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

Proof that first rounders aren't that valuable

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-27-2006, 07:11 PM
  #1
Hfbk2006
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 50
vCash: 500
Proof that first rounders aren't that valuable

Here're Rangers picks in the first round for 16 years between 1987 and 2001. I am not looking at more recent picks because we can't be sure about how prospects will turn out in a few years.

Only 2 players, Kovalev and Cloutier, are key players. Everyone else is either nothing or an easily replacable players.

Everyone is having seizures over the prospect of giving up a #1 pick somewhere in the 20's. But odds are, the pick will turn into nothing.

1987: Jayson More, top 10 pick, - Below average NHLer.

1988: No first rounder, but had first overall in the second round which was #22. Drafted Troy Mallette. Below average NHLer. Also drafted Murray Duval at #26 who never played a game in the NHL.

1989: Steven Rice. Borderline NHLer.

1990: Michael Stewart. Never played a game in the NHL.

1991: Kovalev. I'd classify him as a solid second liner. Averaged 27 goals and 37 assists per 80 games in his career. We can count him as a key player on a team. That's 1.

1992: Peter Feraro. Never made it as a regular NHLer.

1993: Sundstrom. Top 10 pick. Third liner. Had one 20+ goal season, almost a decade ago.

1994: Cloutier. Solid starting goalie. Another key player. That's 2.

1995: No first rounders (traded for Pat Verbeek). Dube was the first player NYR drafted at #39, and he never made it.

1996: Jeff Brown. Touted as a sure-fire, safe pick who will never be a star, but will be a #3-4 dman. Unfortunately, not only did he fail to become a star, he failed to play a single NHL game. All picks in 1996 were useless.

1997: Cherneski. Injured, retired. Had promise, but you can't say that he would be a key player until he actually made it.

1998: Malhotra. Top 10 pick. Maybe a third liner, maybe not even.

1999: Lundmark and Brendl, both top 10 picks. The Rangers actually gave up Marc Savard to get Lundmark (they also gave up a first rounder and got Hlavac).

2000: No first round pick (gave that up for Lundmark). Filip Novak was the first pick at 64 and he failed to make it.

2001: Top-10 Blackburn. Injured, retired. Had promise, but you can't say that he would be a key player until he actually became a starter.

2002: No first rounders. Lee Falardeau first pick at #33. I don't expect that he'll make the NHL and if he will, he'll be a marginal player.

Hfbk2006 is offline  
Old
02-27-2006, 07:13 PM
  #2
BigE
Registered User
 
BigE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: San Francisco, CA
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,476
vCash: 500
First rounders are valuable if you know how to draft...

BigE is offline  
Old
02-27-2006, 07:14 PM
  #3
Korpido
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Country: United States
Posts: 218
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hfbk2006
Here're Rangers picks in the first round for 16 years between 1987 and 2001. I am not looking at more recent picks because we can't be sure about how prospects will turn out in a few years.

Only 2 players, Kovalev and Cloutier, are key players. Everyone else is either nothing or an easily replacable players.

Everyone is having seizures over the prospect of giving up a #1 pick somewhere in the 20's. But odds are, the pick will turn into nothing.

1987: Jayson More, top 10 pick, - Below average NHLer.

1988: No first rounder, but had first overall in the second round which was #22. Drafted Troy Mallette. Below average NHLer. Also drafted Murray Duval at #26 who never played a game in the NHL.

1989: Steven Rice. Borderline NHLer.

1990: Michael Stewart. Never played a game in the NHL.

1991: Kovalev. I'd classify him as a solid second liner. Averaged 27 goals and 37 assists per 80 games in his career. We can count him as a key player on a team. That's 1.

1992: Peter Feraro. Never made it as a regular NHLer.

1993: Sundstrom. Top 10 pick. Third liner. Had one 20+ goal season, almost a decade ago.

1994: Cloutier. Solid starting goalie. Another key player. That's 2.

1995: No first rounders (traded for Pat Verbeek). Dube was the first player NYR drafted at #39, and he never made it.

