HFBoards

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

Changing our draft strategy

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-01-2013, 12:10 PM
  #126
Trxjw
Moderator
Bored.
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Land of no calls..
Country: United States
Posts: 16,434
vCash: 500
The problem I have with this concept of "take more risks" is that people never cite the busts when they're talking about "risk" in general. Sure, taking a risk on Giroux would have been great, but what if they had taken a risk on Zagrapan or Bourret in the 05 draft? Both looked like tremendous boom potential guys, and we took a reliable, stay-at-home d-man with a solid pedigree. That risk could have set this franchise back a ton.

Taking Sanguinetti was the right play at the time. He was billed as a potential top-pairing guy who could QB a PP and put up 50+ points per year. The organization thought that in back-to-back years they had drafted their defensive cornerstones for the next decade. Sangs wasn't a 50-50 shot of making the NHL. He was a highly touted offensive guy who had huge holes in his defensive game.

Sometimes taking the BPA is exactly what you need to do. People advocate risk in drafting, and I all I ever read about is how we messed up by taking a risk on McIlrath and passing on the higher ranked Tarasenko and Fowler. Let's be honest here: What people really want are more sexy, high-offensive potential selections in the first round, and they're upset that our risk taking in the past hasn't really panned out.

We went "high risk" on Jessiman and it was a disaster and set us back several years. You can be risky all you want, but nobody will commend you for it until you start taking the right risks. Risks like taking a big, speedy kid out of NE-Prep who had never faced anything beyond HS competition. Taking a kid out of Shattuck in the mid 2nd round even though he was pegged for the 3rd round because he wasn't the best skater. Taking a risk in 2008 on a kid who had the potential to be as good as the "big four" defensemen in his draft year, but had huge holes in his defensive game and concerns about his work ethic. Another risk in 2011 on a kid who had half of a good year offensively in the USNTDP and one stellar U-18 to his credit. Why aren't we satisfied with those risks? Hell, those risks have laid the groundwork for the future of this franchise.

Trxjw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-01-2013, 12:14 PM
  #127
HatTrick Swayze
Tomato Potato
 
HatTrick Swayze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 9,283
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trxjw View Post
The problem I have with this concept of "take more risks" is that people never cite the busts when they're talking about "risk" in general. Sure, taking a risk on Giroux would have been great, but what if they had taken a risk on Zagrapan or Bourret in the 05 draft? Both looked like tremendous boom potential guys, and we took a reliable, stay-at-home d-man with a solid pedigree. That risk could have set this franchise back a ton.

Taking Sanguinetti was the right play at the time. He was billed as a potential top-pairing guy who could QB a PP and put up 50+ points per year. The organization thought that in back-to-back years they had drafted their defensive cornerstones for the next decade. Sangs wasn't a 50-50 shot of making the NHL. He was a highly touted offensive guy who had huge holes in his defensive game.

Sometimes taking the BPA is exactly what you need to do. People advocate risk in drafting, and I all I ever read about is how we messed up by taking a risk on McIlrath and passing on the higher ranked Tarasenko and Fowler. Let's be honest here: What people really want are more sexy, high-offensive potential selections in the first round, and they're upset that our risk taking in the past hasn't really panned out.

We went "high risk" on Jessiman and it was a disaster and set us back several years. You can be risky all you want, but nobody will commend you for it until you start taking the right risks. Risks like taking a big, speedy kid out of NE-Prep who had never faced anything beyond HS competition. Taking a kid out of Shattuck in the mid 2nd round even though he was pegged for the 3rd round because he wasn't the best skater. Taking a risk in 2008 on a kid who had the potential to be as good as the "big four" defensemen in his draft year, but had huge holes in his defensive game and concerns about his work ethic. Another risk in 2011 on a kid who had half of a good year offensively in the USNTDP and one stellar U-18 to his credit. Why aren't we satisfied with those risks? Hell, those risks have laid the groundwork for the future of this franchise.
I wish there were the ability to "like" posts on HF.

__________________
"Here we can see the agression of american people. They love fighting and guns. when they wont win they try to kill us all." -HalfOfFame
HatTrick Swayze is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-01-2013, 12:18 PM
  #128
Barnaby
Registered User
 
Barnaby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Port Jefferson, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 4,487
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trxjw View Post
The problem I have with this concept of "take more risks" is that people never cite the busts when they're talking about "risk" in general. Sure, taking a risk on Giroux would have been great, but what if they had taken a risk on Zagrapan or Bourret in the 05 draft? Both looked like tremendous boom potential guys, and we took a reliable, stay-at-home d-man with a solid pedigree. That risk could have set this franchise back a ton.

