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

Great Job, Slats!

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-27-2008, 03:41 PM
  #101
Beacon
Sent to HF Minors
 
Beacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 9,455
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway View Post
Yet somehow the organization is in the best shape it's been in for over a decade...
That's like a guy with a broken leg saying, "at least I'm in the best shape in years because I was in a coma before".

The horrible state of the team doesn't excuse the fact that Slats should've never drafted a goalie, any goalie, in the top 10. Goalies go bust far more than forwards.

People think Blackburn would've been great. Maybe. But do you remember Ryabchikov in 1994? No? Well, neither do most people, but he was supposed to be the Messiah. Storr? Fichaud? Cloutier? All four of them were drafted in the first roun in 1994 and at some point were pumped up as future franchise goalies.

Many goalies look like they have a lot of potential only to mess up after a short period (Hirsch, Lalime). We don't know what Black would've done.

I would like to see half of our first rounders to turn into solid NHLers. If not, the scouting staff must pay with their jobs!

As for second rounders, who did we get since Norstrom in 1992?

1993: Sorochan
1994: Vercik
1995: Dube
1996: Goneau
1997: Jarvis
1998: Copley
1999: Inman
2000: Novak
2001: Tyutin
2002: Falardeau
2003: Baranka
2004: Olver, Byers, Graham, Dubinsky.
2005: Sauer
2006: Anisimov
2007: Lafleur

The only two people in the NHL are Dubinsky and Tyutin. Dubi is looking good, while Tyutin looks like a solid average NHLer, but hardly a game breaker. That's out of18 picks.

Sveral prospects still have a shot: Anisimov, Sauer, Baranka and Byers.

I think we can all agree that Byers won't be more than a role players.

I know some people are hot on Anisimov and Sauer, and to a lesser degree Baranka, but they've proven nothing so far. Anisimov has barely half a point a game. Sauer's top potential is on the second pairing and Baranka's less than that.

Now I get that people will now scream about how great this trio is. You'll defend them just as you defended Lee Sorochan (if you are old enough) or Novak.

Potential means squat. I would like to see some kids make it. We've had more success recently, but we need "mo' better" scouts.

Every scout: Rockstrom, Clearwater, everyone, must be forced to go through a job evaluation right now before the draft to determine if he deserves to stay and give his input on the next draft.

Beacon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-27-2008, 03:48 PM
  #102
Beacon
Sent to HF Minors
 
Beacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 9,455
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manhattan Blue View Post
If you're purely going by region, Christer Rockstrom had NOTHING to do with Pavel Brendl. Brendl was playing in the CHL.

Honestly, you kill Rockstrom for not getting us Zetterberg, Gaborik, Ovechkin, Malkin, etc..but scouting isn't an exact science. Who the hell do you want to replace him with? The fact that this individual would have to be overseas makes your argument weak.
I never mentioned any specific players. I know it's an inexact science. I hate when people put words in my mouth and claim that I've said that we shouldn't have passed on a specific player when I didn't say that.

My problem isn't passing on Tkachuk and Brodeur, or even drafting Stewart in 1990.

My problem is the trend of us not getting anything year in and year out.

Since I went online in 1996, i keep seeing fans write that our drafting used to be poor, but our latest picks are great even though they have proven nothing in the NHL.


Cloutier, Goneau and Vercik are our salvation who'll make up for Stewart and Ferraro.

No, wait, it's Brendl and Lundmark. Oh no, wait, it's Montoya, Korps and Jessiman. Oh no, I meant Sauer and Anisimov. No, really, we mean it this time. Anisimov won't become Dube. How do I know? Well, it's clear as day that Dube was a bust and Anisimov is the second coming of Jesus, and if you don't understand that, you are a moron!

Beacon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-27-2008, 03:49 PM
  #103
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 30,401
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrooklynHockey99 View Post
That's like a guy with a broken leg saying, "at least I'm in the best shape in years because I was in a coma before".