1996: Jeff Brown. Touted as a sure-fire, safe pick who will never be a star, but will be a #3-4 dman. Unfortunately, not only did he fail to become a star, he failed to play a single NHL game. All picks in 1996 were useless.

1997: Cherneski. Injured, retired. Had promise, but you can't say that he would be a key player until he actually made it.

1998: Malhotra. Top 10 pick. Maybe a third liner, maybe not even.

1999: Lundmark and Brendl, both top 10 picks. The Rangers actually gave up Marc Savard to get Lundmark (they also gave up a first rounder and got Hlavac).

2000: No first round pick (gave that up for Lundmark). Filip Novak was the first pick at 64 and he failed to make it.

2001: Top-10 Blackburn. Injured, retired. Had promise, but you can't say that he would be a key player until he actually became a starter.

2002: No first rounders. Lee Falardeau first pick at #33. I don't expect that he'll make the NHL and if he will, he'll be a marginal player.

all you did was prove that the Rangers management drafted poorly..

Korpido is offline  
Old
02-27-2006, 07:14 PM
  #4
StartLundqvist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 114
vCash: 500
Some draft picks work, others are bust. You still need to keep your draft picks in order to build a team - especially with a cap. The key now is to draft better and put more resources in scouting.

StartLundqvist is offline  
Old
02-27-2006, 07:19 PM
  #5
NYR fan 2
Registered User
 
NYR fan 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 1,806
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to NYR fan 2
Any first rounder is valuable. The Rangers have been drafting a lot better the last few years, and you need to hold onto this pick especially so we can get Jordan Staal

NYR fan 2 is offline  
Old
02-27-2006, 07:27 PM
  #6
Korpido
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Country: United States
Posts: 218
vCash: 500
Even more proof that 1st rounders ARE that valuable..

Top 15 scorers in the NHL this season

1. Jaromir Jagr- 1st round 5th overall 1990
2. Joe Thorton- 1st round 1st overall 1997
3. Eric Staal- 1st round 2nd overall 2003
4. Daniel Alfredsson- 6th round 1997
5. Ilya Kovalchuck- 1st round 1st overall 2001
6. Marc Savard- 4th round 1995 ( )
7. Dany Heatley- 1st round 2nd overall 2000
8. Alexander Ovechkin- 1st round 1st overall 2004
9. Pavel Datsyuk- 6th round 1998
10. Alex Tanguay- 1st round 12th overall 1998
11. Marian Hossa- 1st round 11th overall 1997
12. Sidney Crosby- 1st round 1st overall 2005
13. Patrick Marleau - 1st round 2nd overall 1997
14. Simon Gagne- 1st round 22nd overall 1998
15. Peter Foresberg- 1st round 6th overall 1991


not only are 12 of the 15 leading scorers first round picks, all of them but ONE were picked in the top half of the first round.

Korpido is offline  
Old
02-27-2006, 07:32 PM
  #7
Draft Guru
Registered User
 
Draft Guru's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 6,858
vCash: 920


Yawn....

If you look at every team's draft record it's obvious they've missed more times than they've hit. The draft is a crapshoot. Just because we haven't drafted (perhaps the better term is developed) well doesn't mean that we should just give our 1st round picks away.

Are you referring to everyone against giving up a first rounder in the proposed deal for Morris and Reinprecht from Phoenix? Is that where the "Everyone is having seizures over the prospect of giving up a #1 pick somewhere in the 20's. But odds are, the pick will turn into nothing" comment comes from?

I'm not for trading our 1st pick, nor am I against it. It all depends on the deal. However, it is very unlikely that this team will trade their first round pick for a player who is a soon-to-be UFA. It doesn't fit their organizational philosophy and it simply won't be done.

And I could have a field day ripping apart your commentary of some selections. Kovalev a solid 2nd liner? Gave up Marc Savard for Lundmark? It was Savard, the 11th pick for the 9th, Hlavac and a 3rd rounder. The 2000 first rounder was given up in the Brendl deal, not the Lundmark deal. And Novak can't be written off yet. He's still young and he was an AHL All-star this year. He may still become an NHLer.