Taking Sanguinetti was the right play at the time. He was billed as a potential top-pairing guy who could QB a PP and put up 50+ points per year. The organization thought that in back-to-back years they had drafted their defensive cornerstones for the next decade. Sangs wasn't a 50-50 shot of making the NHL. He was a highly touted offensive guy who had huge holes in his defensive game.

Sometimes taking the BPA is exactly what you need to do. People advocate risk in drafting, and I all I ever read about is how we messed up by taking a risk on McIlrath and passing on the higher ranked Tarasenko and Fowler. Let's be honest here: What people really want are more sexy, high-offensive potential selections in the first round, and they're upset that our risk taking in the past hasn't really panned out.

We went "high risk" on Jessiman and it was a disaster and set us back several years. You can be risky all you want, but nobody will commend you for it until you start taking the right risks. Risks like taking a big, speedy kid out of NE-Prep who had never faced anything beyond HS competition. Taking a kid out of Shattuck in the mid 2nd round even though he was pegged for the 3rd round because he wasn't the best skater. Taking a risk in 2008 on a kid who had the potential to be as good as the "big four" defensemen in his draft year, but had huge holes in his defensive game and concerns about his work ethic. Another risk in 2011 on a kid who had half of a good year offensively in the USNTDP and one stellar U-18 to his credit. Why aren't we satisfied with those risks? Hell, those risks have laid the groundwork for the future of this franchise.
This. This. 1000 X this.

"... but... but... we didn't draft Giroux..."

Enough already... and these percentages people are placing on guys is a joke "50% chance for s star, 75% for a guy who will play - gotta roll the dice..." - How about we let our experienced talent evaluators evaluate. They've made some mistakes, but they've done pretty well so far.

Barnaby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-01-2013, 12:21 PM
  #129
McRanger
Registered User
 
McRanger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,705
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trxjw View Post
The problem I have with this concept of "take more risks" is that people never cite the busts when they're talking about "risk" in general. Sure, taking a risk on Giroux would have been great, but what if they had taken a risk on Zagrapan or Bourret in the 05 draft? Both looked like tremendous boom potential guys, and we took a reliable, stay-at-home d-man with a solid pedigree. That risk could have set this franchise back a ton.

Taking Sanguinetti was the right play at the time. He was billed as a potential top-pairing guy who could QB a PP and put up 50+ points per year. The organization thought that in back-to-back years they had drafted their defensive cornerstones for the next decade. Sangs wasn't a 50-50 shot of making the NHL. He was a highly touted offensive guy who had huge holes in his defensive game.

Sometimes taking the BPA is exactly what you need to do. People advocate risk in drafting, and I all I ever read about is how we messed up by taking a risk on McIlrath and passing on the higher ranked Tarasenko and Fowler. Let's be honest here: What people really want are more sexy, high-offensive potential selections in the first round, and they're upset that our risk taking in the past hasn't really panned out.

We went "high risk" on Jessiman and it was a disaster and set us back several years. You can be risky all you want, but nobody will commend you for it until you start taking the right risks. Risks like taking a big, speedy kid out of NE-Prep who had never faced anything beyond HS competition. Taking a kid out of Shattuck in the mid 2nd round even though he was pegged for the 3rd round because he wasn't the best skater. Taking a risk in 2008 on a kid who had the potential to be as good as the "big four" defensemen in his draft year, but had huge holes in his defensive game and concerns about his work ethic. Another risk in 2011 on a kid who had half of a good year offensively in the USNTDP and one stellar U-18 to his credit. Why aren't we satisfied with those risks? Hell, those risks have laid the groundwork for the future of this franchise.
Excellent post.

McRanger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-01-2013, 12:24 PM
  #130
NYR Viper
Moderator
 
NYR Viper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: PA
Country: United States
Posts: 28,185
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trxjw View Post
The problem I have with this concept of "take more risks" is that people never cite the busts when they're talking about "risk" in general. Sure, taking a risk on Giroux would have been great, but what if they had taken a risk on Zagrapan or Bourret in the 05 draft? Both looked like tremendous boom potential guys, and we took a reliable, stay-at-home d-man with a solid pedigree. That risk could have set this franchise back a ton.

