HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Notices

A Unique Review of Ranger Drafting since the lockout

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-23-2011, 08:08 PM
  #51
Machinehead
Richards Supporter
 
Machinehead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New York New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,380
vCash: 500
The only real stinker that makes you cringe is passing on Giroux to take Sanguinetti. Otherwise, not bad. We've certainly improved since we drafted he whose name I shall not speak. Still looking for that star though.

Machinehead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-23-2011, 08:24 PM
  #52
NHRangerfan
enfoonts
 
NHRangerfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: New Hampshire
Country: United States
Posts: 3,084
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerEsq View Post
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.
I think he brought up some legit points as you did. You clearly underrated Rask...and I'm pretty sure whatever reason you had for calling him disturbed was uncalled for.

NHRangerfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2011, 12:47 AM
  #53
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
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."


When have I ever claimed to be an insider? The funny thing is, you don't need to be an insider to see through your "analysis." All you need is some common sense.

So I degraded you in order to feel good about myself while making something up...hmmm, that sounds an awful lot like what you did when you started this thread, when you made claims that YOU were going to prove everyone else wrong, and then you made a bunch of stuff up, put down a few half-truths at best, in order to do it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerEsq View Post
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.
Well, YOU are the one who started a thread talking about how YOU were going to prove everyone wrong (I'm going to guess, for he purpose of proving YOUR own self-worth at the expense of others). See, personally, I found that attitude to be nothing if not haughty and obnoxious, especially since you not only failed to provide any sort of analysis, but, IMO, essentially made up a bunch of bullcrap about things that you clearly aren't familiar with. Maybe it's that attitude, and then the subsequent ********* disguised as proof of something that elicited the response from myself.

You wrote what you did to me because, like most people who get called out on trying to pass half of the truth off as the whole truth, they resort to name calling and insults in lieu of providing a good counterargument, in nearly every case because they can't.

If you're going to make **** up, be prepared to be called out on it. Especially if you're annoying about it.

NYR Sting is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2011, 12:49 AM
  #54
The Mouth
Registered User
 
The Mouth's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 838
vCash: 500
i think it really is an interesting piece, but i will agree some of the assessments of other players are way off. but the crux of it is the rangers are drafting much better. i applaud rangeresq for taking the time to do it.

The Mouth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2011, 10:30 AM
  #55
JimmyStart*
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,569
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sting36e View Post
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?
Funny thing is kid I know plenty about hockey I'm just not a condescending creep about it. I have no reason to prove myself on these boards by telling people what to think. I know you don't understand like with many things but again you completely missed his point. People are whining about the quality of picks (booms) we make compared to other teams and if you look at those names like in your example none are huge boom players except maybe Berglund and Giroux. To this point the rest of the names are maybe solid at best. It's even more pronounced in other drafts where our picks more than stack up favorably to anyone picked 10 spots later.It's not about me reading it's about you knowing what your talking about outside of hockey yet again.

Honey? While I'm disturbed by your need to treat me like a gf (perhaps you need to get away from the cpu?) I'd have to say the term might be more appropriate for you since it's so easy for you to throw a fit around here it's very diva-like

JimmyStart* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2011, 10:51 AM
  #56
JimmyStart*
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,569
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sting36e View Post
What it looks like to me is highly subjective,
This out of everything you said is roughly all that needed to be said. It's too early to start labeling guys as busts although you can be close to sure with some guys (like a Sangs). You can however rank them based on what they've done up till now which is what he was doing. He incorrectly labeled too many guys as busts especially a handful of glaring mislabels but the point remains you compare our guys and what they've done to what others are doing/have done and we look darn good. That was the elementary point you missed.

It IS important to point out that the jury is still out on plenty of guys. Why can't you just point out he missed too many guys why instead to we have to be treated to a rant and a conspiracy theory? We LIKE speculating we're FANS and we also like correcting each other without attacking each other. You should join us sometime it's fun really.


