I remember Lundmarc, Brendl, and Malhotra being considered high level prospects as well though. With the NHL I have learned not to get too optimistic about prospects. They really are just kids when drafted, and outside of that top pick there aren't many guarantees.
I will say though, Sather has done a nice job though of creating a pipeline of prospects. Unlike Smith where we hedged our bets on just a few prospects making it, Sather has kept most of his picks. With all of those picks it is nice to see that these kids are competing against each other for spots. In the past it felt some of them assumed they would simply get a spot because they were a high draft choice.
Agree about the hype of those 3 players. However, all one had to do was spend some time and actually watch those 3 players and you knew it was all hype. There is a huge difference this time around, these guys are actually talented and are not head cases like Lundmark and Brendl who both thought they were the greatest thing yet. Clark has done an excellent job of finding skill and hockey IQ in many of the players he's selected.
Who labeled this group as elite, exactly? Other than the Rangers and their propoganda-writing company men at MSG.com, that is.
When this fantastic group of prospects produces one legitimate first-line forward, not to mention a true #1 defenseman, then they'll have earned such high praise.
Agreed. The Rangers are becoming pretty good at brainwashing it seems.
Who labeled this group as elite, exactly? Other than the Rangers and their propoganda-writing company men at MSG.com, that is.
When this fantastic group of prospects produces one legitimate first-line forward, not to mention a true #1 defenseman, then they'll have earned such high praise.
Name the #1 D guy from each of the 30 NHL teams and tell me how many of them you'd rather have for the rest of their careers than Marc Staal.
We can go through the whole draft debate again, but the bottom line here is that the Rangers haven't drafted high enough or used their high(est) draft picks (other than Cherapanov, who I think most saw as a legit top 3 guy) to have a first line forward.
Let's look @ top 3 picks each year since Sather became GM:
Any not noted (ie... C @ #12) are either defense, goaltenders, or people Rangers fans should know.
2001 wasn't terrible. Blackburn's career was cut short but most fans had high hopes and Tyutin is a top 4 D.
2002 our first pick was @ #33. Hard to have a top line forward there
2003 Yeah, if you're going to make the case here's your ammunition
2004 was a terrible draft all around after picks 1-5. Zajac and Wolski aren't 1st line players.
2005 Staal. Again top line prospect at #56? Sauer wasn't a terrible choice. Bergfors? Downie? Hanzal? No 1st liners after Staal.
2006 Sanguinetti is disappointing but still might pan out. Anisimov @ #54 is a top 6 forward
2007 Cherapanov. No 1st liners after that.
2008 Great draft for the Rangers IMHO. Defenseman first.
2009 Good draft for the Rangers. All forwards
2010 Another defenseman taken first.
Of course, the Rangers direction has markedly improved in drafting since Clark (2007) started drafting but it's hard to argue with the choices in 2005-2010. Show me the top 3 forward drafted after Sanguinetti. Claude Giroux? I can't argue that any of the Rangers prospects are definitive first line guys but I also can't make the case that their drafts have been that awful, in retrospect, especially if you look at draft position and who was drafted afterwards. They've spent a lot of first round picks on D, but MDZ, Sangs, Staal, Sauer, Tyutin, etc... have played in the NHL.
If anything, the fact that there weren't any surprises (other than Lundqvist) might be more disappointing than their 1st round picks.
Find me an article with independent scouts calling that old crop elite, as this current group has been labeled.
And I think one who is "sipping the corporate koolaide" has made a better choice than one who sips a cup of their own tears, which of course is the drink of choice for all you constant pessimists.
I appreciate your optimism and I give you credit for continuing to stay positive while holding true to your position on the management of this franchise. I think its a good thing to remain solid in your stance on any issue if you truly believe it and theres no doubt you have. We have all discussed this topic and beat it to death, and usually its you against many. Whether you really give a rats ass how I feel - well thats up to you..
But can I ask you a question? In all seriousness- Would you mind sharing with us your age and how long you have been following the team?