Taking Sanguinetti was the right play at the time. He was billed as a potential top-pairing guy who could QB a PP and put up 50+ points per year. The organization thought that in back-to-back years they had drafted their defensive cornerstones for the next decade. Sangs wasn't a 50-50 shot of making the NHL. He was a highly touted offensive guy who had huge holes in his defensive game.

Sometimes taking the BPA is exactly what you need to do. People advocate risk in drafting, and I all I ever read about is how we messed up by taking a risk on McIlrath and passing on the higher ranked Tarasenko and Fowler. Let's be honest here: What people really want are more sexy, high-offensive potential selections in the first round, and they're upset that our risk taking in the past hasn't really panned out.

We went "high risk" on Jessiman and it was a disaster and set us back several years. You can be risky all you want, but nobody will commend you for it until you start taking the right risks. Risks like taking a big, speedy kid out of NE-Prep who had never faced anything beyond HS competition. Taking a kid out of Shattuck in the mid 2nd round even though he was pegged for the 3rd round because he wasn't the best skater. Taking a risk in 2008 on a kid who had the potential to be as good as the "big four" defensemen in his draft year, but had huge holes in his defensive game and concerns about his work ethic. Another risk in 2011 on a kid who had half of a good year offensively in the USNTDP and one stellar U-18 to his credit. Why aren't we satisfied with those risks? Hell, those risks have laid the groundwork for the future of this franchise.
And I am hoping we get enough posts agreeing with this to take up an entire page.

I swear, the hindsight of "we should have gone with the boom potential!!!!!" is getting beyond annoying. Fine, let's take A Kuznetsov this year and if he never comes over, I don't want to hear any **** from any of these whiners.

NYR Viper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-01-2013, 01:15 PM
  #131
offdacrossbar
with the 10th pick..
 
offdacrossbar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: da cuse
Country: Tuvalu
Posts: 8,091
vCash: 500
we blew it with the mcilrath pick. we could sure use this right now.

7 5 4 9 6 8 15:10 1 1 0 0 24 20.8

experienced talent evaluators who dont make the smart, sensible, logical non biased choices pay the price for being absurdly cautious. we blew it.

missing the right stud sets us back just as much as taking a chance on the wrong stud. we blew it.

being conservative sets us back just as much as taking a chance on a kid who could be a superstar. we blew it.

jessiman is more like mcilrath than i care to admit. and it pisses me off to be honest.

exactly what was there not to like with tarasenko ? there was no indication that we should have feared him not coming over. NYC and the NY Rangers are a pretty big reason to come here. and he said he was coming. he said he always wanted to come. he came.

sorry but this whole things stinks. im supportive of mcilrath since hes in our system and im eager to see him develop, but as much as all the mcilrath fanboys will always say " stats arent everything" this kid tarasenko is gonna tear **** up for the next 10 years.

im sure that first goal he roofs over hanks shoulder at the garden will sting just a little bit more.

having said all that, i hope mcilrath develops into something close to scott stevens. that would make me feel alot better.

offdacrossbar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-01-2013, 01:35 PM
  #132
McRanger
Registered User
 
McRanger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,705
vCash: 500
You'd think we were the only team that passed over Tarasenko. Hell, you'd think we were the only team ever to pass on a player that went on to be a star.

The obsession people have with certain prospects or organizational choices goes beyond strange and well into creepy.

McRanger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-01-2013, 01:38 PM
  #133
NYR Viper
Moderator
 
NYR Viper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: PA
Country: United States
Posts: 28,185
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by McRanger View Post
You'd think we were the only team that passed over Tarasenko. Hell, you'd think we were the only team ever to pass on a player that went on to be a star.

The obsession people have with certain prospects or organizational choices goes beyond strange and well into creepy.
It's an obsession that goes beyond the loyalty to a team. People want to be "right" more than they want the organization to do well.

Would anyone have been happy if the Rangers took Kuznetsov? Supremely skilled. Probably easily top-10 skills in his draft. Not coming over. Highly doubt he will ever come over.

Whether anyone wants to admit it or not pretty much every team is afraid of getting burned by it. If the kid doesn't come over your entire draft can easily go down the tubes. Anything after the 1st round is a supreme crapshoot.

NYR Viper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-01-2013, 01:43 PM
  #134
offdacrossbar
with the 10th pick..
 
offdacrossbar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: da cuse
Country: Tuvalu
Posts: 8,091
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by McRanger View Post
You'd think we were the only team that passed over Tarasenko. Hell, you'd think we were the only team ever to pass on a player that went on to be a star.