Draft Guru is offline  
Old
02-27-2006, 07:32 PM
  #8
jas
Unsatisfied
 
jas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NJ
Posts: 13,660
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Korpido
Even more proof that 1st rounders ARE that valuable..

Top 15 scorers in the NHL this season

1. Jaromir Jagr- 1st round 5th overall 1990
2. Joe Thorton- 1st round 1st overall 1997
3. Eric Staal- 1st round 2nd overall 2003
4. Daniel Alfredsson- 6th round 1997
5. Ilya Kovalchuck- 1st round 1st overall 2001
6. Marc Savard- 4th round 1995 ( )
7. Dany Heatley- 1st round 2nd overall 2000
8. Alexander Ovechkin- 1st round 1st overall 2004
9. Pavel Datsyuk- 6th round 1998
10. Alex Tanguay- 1st round 12th overall 1998
11. Marian Hossa- 1st round 11th overall 1997
12. Sidney Crosby- 1st round 1st overall 2005
13. Patrick Marleau - 1st round 2nd overall 1997
14. Simon Gagne- 1st round 22nd overall 1998
15. Peter Foresberg- 1st round 6th overall 1991


not only are 12 of the 15 leading scorers first round picks, all of them but ONE were picked in the top half of the first round.
You can add players like Jokinen, Spezza and Nash as other #1 picks that are valuable.

jas is offline  
Old
02-27-2006, 07:37 PM
  #9
Edge
Registered User
 
Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sin City
Country: United States
Posts: 13,196
vCash: 500
The better the scouting department, the better the draft results.

The higher the pick, the better the odds of getting the guy at the top of your list.

Drafting is like being a pro baseball player.

If you're tops in your field you hit about .300

Even the best are gonna have more misses than hits.

Edge is offline  
Old
02-27-2006, 07:46 PM
  #10
Hfbk2006
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 50
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Korpido
Even more proof that 1st rounders ARE that valuable..

Top 15 scorers in the NHL this season

1. Jaromir Jagr- 1st round 5th overall 1990
2. Joe Thorton- 1st round 1st overall 1997
3. Eric Staal- 1st round 2nd overall 2003
4. Daniel Alfredsson- 6th round 1997
5. Ilya Kovalchuck- 1st round 1st overall 2001
6. Marc Savard- 4th round 1995 ( )
7. Dany Heatley- 1st round 2nd overall 2000
8. Alexander Ovechkin- 1st round 1st overall 2004
9. Pavel Datsyuk- 6th round 1998
10. Alex Tanguay- 1st round 12th overall 1998
11. Marian Hossa- 1st round 11th overall 1997
12. Sidney Crosby- 1st round 1st overall 2005
13. Patrick Marleau - 1st round 2nd overall 1997
14. Simon Gagne- 1st round 22nd overall 1998
15. Peter Foresberg- 1st round 6th overall 1991


not only are 12 of the 15 leading scorers first round picks, all of them but ONE were picked in the top half of the first round.
You reversed my argument. It wasn't that NO first rounder is valuable. Obviously some people will be key players. But most will not.

This is especially true outside the lottery, and NYR won't miss playoffs this year.

Notice that all but one first rounders who are stars are lottery picks, and most of them were in the top half-dozen. Gagne is the only first rounder who wasn't, and he was a high-risk player at the time of the draft.

People drafted in later rounds are crap shoots. I wouldn't mind stocking up a whole bunch of 3-7 round picks and drafting some high-risk, high-return players like Savard.

But first rounders are overrated. Most first rounders outside the lottery bust or become marginal players.

Hfbk2006 is offline  
Old
02-27-2006, 07:52 PM
  #11
Hfbk2006
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 50
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edge
The better the scouting department, the better the draft results.

The higher the pick, the better the odds of getting the guy at the top of your list.

Drafting is like being a pro baseball player.

If you're tops in your field you hit about .300

Even the best are gonna have more misses than hits.