Because your comments lead me to believe that you haven't gone through the dark years and haven't witnessed the complete tenure of Glen Sather. No offense, please, you could be older than I am and very possibly a true fan for longer - I could be totally off base here, If I am so be it. I'm just curious how someone could go through the past 15 some-odd years as passionately as most Rangers fans are and not feel one iota of hate or disappointment towards the general management of this team over the past 10. I'm only going by a majority of the posts i see from you so correct me if im wrong if you do have those feelings. I think its natural to feel that disdain, and after a long while it can quite frankly feel a little hopeless sometimes.
With that said, most of us can see through the Rangers propaganda - and it is exactly that. Its one thing to talk up your team to generate interest and sales. Its another to blatantly lie and circumvent the reality on several occasions. Its another thing to avoid the passionate fans and owning up to the truth by answering hard hitting questions which await you from an honest and impartial interviewer. The Rangers and specifically Sather avoid the fans and exploit their television network and website as propaganda tools - and despite the fact that they are most likely doing everything in their power to build a championship team, they arent going about it the right way specifically because they treat the fan like an idiot who doesn't know any better.
Last edited by HockeyBasedNYC: 08-30-2010 at 09:24 PM.
So, it's OK for most people who know about these young players to say they like them, and see them as being considered by the Rangers organization as a part of the future core... but when the front office confirms it, it's hilarious and what ever nonsense is being thrown around in here?
Sather didn't mention every single player they drafted, he mentioned the players that anyone with common sense would say are a part of the Rangers future.
Notice he didn't mention Ryan Bourque by name? Despite Bourque always playing well? Because he is too small.
He was open about the obvious players.
I've been saying these names now for what seems like forever.
Stepan, Kreider, Grachev, McDonagh.
I'd add Werek to that list, too.
I need to see how McIlrath does this year to have any real opinion about him. But i like his character and work ethic thus far.
What is so absurd and hilarious about the front office liking these players? They're legit NHL talents. Weather or not they're "elite" is not the issue. They're solid. They don't NEED to be elite while the Rangers have ELITE players like Lundqvist and Gaborik in the fold.
Besides that, Del Zotto will be elite and so will Staal.
These guys will be the core group. The only way they won't be is if some team blows the Rangers away with a trade offer. Not likely. They're all developing very well. They're all right on the path one would like them to be. And they're all arriving in time with expiring contracts like Drury and Rozsival for example.
I hate what Sather has done with contracts like Redden and Drury. But as far as drafting and bringing along young players and giving the right ones an opportunity, he has been very good with that POST-LOCKOUT. The future is what matters most. And it looks like they have the right plan.
1. It probably has more potential than at any point in close to 20 years.
2. We need to see more results before we can call it elite.
We're about two years away from being able to use the term elite.
We're about two years away from the possibility of being able to use the term elite, and I'm still not sure who is projected to be an elite forward. A couple of them might be, but I'm unaware of a can't-miss elite talent at forward. Of the ones I've seen, the one with the most upside remains Anisimov, but unless he can figure out how to skate with his head up, he is headed for a concussion-shortened what-if type career.
Without looking, I believe that Kovalev was the last elite forward drafted by the Rangers. Amazing stuff.
We're about two years away from the possibility of being able to use the term elite, and I'm still not sure who is projected to be an elite forward. A couple of them might be, but I'm unaware of a can't-miss elite talent at forward. Of the ones I've seen, the one with the most upside remains Anisimov, but unless he can figure out how to skate with his head up, he is headed for a concussion-shortened what-if type career.
Without looking, I believe that Kovalev was the last elite forward drafted by the Rangers. Amazing stuff.
you are probably right.
many would say cherepanov but that will never be known.
we had a chance to grab vlad tarasenko, but didnt.
when you look back at our forwards we drafted, we seem to specialize in guys who flat out bust or guys whos ceiling is that of 3rd line mucker.
but slats is thinkin a long run of success. i figure 20 more years and he might get er done.
We're about two years away from the possibility of being able to use the term elite, and I'm still not sure who is projected to be an elite forward. A couple of them might be, but I'm unaware of a can't-miss elite talent at forward. Of the ones I've seen, the one with the most upside remains Anisimov, but unless he can figure out how to skate with his head up, he is headed for a concussion-shortened what-if type career.