The horrible state of the team doesn't excuse the fact that Slats should've never drafted a goalie, any goalie, in the top 10. Goalies go bust far more than forwards.

People think Blackburn would've been great. Maybe. But do you remember Ryabchikov in 1994? No? Well, neither do most people, but he was supposed to be the Messiah. Storr? Fichaud? Cloutier? All four of them were drafted in the first roun in 1994 and at some point were pumped up as future franchise goalies.

Many goalies look like they have a lot of potential only to mess up after a short period (Hirsch, Lalime). We don't know what Black would've done.

I would like to see half of our first rounders to turn into solid NHLers. If not, the scouting staff must pay with their jobs!

As for second rounders, who did we get since Norstrom in 1992?

1993: Sorochan
1994: Vercik
1995: Dube
1996: Goneau
1997: Jarvis
1998: Copley
1999: Inman
2000: Novak
2001: Tyutin
2002: Falardeau
2003: Baranka
2004: Olver, Byers, Graham, Dubinsky.
2005: Sauer
2006: Anisimov
2007: Lafleur

The only two people in the NHL are Dubinsky and Tyutin. Dubi is looking good, while Tyutin looks like a solid average NHLer, but hardly a game breaker. That's out of18 picks.

Sveral prospects still have a shot: Anisimov, Sauer, Baranka and Byers.

I think we can all agree that Byers won't be more than a role players.

I know some people are hot on Anisimov and Sauer, and to a lesser degree Baranka, but they've proven nothing so far. Anisimov has barely half a point a game. Sauer's top potential is on the second pairing and Baranka's less than that.

Now I get that people will now scream about how great this trio is. You'll defend them just as you defended Lee Sorochan (if you are old enough) or Novak.

Potential means squat. I would like to see some kids make it. We've had more success recently, but we need "mo' better" scouts.

Every scout: Rockstrom, Clearwater, everyone, must be forced to go through a job evaluation right now before the draft to determine if he deserves to stay and give his input on the next draft.
I get your point but you would really have to go back to the Cup year and earlier to find a Ranger organization with more talent than they do now.

Look, I was all for firing Sather. I thought it was a horrible move that he was allowed to trade Brian Leetch. In fact, I would have given him an ultimatum after he fired Trottier and was turned down by Schoenfeld and that would have been, "YOU coach this team. YOU make the playoffs and YOU can keep your job." And I stand by all that.

But you can't argue with the job that he has done since the end of the lockout.

__________________
SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-27-2008, 03:49 PM
  #104
SPG
Registered User
 
SPG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Utica, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 3,916
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrooklynHockey99 View Post
Hey genius, was I talking about random players who are drafted in crap-shoot rounds where you just take random people and can't really expect them to perform? Anything past the second round is just luck.

The first round is the only one that truly shows drafting skill. The second round may do so also, but to a lesser degree. The rest is just luck.
Wow... that might be one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read on this board... and thats the opposite of reality.

"Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul. "

SPG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-27-2008, 03:50 PM
  #105
SPG
Registered User
 
SPG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Utica, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 3,916
vCash: 500
Lets rename this thread: "All beating dead horses talk here"

SPG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-27-2008, 03:56 PM
  #106
Beacon
Sent to HF Minors
 
Beacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 9,455
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by chosen View Post
Montoya.

Milbury was a very good drafter but a horrible trader.
Milbury had an enormous number of top-5 picks, including #1 overall. A strike and a miss still nets you Torres.

Also, choosing DP over Heatley and then losing Luongo essentially for nothing was a gem. Dolan must've had M&M on his payroll.

Beacon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-27-2008, 03:59 PM
  #107
BrooklynRangersFan
Change is good.
 
BrooklynRangersFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brooklyn of course
Country: United States
Posts: 10,885
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrooklynHockey99 View Post
That's like a guy with a broken leg saying, "at least I'm in the best shape in years because I was in a coma before".

