PDA

View Full Version : Article: The Athletics Post Draft Grades



Gravesy
06-24-2018, 04:15 AM
https://theathletic.com/389358/2018/06/23/pronman-2018-nhl-draft-grades/

Winners: Canadiens, Islanders, Red Wings, Buffalo (on account of getting Dahlin)
Losers: Predators, Lightning

Rangers: B


New York Rangers
Grade: B

If there were picks the Rangers made where I thought ďdamn, that could work out well,Ē it was their very first pick in Vitali Kravtsov at No. 9, and their very last pick Riley Hughes at No. 216. In between that, we got a mixture of solid to decent prospect. KíAndre Miller is very good. I didnít love him in top 20, but he has potential. Nils Lundkvist at No. 29 was high for me, as was the goalie Olof Lindbom at No. 38, despite the fact I thought he was a top tier goalie prospect in the class. I didnít have Joey Keane on my board, but I heavily considered him and didnít mind that pick or the Nico Gross one. I give the Rangers a good grade, because at the end of the day, Kravtsov is a hell of a player, Miller a very good one, and they got talent on Day 2, but I think they could have gotten more at the same time.

Thoughts?

Phil in Absentia
06-24-2018, 06:48 AM
Yeah, the synopsis is about right. Especially the bit about how they could have gotten more (but willfully chose not to). I think a B is grading on too much of a curve, though, weighted far too heavily on Kravtsov. They did well on day one and medicore to poor on day two. That's a C at best.


Sent from my iPhone using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=92212)

Pete
06-24-2018, 07:34 AM
What's the average of B- for day 1 and D for day 2?

Phil in Absentia
06-24-2018, 07:39 AM
C-ish. Same area I've got them.


Sent from my iPhone using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=92212)

Fatfrancesa
06-25-2018, 11:19 AM
With 3 first round picks in the first round, 2 in the 2nd and 2 in the 3rd in a deep draft, it's amazing how a team doesn't fall into an A for their draft. I still feel like not drafting Dobson or Bouchard is going to haunt this team. Kravtsov maybe become a great player but if those guys become what they are projected a top pairing right handed defenseman it's hard to take. Those kind of guys are as hard to find as a number 1 center. Top wingers are much easier to obtain.

Slobberknocker
06-25-2018, 11:24 AM
i dont know crappola about any of the day two guys but it just felt a bit pedestrian for me.

Zuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuc
06-25-2018, 11:40 AM
The 2nd round screwed it for me. The first round went exactly the way I wanted - talented winger #9 (was hoping for Wahlstrom, but I like Kravtsov) then two Dís with the latter two firsts (especially Miller was a good pick). The 2nd round I was hoping we would go for two risky high ceiling forwards with our two 2nds. We ended up trading one and used the other on a goalie we most likely never will se (wtf was the point with that pick, we have georgiev and Shesty).

All in all, I would give the first round a B+, the 2nd a F and the rest was okey. B is a bit generous, but its in the first round most of the talent is and we got 3 good players in the 1st, so I can understand the B.


Sent from my iPhone using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=92212)

NYR2711
06-25-2018, 11:42 AM
I don't get why they went almost all defense this draft. Our forward stockpile is a little barren.

Parsley
06-25-2018, 12:52 PM
I know nothing but Iíll go C+.

Favorite pick: Miller at 22 (even with the trade up)

Least favorite: Lindbom at 39


Sent from my iPhone using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=92212)

Phil in Absentia
06-25-2018, 01:05 PM
I don't get why they went almost all defense this draft. Our forward stockpile is a little barren.

D take the longest to develop. If this is a true rebuildóand we have no reason to believe otherwiseóthen it's strategic to load up on the blue line early.