Exactly my point. And because 70-80% picks outside the lottery in most years aren't key players, there's no reason to say, "I would never give up a first rounder, even for a star who can improve the Rangers significantly in their playoff run".

Given upcoming free agency and the age of some players, the Rangers may not be as good as this and maybe next year for a while. Maybe they will be even better, but we don't know that, and if we can give up a #25 overall pick for a player who can significantly help in the playoffs, Sather should do it and not worry that there's a 5% chance that that pick will turn into Simon Gagne.

Hfbk2006 is offline  
Old
02-27-2006, 08:41 PM
  #12
GraveyTrain09
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Country: United States
Posts: 190
vCash: 500
i feel as if we have argued this sometime before

GraveyTrain09 is offline  
Old
02-27-2006, 08:51 PM
  #13
SickNice
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Hoboken, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 485
vCash: 500
Glen Sather's Draft Record

Take a look at the fiorst round picks that Geln Sather made during his tenure in Edmonton. After all, this is the guy that will be using the picks whos value we are debating. A lot of these guys are before my time so I can't really comment, but there are decent amount of recognizable names.

Can you guys comment on the careers of some of the earlier guys? Also, how would you compare his 1st round drafting status to other GMs? He certainly seems to have made more progress than Neiol Smith did.

1980 - 6, Paul Coffey, D
1981 - 8, Grant Fuhr, G
1982 - 20, Jim Playfaird, D
1983 - 19, Jeff Beukeboom, D
1984 - 21, Selmar Odelein, D
1985 - 20, Scott Metcalfe, C
1986 - 21, Kim Issel, RW
1987 - 21, Peter Soberlak, LW
1988 - 19, Francois Leroux, D
1989 - 15, Jason Soules, D
1990 - 17, Scott Allison, RW/LW
1991 - 12, Tyler Wright, C
1991 - 20, Martin Rucinsky, LW
1992 - 13, Joe Hulbig, LW
1993 - 7, Jason Arnott, C
1993 - 16, Nick Stajduhar, D
1994 - 4, Jason Bonsignore, C
1994 - 6, Ryan Smyth, LW
1995 - 6, Steve Kelly, LW
1996 - 6, Boyd Devereaux, C
1996 - 19, Matthieu Descoteaux, D
1997 - 14, Michel Riesen, RW
1998 - 13, Michael Henrich, RW
1999 - 13, Jani Rita, LW


Last edited by SickNice: 02-27-2006 at 08:52 PM. Reason: (Specifically 1984-1989)
SickNice is offline  
Old
02-27-2006, 08:55 PM
  #14
Edge
Registered User
 
Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sin City
Country: United States
Posts: 13,196
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hfbk2006
Exactly my point. And because 70-80% picks outside the lottery in most years aren't key players, there's no reason to say, "I would never give up a first rounder, even for a star who can improve the Rangers significantly in their playoff run".

Given upcoming free agency and the age of some players, the Rangers may not be as good as this and maybe next year for a while. Maybe they will be even better, but we don't know that, and if we can give up a #25 overall pick for a player who can significantly help in the playoffs, Sather should do it and not worry that there's a 5% chance that that pick will turn into Simon Gagne.
You can go with that mindset when you have a bit more depth. However successful season or not, this team is not at that point yet. Now if the trade were a first round pick for guranteed playoff success, the situation would be different. However the realty of the situation is all your trading for sometimes it's slightly better odds and sometimes that might equate to a 2% better chance of playoff success.

So it becomes trading a 2% chance at success for a 5% chance of success. Now it also depends on the deal.

For example you might be more inclined to give up a first for a 26 year old player as opposed to a 33 year old player. You might be more inclined to trade the 30th pick rather than the 20th.

This team is successful but the long term goal is still to try and build depth for future. The goal is to make sure this season isn't the "best shot for years" but rather the starting point for constant contention. Any good GM never rules out a trade, but the balance to that is that don't go looking to force a trade either.