The horrible state of the team doesn't excuse the fact that Slats should've never drafted a goalie, any goalie, in the top 10. Goalies go bust far more than forwards.

People think Blackburn would've been great. Maybe. But do you remember Ryabchikov in 1994? No? Well, neither do most people, but he was supposed to be the Messiah. Storr? Fichaud? Cloutier? All four of them were drafted in the first roun in 1994 and at some point were pumped up as future franchise goalies.

Many goalies look like they have a lot of potential only to mess up after a short period (Hirsch, Lalime). We don't know what Black would've done.

I would like to see half of our first rounders to turn into solid NHLers. If not, the scouting staff must pay with their jobs!

As for second rounders, who did we get since Norstrom in 1992?

1993: Sorochan
1994: Vercik
1995: Dube
1996: Goneau
1997: Jarvis
1998: Copley
1999: Inman
2000: Novak
2001: Tyutin
2002: Falardeau
2003: Baranka
2004: Olver, Byers, Graham, Dubinsky.
2005: Sauer
2006: Anisimov
2007: Lafleur

The only two people in the NHL are Dubinsky and Tyutin. Dubi is looking good, while Tyutin looks like a solid average NHLer, but hardly a game breaker. That's out of18 picks.

Sveral prospects still have a shot: Anisimov, Sauer, Baranka and Byers.

I think we can all agree that Byers won't be more than a role players.

I know some people are hot on Anisimov and Sauer, and to a lesser degree Baranka, but they've proven nothing so far. Anisimov has barely half a point a game. Sauer's top potential is on the second pairing and Baranka's less than that.

Now I get that people will now scream about how great this trio is. You'll defend them just as you defended Lee Sorochan (if you are old enough) or Novak.

Potential means squat. I would like to see some kids make it. We've had more success recently, but we need "mo' better" scouts.

Every scout: Rockstrom, Clearwater, everyone, must be forced to go through a job evaluation right now before the draft to determine if he deserves to stay and give his input on the next draft.
Dude. Please get a grip. What do you want? You want Malkin and Ovechkin playing in our minor league system?!?!?! First of all, you need to have not just first round picks, but first OVERALL picks to get those guys. Second of all, they don't play in the minors, they play right away.

If you look at our organization, we've got more good, young homegrown players (Lundqvist, Staal, Tyutin, Girardi, Dubinsky, Dawes, Callahan, Prucha) on the big club than just about any other team I can think of. That includes two budding tops-at-their position stars in Lundqvist & Staal. Even with all those players graduated, our AHL affiliate - one of the youngest in the league, by the way - is third in the league and is chock full of prospects that will someday play in the NHL. In addition, we have some very nice players too young to play in the A, including both Sanguinetti and Cherepanov who look to be potential offensive stars. For the love of God, what more do you want?!?!?!?!

If you want to argue that Sather did a crap job with high picks in the first half of his tenure, I guess that's true, but why are you hung up on something that hasn't been relevant in four years? We all wanted him gone then too! But he didn't leave and since then he's been pretty much the best in the league in both acquiring and developing young talent. You look like a complete fool for suggesting otherwise. It's like you're stuck in 2004 man.

Hell, look at the 2nd round picks you highlighted. Start at 2001 and work your way forward. You realize that half of those players look like they will not only be NHLers, but GOOD NHLers, right? A track record of having half your second round picks play in the show, much less be GOOD in the show, is every GM's dream!

BrooklynRangersFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-27-2008, 04:02 PM
  #108
Beacon
Sent to HF Minors
 
Beacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 9,455
vCash: 500
Do you know why we won in 1994?

No, it's not because we had the highest payroll in the league ($28M after the 1994 deadline acquisitions).

It's because we drafted well in the 1980s: Richter, Leetch, Beezer (lost for Lidster, but still), Zubov, Nemchinov, Weight, Amonte, etc.