Last edited by JimmyStart*: 06-24-2011 at 11:06 AM.
JimmyStart* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2011, 12:14 PM
  #57
Kel Varnsen
Below:Rangers' Balls
 
Kel Varnsen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,852
vCash: 500
Insert Sting for Brian



Great OP. Sure there are some semantics stuff sting was talking about, just change "busts" to "probable busts" or "likely busts" or even something like "guys whose stock has fell" and your argument remains as strong and at least alters where the criticism can be. And the goalie stuff is pointless, it's not like we should have drafted a goalie instead of anyone we did when we have Hank here.

Kel Varnsen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-25-2011, 09:32 AM
  #58
Chief
Registered User
 
Chief's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NY, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,670
vCash: 500
In the end, I think the success of the Rangers' drafts is a bit overstated in the original post. There's really no debating that the Rangers have done well - but I'd argue about average or better than average compared to most teams.

2005 1st round - Staal was a great pick. Success.
2005 2nd round - Sauer, Cliche. One NHL'r and one bust. Depending on how Sauer pans out, this round could be seen as serviceable but Stastny and Letang are clearly better and guys like Latendresse, McQuaid, Raymond, Pavelec and others could prove to be better.

2006 1st round - Sanguinetti was a bust. It happens but this pick is a fail.
2006 2nd round - Anisimov. Good player could develop further but he's not necessarily "better" than a few players picked after him like Marchand and Clutterbuck (brings different things to the table but scored 1 more goal than AA last season). Final grade on AA is yet to be decided but this was definitely a good pick by the Rangers.

2007 1st round - Cherry. Pass on this pick because of Cherry's death before he could show Ranger fans what HD could do in the NHL.
2007 2nd round - LaFleur was a bust. Obviously not a good pick.

2008 1st round - MDZ. Too early to tell. I'd trade him straight up for Carlsson or Eberle but MDZ could still be a productive player so I won't rush to judgement.
2008 2nd round - Stepan. Success. 2nd line center with potential to develop further. Nothing to complain about in getting this pick.

In the end, the Rangers got one player who has proven to be an unmitigated success in Staal. They got 3 players in Stepan, AA and Sauer who look like keepers and MDZ who could be.

Not a bad haul for 8 picks but hardly the sign of a genius organization.

Chief is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-25-2011, 09:36 AM
  #59
Chief
Registered User
 
Chief's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NY, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,670
vCash: 500
In my last post, I meant it was too early to tell what Cherry could have been. The "HD" was supposed to be "he" but I couldn't edit the post on my iPad.

Chief is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-25-2011, 11:16 AM
  #60
Kel Varnsen
Below:Rangers' Balls
 
Kel Varnsen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,852
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chief View Post
In the end, I think the success of the Rangers' drafts is a bit overstated in the original post. There's really no debating that the Rangers have done well - but I'd argue about average or better than average compared to most teams.

2005 1st round - Staal was a great pick. Success.
2005 2nd round - Sauer, Cliche. One NHL'r and one bust. Depending on how Sauer pans out, this round could be seen as serviceable but Stastny and Letang are clearly better and guys like Latendresse, McQuaid, Raymond, Pavelec and others could prove to be better.

2006 1st round - Sanguinetti was a bust. It happens but this pick is a fail.
2006 2nd round - Anisimov. Good player could develop further but he's not necessarily "better" than a few players picked after him like Marchand and Clutterbuck (brings different things to the table but scored 1 more goal than AA last season). Final grade on AA is yet to be decided but this was definitely a good pick by the Rangers.

2007 1st round - Cherry. Pass on this pick because of Cherry's death before he could show Ranger fans what HD could do in the NHL.
2007 2nd round - LaFleur was a bust. Obviously not a good pick.

2008 1st round - MDZ. Too early to tell. I'd trade him straight up for Carlsson or Eberle but MDZ could still be a productive player so I won't rush to judgement.
2008 2nd round - Stepan. Success. 2nd line center with potential to develop further. Nothing to complain about in getting this pick.

In the end, the Rangers got one player who has proven to be an unmitigated success in Staal. They got 3 players in Stepan, AA and Sauer who look like keepers and MDZ who could be.