The obsession people have with certain prospects or organizational choices goes beyond strange and well into creepy.
right now. this team suks. we look dead. lifeless. clueless. old.

this kid could be helping us right now. today. we had him in the palm of our hand. to pass on him, for mcilrath, sets us back today. forget about down the road.

its not creepy. its realizing that we made an error.

the fact that we look like dog crap so far just makes that error all the more brutal. he would be leading our team in scoring right now.

offdacrossbar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-01-2013, 01:53 PM
  #135
Trxjw
Moderator
Bored.
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Land of no calls..
Country: United States
Posts: 16,434
vCash: 500
I fail to see how we "blew it" with McIlrath considering the guy has yet to even play an NHL game. I remember all of the crap about how St Louis **** the bed with Pietrangelo because the guy didn't jump into the NHL right away. Now the guy is one of the premier blueliners in the league. It's just flat out silly to gripe about how we made such huge mistakes before we even get to see what a kid is made of.

If he was a surefire star and there was zero concern about his intentions of playing in the NHL, then why did 14 other teams pass on him? Hell, even St Louis passed on him with their first selection. They had to acquire another pick to get him.

I can't even help but laugh when I see people use the word "bias" when it comes to Tarasenko. As if somehow this team has shunned Russians for it's entire history or something. The only bias I see around these boards is towards guys who aren't offensive dynamos.

Trxjw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-01-2013, 01:56 PM
  #136
McRanger
Registered User
 
McRanger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,705
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by offdacrossbar View Post
right now. this team suks. we look dead. lifeless. clueless. old.

this kid could be helping us right now. today. we had him in the palm of our hand. to pass on him, for mcilrath, sets us back today. forget about down the road.

its not creepy. its realizing that we made an error.

the fact that we look like dog crap so far just makes that error all the more brutal. he would be leading our team in scoring right now.
The team looked lifeless and sucky and dead and awful and clueless and old last year too.

What happened? They won the East, missed the Presidents trophy by 2 points and went to the Eastern Conference Finals.

The amount of players the Rangers have passed on that could help them "right now" is innumerable.

I thought it was a bad pick. Actually I thought drafting any defenseman was a bad pick. But its done.

McRanger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-01-2013, 02:00 PM
  #137
McRanger
Registered User
 
McRanger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,705
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYR Boyler87 View Post
It's an obsession that goes beyond the loyalty to a team. People want to be "right" more than they want the organization to do well.

Would anyone have been happy if the Rangers took Kuznetsov? Supremely skilled. Probably easily top-10 skills in his draft. Not coming over. Highly doubt he will ever come over.

Whether anyone wants to admit it or not pretty much every team is afraid of getting burned by it. If the kid doesn't come over your entire draft can easily go down the tubes. Anything after the 1st round is a supreme crapshoot.
Sadly, I agree with the bold. Not in all cases, but in a lot.

I find it especially funny when it comes to European players. 99% of the posters on these boards are lucky to have seen a prospect in a handful of games in the WJC and yet they are ready to throw themselves off a building if we dont draft them. Its insane.

McRanger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-01-2013, 02:00 PM
  #138
NikC
Registered User
 
NikC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 3,585
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by offdacrossbar View Post
we blew it with the mcilrath pick. we could sure use this right now.

7 5 4 9 6 8 15:10 1 1 0 0 24 20.8

experienced talent evaluators who dont make the smart, sensible, logical non biased choices pay the price for being absurdly cautious. we blew it.

missing the right stud sets us back just as much as taking a chance on the wrong stud. we blew it.

being conservative sets us back just as much as taking a chance on a kid who could be a superstar. we blew it.

jessiman is more like mcilrath than i care to admit. and it pisses me off to be honest.

exactly what was there not to like with tarasenko ? there was no indication that we should have feared him not coming over. NYC and the NY Rangers are a pretty big reason to come here. and he said he was coming. he said he always wanted to come. he came.

sorry but this whole things stinks. im supportive of mcilrath since hes in our system and im eager to see him develop, but as much as all the mcilrath fanboys will always say " stats arent everything" this kid tarasenko is gonna tear **** up for the next 10 years.

im sure that first goal he roofs over hanks shoulder at the garden will sting just a little bit more.

having said all that, i hope mcilrath develops into something close to scott stevens. that would make me feel alot better.

I'm sure Mcilrath will quiet all the naysayers when he finally enters the NHL in 3-5 years. Provided his knees aren't gone by then.

Losing Cherepanov is compounded by squandering a 1st/10th overall on another defenseman....