Even if we never traded Nichols for Messier, I believe that eventually we'd have won the Cup with guys like Sheppard (lost because Neil literally forgot - FORGOT! - to protect him), Gartner, Graves, Turcotte, Patrick and the guys mentioned above.

And do you know why we've underwhelmed since? Because of drafting.

Why did we get better recently? Again, the additions of draftees: Lundqvist, Tyutin, Dubi, Dawes, Staal. Take them out and where's this team? Competing with LA for the first overall pick probably?

Scouts must have their feet kept to the fire. In 1994, Rocker went to bat for Rudolph Vercik. That should've led the team be more careful with him and to examine his other picks and projections.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway View Post
I get your point but you would really have to go back to the Cup year and earlier to find a Ranger organization with more talent than they do now.

Look, I was all for firing Sather. I thought it was a horrible move that he was allowed to trade Brian Leetch. In fact, I would have given him an ultimatum after he fired Trottier and was turned down by Schoenfeld and that would have been, "YOU coach this team. YOU make the playoffs and YOU can keep your job." And I stand by all that.

But you can't argue with the job that he has done since the end of the lockout.

Beacon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-27-2008, 04:03 PM
  #109
dank
Registered User
 
dank's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: NYC
Posts: 5,867
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrooklynHockey99 View Post
That's like a guy with a broken leg saying, "at least I'm in the best shape in years because I was in a coma before".

The horrible state of the team doesn't excuse the fact that Slats should've never drafted a goalie, any goalie, in the top 10. Goalies go bust far more than forwards.

People think Blackburn would've been great. Maybe. But do you remember Ryabchikov in 1994? No? Well, neither do most people, but he was supposed to be the Messiah. Storr? Fichaud? Cloutier? All four of them were drafted in the first roun in 1994 and at some point were pumped up as future franchise goalies.

Many goalies look like they have a lot of potential only to mess up after a short period (Hirsch, Lalime). We don't know what Black would've done.

I would like to see half of our first rounders to turn into solid NHLers. If not, the scouting staff must pay with their jobs!

As for second rounders, who did we get since Norstrom in 1992?

1993: Sorochan
1994: Vercik
1995: Dube
1996: Goneau
1997: Jarvis
1998: Copley
1999: Inman
2000: Novak
2001: Tyutin
2002: Falardeau
2003: Baranka
2004: Olver, Byers, Graham, Dubinsky.
2005: Sauer
2006: Anisimov
2007: Lafleur

The only two people in the NHL are Dubinsky and Tyutin. Dubi is looking good, while Tyutin looks like a solid average NHLer, but hardly a game breaker. That's out of18 picks.

Sveral prospects still have a shot: Anisimov, Sauer, Baranka and Byers.

I think we can all agree that Byers won't be more than a role players.

I know some people are hot on Anisimov and Sauer, and to a lesser degree Baranka, but they've proven nothing so far. Anisimov has barely half a point a game. Sauer's top potential is on the second pairing and Baranka's less than that.

Now I get that people will now scream about how great this trio is. You'll defend them just as you defended Lee Sorochan (if you are old enough) or Novak.

Potential means squat. I would like to see some kids make it. We've had more success recently, but we need "mo' better" scouts.

Every scout: Rockstrom, Clearwater, everyone, must be forced to go through a job evaluation right now before the draft to determine if he deserves to stay and give his input on the next draft.
riiiight

dank is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-27-2008, 04:06 PM
  #110
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 30,401
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrooklynHockey99 View Post
Do you know why we won in 1994?

No, it's not because we had the highest payroll in the league ($28M after the 1994 deadline acquisitions).

It's because we drafted well in the 1980s: Richter, Leetch, Beezer (lost for Lidster, but still), Zubov, Nemchinov, Weight, Amonte, etc.