Edge is offline  
Old
02-27-2006, 09:10 PM
  #15
romba
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 2,048
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to romba
Wow I honestly have never seen a thread this original in a long time. Who'd have the idea to go over the Rangers previous 1st rounders? Brilliant! Kudos.

romba is offline  
Old
02-27-2006, 09:10 PM
  #16
Hfbk2006
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 50
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edge
You can go with that mindset when you have a bit more depth. However successful season or not, this team is not at that point yet. Now if the trade were a first round pick for guranteed playoff success, the situation would be different. However the realty of the situation is all your trading for sometimes it's slightly better odds and sometimes that might equate to a 2% better chance of playoff success.

So it becomes trading a 2% chance at success for a 5% chance of success. Now it also depends on the deal.

For example you might be more inclined to give up a first for a 26 year old player as opposed to a 33 year old player. You might be more inclined to trade the 30th pick rather than the 20th.

This team is successful but the long term goal is still to try and build depth for future. The goal is to make sure this season isn't the "best shot for years" but rather the starting point for constant contention. Any good GM never rules out a trade, but the balance to that is that don't go looking to force a trade either.
If two players are both valued the same, and each has a "fair value" of a first rounder, I'd rather take the 33 year old than a 26 year old.

This seems wrong at first thought, but give it some more consideration:

Everyone wants younger players. If the 33 yr old is valued the same as a 26 yr old, what does it mean? That the 33 yr old is significantly better than the 26 yr old.

A 26 yr old who can only bring back a late first round pick is probably only an average NHL, probably a solid third liner or a below avg second liner.

A 33 yr old who can bring back a first round pick is probably able to play on the first line for another couple of years.

If the Rangers get a top 2 dman, they would increase their odds of winning the Cup significantly. If they get a #4 dman, that will change nothing.

This team has a chance to win, and everyone is ignoring it. Forwards are excellent, goalie is excellent, chemistry is excellent. Only the blueline lacks. I would gladly give up NYR's first rounder for the almost-36-year-old Niklas Lidstrom (if he were available for the price of an NYR first rounder), who is scoring almost a point a game. A player like Lidstrom is old, but he would totally transform the team and especially the PP. Unfortunately, Detroit would never trade him.

Hfbk2006 is offline  
Old
02-27-2006, 09:21 PM
  #17
Hfbk2006
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 50
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edge

So it becomes trading a 2% chance at success for a 5% chance of success.
A team has maybe a 3-5% chance of drafting a star in the late first round. That doesn't mean that if the team does draft a star, they will succeed. Many bad and average teams have stars. Drafting a star doesn't guarantee anything. He makes your team better - later. As opposed to a star who makes your team better now.

What's more important, future or present. The knee-jerk reaction that people think makes them look smart is to say future.

But what's more important is when you have the best shot to win.

And when do the Rangers have a better shot to win, before or after Jagr retires? Before or after he no longer has his Czech-mates? Before or after the Rangers have the salary cap room to go from good to great?

The Rangers owe it to Jagr and the rest of the team to go for the Cup now that they have the world's best player and a top shelf goalie in Lundqvist. The Kings is more likely to be the next Brodeur than the next Lalime, but who knows, goalies have been known to failed after a couple years - or he may leave as a free agent in a few years now that the age of UFA has been lowered.

Go for it now while Lundqvist, Jagr and the Czech-mates are all still on the team. Sather should get a top-shelf defenseman, if possible, and I'll sacrifice a first rounder for a real chance at the Cup, even without a guarantee of anything.

Hfbk2006 is offline  
Old
02-27-2006, 09:26 PM
  #18
Edge
Registered User
 
Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sin City
Country: United States
Posts: 13,196
vCash: 500
Quote:
If two players are both valued the same, and each has a "fair value" of a first rounder, I'd rather take the 33 year old than a 26 year old.

This seems wrong at first thought, but give it some more consideration:

Everyone wants younger players. If the 33 yr old is valued the same as a 26 yr old, what does it mean? That the 33 yr old is significantly better than the 26 yr old.