Sent from my iPhone using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=92212)

AmericanJesus
06-25-2018, 04:36 PM
Solid B. I think they had an A first round and a C 2-7. The first round had plenty of potential pitfalls as far as overpaying to trade up or not getting a good enough prospect by trading down. They could have also reached too far. None of the picks were a reach to me. Kravtsov vs Wahlstrom is debatable, as in you could make an argument for either. I liked the move up for Miller as a prospect with high upside and seemingly very low complete bust risk. I've seen the cost questioned, but according to history of moving in the same positions, the cost was spot on. Lundkvist with the late first was also a good, solid selection. So for round 1, I think as long as you weren't just married to a paricular player, they did good.

The later picks were all over the place. Some were decent, others a bit questionable. Still, had they picked a proper player with the 39th overall, they could have had a really strong draft rather than just a decent one. I'm not against going for a goalie again in this past draft, given the number of picks they had, since they take so long to develop and you really never know whether they will be capable NHL starters until they are just that.

As great as Hank has been, having to commit to him the way they did has hamstrung the team now somewhat. Having a series of goalies coming down the pipe that can be starters in the NHL is a bonus for teams. While they don't often become top-notch trade stock, what they allow is for teams to keep the position more cost controlled.

Anyway, yeah, a solid B.

Fatfrancesa
06-25-2018, 07:51 PM
I can’t get over how people can grade their draft. Outside of the top 20 players or so who are covered by the media there is almost no way for anyone here to know who these kids are in the later rounds. You could run them over in your car and not know they were a rangers draft pick. Yet people take themselves as serious hockey experts to give a grade on players they have never seen play or probably even heard of until Saturday. It’s one thing to have an opinion on a first round pick that you can research or tube into a game or two to watch because you know the kids a prospect. Seriously though who here has seen the kids play who were picked in the later rounds. And if you saw their team play you actually focused on one of these kids.

AmericanJesus
06-25-2018, 08:39 PM
I can’t get over how people can grade their draft. Outside of the top 20 players or so who are covered by the media there is almost no way for anyone here to know who these kids are in the later rounds. You could run them over in your car and not know they were a rangers draft pick. Yet people take themselves as serious hockey experts to give a grade on players they have never seen play or probably even heard of until Saturday. It’s one thing to have an opinion on a first round pick that you can research or tube into a game or two to watch because you know the kids a prospect. Seriously though who here has seen the kids play who were picked in the later rounds. And if you saw their team play you actually focused on one of these kids.

All of these prospects are covered by multiple sources. There are all sorts of rankings out there by people who make a living by in part knowing about them. So when the Rangers take Olof Lindbom with the 39th overall pick, it's pretty easy to see what kind of reach that was. He wasn't even the best ranked goalie in the draft. The highest I recall seeing him ranked anywhere was around 60. Then when you consider organizational need, goalie is probably last on the list. So take a goalie with a later pick if you want to add some depth there. In fact, Lindbom may well have been around for the 70th pick. The top ranked goalie, Oliver Rodrigue went 62nd overall. At the very least, the Rangers could have tried to trade back and get another pick later. Perhaps they did and no deal was available. But then, just take the risk that "your guy" would be there at 70, try to trade up from 70 with a later round pick or a pick next year, or what ever. But don't waste 20 draft spots like that. And certainly not a very early second round pick on that far of a reach.

This kind of story exists for some of their other picks as well.

Now, to me, what I personally think is that you, specifically, don't have access or know where to look for the kind of information that would let you evaluate these later selections. But some of us do know where to find that information to make an informed decision.

ThirtyONE
06-25-2018, 08:49 PM
The 2nd round screwed it for me. The first round went exactly the way I wanted - talented winger #9 (was hoping for Wahlstrom, but I like Kravtsov) then two D’s with the latter two firsts (especially Miller was a good pick). The 2nd round I was hoping we would go for two risky high ceiling forwards with our two 2nds. We ended up trading one and used the other on a goalie we most likely never will se (wtf was the point with that pick, we have georgiev and Shesty).

All in all, I would give the first round a B+, the 2nd a F and the rest was okey. B is a bit generous, but its in the first round most of the talent is and we got 3 good players in the 1st, so I can understand the B.


Sent from my iPhone using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=92212)

Because goalies are in high demand. Especially good ones. Like at forward and D, there's no such thing as too many goalies. They are assets to be traded later.