Even if we never traded Nichols for Messier, I believe that eventually we'd have won the Cup with guys like Sheppard (lost because Neil literally forgot - FORGOT! - to protect him), Gartner, Graves, Turcotte, Patrick and the guys mentioned above.

And do you know why we've underwhelmed since? Because of drafting.

Why did we get better recently? Again, the additions of draftees: Lundqvist, Tyutin, Dubi, Dawes, Staal. Take them out and where's this team? Competing with LA for the first overall pick probably?

Scouts must have their feet kept to the fire. In 1994, Rocker went to bat for Rudolph Vercik. That should've led the team be more careful with him and to examine his other picks and projections.
I have no idea what your point is.

SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-27-2008, 04:28 PM
  #111
hlundqvist30*
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,520
vCash: 500
Shame on you Sather for not knowing that our 7th round draft pick was going to become a top 5 goalie in the NHL.

For all the crap that Sather pulled pre-lockout, I am extremely thankful for what he has done post lockout. Yes, he got lucky that he got some gems in Lundqvist, Prucha, etc. That doesn't take away from what he has done. Girardi, Dawes in the 5th round, Cally in the 3rd round, Dubinsky in the 2nd round, trading up for Staal, essentially stealing Bourret. Acquiring Rucchin and Sykora for peanuts. Signing Shanny. Replenishing the whole farm system. Locking up 2 quality centers long term. Not giving up the youth for old rentals. He has truly stuck to his plan. As bad as that draft might have been, or as bad as he was pre-lockout, Sather has been easily a top 10 GM since. In 2004 we got Dubinsky, Callahan, and Byers. Greatest return ever? No, but Dubinsky will be an important piece for us for the next 6+ years, Callahan has been very good for us and will either be a great depth forward or good trade bait, and Byers could become a great depth player. If in 1 draft you can acquire a 2nd line center, a 3rd line winger, and a 4th line winger, you did a decent job. Was it his best draft ever? Clearly not. But it was far from a 100% total disaster and he has made up for it and plenty more with Dawes, Lundqvist, Prucha, Cherepanov, Sanguinetti, and maybe eventually Hagelin and Campbell.

Check back on the 2nd round in 2004 and name me 1 player that was drafted in the whole round better than Dubinsky (60th pick of the draft). I'll help you out. Aside from him the top players drafted are Dave Bolland, Blake Comeau, and Johan Fransson.

hlundqvist30* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-27-2008, 04:42 PM
  #112
Tomas Sandstrom 28
Registered User
 
Tomas Sandstrom 28's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 553
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrooklynHockey99 View Post
That's why only retards like Mike Milbury draft goalies in the top 10. I remember when Jamie Storr got drafted at #8, it was considered a reach even though he was considered a future superstar.

Goalies go bust like that's no tomorrow. You never draft a goalie in the top-10 because for every solid starter, there will be 5 minor leaguers and another 10 backups.

Even defensemen are a reach due to the high risk. Look at Leetch. Everyone had a feeling he might be a superstar, yet he still slipped to #9.

Some GMs think they're smarter than everyone else and draft D/G very early.

But even when that works out, your team is still probably better off with Heatley than DiPietro (well, especially if you already have Luongo... M&M was the worst long-term GM in the league's history. I mean it. I can't think of a single GM who held his job for 10 years and did such an atrocious job. If he made no trades and just drafted the consensus guy, Isles would've definitely won the Cup at some point).

I agree with you the rangers drafting in the 1st two rounds for the last few years has been below average. But I submit that their later round drafting has been above average. I think its contradictory to say that success in later rounds is solely contributed to luck, while failure in early rounds is solely contributed to lack of skill. surely bad luck (ie cherneski, blackburn) can be just as much to blame for early round failures as good luck attributed to late rounds.

Does a first round pick have a higher probablility of making it to the NHL than a late pick? of course. But its still just a probability. Like I said earlier, all you can do is scout as much as you can and hope to make the most educated guess you can. for the record, I am also against drafting goalies in the top ten, in general.

