an excellent defensive forward. When you say he's nothing more than a third liner, it's wording that is again convenient to your argument.

Quote:
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.
First of all, hissy fit? You start your post off with haughty remarks about how maligned you are because your "analysis" busts some sort of belief that people have. When you present an analysis, you conveniently ignore things that are very integral for those particular discussions. You do this here, and you did this a few weeks ago when you presented drafts from the 90s and early 2000s as some sort of proof. Of course you do, since they happen to interfere greatly with whatever point you are trying to make. You didn't just miss Berglund, and it isn't my opinion or yours. Jon Blum is probably the best prospect mentioned here besides Giroux. You missed him by accident, too? You missed a lot of guys, and that's not an opinion. You're right, you aren't a professional scout, but you've already labeled players who you know nothing about as busts. But here's the thing: if they aren't busts, then your entire analysis suddenly looks like it isn't definitive at all. What it looks like to me is highly subjective, which doesn't make it much of an analysis at all.

Quote:
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.
Well, I guess that's not surprising around here.

NYR Sting is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-23-2011, 12:08 PM
  #28
Beacon
Sent to HF Minors
 
Beacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 8,235
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sting36e View Post
His analysis only works because of the incorrect analysis of 3-4 players PER draft, not 3-4 players in total
Let's say you are right. Let's add 3.5 players per draft. So instead of 5 out of 20 from 2005 to 2008, let's just say it's 5 out of 34 players, and let's assume that Cherry would have been a bust. I am assuming worst case scenario here for you.

That still means that the Rangers got 15% of all the good players instead of 3.33% (they are 1 out of 30 teams, which is 3.33%). It is still phenomenally better than expected.

It's not as if the team went 4% instead of 3.33%. The team went more than 4.5 times higher than the expected percentage.

Now let's consider who those 3-4 players per draft are. Who do you have in 2005? Or 2006? Rask? Varlamov? A few prospects who are in their mid-20s and still haven't made a mark on the NHL? Who are you kidding?

Your analysis is based on every prospect out there becoming a star or at least reaching their outmost, hyped-up potential. When did you EVER see that happen? Ever?

For every player that matures late like Sauer, there are 10 guys like Dube and Brendl who are seen as blue-chippers, only to turn into garbage. In fact, even a player who had a seemingly good rookie season is as likely to turn into Wolski as he is to turn into an elite star.

I've been following hockey for more than a quarter century. Every year I hear fans talk about how this year's crop will do this, that and the other. And then a couple of years later, most of these prospects become either busts or bottom feeders, with only a few elite players in the end. But by then, "prospect experts" move on to the new batch of prospects, once again with complete unreasonable expectations.

Sorry, kiddo, but all those great prospects from 2005 and 2006 who failed to leave a mark on the NHL will not all become stars. Will there be a Mike Sauer somewhere? Probably, but will there be someone who had a nice rookie season who will become Wolski? You bet your bottom dollar there will be!


Last edited by Beacon: 06-23-2011 at 12:19 PM.
Beacon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-23-2011, 12:09 PM
  #29
Lion Hound
@JoeTucc26
 
Lion Hound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: NY
Country: United States
Posts: 3,701
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 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 7 players, 2 are Rangers. Together with 2005 and 2006, that's 5 out of 17 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 20 (probably would have been 6 out of 20).

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!
Love the work you put into this. Great post...to ad I feel like printing it and taking some copies with me while riding the LIRR on my way to a game. As soon as I hear the comments "we suck at drafting players"...Or "we never draft anyone good". etc I can bust out a copy of this post and hand it to the uneducated to read.

Lion Hound is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-23-2011, 12:16 PM
  #30
Beacon
Sent to HF Minors
 
Beacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 8,235
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sting36e View Post
your entire analysis suddenly looks like it isn't definitive at all.
I listed the actual drafted players for a reason: so that people could see for themselves who was drafted.

I could have just left a comment like, "you know, statistics show that only 20% of second rounders become long-term NHL regulars" and then moved on.

Obviously my opinion is subjective. I was under the impression that so is yours and everyone else's. Nobody here is God. I reported who the players are. If you have a different opinion, that's fine. That's why I wrote down the names of all players - to make it easy for people to judge for themselves.