Also you never know which goalie will pan out. What if the Russian kid comes over and shits the bed? Then what? Having other options is never a bad thing.

Pete
06-25-2018, 08:50 PM
Because goalies are in high demand. Especially good ones. Like at forward and D, there's no such thing as too many goalies. They are assets to be traded later.

Also you never know which goalie will pan out. What if the Russian kid comes over and shits the bed? Then what? Having other options is never a bad thing.

Except he's not a very good goalie by all accounts, considering where he was selected.

Dunny
06-25-2018, 09:55 PM
lol

Gravesy
06-26-2018, 08:47 AM
Except he's not a very good goalie by all accounts, considering where he was selected.

I didn't like the pick, but iirc he's widely seen as the best goalie in this draft class.

Pete
06-26-2018, 09:25 AM
I didn't like the pick, but iirc he's widely seen as the best goalie in this draft class.Can you link that? Because I've read there were some higher rated goalies drafted later (Dave mentioned one).

So Nashty
06-26-2018, 09:28 AM
Gorton said they were going BPA with that pick and Benoit Allaire and some of the scouts loved this kid and think he has some great upside.

If he turns into Hank is anyone going to care that he was taken in the 2nd instead of the 3rd?

He was ranked the 4th best goalie in this draft but if youíre asking me- goalies take much longer to develop so at 18 itís a total crap shoot. The rangers saw something they liked and they have a great track record with goalies.

Worst comes to worst you trade him for a winger down the line.


Sent from my iPhone using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=92212)

Pete
06-26-2018, 09:42 AM
Gorton said they were going BPA with that pick and Benoit Allaire and some of the scouts loved this kid and think he has some great upside.

If he turns into Hank is anyone going to care that he was taken in the 2nd instead of the 3rd?

He was ranked the 4th best goalie in this draft but if youíre asking me- goalies take much longer to develop so at 18 itís a total crap shoot. The rangers saw something they liked and they have a great track record with goalies.

Worst comes to worst you trade him for a winger down the line.


Sent from my iPhone using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=92212)Yes I would care because we have shesty and 4 other goalies and left positions of need on the board.

Dunny
06-26-2018, 10:14 AM
We have Shestyorkin and a bunch of none prospects.

We also have a 36 YO goalie.

Pete
06-26-2018, 10:27 AM
We have Shestyorkin and a bunch of none prospects.

We also have a 36 YO goalie.

Shesty and Greg, and you can find backups all over for $1 million in free agency.

Fatfrancesa
06-26-2018, 10:50 AM
All of these prospects are covered by multiple sources. There are all sorts of rankings out there by people who make a living by in part knowing about them. So when the Rangers take Olof Lindbom with the 39th overall pick, it's pretty easy to see what kind of reach that was. He wasn't even the best ranked goalie in the draft. The highest I recall seeing him ranked anywhere was around 60. Then when you consider organizational need, goalie is probably last on the list. So take a goalie with a later pick if you want to add some depth there. In fact, Lindbom may well have been around for the 70th pick. The top ranked goalie, Oliver Rodrigue went 62nd overall. At the very least, the Rangers could have tried to trade back and get another pick later. Perhaps they did and no deal was available. But then, just take the risk that "your guy" would be there at 70, try to trade up from 70 with a later round pick or a pick next year, or what ever. But don't waste 20 draft spots like that. And certainly not a very early second round pick on that far of a reach.

This kind of story exists for some of their other picks as well.

Now, to me, what I personally think is that you, specifically, don't have access or know where to look for the kind of information that would let you evaluate these later selections. But some of us do know where to find that information to make an informed decision.

Read all about them. However you have never laid eyeballs on these kids. You, like everybody here reads about them. I will let those who actually saw these kids play rank our draft.

Besides itís less common knowledge that the draft is a crap shoot in later rounds. Nobody has any clue who is the nhl player or future star drafted in round 5. So the grades by anyone after round 2 are basically meaningless. If the rangers get 1 good nhl player after round 2 then that grade will be an a.

