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

A Question for the "In Clark We Trust" Crowd

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-26-2010, 01:49 AM
  #26
Inferno
HFB Partner
 
Inferno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Atlanta, GA
Country: United States
Posts: 19,997
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrandNewDream View Post
The deal had to be there. Plus, the other teams could have known the Rangers coveted McIlrath and that Fowler and Gormley would be there anyway.
speculation on your part.

regardless.

if the rangers traded down, they could have gotten 1 of Forbort, Fowler, Gormley, Mcilrath, Tarasenko, Kuznetsov, etc

They woudl STILL have gotten a heck of a player. it makes no sense to reach for a pick at 10. not unless the Rangers SERIOUSLY think this guy is the second coming of Scott Stevens.

Even if he is, im still not convinced this is correct asset management, not unless you give me definitive proof someone was going to take him over the other players mentioned.

Inferno is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-26-2010, 01:49 AM
  #27
JimmyStart*
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,569
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyviper87 View Post
Del Zotto making the NHL team.

Stepan being the 5th leading scorer in all of college hockey as a sophomore and leading the WJC in points.

Kreider getting 6 goals in 7 games at the WJC while also playing for Team USA at the World Championships.

Grachev scoring 40 goals in his first season in North America.

Weise becoming a solid prospect from the 4th round.

Trade for Chad Johnson.
Someone who doesn't value prospect development at all will take the easy answer and simply dismiss your response with "They haven't made it yet". But obviously the point is that Stepan didn't have a dissappointing year as a kid who barely scored or play, kreider didn't simply ride the bench all year as a frosh, Grachev didn't sturggle to adjust to the NA game his first year and is now in the AHL as a 19 year old. If those prospects had met the low end of expectation then you can say "Don't mention the prospects" but with the success they have achieved as prospects so far it is rationale to point to them as things the scouts have done. If they all bust we can all from now on say "Clark sux fire him and sather" right now there is no evidence to suggect Clark sux...all evidence of what he has done points to the contrary. No scouting staff will have a 100% success rate.

Sangs, potter and sauer, weise and byers are on their last chance but you already have artem and mdz, not to mention Staal, Girardi, Cally, Dubs. If just 2 of the 5 i mentioned succeed this year you have 6/10 1st-4th rounders. You do have to mention others like Dupont, etc. But I'm looking at the guys who have at some point in their development shown they can be players for this club. a Guy like Kreider or Werek showed they can be a part of the club in the future. Stajcer has not yet done that. Cherepanov's heart thing can't be counted against the rangers, that would be like counting a car accident against a scouting staff. There are a lot more positives to look at than negatives in my opinion with prospects and this team recently.

It's a matter of opinion how you want to interpret the evidence available though. I feel it's an easy way out to say "They aren't up yet" because it conveneiently ignores how they are playing as prospects...but it is also logical to sit and wait for them to make the team without actually watching or reading about the prospects at all prior to seeing them in the NHL.

JimmyStart* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-26-2010, 01:56 AM
  #28
ThisYearsModel
Registered User
 
ThisYearsModel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Country: United States
Posts: 6,890
vCash: 500
Clark should be our GM. I am warming up to this pick. Perhaps he can find another HS kid like Kreider in the second round.

ThisYearsModel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-26-2010, 01:57 AM
  #29
BrandNewDream
Registered User
 
BrandNewDream's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Bayonne, NJ
Country: Poland
Posts: 1,278
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inferno272 View Post
speculation on your part.

regardless.

if the rangers traded down, they could have gotten 1 of Forbort, Fowler, Gormley, Mcilrath, Tarasenko, Kuznetsov, etc

They woudl STILL have gotten a heck of a player. it makes no sense to reach for a pick at 10. not unless the Rangers SERIOUSLY think this guy is the second coming of Scott Stevens.

Even if he is, im still not convinced this is correct asset management, not unless you give me definitive proof someone was going to take him over the other players mentioned.
Speculation on your part that the deal was even POSSIBLE. If the the teams just below them did not agree to what the Rangers were offering, the Rangers are left where they started.