Tomas Sandstrom 28 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-27-2008, 05:00 PM
  #113
Pizza
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,368
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrooklynHockey99 View Post
The horrible state of the team doesn't excuse the fact that Slats should've never drafted a goalie, any goalie, in the top 10. [/B]
Your engaging in a bit of hype here Brooklyn and overstating things just a tad, IMO.

I'll grant you that Sather & Co. have made their share of flubs, especially pre-purge.

But, since the spring of '04 they have done a pretty solid job. The proof will be on the ice tomorrow night. IMHO, any team that is competative and has solid young players like:

Hank
Tyutin
Staal
Girardi
Dubinsky
Dawes
Callahan
Prucha
Betts
Orr
and Hollweg on the roster and contributing is far from a disaster.

Do things need to be improved? Yes. Could the drafting be better? Yes.

But this team and the Org. are light years better than they were just a few years ago.

Pizza is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-27-2008, 06:21 PM
  #114
nyr2k2
Can't Beat Him
 
nyr2k2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Country: United States
Posts: 24,533
vCash: 50
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrooklynHockey99 View Post
Do you know why we won in 1994?

No, it's not because we had the highest payroll in the league ($28M after the 1994 deadline acquisitions).

It's because we drafted well in the 1980s: Richter, Leetch, Beezer (lost for Lidster, but still), Zubov, Nemchinov, Weight, Amonte, etc.

Even if we never traded Nichols for Messier, I believe that eventually we'd have won the Cup with guys like Sheppard (lost because Neil literally forgot - FORGOT! - to protect him), Gartner, Graves, Turcotte, Patrick and the guys mentioned above.

And do you know why we've underwhelmed since? Because of drafting.

Why did we get better recently? Again, the additions of draftees: Lundqvist, Tyutin, Dubi, Dawes, Staal. Take them out and where's this team? Competing with LA for the first overall pick probably?

Scouts must have their feet kept to the fire. In 1994, Rocker went to bat for Rudolph Vercik. That should've led the team be more careful with him and to examine his other picks and projections.
Uh, we won in 1994 because we had a good nucleus, but mainly because we added Glenn Anderson, Craig MacTavish, Stephane Matteau and Brian Noonan. And that came after adding Tik, Graves, Beukeboom et al... Chalking it up to "good drafting in the 80s" is kinda ridiculous.

__________________

It's just pain.
nyr2k2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-27-2008, 06:32 PM
  #115
TheRedressor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Country: United Nations
Posts: 3,737
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrooklynHockey99 View Post
Do you know why we won in 1994?

No, it's not because we had the highest payroll in the league ($28M after the 1994 deadline acquisitions).

It's because we drafted well in the 1980s: Richter, Leetch, Beezer (lost for Lidster, but still), Zubov, Nemchinov, Weight, Amonte, etc.

Even if we never traded Nichols for Messier, I believe that eventually we'd have won the Cup with guys like Sheppard (lost because Neil literally forgot - FORGOT! - to protect him), Gartner, Graves, Turcotte, Patrick and the guys mentioned above.

And do you know why we've underwhelmed since? Because of drafting.

Why did we get better recently? Again, the additions of draftees: Lundqvist, Tyutin, Dubi, Dawes, Staal. Take them out and where's this team? Competing with LA for the first overall pick probably?

Scouts must have their feet kept to the fire. In 1994, Rocker went to bat for Rudolph Vercik. That should've led the team be more careful with him and to examine his other picks and projections.
You just lost all credibility.

TheRedressor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-27-2008, 06:45 PM
  #116
nyr2k2
Can't Beat Him
 
nyr2k2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Country: United States
Posts: 24,533
vCash: 50
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheRedressor View Post
You just lost all credibility.
Seriously. The '94 team had excellent homegrown talent, but without all of our veteran imports we were going nowhere.

nyr2k2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-27-2008, 06:48 PM
  #117
Beacon
Sent to HF Minors
 
Beacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 9,455
vCash: 500
Where did I say Malkin or Ovechkin?