Without looking, I believe that Kovalev was the last elite forward drafted by the Rangers. Amazing stuff.
That's not counting older players, of which there are at least 10 that I would add to this list if their age wasn't a consideration. This is also not taking into account the prospects around the league that haven't made it to the league yet.
Marc Staal is a very good #1B defenseman, but he's not an elite defenseman in the league.
Quote:
We can go through the whole draft debate again, but the bottom line here is that the Rangers haven't drafted high enough or used their high(est) draft picks (other than Cherapanov, who I think most saw as a legit top 3 guy) to have a first line forward.
So what? That's their own fault. It doesn't change the fact that they shouldn't be trying to sell their farm system as something that's going to turn this team into a force to be reckoned with when all they've really done (possibly) is finally catch up with the rest of the league by having a decent group of prospects that they don't trade away the first chance they get.
Quote:
Let's look @ top 3 picks each year since Sather became GM:
Any not noted (ie... C @ #12) are either defense, goaltenders, or people Rangers fans should know.
2001 wasn't terrible. Blackburn's career was cut short but most fans had high hopes and Tyutin is a top 4 D.
2002 our first pick was @ #33. Hard to have a top line forward there
2003 Yeah, if you're going to make the case here's your ammunition
2004 was a terrible draft all around after picks 1-5. Zajac and Wolski aren't 1st line players.
2005 Staal. Again top line prospect at #56? Sauer wasn't a terrible choice. Bergfors? Downie? Hanzal? No 1st liners after Staal.
2006 Sanguinetti is disappointing but still might pan out. Anisimov @ #54 is a top 6 forward
2007 Cherapanov. No 1st liners after that.
2008 Great draft for the Rangers IMHO. Defenseman first.
2009 Good draft for the Rangers. All forwards
2010 Another defenseman taken first.
Of course, the Rangers direction has markedly improved in drafting since Clark (2007) started drafting but it's hard to argue with the choices in 2005-2010. Show me the top 3 forward drafted after Sanguinetti. Claude Giroux? I can't argue that any of the Rangers prospects are definitive first line guys but I also can't make the case that their drafts have been that awful, in retrospect, especially if you look at draft position and who was drafted afterwards. They've spent a lot of first round picks on D, but MDZ, Sangs, Staal, Sauer, Tyutin, etc... have played in the NHL.
If anything, the fact that there weren't any surprises (other than Lundqvist) might be more disappointing than their 1st round picks.
I'm not going to rehash how horrendous a pick Montoya was, or the clearly horrendous 03 draft. I didn't love the Sangs pick, but you're right, there were only a few options that were more sensible. I'm not going to go over the entire thing about how they wouldn't have even gotten Cherepanov if they were any team other than the New York Rangers, and I'm not going to go on another rant about how limited McIlrath's hockey sense is.
The point is you're just making a bunch of excuses for them. The fact that their entire team building philosophy is completely warped is obviously going to hold them back from owning elite assets. That's bad enough as it is, but it's especially annoying when they push this ******** about how we're building through youth. What are we building through youth? Another team that won't be good enough to win a Stanley Cup?
This isn't an attack on our prospects. We have a bunch of good young players to look forward to, in addition to a bunch of good young players already on the team. But so do plenty of other teams in the league. Some of them even have young players or prospects that are significantly better than ours. Those teams have elite prospect pools. We don't. Maybe the Rangers should spend less time thinking about how to hoodwink their fans and more time on how to compete with the numerous teams that do a much better job running their organizations.
“Our goal has always been to try and develop our own players to build a core group of players that are going to grow up together,”- Sather
Lol who is he kidding? If he had the cap room he would be would still be trying to sign every big name looking for a quick fix. His poor cap management forced him to try to start devoloping a young core.
Just going to pop in and say that the consensus is, atleast amongst HFboards, that the Rangers have a pretty talented prospect pool. I've seen people here and other places consider us in the top 10 (usually 10 itself, but still top 10 ) for prospect pools in the NHL. Yes, it is a problem that people oversell prospects in their minds and set themselves up for disappointment. It's also a problem that people don't see we really do have an extremely solid group of prospects. Will they make an impact in the NHL? I'd wager yes, but you can never say because they're prospects. With that being said, i think grossly underestimating Krieder, Stepan, McD, etc. is just as bad as thinking they'll all be the second coming of our 94 cup team.