BrandNewDream is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-26-2010, 01:59 AM
  #30
The Thomas J.*
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Staten Island, NY
Posts: 18,847
vCash: 500
I have to be honest, outside of the top names in the draft I really had no idea who the Rangers were going to take. But I did expect them to take a forward, so this move to me is a real head scrather.

How many Defensemen does this team need. The only thing I can think of is that Sather & Co. feel that out of Krieder, Steppan & Grachev they feel 2 out of the 3 or all 3 will be with the team in 1 to 3 years & they will continue to build the team from the goalie out & shore uo the Defense with as many kids as possible.

Don't get me wrong, I LOVE the idea that we are building within & have a lot of youth & are giving these guys time to develop.This pick really blindsided me though.

The Thomas J.* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-26-2010, 01:59 AM
  #31
RangerBlues
Registered User
 
RangerBlues's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: BRONX NYC
Posts: 1,572
vCash: 500
Cherepanov was taking performance drugs. Never tested and most likely supplied by the coaching staff.
Another faker.

RangerBlues is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-26-2010, 02:00 AM
  #32
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 Inferno272 View Post
speculation on your part.

regardless.

if the rangers traded down, they could have gotten 1 of Forbort, Fowler, Gormley, Mcilrath, Tarasenko, Kuznetsov, etc

They woudl STILL have gotten a heck of a player. it makes no sense to reach for a pick at 10. not unless the Rangers SERIOUSLY think this guy is the second coming of Scott Stevens.

Even if he is, im still not convinced this is correct asset management, not unless you give me definitive proof someone was going to take him over the other players mentioned.
Agreed.

It's one of two scenarios for me.

1. They think he is a big, nasty defenseman and they like him over the other guys. (I don't agree with that assessment).

2. They think he's got a ton of upside and is more than just a big, nasty defenseman. (Don't agree with that either).

So either way, I just don't agree with them on this one.

Edge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-26-2010, 02:03 AM
  #33
XLJ
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: United States
Posts: 1,358
vCash: 500
I think overall Clark is doing a good job building up the system. It doesn't really change my opinion on him. I just think he made a mistake this time.
I hate the pick, Fowler was a top 5 talent to pass on him was dumb. Or I was hoping they would draft Tarasenko if they were going to pass on Fowler. They are loaded with young defensemen in there system adding a skilled forward would of been the better idea on how to improve their team.

XLJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-26-2010, 02:08 AM
  #34
RangerBlues
Registered User
 
RangerBlues's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: BRONX NYC
Posts: 1,572
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edge View Post
Agreed.

It's one of two scenarios for me.

1. They think he is a big, nasty defenseman and they like him over the other guys. (I don't agree with that assessment).

2. They think he's got a ton of upside and is more than just a big, nasty defenseman. (Don't agree with that either).

So either way, I just don't agree with them on this one.

My question is where did he fall on the draft chart.
Was this BPA?
Did they covet him so much that they felt he would not be there if they traded down.
Either one of those things screams stupidity at the highest level.

RangerBlues is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-26-2010, 02:15 AM
  #35
Inferno
HFB Partner
 
Inferno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Atlanta, GA
Country: United States
Posts: 19,997
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerBlues View Post
My question is where did he fall on the draft chart.
Was this BPA?
Did they covet him so much that they felt he would not be there if they traded down.
Either one of those things screams stupidity at the highest level.
they must have had him ranked higher than Fowler or Gormley...which is amazing.

but from reading between the lines it seems like they drafted for need here rather than BPA...

Inferno is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-26-2010, 02:23 AM
  #36
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 Inferno272 View Post
they must have had him ranked higher than Fowler or Gormley...which is amazing.

but from reading between the lines it seems like they drafted for need here rather than BPA...
And that possibility concerns me.

Because for the life of me, I just can't imagine him being the BPA. And if they are drafting for need, I don't know if I'd call him particularly unique.

It just seems like a stretch to me.

In this case, "trust" and "agree with" are not the same.

Edge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-26-2010, 04:33 AM
  #37
jniklast
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Country: Germany
Posts: 4,713
vCash: 500
When I first read who the Rangers drafted I was very pissed, but now that I have seen how the draft went I'm not that angry anymore, albeit I still have my doubts.