Even if my analysis were completely wrong, even if I wrote that Sanguinetti is the next Bobby Orr and Derek Stepan is a goaltender, it doesn't matter because people can see for themselves and make their own judgments.


Last edited by Beacon: 06-23-2011 at 12:26 PM.
Beacon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-23-2011, 12:17 PM
  #31
nyr2k2
Can't Beat Him
 
nyr2k2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Country: United States
Posts: 23,061
vCash: 500
Awards:
Regarding Rask, the recent reports in the news state that Boston was entertaining the idea of moving Thomas prior to the season. Obviously they didn't, but it shows how highly regarded Rask really is.

nyr2k2 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-23-2011, 12:18 PM
  #32
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
Let's say you are right. Let's add 3.5 players per draft. So instead of 5 out of 20 from 2005 to 2008, let's just say it's 5 out of 34 players, and let's assume that Cherry would have been a bust. I am assuming worst case scenario here for you.
Ugh, you keep missing the point here. Talking about the 2007 draft at all is pointless. There is no debating the pick they made. It was a NO-BRAINER. A top 4 or 5 pick fell into their laps because this is NY and they have money. There is no considering other players in that spot. Every team between 5-16 would have taken him if off-ice issues weren't a factor.

That still means that the Rangers got 15% of all the good players instead of 3.33% (they are 1 out of 30 teams, which is 3.33%). It is still phenomenally better than expected.

It's not as if the team went 4% instead of 3.33%. The team went more than 4 times higher than the expected percentage.

Quote:
Now let's consider who those 3-4 players per draft are. Who do you have in 2005? Or 2006? Rask? Varlamov? A few prospects who are in their mid-20s and still haven't made a mark on the NHL? Who are you kidding?

Your analysis is based on every prospect out there becoming a star or at least reaching their outmost, hyped-up potential. When did you EVER see that happen? Ever?

For every player that matures late like Sauer, there are 10 guys like Dube and Brendl who are seen as blue-chippers, only to turn into garbage. In fact, even a player who had a seemingly good rookie season is as likely to turn into Wolski as he is to turn into an elite star.
What are you talking about? I never said anything like that. All I said is that you are not properly evaluating talent, and since that is what the basis of your "analysis" is, your entire point isn't valid. Do you understand that some defensemen take years to develop? You are comparing Sauer to Dube and Brendl? It's ridiculous. Vishnevsky, Corrente, Summers: 3 defensemen. You labeled them all as busts. Based on what?

Let's say 2 of them aren't busts. That makes Giroux, Berglund, Varlamov, and 2 of them (plus 3rd liner Foligno) that are all better picks than Sanguinetti (who, of course, may also still not turn out to be a bust, although it probably isn't likely). Even if just one of them isn't a bust, that's 5.

Quote:
I've been following hockey for more than a quarter century. Every year I hear fans talk about how this year's crop will do this, that and the other. And then a couple of years later, most of these players become either busts or bottom feeders. But by then, "prospect experts" move on to the new batch of prospects, once again with complete unreasonable expectations. Sorry, kiddo, but all those great prospects from 2005 and 2006 who failed to leave a mark on the NHL will not all become stars. Will there be a Mike Sauer somewhere? Probably, but will there be someone who had a nice rookie season who will become Wolski? You bet your bottom dollar there will be!
But I never said they would be. YOU have chosen 10 players per draft, and have assigned value to them, and used this arbitrary value to prove your point. If your assigned values are not valid (which many of them are not, or at least may not be yet), then your point is invalidated. Even if your general point works, the way you've gone about "proving" it here is wrong. Nearly all of the players whose evaluation I take issue with here are defensemen and goaltenders.

Try constructing an argument that actually proves something.

NYR Sting is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-23-2011, 12:23 PM
  #33
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 listed the actual drafted players for a reason: so that people could see for themselves who was drafted.

I could have just left a comment like, "you know, statistics show that only 20% of second rounders become long-term NHL regulars" and then moved on.

Obviously my opinion is subjective. I was under the impression that so is yours and everyone else's. Nobody here is God. I reported who the players are. If you have a different opinion, that's fine. That's why I wrote down the names of all people - to make it easy for people to judge for themselves.