I'll give you Doughty, Keith, Myers, Johnson, Weber, and possibly Bouwmeester (who had a bad year last year - especially when you factor in his salary). I think everyone else is a push or is better in one area (Green, offensively) but weaker in another (Green, defensively), etc...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sting36e
That's not counting older players, of which there are at least 10 that I would add to this list if their age wasn't a consideration. This is also not taking into account the prospects around the league that haven't made it to the league yet.
Which, if you add it all up, is 20. Which would put Staal @ 21. I'd still venture that's a "#1 defenseman".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sting36e
So what? That's their own fault. It doesn't change the fact that they shouldn't be trying to sell their farm system as something that's going to turn this team into a force to be reckoned with when all they've really done (possibly) is finally catch up with the rest of the league by having a decent group of prospects that they don't trade away the first chance they get.
I'm not going to rehash how horrendous a pick Montoya was, or the clearly horrendous 03 draft. I didn't love the Sangs pick, but you're right, there were only a few options that were more sensible. I'm not going to go over the entire thing about how they wouldn't have even gotten Cherepanov if they were any team other than the New York Rangers, and I'm not going to go on another rant about how limited McIlrath's hockey sense is.
The point is you're just making a bunch of excuses for them. The fact that their entire team building philosophy is completely warped is obviously going to hold them back from owning elite assets. That's bad enough as it is, but it's especially annoying when they push this ******** about how we're building through youth. What are we building through youth? Another team that won't be good enough to win a Stanley Cup?
This isn't an attack on our prospects. We have a bunch of good young players to look forward to, in addition to a bunch of good young players already on the team. But so do plenty of other teams in the league. Some of them even have young players or prospects that are significantly better than ours. Those teams have elite prospect pools. We don't. Maybe the Rangers should spend less time thinking about how to hoodwink their fans and more time on how to compete with the numerous teams that do a much better job running their organizations.
I get where you're coming from, but I don't think the picture is nearly as bleak as you constantly make it out to be and there are quite a few teams who are far, FAR worse off than we are when it comes to prospects and building for the future than the Rangers are.
You can talk Stanley Cup all you want, but only one team a year wins it and in a salary cap driven parity league like the NHL, it's tougher than it ever was to build a winner. Pittsburgh, Chicago, and Carolina were built through high end draft picks after terrible regular seasons. Anaheim had a good draft in 2003 (Getzlaf and Perry in the 1st round) and Detroit is the only team (post lockout) to have been built other than through high draft choices.
I'm really not making excuses - I went through each of those drafts and looked for impact players taken in the 1st round after our 1st round choice(s) and really didn't find any. 2003 was terrible, no question - but many, MANY pre-draft rankings had Jessiman as a top 10 or top 20 pick. Hindsight is easy when evaluating draft choices years later - but, at the time, few thought Jessiman was an awful choice.
“Our goal has always been to try and develop our own players to build a core group of players that are going to grow up together,”- Sather
Lol who is he kidding? If he had the cap room he would be would still be trying to sign every big name looking for a quick fix. His poor cap management forced him to try to start devoloping a young core.
Thats the first thing I saw and I laughed out loud when I read it. He's a flat out liar, either that or hes completely delusional and has conveniently forgotten the first half of his tenure here.
Like his team, the plan looks great on paper. And I'm all for it. But can he pull it off? That's the rub. Drafting is only one aspect of his job. Obviously we're not going to ice 23 drafted Rangers. His talent evaluation for the big club has left a lot to be desired...
Typical MSG fluff. If nothing else, people should realize that the only **** that Cerny, the Rangers website and MSG only produce prototypical positive **** that is far beyond the truth. It's ********.
So even if your argument is that it's the players job from here, how can you honestly believe this article or anything on that website?
I propose that the people in here talking crap don't back-track when these "overrated, worthless" prospects arrive in NY and are playing big roles.
If you're calling the Rangers scouting staff full of it. And if you're calling the posters that like these top prospects "ignorant koolaid drinkers", then please don't sell out later. Just don't.
