Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 44

Thread: Who Will We Pick?

  1. #21
    Moderator Junior Division
    Future's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    5,669
    Rep Power
    112
    Quote Originally Posted by Drew a Penalty View Post
    It isn't just so you can say you had a first round pick, it's because statistically the Rangers are proven to turn first round picks into NHL players. Second round picks not nearly as well. Agree to disagree though.
    Again, you have to do this with picks closer to where they are picking this year. It's easier to turn a top-20 pick into an NHLer than a 28 pick. For instance, you're more likely to hit with Chris Kreider (20) than Brady Skjei (28). But are you more likely to hit Brady Skjei (28) than Ryan Gropp (41)?

    And you can't simply use games played as a metric and then discredit "marginal players" in the 4th round. Montoya and Korpikoski are as marginal as it gets, and, especially for Montoya, you could classify both of them as misses. I mean, why take Korpikoski at 19 when you could trade back to get Stepan at 51 and Weise at 111? You're not doing a very good job of arguing against that.

  2. #22
    Shawcappella BSBH Prospect
    Drew a Penalty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    13,813
    Rep Power
    125
    Quote Originally Posted by Future View Post
    Again, you have to do this with picks closer to where they are picking this year. It's easier to turn a top-20 pick into an NHLer than a 28 pick. For instance, you're more likely to hit with Chris Kreider (20) than Brady Skjei (28). But are you more likely to hit Brady Skjei (28) than Ryan Gropp (41)?

    And you can't simply use games played as a metric and then discredit "marginal players" in the 4th round. Montoya and Korpikoski are as marginal as it gets, and, especially for Montoya, you could classify both of them as misses.
    It's a simple statistical analysis. If you weed out the crap in the first round, Montoya and Korpikoski, and then weed out later crap, Cliche and Potter, you're still ending with similar numbers. I still counted those 4th round picks in their games played. Most studies of NHL success by draft pick are done using the 100 games played base. You could go further in depth with points or wins for goaltenders. That gets more convoluted.

    Stastically the Rangers just don't really produce second round picks. Even if you want to look at NHL averages. The 28th pick has a "success" rate of 47.6% versus 36-40 at 34.3%, 41-45 at 39% and 46-50 at 35.2%. You are more likely to hit a better player. Not as much as you would with say the 20th, but it's still a better pick to have.

    I mean, why take Korpikoski at 19 when you could trade back to get Stepan at 51 and Weise at 111? You're not doing a very good job of arguing against that.
    Except that's not the option. The Rangers more often make a Kreider than a Korpikoski with that pick than they do a Stepan or Weise with those picks. If there were a greater chance of them turning talent with those picks, fine. There isn't.

  3. #23
    Senior Member Bantam Division
    Long live the King's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    1,137
    Rep Power
    27
    The pick number doesn't matter. 20, 28, 37, 51 makes no difference. The key is being able to develop a list of guys you want. In the 2007 draft the #19, 20, 25, 30, 33, 34, 36, 37, and 39 picks have never played an NHL game. #28, 32, 35, 38, and 41 have played less than 20 games. PK Subban was picked 43rd. Of those missed picks I mentioned, the Coyotes had 3 and Canucks had 2. Those teams made shitty lists.

  4. #24
    Shawcappella BSBH Prospect
    Drew a Penalty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    13,813
    Rep Power
    125
    And the Rangers just haven't done that. They've also been making "shitty lists." I'm sure they had faith in their picks otherwise they wouldn't have made them. Working in retrospect is easy.
    Last edited by Drew a Penalty; 04-27-2017 at 06:23 PM.

  5. #25
    Senior Member Bantam Division
    Long live the King's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    1,137
    Rep Power
    27
    I don't think you can say that so absolutely when you look at our recent drafts and Gropp (41), Halverson and Neives (59), Buch (75), Zborovsky (79), Ducliar (80), Day (81), Saarela (89), Graves (110), Shestyorkin (118), and Gettinger (141) all still have a shot to hit that 100 game mark.

  6. #26
    Shawcappella BSBH Prospect
    Drew a Penalty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    13,813
    Rep Power
    125
    They do. Duclair already has. Maybe they'll prove me wrong but few of those prospects have shown much promise to even make the NHL.