You put words in my mouth and then argue against your own strawman argument.

I don't want Ovechkin. But how about a new Nedved? Or at least a new Nemchinov?

I am not stuck in 2004. I just don't have any trust in the organization after hearing our prospects pumped up every time only to find out 2-3 years later that the prospects were crap and now I have to fall for a new set of prospects as saviors who also turn into crap 2-3 years ago.


Quote:
Originally Posted by BrooklynRangersFan View Post
Dude. Please get a grip. What do you want? You want Malkin and Ovechkin playing in our minor league system?!?!?! First of all, you need to have not just first round picks, but first OVERALL picks to get those guys. Second of all, they don't play in the minors, they play right away.

If you look at our organization, we've got more good, young homegrown players (Lundqvist, Staal, Tyutin, Girardi, Dubinsky, Dawes, Callahan, Prucha) on the big club than just about any other team I can think of. That includes two budding tops-at-their position stars in Lundqvist & Staal. Even with all those players graduated, our AHL affiliate - one of the youngest in the league, by the way - is third in the league and is chock full of prospects that will someday play in the NHL. In addition, we have some very nice players too young to play in the A, including both Sanguinetti and Cherepanov who look to be potential offensive stars. For the love of God, what more do you want?!?!?!?!

If you want to argue that Sather did a crap job with high picks in the first half of his tenure, I guess that's true, but why are you hung up on something that hasn't been relevant in four years? We all wanted him gone then too! But he didn't leave and since then he's been pretty much the best in the league in both acquiring and developing young talent. You look like a complete fool for suggesting otherwise. It's like you're stuck in 2004 man.

Hell, look at the 2nd round picks you highlighted. Start at 2001 and work your way forward. You realize that half of those players look like they will not only be NHLers, but GOOD NHLers, right? A track record of having half your second round picks play in the show, much less be GOOD in the show, is every GM's dream!

Beacon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-27-2008, 06:51 PM
  #118
Beacon
Sent to HF Minors
 
Beacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 9,455
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrooklynRangersFan View Post

Hell, look at the 2nd round picks you highlighted. Start at 2001 and work your way forward. You realize that half of those players look like they will not only be NHLers, but GOOD NHLers, right? A track record of having half your second round picks play in the show, much less be GOOD in the show, is every GM's dream!
I've heard this song before. In 1994, in 1997, in 2000, in 2003. Every few years, it's a new crop of prospects who "WILL" be good NHLers. And it never works out. I don't want to know who "WILL" become a good NHLer. I want results.

Beacon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-27-2008, 06:52 PM
  #119
hlundqvist30*
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,520
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrooklynHockey99 View Post
Where did I say Malkin or Ovechkin?

You put words in my mouth and then argue against your own strawman argument.

I don't want Ovechkin. But how about a new Nedved? Or at least a new Nemchinov?

I am not stuck in 2004. I just don't have any trust in the organization after hearing our prospects pumped up every time only to find out 2-3 years later that the prospects were crap and now I have to fall for a new set of prospects as saviors who also turn into crap 2-3 years ago.
Lol a new Nedved. I just died.Screw you Slats. We don't want Staal or Dubinsky. We want a new Nedved.

hlundqvist30* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-27-2008, 07:29 PM
  #120
bleedrngrblue
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Fayetteville,N.C.
Country: United States
Posts: 792
vCash: 500
What gets lost in all this is that even the top organizations are at less than 50% in drafting top talent in the first round! The problem with the Rangers is they tend to go for the higher risk/reward players than the surer picks. This was a direct result of their FA feeding frenzy over the years, and left the cupboards barren. I think even Sather will admit that before the lockout, it was easier for the Rangers to gamble on the lesser known and coveted picks, because if things didn't work out, they could go deep in their pockets to fix it. Now, Sather is running the Rangers like the well oiled machine he had in Edmonton, but he has the resources to keep the players instead of having to say goodbye as they earn higher salaries. I blame Slats for alot of pre lockout BS moves and choices...but the past couple seasons or so they have done their homework, at least outwardly, and have instituted successful applications throughout the organization to keep the kids productive and on the road to improvement!

