Personally I think if Dubinsky is a second line center, Korpikoski a third/maybe second line winger, Callahan a third line winger and Byers a fourth liner who chips in points, the 2004 draft will be a success to me.
The question is about having guys who just play in the NHL, the question is about having guys who bring value to your team.
If the Rangers get four guys who contribute on a nightly basis for one draft, that's a very good draft.
Obviously the Montoya pick didn't work out, but I also don't think it was a reach under the circumstances. Without Lundqvist, he's probably on our roster as well.
I think the 2004 draft will be remembered for two things:
1. A strong draft by the Rangers.
2. A perfect example of why having more picks increases your odds.
Billy Ryan doesn't really look like an NHL player to me.
See, that's why I wrote that Sather should trade #20 for a later first rounder, a second rounder and a mid-round pick. Meanwhile, many responses were some irrelevant BS about us needing stars as if #20 is expected to be that.
Are you thinking about the Rangers in 2004 with 6 of the first 60 picks and only Dubinsky to show for it?
Also Callahan in the fourth round. Byers was a second round pick who should be a solid fourth liner, though I hate the fact that they wasted a second rounder on a player who would never have been more than interchangeable parts. Also probably Korps will make it.
The biggest disappointment was obviously Monty. I distinctly remember yelling at the TV when they chose him. Anyone who had done any homework on our prospects should've known even then that Lundqvist was special. He was already dominating Sweden at a very young age.
After that, the draft went ok.
When all is said and done, at least one kid (Dubi, Korps or Callahan) will establish himself as a solid second liner, maybe even two of them. All in all, we will have gotten 4 forwards out of one draft, plus Sjorstrom for Montoya, which makes it 5. That's not too bad.
Also Callahan in the fourth round. Byers was a second round pick who should be a solid fourth liner, though I hate the fact that they wasted a second rounder on a player who would never have been more than interchangeable parts. Also probably Korps will make it.
The biggest disappointment was obviously Monty. I distinctly remember yelling at the TV when they chose him. Anyone who had done any homework on our prospects should've known even then that Lundqvist was special. He was already dominating Sweden at a very young age.
After that, the draft went ok.
When all is said and done, at least one kid (Dubi, Korps or Callahan) will establish himself as a solid second liner, maybe even two of them. All in all, we will have gotten 4 forwards out of one draft, plus Sjorstrom for Montoya, which makes it 5. That's not too bad.
at was at that draft party...blackburn on stage, and your right, lundqvist was known. but at the time it made sense seeing they didn't know if danny would ever be able to come back from the injury.
at was at that draft party...blackburn on stage, and your right, lundqvist was known. but at the time it made sense seeing they didn't know if danny would ever be able to come back from the injury.
I still think we will be disappointed in 2 or 3 years that we didn't hold onto Montoya for another year or so to see if he bounced back. I think he is still going to be a starting goalie, or at least like a Biron. It may take time, but eventually... I feel like we bought high and sold low.
Personally I think Ryan's worth an AHL contract. While he didn't have a good year, he was on an awful team and of course had the hip injury.
The thing that still intrigues me with him is his offensive instinct. Ryan has an above average shot and offensive awareness IMO and that's the kind of thing I'd be willing to take a chance on.
The part that has disappointed me a little, and perhaps contributed to his struggles, is that he's not as strong as you'd like him to be. He's kind of a little immature body wise, may be something he is growing out of, or is still growing out of.
To me there's little risk in signing him to an AHL contract, and there's still a chance that he pulls it together.
The biggest disappointment was obviously Monty. I distinctly remember yelling at the TV when they chose him. Anyone who had done any homework on our prospects should've known even then that Lundqvist was special. He was already dominating Sweden at a very young age.
Taking Montoya had nothing to do with not thinking Lundqvist special, it was giving yourself one more top option with the knowledge that Blackburn was probably on his way out.
I think most experts knew Lundqvist had the potential to be an NHL starter, but it wasn't a forgone conclusion he would be one of the top goalies in the entire sport let alone reach that level so quickly.
I have no problem with the context in which he was taken. Personally, I would've preferred Olesz but I was okay with the pick. Obviously it didn't work out, but I have no problem with the circumstances.
Taking Montoya had nothing to do with not thinking Lundqvist special, it was giving yourself one more top option with the knowledge that Blackburn was probably on his way out.
I think most experts knew Lundqvist had the potential to be an NHL starter, but it wasn't a forgone conclusion he would be one of the top goalies in the entire sport let alone reach that level so quickly.