I'm pretty sure the Rangers originally wanted to draft a forward, but in the end at #10 there really was only one forward left that was clearly better than the defensemen (including Mcilrath) and that was of course Tarasenko. But then they had interviewed him and must have had some doubts, because clearly they didn't pass on him because of skill.

So that leaves four defensemen (Fowler, Gormley, Forbort and Mcilrath) that probably were the BPA (apart from Campbell whom we simply don't need), but Mcilrath was definitely last on my chart. So why did they take him? The fact that apparently other teams wanted him as well (McKenzie saying he would have definitely been gone by #15) gives me some faith. And of course the fact that so many teams (and some of them with not exactly strong bluelines) passed on Fowler and Gormley also makes me wonder if they really were regarded that high by the scouts.

In the end I give Clark and his staff the benefit of the doubt. His past record justifies that imo, and how this one turns out - we will just have to wait and see. I think at the very least he will fill a need in a few years, but usually you don't pick players like him at #10, you either find them later in the draft or you sign them as UFA.

As for trading down to draft him: I don't think that was really possible. Assuming McKenzie was right with Mcilrath being gone at #15, that leaves four potential trade partners. But if you look at each one, you will notice that none of them really had any incencitives to move up, and thus probably none of them wanted to give up anything:
Dallas wanted a goalie, and they knew we wouldn't pick one, so no need to trade down. Anaheim wanted one of Fowler and Gormley, and they probably knew we wouldn't take them the moment we ask them for that trade. Same goes for Phoenix, and St. Louis apparently wanted a forward (quite understandable with their blueline), so they had no need to trade up either.

So let's hope the pick won't haunt us in the future, I was definitely disappointed that we didn't get a forward, but that was more due to nearly all teams before us taking one. Now I just hope they take one with high upside at #40 (I wouldn't even mind Kabanov anymore) and not Beukeboom because of his name...

jniklast is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-26-2010, 06:13 AM
  #38
jas
Unsatisfied
 
jas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NJ
Posts: 13,048
vCash: 500
I still trust Gordie, but, he's spending a lot of capital with me on this one. I find it hard to believe McIlrath was the BPA at 10. Even if you don't like Fowler per se, I think he still has greater value at this point.

This kid HAS to become Weber/Jovanoski for this pick to be deemed a good pick.

jas is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-26-2010, 06:24 AM
  #39
DarthSather99
Registered User
 
DarthSather99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 3,260
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmoak View Post
Exactly what has any Gordie Clark-drafted player done for the Rangers that has earned such a high level of trust?
Being it takes players 5-7 years to develop, especially where the NYR pick, you judge the players he picked based on their performance against their peers. As others have said, there is high level success.

Remember Clarke has not been here that long.

DarthSather99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-26-2010, 06:31 AM
  #40
GAGLine
Registered User
 
GAGLine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 9,162
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Synergy27 View Post
Does the McIlrath pick in any way have you re-evaluating some of Clark's other picks in recent years who have yet to make it to the NHL. I'm talking guys like Werek and Grachev who most of us feel will be solid contributors relatively soon. If we all think Clark missed big time this year, does that put any doubt into what he was seeing the last couple of years?
Absolutely not. Werek was drafted LAST YEAR. If you expected him to be in the NHL by now, then you were the only one. And Grachev is still considered a very good prospect by scouts around the league, as he was rated 21st overall in THN's future watch. He was only drafted 2 years ago and he was close to making the team last year.

The selection of McIlrath doesn't make me reevaluate Clark's prior picks. His prior picks makes me reevaluate McIlrath. If Clark thinks this kid will be a hard hitting, crease clearing shutdown dman, then I will give him the benefit of the doubt.

It occurred to me last night that my reaction to this pick was the same as when the Giants picked Luke Pettigout. It was expected that the Giants would pick a tackle and two tackles had fallen to them: L.J. Shelton and Aaron Gibson. The Giants took Pettigout and my friends and I couldn't believe it. We didn't even know who he was. But Pettigout ended up being the best of the three.