bleedrngrblue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-27-2008, 07:35 PM
  #121
SPG
Registered User
 
SPG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Utica, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 3,916
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrooklynHockey99 View Post
Where did I say Malkin or Ovechkin?

You put words in my mouth and then argue against your own strawman argument.

I don't want Ovechkin. But how about a new Nedved? Or at least a new Nemchinov?

I am not stuck in 2004. I just don't have any trust in the organization after hearing our prospects pumped up every time only to find out 2-3 years later that the prospects were crap and now I have to fall for a new set of prospects as saviors who also turn into crap 2-3 years ago.
w.t.f.??? a new NEDVED??? LMFAO!

Wow man. Lay off the bottle.

That coupled with the Messier comment means credibility = 0

SPG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-27-2008, 07:48 PM
  #122
Beacon
Sent to HF Minors
 
Beacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 9,455
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway View Post
I have no idea what your point is.
The idea is the same as throughout this post. Some scouts need to get replaced.

Beacon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-27-2008, 07:52 PM
  #123
hlundqvist30*
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,520
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrooklynHockey99 View Post
The idea is the same as throughout this post. Some scouts need to get replaced.
The only "idea" I got from your rambling is that Mark Messier did not win us the cup, but Sergei Nemchinov did. Also, no matter what franchise pieces our team drafts, the scouts are worthless until we draft a new Petr Nedved.

hlundqvist30* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-27-2008, 07:53 PM
  #124
Beacon
Sent to HF Minors
 
Beacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 9,455
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nyr2k2 View Post
Uh, we won in 1994 because we had a good nucleus, but mainly because we added Glenn Anderson, Craig MacTavish, Stephane Matteau and Brian Noonan. And that came after adding Tik, Graves, Beukeboom et al... Chalking it up to "good drafting in the 80s" is kinda ridiculous.
We were the best team in the NHL even before the March trades.

Glenn Anderson was a total waste. Gartner for Anderson was one of the worst trades that year.

Players like Matteau, Noonan, MacTavish, Tikkanen were brought in for our draft picks who had already shown real promise. No good drafting, no Tikkanen or Matteau.

I have no doubt that if no trades were made in 1992-94, we'd still have won the Cup, if not in 1994, then in the following years.

Graves - Messier - Kovalev
Tikkanen - Weight - Gartner
Nemchinov - Turcotte - Amonte
Gilbert, Olczyk, Hudson, Kocur and Kypreos to round up the roster.

Leetch - Beuk
Zubov - Lowe
Karp, Wells, Norstrom

Richter
Healy

That's a very good line up, full of extremely talented youth, many of whom went on to become All Stars.

Beacon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-27-2008, 07:54 PM
  #125
Forever Blue
Registered User
 
Forever Blue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 1,063
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrooklynHockey99 View Post
I've heard this song before. In 1994, in 1997, in 2000, in 2003. Every few years, it's a new crop of prospects who "WILL" be good NHLers. And it never works out. I don't want to know who "WILL" become a good NHLer. I want results.
Lundqvist has given some pretty good results, so have Tyutin and Girardi, and Staal and Dubinsky are off to a fantastic start.

It's almost impossible to believe this thread actually exists. This organization is in very good shape. It's been years since the Rangers have had in house talent like Lundqvist, Staal, Dubinsky, Tyutin, Girardi, Cherepanov, Sanguinetti, Dawes, Callahan, Anisimov, Sauer to name a few.

Forever Blue 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 09:02 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.