And I find it hilarious that every prospect has to be called Brendl and Lundmark. GET OVER IT.
I remember having this conversation last August when I repeatedly said Del Zotto was going to be on the NHL roster last season. Based on everything the staff was saying on NHL radio. But Del Zotto was "overrated". Is he still overrated?
Really, I wonder why some people here are Rangers fans. If you have nothing but negative crap to say, don't believe in their prospects, hate every player on the roster, hate the management and coaching staff, then what are you doing here? Go root for the Black Hawks or Capitals.
The OP was simply trying to convey an article he/she found, and people blow up with their conspiracy theories on how the evil Rangers propaganda machine are trying to spin their "overrated" prospect pool to their "ignorant" fan base.
Despite the fact that THN, TSN, and a few other credited and legit sources are high on these players, too? They must be on Dolan's payroll, too?
I guess I am, too? I didn't realize I was getting checks in the mail from MSG. I better file a complaint that someone stole my checks from my mail box.
I propose that the people in here talking crap don't back-track when these "overrated, worthless" prospects arrive in NY and are playing big roles.
If you're calling the Rangers scouting staff full of it. And if you're calling the posters that like these top prospects "ignorant koolaid drinkers", then please don't sell out later. Just don't.
And I find it hilarious that every prospect has to be called Brendl and Lundmark. GET OVER IT.
I remember having this conversation last August when I repeatedly said Del Zotto was going to be on the NHL roster last season. Based on everything the staff was saying on NHL radio. But Del Zotto was "overrated". Is he still overrated?
Really, I wonder why some people here are Rangers fans. If you have nothing but negative crap to say, don't believe in their prospects, hate every player on the roster, hate the management and coaching staff, then what are you doing here? Go root for the Black Hawks or Capitals.
Well...let's not get melodramatic here, Monkey. It is possible to simply dislike the current regime and it's roster and STILL be a Rangers fan. Howard Zinn (or Thomas Jefferson) said dissent is the highest form of patriotism. I think that can be applied to sports as well. Some fans here are simply mad as hell.
The OP was simply trying to convey an article he/she found, and people blow up with their conspiracy theories on how the evil Rangers propaganda machine are trying to spin their "overrated" prospect pool to their "ignorant" fan base.
Despite the fact that THN, TSN, and a few other credited and legit sources are high on these players, too? They must be on Dolan's payroll, too?
I guess I am, too? I didn't realize I was getting checks in the mail from MSG. I better file a complaint that someone stole my checks from my mail box.
I was called out here recently for posting contradictory statements regarding both Sather and management. I like to think of it as vacillating, but I can understand why people took issue with me.
We all suffer with this team and honestly sometimes I go back and forth especially after a bitter loss
To our rivals on the last game of the season. I see a lot to like in the direction they are headed in, but a lot does have to be proved.
Why can’t there be some balance? Why must we use black as the only color to paint this picture?
I'll give you Doughty, Keith, Myers, Johnson, Weber, and possibly Bouwmeester (who had a bad year last year - especially when you factor in his salary). I think everyone else is a push or is better in one area (Green, offensively) but weaker in another (Green, defensively), etc...
Which, if you add it all up, is 20. Which would put Staal @ 21. I'd still venture that's a "#1 defenseman".
I think it's more like 25-30 if you really look at it, but I still wouldn't take it that way, exactly. I'd say about a third of the teams in the league, the Rangers included, are very poorly run. In some cases, it's due to financial limitations. In the Rangers' case, it's due to competence limitations. There are numerous teams in the league that have two defensemen better than the best blueliner on some clubs. There are teams with 2-3 forwards better than the best forward on a bunch of teams.
If you're going to be a contender, you're going to have to be able to outmatch your opponents at as many positions as possible. If we want to compete with the top teams, we need a better defenseman than Marc Staal. A bigger offensive threat from the blueline. You can say, "well we have Del Zotto" but I don't buy that. He's a good player, but the best defensemen in this league excel at both ends of the ice, and the best teams in the league have a guy like that. Offense is of such importance in this league now, you need a guy from the blueline who is going to log big minutes and be a serious offensive threat every time he's on the ice, like a fourth forward.