Now we were all expecting the Rangers to take a forward last night, but other than Tarasenko, every forward that we might have wanted was gone by the 10th pick (Unless you were hoping for Etem or Bjustad). But when two dmen fell to the 10th pick, Fowler and Gormly, we all thought they might jump on one of them. Well, they took a dman, but not the one any of us expected. Again, I'll give Clark the benefit of the doubt on this one that McIlrath will end up being better (and least for what we need) than Fowler and Gormly).

GAGLine is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-26-2010, 06:34 AM
  #41
beastly115
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 10,424
vCash: 500
The only thing that's keeping me somewhat sane with this pick is:

- Clark's done a good job drafting since he's been here.

- McKenzie, one of the most respected and knowledgeable hockey analysts in the business had him ranked 15th. So taking him at 10 wasn't that much of a stretch.

- Numerous other mock drafts had him going around 15. They obviously see something that we don't.

- Anaheim, Dallas, and Florida also really wanted him. So now not only does Clark's scouting crew like him, there's 3 other team's scouts that liked this guy.

I don't like the pick. I would have rather had Fowler or Tarasenko, but obviously the scouts know something we don't. I'll live with it.

beastly115 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-26-2010, 06:38 AM
  #42
jas
Unsatisfied
 
jas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NJ
Posts: 13,048
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GAGLine View Post
Absolutely not. Werek was drafted LAST YEAR. If you expected him to be in the NHL by now, then you were the only one. And Grachev is still considered a very good prospect by scouts around the league, as he was rated 21st overall in THN's future watch. He was only drafted 2 years ago and he was close to making the team last year.

The selection of McIlrath doesn't make me reevaluate Clark's prior picks. His prior picks makes me reevaluate McIlrath. If Clark thinks this kid will be a hard hitting, crease clearing shutdown dman, then I will give him the benefit of the doubt.

It occurred to me last night that my reaction to this pick was the same as when the Giants picked Luke Pettigout. It was expected that the Giants would pick a tackle and two tackles had fallen to them: L.J. Shelton and Aaron Gibson. The Giants took Pettigout and my friends and I couldn't believe it. We didn't even know who he was. But Pettigout ended up being the best of the three.

Now we were all expecting the Rangers to take a forward last night, but other than Tarasenko, every forward that we might have wanted was gone by the 10th pick (Unless you were hoping for Etem or Bjustad). But when two dmen fell to the 10th pick, Fowler and Gormly, we all thought they might jump on one of them. Well, they took a dman, but not the one any of us expected. Again, I'll give Clark the benefit of the doubt on this one that McIlrath will end up being better (and least for what we need) than Fowler and Gormly).

Good post, GAG. I guess that's it. Clark won my admiration with selections like MDZ, Stepan, Kreider, Grachev and Werek. In that light, it makes me look at McIlrath in a different light. i was never big on Gormley, so that one doesn't bother me. That they didn't take Tarasenko, tells me that he didn't convince them of his commitment to NA. It's the Fowler v. McIlrath that will resonate for a long time.

jas is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-26-2010, 06:43 AM
  #43
GAGLine
Registered User
 
GAGLine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 9,162
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerBlues View Post
Cherepanov was taking performance drugs. Never tested and most likely supplied by the coaching staff.
Another faker.
This is false and the fact that you wrote it shows an extreme lack of class. Do some research. It was reported at one point that he was taking PEDs, but later reported that he was only taking what the team doctors gave him to treat his heart condition.

GAGLine is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-26-2010, 06:48 AM
  #44
NorthlandPro
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Suwanee GA
Country: United States
Posts: 329
vCash: 500
For me I look at the man's body of work over the last 20 years or so. Like all talent evalulators you hit some right on the head, you miss some. No one gets them all right. But you look at his selections and an awful lot of them pan out. Your chore is made easier if you are picking top 5, but when you constantly are picking middle of the pack you have to be real good and Clark is real good. He & Gorton are an excellent pair. It took Sather a long time to build a staff because the good ones are already employed. Our gain has been the Isles and Bruins loss. Both of these guys were key players in those organizations drafting sucess. Many of the young Bruins were Gorton's. It is not an accident that once Clark took over from Maloney and Renney that we started to do better in the draft.