A 26 yr old who can only bring back a late first round pick is probably only an average NHL, probably a solid third liner or a below avg second liner.

A 33 yr old who can bring back a first round pick is probably able to play on the first line for another couple of years.
I think you might be mixing up value and cost. Just because you pay a certain price for something doesn't mean it's worth that much.

For example a desperate team, or a team that doesn't do it's HW, negotiate or likewise might end up paying just as much for a 33-year old as a 26 year old.

I think it's an over simplification that a 26 year who "only" gets back a late first rounder is "only" a third line player. And a 33-year old who fetches a first round is able to play the first line for a number of years.

Quote:
If the Rangers get a top 2 dman, they would increase their odds of winning the Cup significantly. If they get a #4 dman, that will change nothing.
Not necessarily, because it all depends on getting a player he fits into a system. Not a guy who on paper "should" be a top defenseman, etc.

Sometimes the difference for a playoff team isn't getting the best player available, but rather the player that best plays for your team.


Quote:
This team has a chance to win, and everyone is ignoring it. Forwards are excellent, goalie is excellent, chemistry is excellent. Only the blueline lacks. I would gladly give up NYR's first rounder for the almost-36-year-old Niklas Lidstrom (if he were available for the price of an NYR first rounder), who is scoring almost a point a game. A player like Lidstrom is old, but he would totally transform the team and especially the PP. Unfortunately, Detroit would never trade him.
Well you just hit the point right there. The players who could do that, aren't going to come at the price you want to play. So do you overpay for something that isn't on that level? And remember just because someone is willing to pay it, doesn't mean it's worth that much.

I think people are willing to make some moves, but they aren't willing to sell their soul for the chance either. This is still a team trying to build depth for the future (not there yet) and still a team that is very dependent on chemistry.

For all the talk and hype about deadline deals, you'll discover far more don't work out then do.

For every Ray Borque there's a Sergei Gonchar. For Matteau and Noonan, there is a Kurri and McSorley.

The dilemma isn't trading a first for a Niklas Lidstrom, but trading a first for a player who clearly isn't. Yes getting a 2 karat diamond for $500 bucks would be great, but that's not the price no matter how many times we ask for it.

If the right deal is there the Rangers will make it, but again the last thing this team needs to do is FORCE a trade.

Edge is offline  
Old
02-27-2006, 09:36 PM
  #19
Edge
Registered User
 
Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sin City
Country: United States
Posts: 13,196
vCash: 500
Quote:
A team has maybe a 3-5% chance of drafting a star in the late first round. That doesn't mean that if the team does draft a star, they will succeed. Many bad and average teams have stars. Drafting a star doesn't guarantee anything. He makes your team better - later. As opposed to a star who makes your team better now.
But the whole problem is that your assuming your getting a star for the price you've deemed acceptable (a first). The reality is that no one is offering up a "Star" for that price. Just because you're willing to buy at said price, does not mean someone is willing to sell.

Quote:
What's more important, future or present. The knee-jerk reaction that people think makes them look smart is to say future.

But what's more important is when you have the best shot to win.
Your arguing a hypothetical situation that would need to evaluated on a case by case basis. Right now you're offering up a first rounder for anyone you consider a star. So we'd have to go on a trade by trade basis, without it all we're doing is aruging about some nameless star who may or may not be available, who may or may not be available at the price you've set and who may or may not actually be a legit help to the team.

We've got to get specific about what the deal is or else we're just shadow boxing.

Quote:
And when do the Rangers have a better shot to win, before or after Jagr retires? Before or after he no longer has his Czech-mates? Before or after the Rangers have the salary cap room to go from good to great?
Again it depends on the deal and the player. The impassioned speeches are well and good, but we still haven't even established who the heck we're trading for. Yes I'd like to get a player like that, but it depends on who and how much. Forcing a trade isn't going to help anyone.

I think you've got a good concept in the thread and your argument, but without any specifics there's really no direction to what we're talking about.