Even if my analysis were completely wrong, even if I wrote that Sanguinetti is the next Bobby Orr and Derek Stepan is a goaltender, it doesn't matter because people can see for themselves and make their own judgments.
Yes, all of our opinions are subjective. I'm here telling you that, in my opinion, labeling long term blueline prospects who haven't finished developing yet as busts is wrong. In my opinion, you haven't proved anything here. Sorry, I'm not interested in offering praise for the work you put in here when you haven't done the right work. A real analysis would offer both sides of the story. Did you expect a thread where only positive responses would come?

NYR Sting is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-23-2011, 12:29 PM
  #34
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 11,498
vCash: 500
You can't judge 2008 picks as boom or bust just yet. A lot of the guys who are going to be NHLers for the long term won't even have their rookie seasons until this year. For that matter, guys who have had solid rookie seasons (a la Sauer and Stepan) aren't long-term NHLers yet and could end up being busts in the long run. Being thorough is important. For example, in 2005 you missed Kris Letang, who was taken within 10 spots of Cliche and Latendresse isn't a D. In your 2006 assessment of Anisimov, you missed Blake Geoffrion, who will be a regular for the Preds next season and likely a top-6 guy, and Brad Marchand. Oh, and Tukka Rask doesn't just have the potential to be a starter in the NHL, he was the starter in 09-10 before losing his job to Thomas while that man was putting up one of the best single-seasons for a goalie in NHL history.

The point does remain that, whatever flaws in your analysis, the Rangers drafting has been fine since the lockout. I just don't think your methods of analysis hold up to scrutiny.

Tawnos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-23-2011, 12:34 PM
  #35
Panfork
Pacioretty Hater
 
Panfork's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 2,377
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerEsq View Post
Clutterbuck is an ok role player
Clutterbuck isn't just an OK role player, he's a very important piece to Minnesota. He's their younger, earlier version of Callahan.


But that was certainly a good read. For whatever reason, people here completely hate statistics, and I don't understand why. They're the best possible way to analyze things, because you're taking interpretations straight from facts and numbers. And statistics show, the Rangers have been brilliant in drafting post-lockout. Glen, Gordie, and Jeff have done a great job. Hopefully it continues. Kreider looks like he has a great career ahead of him, and hopefully Thomas will too.

Panfork is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-23-2011, 12:37 PM
  #36
GAGLine
Registered User
 
GAGLine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 9,162
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerEsq View Post
We got a second rounder and gave it away for Antropov.
No, we traded our own 2nd round pick for Antropov. The compensatory pick for Cherepanov (47th overall) was awarded later.

That pick was used to draft Ethan Werek in 2009, who was recently traded for Oscar Lindberg, who was selected in the 2nd round in 2010 (57th overall).

GAGLine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-23-2011, 12:40 PM
  #37
Beacon
Sent to HF Minors
 
Beacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 8,235
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sting36e View Post
Yes, all of our opinions are subjective. I'm here telling you that, in my opinion, labeling long term blueline prospects who haven't finished developing yet as busts is wrong. In my opinion, you haven't proved anything here. Sorry, I'm not interested in offering praise for the work you put in here when you haven't done the right work. A real analysis would offer both sides of the story. Did you expect a thread where only positive responses would come?
Honestly, I expected most responses to be like yours which is why I started how I started. Obviously I can't be right on every player, and even if I am "right", there are other fans whose opinion is just as legitimate as mine who may disagree.

But the fact remains that the Rangers did a great job drafting, even if I am 100% wrong and you are 100% right.

Let's take 2007 out of the equation because Cherry died and you think he fell into our lap.

In 2005, 2006 and 2008, there were 16 above average NHLers that I counted (including 2008 rookies who had one good season, but are no sure thing yet), of whom 5 were Rangers.

Even if I missed 3 players per draft, let's add 9 more prospects who will become good NHLers (plus we assume that nobody from those years will bust), it still means that the Rangers drafted 5 out of 25 good players.

That's 20% of the total.

P.S. I miscounted 2008. I counted 7 players and it's actually 6 (Ebere, Carlsson, Ennis, Hamonic, Stepan and MDZ). See, sometimes people make mistakes. Sometimes, it helps my argument (missing Berglund) and sometimes it hurts my argument (overcounting 2008). It's not a conspiracy, trust me.