Not a bad haul for 8 picks but hardly the sign of a genius organization.
The problem with how you're judging it (and which was the true genius of the OP) was you're ignoring who else was available at the time who we could have drafted instead. It's one thing if you draft a bust when there are a ton of serviceable players drafted right after him, it's completely different when you draft a bust surrounded by busts.

Kel Varnsen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-25-2011, 11:22 AM
  #61
Beacon
Sent to HF Minors
 
Beacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 7,562
vCash: 500
Jimmy,

Thank you.

Obviously I can leave out a player by accident, underrate a player due to lack of knowledge or just have a lower opinion of a player than others.

For instance, when I was doing the team depth per position chart for the draft thread, I failed to place Dylan McIlrath. Everyone knows I am one of the few people who liked that pick. But I just forgot. This happens sometimes.

Sting's assumption of a conspiracy and bad faith is what made me mad. Just disagree with me or correct me, no need to imply bad faith.

Beacon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-25-2011, 01:29 PM
  #62
truebluegoalie
Registered User
 
truebluegoalie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Virginia
Posts: 2,017
vCash: 500
This thread is hilarious, but sting is right on a few things and I had some of the same thoughts as I was reading the OP. There are a lot of factors to consider when looking at draft results and whether a players is a "bust" or not. Defenseman sometimes do take longer to develop, they aren't all natural talents like Staal. Sometimes goalies get stuck behind a solid #1, doesn't mean they are bad and Rask is a prime example of this. I remember a time when Lundqvist was a backup to Weeks.

I agree w/sting that the analysis of the other players may be a bit flawed in that it is really only personal assessments, based on numbers (games played, pts, etc.). Without watching these guys on a regular basis I don't think you can subjectively judge them. In addition, players sometimes get drafted based on team's needs which can expedite or slow their entry into the NHL or even their ice time once here. Of course teamates and systems can also play a role in production which can influence perception of whether a player is a "bust."

All that being said, Rangeresq is also correct in the basic presumption that the Rangers' drafting has been better than what people characterize their recent drafting as being. I think a lot of that thinking though has to do with the drafts the Rangers had prior to the lockout, and can you honestly blame people for that?

I think we can all agree that they have finally started moving in the right direction with their drafting, and from what I read it seems like sting and rangeresq agree on that point, so I am not sure why the insults are necessary. Too bad we can't have a hockey discussion without some people throwing hissy fits.

truebluegoalie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-29-2011, 10:28 AM
  #63
Jersey Girl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,307
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kel Varnsen View Post
The problem with how you're judging it (and which was the true genius of the OP) was you're ignoring who else was available at the time who we could have drafted instead. It's one thing if you draft a bust when there are a ton of serviceable players drafted right after him, it's completely different when you draft a bust surrounded by busts.
No need to worry, there were plenty of players picked after Sanguinetti who are turning out to be serviceable...Lafleur too.

Jersey Girl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-29-2011, 04:08 PM
  #64
NY Lito
Blueshirt Pride
 
NY Lito's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 935
vCash: 500
Real nice write-up.

It has been pretty impressive what NYR have done considering they've been drafting in the middle of the pack area for so long now. Props to Gordie and his boys.

NY Lito is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-30-2011, 09:11 AM
  #65
Chief
Registered User
 
Chief's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NY, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,670
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kel Varnsen View Post
The problem with how you're judging it (and which was the true genius of the OP) was you're ignoring who else was available at the time who we could have drafted instead. It's one thing if you draft a bust when there are a ton of serviceable players drafted right after him, it's completely different when you draft a bust surrounded by busts.
I disagree. The "true genius" of the OP seems to have been framing the argument in such a way that people think drafting Sanguinetti wasn't a bad pick when Claude Giroux was picked with the very next selection! (not to mention Lucic, Seabrook, Berglund and any of the other 43 players picked after Sanguinetti, who have already playmed more NHL games than Sanguinetti.)

Chief 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 10:33 AM.

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.