It's like asking me "Would you like a pay raise?" The answer could be yes, depending on what the stipulations are. If the cost is a 70 hour work week and I have to divorace my wife than it's not really a good deal.

So again it really depends on the specifics.

Quote:
The Rangers owe it to Jagr and the rest of the team to go for the Cup now that they have the world's best player and a top shelf goalie in Lundqvist. The Kings is more likely to be the next Brodeur than the next Lalime, but who knows, goalies have been known to failed after a couple years - or he may leave as a free agent in a few years now that the age of UFA has been lowered.
The Rangers owe it to themselves to be smart about whatever they do, and shroud that approach in reality not hypothesis.

Quote:
Go for it now while Lundqvist, Jagr and the Czech-mates are all still on the team. Sather should get a top-shelf defenseman, if possible, and I'll sacrifice a first rounder for a real chance at the Cup, even without a guarantee of anything.
And that is great, but vague. Who do you get? What makes you think they only cost is a first?

No one is really objecting to you, but you're not really getting specific either.

Edge is offline  
Old
02-27-2006, 09:40 PM
  #20
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 13,187
vCash: 500
No one wants "a first rounder" for their player. Any deal will cost more than that.

Discussion is moot, because it hinges on who the player being dealt for is and what else is being given up.

Tawnos is offline  
Old
02-27-2006, 09:45 PM
  #21
Edge
Registered User
 
Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sin City
Country: United States
Posts: 13,196
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tawnos
No one wants "a first rounder" for their player. Any deal will cost more than that.

Discussion is moot, because it hinges on who the player being dealt for is and what else is being given up.
EXACTLY.

We'd have to look at what is actually in front of us, and then weigh it. Otherwise we're just taking shots in the dark.

Edge is offline  
Old
02-27-2006, 09:47 PM
  #22
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 13,187
vCash: 500
Another thing to remember: fair value isn't a black and white issue. The dynamics of the negotiating process come into play too. Something that is far too often overlooked because no one wants to admit that their team's guy got talked into something.

Tawnos is offline  
Old
02-27-2006, 10:03 PM
  #23
RGY
(Jagr68NYR94Leetch)
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Long Island, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 9,191
vCash: 500
You mention all these 1st rounders, but yet this is 2006. This is a new generation of hockey players playing in the NHL, plus the Rangers are rebuilding while this new generation takes over which is perfect. Also the Rangers have some of the best scouts in the NHL and have drafted excellent in the last few years thanks to Renney, Maloney, scouts, etc. I'm sorry but I can not go by past mistakes in the 1st round by the Rangers organization because that was a different era. Now there are better scouts, more advanced ways of scouting, and this specific organization has better management for drafts.

RGY is offline  
Old
02-27-2006, 10:14 PM
  #24
BDubinskyNYR17*
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: New York
Posts: 10,761
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to BDubinskyNYR17*
Quote:
Originally Posted by Korpido
all you did was prove that the Rangers management drafted poorly..

Lee Falardeau over Jarret Stoll point proven, we also passed on Tangauy, Bell, Gagne, Fischer, and Gomez in 98 draft all taken later than Malhotra. In 99 we passed up on Boynton, Havlat, Jackman, Leopold to take Lundmark and Brendl.

BDubinskyNYR17* is offline  
Old
02-27-2006, 10:52 PM
  #25
Draft Guru
Registered User
 
Draft Guru's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 6,858
vCash: 920
Quote:
Originally Posted by JOrtmeyer41
Lee Falardeau over Jarret Stoll point proven, we also passed on Tangauy, Bell, Gagne, Fischer, and Gomez in 98 draft all taken later than Malhotra. In 99 we passed up on Boynton, Havlat, Jackman, Leopold to take Lundmark and Brendl.
Hindsight is always 20/20.

At the times of those drafts, any team would have taken Malhotra, Lundmark or Brendl if given the opportunity.

I think this team had more problems to do with DEVELOPING players than DRAFTING players. With Tom Renney in charge we've seen a distinct change in the way this team develops players.

Draft Guru is offline  
Closed Thread

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 02:13 AM.

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

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