Last edited by Beacon: 06-23-2011 at 12:56 PM.
Beacon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-23-2011, 12:48 PM
  #38
Beacon
Sent to HF Minors
 
Beacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 8,235
vCash: 500
Sting,

Can you tell me if I am wrong on the following, regardless of other teams' prospects:

1. Staal was the best player the Rangers could have drafted in the first round in 2005 at the position where they had the pick.

2. Sauer was one of the best ~3 players the Rangers could have drafted in the second.

3. Anisimov was the best player the Rangers could have drafted in 2006 in the second round.

4. Cherepanov was probably the best player the Rangers could have drafted in the first round of 2007. (No, it wasn't as easy as you make it believe.)

5. Del Zotto is looking better than most of the players available to the Rangers in the first round of 2008.

6. Stepan was the best player the Rangers could have drafted in the second round.

7. Most of the players drafted around where the Rangers were drafting were outright busts who did not make the NHL or at best will be marginal role players.

Sure, some of these picks were more obvious (Cherry) than others (Stepan), but all in all, the Rangers repeatedly pulled the best or close to the best players. Not every time, of course, but too many times for it to be mere coincidence.

Beacon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-23-2011, 01:08 PM
  #39
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
Sting,

Can you tell me if I am wrong on the following, regardless of other teams' prospects:

1. Staal was the best player the Rangers could have drafted in the first round in 2005 at the position where they had the pick.

2. Sauer was one of the best ~3 players the Rangers could have drafted in the second.
No, I loved both of those picks. But Gordie Clark wasn't running the draft then. Don Maloney was (I believe).

Quote:
3. Anisimov was the best player the Rangers could have drafted in 2006 in the second round.

4. Cherepanov was probably the best player the Rangers could have drafted in the first round of 2007. (No, it wasn't as easy as you make it believe.)
Anisimov was a great choice. He was also a first round talent that slipped to the second round because of the country of his birth. The same is true for Cherepanov, but even more so. And yes, it was that easy. He was not probably the best player. He was the best player. There is no question. He was a top 5, if not top 3 pick in that draft. The only reason he was available, and the only reason the Rangers were willing to select him when practically every other team was not, is because he is Russian, and because the Rangers play in NYC and have economic advantages over nearly every team in the league. There is no need to evaluate the decision they made because selecting him was a no-brainer, and I don't even think he was as good as a lot of people around here do. He was no elite player, but he was going to be a very good 60-70 point offensive player.

Quote:
5. Del Zotto is looking better than most of the players available to the Rangers in the first round of 2008.
That's debatable. Eberle, Tedenby, Markstrom, Voinov, Carlson (who were all picked in the 10 or 12 picks after DZ, could all turn out to be better. Personally, I had several of them ranked ahead of Del Zotto on my list that year.

Quote:
6. Stepan was the best player the Rangers could have drafted in the second round.
Yep. Great pick.

Quote:
7. Most of the players drafted around where the Rangers were drafting were outright busts who did not make the NHL or at best will be marginal role players.

Sure, some of these picks were more obvious (Cherry) than others (Stepan), but all in all, the Rangers repeatedly pulled the best or close to the best players. Not every time, of course, but too many times for it to be mere coincidence.
But Bobby Sanguinetti is most likely going to be a flat out bust or a marginal role player, too, isn't he (you didn't mention him in this post).

I don't think that is the case. In some drafts, yes. Again, look at the Del Zotto draft. A bunch of players picked right after him should be solid NHL players.

Still, you continue to miss the point. I don't think Gordie Clark has done a bad job. I think we have done a solid job of drafting in the last few years, even though I don't think Del Zotto was the right pick, and I think McIlrath is one of the worst picks in modern franchise history.

My qualm isn't with your idea about Clark being a good drafter. It's with the way you've gone about trying to prove it. Your analysis doesn't make sense. You chose to present it by showing the 10 players following each selection. Then, to make that work for yourself, you decided to name a bunch of players busts when in reality, they aren't busts, or at least aren't busts yet (and have no right to be called busts yet). Your analysis doesn't prove anything, even if the point you are trying to prove is valid.

NYR Sting is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-23-2011, 01:34 PM
  #40
NHRangerfan
enfoonts
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: New Hampshire
Country: United States
Posts: 3,091
vCash: 500
[QUOTE=RangerEsq;33884627]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.)