Nobody thought hank or Rinne would amount to squat which is why they were drafted so late.

My grade: is that who gives a shit what I think. You can go read peoples opinions who actually saw the player. I wouldnít pretend to make myself seem that important or pretend I know more than any good hockey fan

Future
06-26-2018, 10:54 AM
Can you link that? Because I've read there were some higher rated goalies drafted later (Dave mentioned one).
McKenzie had him as his #2 goalie, just 4 spots back of #1 (53rd overall)
https://www.tsn.ca/kotkaniemi-surges-into-top-five-of-tsn-draft-ranking-1.1115400

Idk that I've seen anyone say they had him at the top though.

Edit: Think he was Pronman's top goalie

Long live the King
06-26-2018, 11:10 AM
Read all about them. However you have never laid eyeballs on these kids. You, like everybody here reads about them. I will let those who actually saw these kids play rank our draft.

Besides it’s less common knowledge that the draft is a crap shoot in later rounds. Nobody has any clue who is the nhl player or future star drafted in round 5. So the grades by anyone after round 2 are basically meaningless. If the rangers get 1 good nhl player after round 2 then that grade will be an a.

Nobody thought hank or Rinne would amount to squat which is why they were drafted so late.

My grade: is that who gives a shit what I think. You can go read peoples opinions who actually saw the player. I wouldn’t pretend to make myself seem that important or pretend I know more than any good hockey fan

Yet you started an entire thread about how the Rangers scouts, who actually watched these kids play all year, got everything wrong...

Fatfrancesa
06-26-2018, 01:56 PM
Actually no. I have seen the top guys play. Wahlstrom and Dobson multiple times at the under 18 and the memorial cup respectively. Watching those games you concentrate on them knowing they are projected to be drafted near where the rangers will be picking. I have seen Kravtsov not as much obviously but when I did see his team he was who I was focused on because he was considered for the rangers second two picks. My point which was specifically stated is that guys drafted after the top 50 or so prospects are largely unknown by people who don’t make a living as scouts. Even if you saw those teams play you are not watching those kids with the thought of I’d take that kid with a 5th round pick. I understand opinions regarding players you watch play. I don’t understand someone giving a grade based upon nothing but second hand opinion from an article they read. Am I supposed to believe someone here saw the high school kid from mass play and can honestly say what they think the rangers got in that player? Are there people here watching the Swedish junior league?

Giacomin
06-26-2018, 06:14 PM
Actually no. I have seen the top guys play. Wahlstrom and Dobson multiple times at the under 18 and the memorial cup respectively. Watching those games you concentrate on them knowing they are projected to be drafted near where the rangers will be picking. I have seen Kravtsov not as much obviously but when I did see his team he was who I was focused on because he was considered for the rangers second two picks. My point which was specifically stated is that guys drafted after the top 50 or so prospects are largely unknown by people who donít make a living as scouts. Even if you saw those teams play you are not watching those kids with the thought of Iíd take that kid with a 5th round pick. I understand opinions regarding players you watch play. I donít understand someone giving a grade based upon nothing but second hand opinion from an article they read. Am I supposed to believe someone here saw the high school kid from mass play and can honestly say what they think the rangers got in that player? Are there people here watching the Swedish junior league?

Yes yes yes, you're right about all of this. It's why I didn't give a grade and I've watched a good bunch of the top players. The draft is of little interest after the top 40 or 50 picks. They are just names and longshots at that point, with the odd guy you might have heard of.

Here is what you are forgetting. In listening to hockeyprospects for 4 hours or reading, etc most experts agreed Goalies were not going until late 2nd and 3rd round. We all dismissed the idea of a goalie. And he is 6'. Meanwhile, there were guys like Wilde (who I wanted there) and McLoud who also had 1st round projections. There was also Thomas, Tychonick and others people knew.

Add that we traded the other 2nd and all the sudden our expectations of getting 1st round leftovers in the 2nd, were dashed. The rest of the picks no one knows, hence why everyone gives 2-7 a shitty grade.