I have no problem with the context in which he was taken. Personally, I would've preferred Olesz but I was okay with the pick. Obviously it didn't work out, but I have no problem with the circumstances.
I don't believe the Rangers were convinced they would be able to bring him over at that point.
I don't believe the Rangers were convinced they would be able to bring him over at that point.
Also something worth mentioning.
By 2004 they had tried, I believe, two years in a row to bring him over with little success.
While it's easy to look back now and say that Henrik was destined for the NHL, the Rangers at that time were looking at a player who easily could've spent the rest of his career in Europe, lived like a Rock Star and been paid a pretty good amount of money playing close to home and with a twin brother.
From a third person perspective it's very easy to say "He wants to play in North America" but when you're in the sports business, you can't always go with what someone says to you. If you do, you're not going to be in the business for very long. It's not that everyone is a soul-less liar, it's that life happens. People get other opportunities, priorities change and so do situations.
If you know Lundy is special, you shouldn't waste a #7 pick on another goalie.
First, goalies are the highest risk of any position.
Second, fill one of the many positions that were open. If you have just one position that has a hole, you may not want to go for that position because that player may not be anywhere near the best one available. But when pretty much every skater position had glaring holes, you should just avoid the high-risk goalies and draft the best available skater.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edge
Taking Montoya had nothing to do with not thinking Lundqvist special, it was giving yourself one more top option with the knowledge that Blackburn was probably on his way out.
I think most experts knew Lundqvist had the potential to be an NHL starter, but it wasn't a forgone conclusion he would be one of the top goalies in the entire sport let alone reach that level so quickly.
I have no problem with the context in which he was taken. Personally, I would've preferred Olesz but I was okay with the pick. Obviously it didn't work out, but I have no problem with the circumstances.
If you know Lundy is special, you shouldn't waste a #7 pick on another goalie.
First, goalies are the highest risk of any position.
Second, fill one of the many positions that were open. If you have just one position that has a hole, you may not want to go for that position because that player may not be anywhere near the best one available. But when pretty much every skater position had glaring holes, you should just avoid the high-risk goalies and draft the best available skater.
well if i remember correctly montoya was picked 6th overall....and i wouldnt say that it was a wasted pick, you can never have enough really good goaltenders, and montoya is still young....look at how detroit just won the cup, with osgood and hasek. two really good goalies who played based on who was hotter at that moment. when traded montoya we just found a trade that sather felt was good to make. and we had no need for montoya anymore, he was probably close to being atleast a backup in the NHL. Lundqvist just signed his contract extension. and even though i wasnt very happy with them picking Montoya it was the right move to make because looking back at the draft, the only first round picks to make it to the NHL have been Ovechkin (1) Malkin(2) Barker (3) Ladd (4) Olesz (5) Smid (9) Stafford (13) Radulov (15) Nokelainen(16) Zajac (20) Wolski(21) Kaspar (22) Meszaros (23) Schultz (27) Green (29) but now out of those guys the only ones to have major impacts on their teams were ovechkin malkin radulov meszaros green. all the others play parts on their respective teams but its all woulda coulda shoulda.
If you know Lundy is special, you shouldn't waste a #7 pick on another goalie.
First of all, at the time you don't know how special Lundqvist is.
Secondly, if the Rangers felt Montoya was the real and the best player available (which they were not even close to being alone on) then you take that player.
Quote:
First, goalies are the highest risk of any position.
Second, fill one of the many positions that were open. If you have just one position that has a hole, you may not want to go for that position because that player may not be anywhere near the best one available. But when pretty much every skater position had glaring holes, you should just avoid the high-risk goalies and draft the best available skater.
You draft who you believe the best player available if, period end of sentence. If it's close, obviously you're going to consider the player who fits your needs but if you have Montoya rated considerably higher, than you wouldn't do that.
Furthermore, the Rangers in 2004 weren't as exactly set as they are now. Lundqvist was certainly seen as a very good goalie, but there weren't too many people around the NHL projecting him to be one of the top 5 goalies right off the bat.
Also, outside of Lundqvist, who exactly did the Rangers have? In 2004, pre-lockout and coming out of a fire sale, the Rangers had holes at just about every single position including goalie (with the Blackburn situation).
So at that point in time, the Rangers had Lundqvist and not a whole hell of a lot else. This was pre-Weekes, pre-Lundqvist even in North America.
Obviously in four years later we know exactly what we have in net, but in you had that kind of vision back in 2004 that you are a truly gifted individual.