Boston was actually looking to move Thomas last off-season, Rask had come off a great rookie season where he was 4th in SV% and tops in GAA at 1.97, though he only played in 45 games. In fact Chiarelli said in an interview after Boston won the cup that they were close to a deal with Philly over the summer to trade Thomas, Philly was offering Gagne the Bruins wanted Carter.

NHRangerfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-23-2011, 02:54 PM
  #41
Beacon
Sent to HF Minors
 
Beacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 8,235
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sting36e View Post
That's debatable. Eberle, Tedenby, Markstrom, Voinov, Carlson (who were all picked in the 10 or 12 picks after DZ, could all turn out to be better. Personally, I had several of them ranked ahead of Del Zotto on my list that year.
Markstrom and Voynov was drafted 11 and 12 picks below MDZ. I know the cutoff of 10 players was arbitrary just because it's a round number, but let's do it both your way and mine.

Let's say all your players turn out to be better than MDZ (I doubt it because I still have a lot of faith in Del Zotto). That would still mean that he's better than 7 out of the next 10 picks or 7 out of the next 12 picks. Either way, he's better than the *majority* of the players available at the time. That's not bad.

That's 5 out of the next



Quote:
Originally Posted by Sting36e View Post
But Bobby Sanguinetti is most likely going to be a flat out bust or a marginal role player, too, isn't he (you didn't mention him in this post).
I mentioned him several times before. Obviously he's a bust, as is Lafleur. But the Rangers can't be right each and every time. Nobody is. But if a team picks impact players *most* of the time, it's a tremendous achievement considering that most players fail to make the NHL period, much less to become top-6F or top-4D.

You take 5 second rounders and 3 first rounders between 2005 and 2008. The general rule is that 20% of second rounders and 33% of first rounders become NHL regulars (4th liners or better), so it should have been two NHLers for the Rangers.

Instead, they got Staal, Sauer, Anisimov, Stepan and most likely MDZ. That's a whole lot of above average NHLers where the Rangers should've had one top-6 forward/top-4 defenseman and one role player.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sting36e View Post
My qualm isn't with your idea about Clark being a good drafter. It's with the way you've gone about trying to prove it. Your analysis doesn't make sense. You chose to present it by showing the 10 players following each selection. Then, to make that work for yourself, you decided to name a bunch of players busts when in reality, they aren't busts, or at least aren't busts yet (and have no right to be called busts yet). Your analysis doesn't prove anything, even if the point you are trying to prove is valid.
I did not decide to make things "work for myself", as you spin it, I am just not as hopeful about every 2005 prospect who has yet to make the NHL to become an impact player.

What I did was very valid, and nobody really contests it besides you. You want to establish yourself as some hockey prospect expert on this forum, including by claiming that you know scouting inside and out, etc. So naturally, this and any other analysis bothers you.

No, I don't know every team's prospect down to that sleeper, late-bloomer like Sauer. But my point still remains.

Clark and Slats and the rest of the staff have done a marvelous job picking impact players, only choosing the only impact player (Staal, Anisimov, Stepan) available on the board.

Look at it this way: if my point stands without my spinning facts, why would I bother to undermine myself by saying that someone is bad when they are good? Maybe I am wrong and maybe you are wrong, but there is no point for me to spin things.

Even if we take your side here, even if you are 100% right and I am 100% wrong, my point still stands. So if I really believed that you were right, I would say what you are saying since it also makes my point just as well. But I just don't agree with you. It's not a conspiracy to defraud the readers, it's just that I don't agree with your assessment. Is that really that hard to believe?


Last edited by Beacon: 06-23-2011 at 03:03 PM.
Beacon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-23-2011, 05:53 PM
  #42
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 did not decide to make things "work for myself", as you spin it, I am just not as hopeful about every 2005 prospect who has yet to make the NHL to become an impact player.

What I did was very valid, and nobody really contests it besides you. You want to establish yourself as some hockey prospect expert on this forum, including by claiming that you know scouting inside and out, etc. So naturally, this and any other analysis bothers you.
First of all, at least one other poster above commented on how your analysis doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Second of all, I want to establish MYSELF as an expert? The only thing I strive to identify myself as is an expert user of logic. I don't need to establish anything. I always give my thoughts when things go down, or even before they do. Anyone is free to call me out when I'm wrong. I urge people to. I think you'll find that more often than not, I'm right. But I've started maybe 10-15 threads in the time I've been a poster here. You start 10-15 threads every 2 weeks. So who is trying to establish himself?