Quote:
I get where you're coming from, but I don't think the picture is nearly as bleak as you constantly make it out to be and there are quite a few teams who are far, FAR worse off than we are when it comes to prospects and building for the future than the Rangers are.
At best, you could make the case that a handful of teams are in such dire straits. Maybe the Stars, Flames, and Wild. All teams that have had some serious questions with their front office the last number of years. Most of the teams whose prospect pools are significantly weaker than the Rangers' are clubs that have either been elite for years and are starting to finally fall off, like the Red Wings or the Devils, or are current contenders whose best players aren't past their primes. (Pens, Hawks, Flyers, Sharks).
Quote:
You can talk Stanley Cup all you want, but only one team a year wins it and in a salary cap driven parity league like the NHL, it's tougher than it ever was to build a winner. Pittsburgh, Chicago, and Carolina were built through high end draft picks after terrible regular seasons. Anaheim had a good draft in 2003 (Getzlaf and Perry in the 1st round) and Detroit is the only team (post lockout) to have been built other than through high draft choices.
Yeah, no ****. It's tougher to build a winner when you refuse to pay the price, which the Rangers do year after year.
Quote:
I'm really not making excuses - I went through each of those drafts and looked for impact players taken in the 1st round after our 1st round choice(s) and really didn't find any. 2003 was terrible, no question - but many, MANY pre-draft rankings had Jessiman as a top 10 or top 20 pick. Hindsight is easy when evaluating draft choices years later - but, at the time, few thought Jessiman was an awful choice.http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/hoc...ngs_naskaters/ (Jessiman #20) http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/hoc...03/mock_draft/ (mock draft, Jessiman to Oilers @ #17) http://www.wildonice.net/archives/20...t&results.html (Jessiman to Flyers @ #24)
Few, not all. I don't really care what the majority thought. If you look at the thoughts of the majority regarding plenty of major transactions that this team makes, it starts to make you seriously question the level of understanding some fans, and even some writers, have of the sport.
If the Rangers were serious about building a team the right way, with franchise players, they'd have put themselves in position to draft such players. They did not, so it's no surprise they lack that elite talent. Doesn't stop them from trying to portray their prospects as elite.
I was called out here recently for posting contradictory statements regarding both Sather and management. I like to think of it as vacillating, but I can understand why people took issue with me.
We all suffer with this team and honestly sometimes I go back and forth especially after a bitter loss
To our rivals on the last game of the season. I see a lot to like in the direction they are headed in, but a lot does have to be proved.
Beautifully stated. And, just to clear the air, it wasn't the vacillating I took issue with. It was the snarkiness and the agression and the baseless labeling in your argument despite knowing full well that as little as a month ago you were, for the most part, in general agreement with me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NikC
Why can’t there be some balance? Why must we use black as the only color to paint this picture?
You can't force people to see what you see. In the end, there's a lot of contempt around here for Rangers management...and a lot of it is deserved. It's been a looooong time since this team has accomplished anything of any worth.
Beautifully stated. And, just to clear the air, it wasn't the vacillating I took issue with. It was the snarkiness and the agression and the baseless labeling in your argument despite knowing full well that as little as a month ago you were, for the most part, in general agreement with me.
You can't force people to see what you see. In the end, there's a lot of contempt around here for Rangers management...and a lot of it is deserved. It's been a looooong time since this team has accomplished anything of any worth.
There was snarkiness, aggression, and labeling on both sides from various posters involved.
Even though I called out the org. pretty I did preface along the way throughout my
Posting, even more so in the more recent posts on the subject matter.
I’m not forcing people to see what I see. Calling for balance means both sides see each others points and
Coexist without one demonizing the other.
) for prospect pools in the NHL. Yes, it is a problem that people oversell prospects in their minds and set themselves up for disappointment. It's also a problem that people don't see we really do have an extremely solid group of prospects. Will they make an impact in the NHL? I'd wager yes, but you can never say because they're prospects. With that being said, i think grossly underestimating Krieder, Stepan, McD, etc. is just as bad as thinking they'll all be the second coming of our 94 cup team.