And you thought the Jessiman pick was bad?


let's not forget the swing and a miss on sanguenetti.... we only passed up on Claude Giroux for him...


Sorry, drafting has stayed respectable the last 10yrs, buts it's by no means impressive yet...

NikC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-01-2013, 02:01 PM
  #139
NYR Viper
Moderator
 
NYR Viper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: PA
Country: United States
Posts: 28,185
vCash: 500
Here is a legit question for everyone.

Milan Lucic is a 2nd line player. That is where his skillset places him for most teams. I think we can all agree that he is more valuable than a normal 2nd line player because of everything else he does.

Who would you take, and think hard about this:

Phil Kessel or Milan Lucic?

Or a recent trade that was made:

Cody Hodgson or Zack Kassian?

It's a legit question because I feel McIlrath can easily become a Lucic or Kassian on the Rangers defense. Not a top-pairing guy, but top-4 while bringing other things.

Kessel and Hodgson obviously being the more skilled players. Lucic and Kassian the more truculent.

NYR Viper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-01-2013, 02:13 PM
  #140
offdacrossbar
with the 10th pick..
 
offdacrossbar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: da cuse
Country: Tuvalu
Posts: 8,091
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYR Boyler87 View Post
It's an obsession that goes beyond the loyalty to a team. People want to be "right" more than they want the organization to do well.

Would anyone have been happy if the Rangers took Kuznetsov? Supremely skilled. Probably easily top-10 skills in his draft. Not coming over. Highly doubt he will ever come over.

Whether anyone wants to admit it or not pretty much every team is afraid of getting burned by it. If the kid doesn't come over your entire draft can easily go down the tubes. Anything after the 1st round is a supreme crapshoot.
purely conjecture. he signed for 2 more years. hell still be a kid when he does come over.

love those who continue to fall into that trap.

oh and for the record, i would LOVE to have kuznetsov be rangers property.

offdacrossbar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-01-2013, 02:16 PM
  #141
NikC
Registered User
 
NikC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 3,585
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYR Boyler87 View Post
Here is a legit question for everyone.

Milan Lucic is a 2nd line player. That is where his skillset places him for most teams. I think we can all agree that he is more valuable than a normal 2nd line player because of everything else he does.

Who would you take, and think hard about this:

Phil Kessel or Milan Lucic?

Or a recent trade that was made:

Cody Hodgson or Zack Kassian?

It's a legit question because I feel McIlrath can easily become a Lucic or Kassian on the Rangers defense. Not a top-pairing guy, but top-4 while bringing other things.

Kessel and Hodgson obviously being the more skilled players. Lucic and Kassian the more truculent.
Let me ask you this.. What info did STL have about Tarasenko that the NYR didn't, because they obviously felt he was coming over? they were right!

why draft a defenseman that's 5+ yrs away, top 4 pairing at best, when your last top scoring prospect passes away tragically?

NikC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-01-2013, 02:20 PM
  #142
Trxjw
Moderator
Bored.
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Land of no calls..
Country: United States
Posts: 16,434
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NikC View Post
Let me ask you this.. What info did STL have about Tarasenko that the NYR didn't, because they obviously felt he was coming over? they were right!
Apparently the info was so good that they passed on him in favor of Jaden Schwartz.

Trxjw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-01-2013, 02:23 PM
  #143
NYR Viper
Moderator
 
NYR Viper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: PA
Country: United States
Posts: 28,185
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NikC View Post
Let me ask you this.. What info did STL have about Tarasenko that the NYR didn't, because they obviously felt he was coming over? they were right!

why draft a defenseman that's 5+ yrs away, top 4 pairing at best, when your last top scoring prospect passes away tragically?
Because they had (2) 1st round picks and if he didn't come over, it wouldn't have ruined their draft.

NYR Viper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-01-2013, 02:24 PM
  #144
NYR Viper
Moderator
 
NYR Viper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: PA
Country: United States
Posts: 28,185
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by offdacrossbar View Post
purely conjecture. he signed for 2 more years. hell still be a kid when he does come over.

love those who continue to fall into that trap.

oh and for the record, i would LOVE to have kuznetsov be rangers property.
Is it? From everything I have read he loves playing in the KHL for big money. The longer a player stays there the more apt they are to stay. Why would he come over to be on his 3 year ELC when he can stay at home, playing in the league he has been playing in for years, and make more money?