ANY analysis does not bother me. YOUR analysis bothers me. It bothers me because it isn't an analysis. It's a collection of highly subjective and uninformed player evaluations.

Quote:
Look at it this way: if my point stands without my spinning facts, why would I bother to undermine myself by saying that someone is bad when they are good? Maybe I am wrong and maybe you are wrong, but there is no point for me to spin things.
If you did not do it deliberately, then you simply don't understand the logistics of putting together a quality argument.

Quote:
Even if we take your side here, even if you are 100% right and I am 100% wrong, my point still stands. So if I really believed that you were right, I would say what you are saying since it also makes my point just as well. But I just don't agree with you. It's not a conspiracy to defraud the readers, it's just that I don't agree with your assessment. Is that really that hard to believe?
You haven't made an assessment, and neither have I. Saying that it is too early to label long term project defensemen as busts is not my assessment. That's a fact. There is no disputing that learning the defense position takes longer. There is no disputing that certain Defensemen, depending on the program in which they have played and their age, will take years to develop.

Have you ever seen Chris Summers play? Even one shift? You must have, since you are ready to call him a bust. That is not an assessment. This is a player that played 4 years of college hockey and just played his first year of professional hockey in the minors. He's 23 years old. How is he a bust? In 3 years, if he still hasn't done **** at the NHL level, then you can call him a bust. Some people around here were calling Michael Sauer a bust a year or two ago.

NYR Sting is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-23-2011, 06:26 PM
  #43
Beacon
Sent to HF Minors
 
Beacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 8,235
vCash: 500
Sting, you sound highly disturbed. Get a friend. I couldn't finish reading that last post you left. In the future, just ignore what I write. You are not the only person here who watches hockey, so if I am wrong, let someone else go at it.

Beacon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-23-2011, 06:37 PM
  #44
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
Sting, you sound highly disturbed. Get a friend. I couldn't finish reading that last post you left. In the future, just ignore what I write. You are not the only person here who watches hockey, so if I am wrong, let someone else go at it.
LOL. Whatever you say, dude. Based on the number of threads you start, and all of the "analysis" you work on, I'd say you're the one short on friends. When you've figured out how to respond to this very simple point: how can you call a 23 year old defenseman who just completed his first year of professional hockey a bust?, let me know.

NYR Sting is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-23-2011, 06:48 PM
  #45
NHRangerfan
enfoonts
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: New Hampshire
Country: United States
Posts: 3,091
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerEsq View Post
Sting, you sound highly disturbed. Get a friend. I couldn't finish reading that last post you left. In the future, just ignore what I write. You are not the only person here who watches hockey, so if I am wrong, let someone else go at it.
I don't think you need to attack Sting, he's already stated he thinks Clark has done a good job,he just isn't ready to anoint him as scout of the century.

NHRangerfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-23-2011, 07:44 PM
  #46
mrjimmyg89
'13-'14 East Champs
 
mrjimmyg89's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,855
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NHRangerfan View Post
I don't think you need to attack Sting, he's already stated he thinks Clark has done a good job,he just isn't ready to anoint him as scout of the century.
Which is something I think most people SHOULD be thinking as well.

Staal pick: Rask is a great goalie prospect. He was the starter for Boston last season and going into this season, but Tim Thomas posting LEGENDARY numbers relegated him to the back-up role. Hanzal can still become a 2nd line center, and could already be a 2nd line center. Ryan Parent is a good prospect, and time is still on his side, but he won't be as good as Staal. Jakub Kindl is the same thing as Parent. Staal-Rask-Hanzal-Parent/Kindl

Sauer Pick: Stastny, Pavelic, Latendresse, and Raymond are the picks after Sauer that are NHL players. Stastny is clear cut better than him. Pavelic is a very good goalie prospect as well, who has shown in his time in Atlanta that he can be a starter for a solid NHL team. Latendresse got hurt this year, but he was a great player for Minnesota last year. Raymond showed flashes, but he can still get better and more consistant. Stastny-Pavelic-Raymond-Sauer-Latendresse

Sanguinetti pick: Sangs is a bust. Giroux is a top flight NHL center. Varlamov can be an NHL starter. Berglund is Anisimov+more offense at this moment. Corrente, Vishnevsky, and Summers are still prospects with promise. Foligno is a solid 3rd line player. Order doesn't matter here since Sangs is not on any level of the players on this list other than the other busts.