NorthlandPro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-26-2010, 06:54 AM
  #45
RangerBoy
#freejtmiller
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,847
vCash: 500
If you saw the Jim Cerny web chats with Gordie Clark and Jeff Gorton,they talked about Sather giving them carte blanche on the draft. Sather handles the calls with the other GMs. He manages that end while Clark/Gorton determine which players will be available moving up or moving down. Gorton talked about Messier and Graves sitting in the room for the draft preparation and how both of those players played the game hard/tough.

Clark and Gorton wanted Mcllrath. They are also involved on the pro side. They know the cost signing a tough free agent D. $4-$5 million if not more. It's not worth it. You're better off developing that player than spending $4-$5 million on those players.

I'm sure Mcllrath will be at the prospects camp on Monday.

RangerBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-26-2010, 07:20 AM
  #46
otto1219
Registered User
 
otto1219's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 998
vCash: 500
I feel as though a lot of us had unrealistic expectations, whether this was trading up or one of the top offensive players falling to us, but this did not happen. I thought there was no way we would draft a defenseman in the first round, but i was obviously wrong.

I am sure if Nino, Skinner, Connolly were there @ 10, i am sure we would have taken one of them, but they were not and the Rangers drafted a need.

It sounds as though we are actually trying to develop a team a couple years down the road rather than stock pile prospects @ various positions. Dylan is being touted as a locker room leader and kid who loves hockey, if he amounts to 3/4 of what they expect him to i would be very happy.

otto1219 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-26-2010, 07:25 AM
  #47
Blazephr
Registered User
 
Blazephr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Vermont - NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 1,857
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmoak View Post
Exactly what has any Gordie Clark-drafted player done for the Rangers that has earned such a high level of trust?
Clark has only been with us 2 1/2 - 3 years.

with Gordie at the helm.

Chris Kreider
Ethan Werek
Ryan Bourque
Roman Horak
Michael Del Zotto
Derek Stepan
Evgeny Grachev
Tomas Kundratek
Dale Weise
Carl Hagelin

that's a pretty good pool of prospects we've rounded up in just the last of couple years, if you ask me.

Blazephr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-26-2010, 08:26 AM
  #48
x BEUKEBOOM x
Buuuuuuuuuuuk !
 
x BEUKEBOOM x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: NY Rangerville
Country: United States
Posts: 1,366
vCash: 500
Plus if the kid is something special it will put a fire under the butt's of the other Dmen we recently drafted. Not only will they have to prove a spot over a veteran but now they got someone else below them pressuring them for ice time.

x BEUKEBOOM x is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-26-2010, 09:09 AM
  #49
IslandersFan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 655
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jas View Post
I still trust Gordie, but, he's spending a lot of capital with me on this one. I find it hard to believe McIlrath was the BPA at 10. Even if you don't like Fowler per se, I think he still has greater value at this point.

This kid HAS to become Weber/Jovanoski for this pick to be deemed a good pick.
Jovanoski was the 1st overall pick of his draft. Having the same expectations for McIlrath is unfair.

As an Islanders fan, I would be more comfortable if I knew that Sather was the one pushing for McIlrath. I have always liked and respected Gordie Clark and I think that over the years he has proven himself to be an outstanding judge of talent.

Unfortunately for McIlrath, defensemen take time to develop and New York fans (regardless of the sport/organization) are notorious for their impatience.

As far as the asset management arguments, sure there are other large-bodied d-men still out there - but with every scouting report i've read raving about the progress McIlrath has made over the course of the season, he is the one that Clark obviously felt the most comfortable with. Classic boom/bust - only time will tell.

IslandersFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-26-2010, 09:19 AM
  #50
Ian
Mike York fan club
 
Ian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Long Island, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,616
vCash: 500
I don't think he's got that big of a bust factor. On size alone he should be an NHL player, it's just a matter of him becoming a a Shea Weber type or a Shane O'Brien type. Maybe not the sexy hype you want, but the draft is no sure thing no matter where you pick and what names are thrown out there for guys who are available as comps.

Ian 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 07:00 PM.

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.