NYR Viper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-01-2013, 02:28 PM
  #145
offdacrossbar
with the 10th pick..
 
offdacrossbar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: da cuse
Country: Tuvalu
Posts: 8,091
vCash: 500
i expect macilrath will play nhl minutes. eventually. he may very well wear a letter for us one day too. i sure hope so.

but i also expect he will fight and take bad penalties. i expect he will make thunderous hits and his appeal to the neanderthal fan will be the stuff of legend.

thats kinda what his junior career was like. he got by in juniors by being bigger and meaner than almost any other player in the western conference.

its different now.

offdacrossbar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-01-2013, 02:32 PM
  #146
NYR Viper
Moderator
 
NYR Viper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: PA
Country: United States
Posts: 28,185
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by offdacrossbar View Post
i expect macilrath will play nhl minutes. eventually. he may very well wear a letter for us one day too. i sure hope so.

but i also expect he will fight and take bad penalties. i expect he will make thunderous hits and his appeal to the neanderthal fan will be the stuff of legend.

thats kinda what his junior career was like. he got by in juniors by being bigger and meaner than almost any other player in the western conference.

its different now.
Why is it different? Lucic and Kassian seem to be doing just fine. Clowe has had a good career so far.

NYR Viper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-01-2013, 02:33 PM
  #147
Bluenote13
Believe In Henke
 
Bluenote13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: BKLYN, NYC
Posts: 23,636
vCash: 500
20+ years of drafting, 2 players who scored over 30 goals in a season - Kovalev and Prucha. Kovalev never actually did for the Rangers. Prucha scored 22, then 7 his following two seasons.

Callahan had 29 last year. Lets say he scored 30. Thats 1 North American prospect scoring 30 goals once in 20 years of drafting.


You wonder why people make a big deal over picks like this?

Bluenote13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-01-2013, 02:33 PM
  #148
NYR1967
Registered User
 
NYR1967's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: New York, N.Y.
Country: United States
Posts: 630
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NikC View Post
Let me ask you this.. What info did STL have about Tarasenko that the NYR didn't, because they obviously felt he was coming over? they were right!

why draft a defenseman that's 5+ yrs away, top 4 pairing at best, when your last top scoring prospect passes away tragically?
They drafted McIlrath because he had only been playing organized league hockey for 2 or 3 years and was showing exponential progress every year. The Rangers felt it was worth the risk that if the kid could keep making progress like that every year of his development, they would have a young Scott Stevens/Jeff Beukeboom in their system - much harder to find (at least IMO) than a kid like Tarasenko. I wasn't a fan of the pick myself, and yes Tarasenko surely would help the Rangers right now, but it wasn't about info that St. Louis had and the Rangers didn't, and it's a risk that still could provide big dividends.

NYR1967 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-01-2013, 02:38 PM
  #149
NikC
Registered User
 
NikC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 3,585
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluenote13 View Post
20+ years of drafting, 2 players who scored over 30 goals in a season - Kovalev and Prucha. Kovalev never actually did for the Rangers. Prucha scored 22, then 7 his following two seasons.

Callahan had 29 last year. Lets say he scored 30. Thats 1 North American prospect scoring 30 goals once in 20 years of drafting.


You wonder why people make a big deal over picks like this?
Absolutely horrendous! The last 10 have been modestly better at best.

Still can't understand the Mcilrath pick over Tarasenko, when Cherepanov passes...

People say forget Jessiman... ok, but how do you forget Sanguenetti over Giroux?

sorry, that's beyond bad. As much as i love the signings of Richards, Gaborik, Nash, if we were able to draft and develop some of our top 6 talent we'd have a lot more depth now as team overall.

lets see what happens with krieder, Hags, Stepan, and Miller...

NikC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-01-2013, 02:42 PM
  #150
NikC
Registered User
 
NikC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 3,585
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYR1967 View Post
They drafted McIlrath because he had only been playing organized league hockey for 2 or 3 years and was showing exponential progress every year. The Rangers felt it was worth the risk that if the kid could keep making progress like that every year of his development, they would have a young Scott Stevens/Jeff Beukeboom in their system - much harder to find (at least IMO) than a kid like Tarasenko. I wasn't a fan of the pick myself, and yes Tarasenko surely would help the Rangers right now, but it wasn't about info that St. Louis had and the Rangers didn't, and it's a risk that still could provide big dividends.
I would understand it if the rangers had more scoring (at the time of the draft) but we lost a top prospect in Cherepanov, so imo Tarasenko was the pick to make.

How far off is McIlrath still?

NikC is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:28 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.