Anisimov Pick: Mason was a great rookie, slowed down the past 2 seasons. He still has a lot of potential. Marchand and Clutterbuck are very good role players for their teams and have upside to become top 6 players at some point. Blake Geoffreion made the NHL this season and is a solid player, as is Theo Peckham. Mike Weber should be a solid player as well. Anisimov-Marchand-Clutterbuck-Mason-etc...

Cherpy pick: He was a top 3 talent and the Russia factor was why he fell. There was NOT one player that should have been taken around him that had similar skill. It's a shame he isn't here, but the pick was the obvious correct choice.

LaFluer pick: Not much after him in the 2nd round. Simmonds is a very good 3rd liner. Galiardi is a decent player. Moller and Aliu are decent prospects. He was a bust, but nothing much there to get.

Del Zotto pick: Eberle and Ennis are highly skilled forwards that have great potential. Tedenby and Carlsson were solid in their rookie seasons. The other players will not be better than Del Zotto. Carlsson-Eberle-Ennis-Del Zotto-Tedenby

Stepan pick: Hamonic, Scandella, Cormier, and Kristo are good prospects. None have the potential that Stepan does. Hamonic is the only other one that can be a top line/pairing player, but I think Stepan will be better. Stepan-Hamonic-Cormier-Kristo-Scandella.

Staal, Stepan, Cherpy, and Anisimov were the best players available. Clark and the Rangers have done well, but they haven't been anywhere near as good at evaluating prospects as the OP has said. The best players taken after the Rangers have picked is Giroux. If I had to list the top 10 including the Rangers picks, it would be:

1. Giroux
2. Stastny
3. Staal
4. Rask
5. Carlsson
6. Berglund
7. Eberle
8. Stepan
9. Pavelic
10. Varlamov

HM: Anisimov, Ennis, Raymond

So, 4 of the top 5 could have been obtained in the draft in since they were taken in different rounds, but you can't get them all. Having 2 guys in the top 10 isn't bad either. I think we're overrating the scouting of the Rangers slightly, but it has been very good since the lockout.

mrjimmyg89 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-23-2011, 07:55 PM
  #47
Beacon
Sent to HF Minors
 
Beacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 8,235
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sting36e View Post
LOL. Whatever you say, dude. Based on the number of threads you start, and all of the "analysis" you work on, I'd say you're the one short on friends. When you've figured out how to respond to this very simple point: how can you call a 23 year old defenseman who just completed his first year of professional hockey a bust?, let me know.

Yeah, except if you count the number of postings per day since we each signed up, you left 50% more of them. And it's not about the number of posts. It's just the frustration in your typing along with the attempt to degrade others in order to feel good about himself while making up stuff about being some insider for the purposes on writing on an anonymous thread... "but I am the expert, and you suck, you suck I tell you, I will stump my feet and cry, you suck, admit it, you suck because if I can't bring others down, that means I can't be anything because my own achievements are nothing. So admit it, you suck, you suck, you have to suck because otherwise... otherwise I'm a loser."

Beacon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-23-2011, 07:59 PM
  #48
Beacon
Sent to HF Minors
 
Beacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 8,235
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NHRangerfan View Post
I don't think you need to attack Sting, he's already stated he thinks Clark has done a good job,he just isn't ready to anoint him as scout of the century.

I did not write what I wrote because of his views on hockey, but because of his attitude. I have no problem with his opinion, just the obnoxious way he presents it where the argument is not made for the purpose of discussing hockey, but for the purpose of proving his own self-worth at the expense of others.

Beacon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-23-2011, 08:00 PM
  #49
The Perfect Paradox
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Long Island, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 6,514
vCash: 50
It's really impressive how Clark and Co. have improved our drafting since 2005, especially when you think about our track record pre-2005

The Perfect Paradox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-23-2011, 08:03 PM
  #50
Declan
HFB Partner
 
Declan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 962
vCash: 500
I did a similar review of the NYR 1st round picks since 1994

LINK

Declan 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 07:41 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.