  7. #27
    Member Mite Division Rosenvold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    64
    Rep Power
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by Drew a Penalty View Post
    They do. Duclair already has. Maybe they'll prove me wrong but few of those prospects have shown much promise to even make the NHL.
    From a selection of three 2nd, five 3rd, two 4th and one 5th round pick, its not too shabby that Duclair and Buchnevich are already NHL'ers and a couple more are at least likely NHL'ers, including a potential starter in Shestyorkin. It's realistic to project that 3-4 from that list of 11 will get 100 NHL games, which is quite a solid return on that assortment of picks.

  8. #28
    Just a Simple Country Squire BSBH Prospect
    Dunny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    10,913
    Rep Power
    197
    You just know that after biting their thumb and keeping their pick he's going to turn out to be useless.

  9. #29
    Former Moderator BSBH Prospect
    Cash or Czech?'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    16,589
    Rep Power
    69
    Our 1st rounders, when we have them, have turned into NHL contributors.

    Brady Skjei
    JT Miller
    Dylan McIlrath
    Chris Kreider
    Michael Del Zotto

    80% of our last five first round picks have had some extended impact on this team. We need to keep it and use it to fill the gap of organizational talent. I personally hope we pick the most skilled player available, as we need an injection of playmaking and offense.

    Also for those propagating moving towards late round picks, please look at our 2014 entry draft. 7 picks, only 2 are still within the organization and both are goaltenders. The 2015 draft also had 7, and as it looks will produce maybe one NHLer. Neither draft did we have a first rounder.
    Last edited by Cash or Czech?; 05-02-2017 at 07:25 PM.

  10. #30
    #MakePetrGreatAgain BSBH Legend
    Phil in Absentia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    82,376
    Rep Power
    366
    And the majority of them have come in the back half of the round. Skjei went 28th, Miller 15th, Kreider 20th, Del Zotto 20th.
    Hidden Content

    "Everyone says you should be a good loser. If you’re a good loser, you’re a loser."
    - John Tortorella


    "I've always said, I'd rather tame a tiger than paint stripes on a kitty cat."
    - Dean Lombardi


    "Don't take refuge in the false security of consensus, and the feeling that whatever
    you think you’'e bound to be okay, because you're in the safely moral majority."

    - Christopher Hitchens

  11. #31
    Sticks Out For Harambe BSBH Prospect
    CreaseCrusader91's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Hudson Valley, NY
    Posts
    18,948
    Rep Power
    120

    Who Will We Pick?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rosenvold View Post
    I hope I'm not overstepping any rules in here and perhaps the timing is off, but I missed some discussion and insight on the Rangers prospect pool before the coming summer with the first 1st-rounder in ages. I tried to compile a quick list of the best current prospects and their expected potential rating from what I've heard and seen:

    Goalies
    Igor Shestyorkin - A
    Brandon Halverson - D

    Defence
    Ryan Graves - B
    Sean Day - B
    Sergey Zborovsky - C
    Tarmo Reunanen - D
    Calle Andersson - F
    Alexei Bereglazov - B

    Center
    Cristoval Nieves - C
    Adam Tambellini - D
    Gabe Fontaine - D
    Brad Morrison - D

    Left Wing
    Robin Kovacs - C
    Ryan Gropp - D
    Tim Gettinger - F

    Right Wing
    Malte Stromwall - D
    Daniel Bernhardt - F

    It's not really fair to talk about "holes" in the prospect pool - the Rangers need improvement in all departements except between the pipes. But they will only have one shot in the rifle in the draft, so I imagine they will go for a forward, although there are so many talented D-men in the late 1st round. I'm hoping for someone like Elias Pettersson or Kristian Vesalainen to drop a little and be possible targets for the Rangers, but I'm Scandinavian and probably not entirely unbiased here
    Curious why Tambo is a D and Nieves a C. Boo was hurt off and on this season. Tambo increased his production this year and showed more versatility as a playmaker. Less goals, more assists and overall points. I think he had a decent year and that expectations were placed rather high after his play with the Hitmen. Additionally I'd say Ronning had a good season for VAN.


    Sent from my iPad using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk
    Hidden Content
    “Practice isn't the thing you do once you're good. It's the thing you do that makes you good.”- Malcolm Gladwell

  12. #32
    Just a Simple Country Squire BSBH Prospect
    Dunny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    10,913
    Rep Power
    197
    Huh?

    Nieves didn't produce anything
    Tambolinni didn't produce anything
    Ronning had less points this year than he did in his draft year.


    These guys aren't prospects. They're organizational filler.

  13. #33
    Moderator Junior Division
    Future's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    5,669
    Rep Power
    112
    That's probably a little harsh.

    Nieves wasn't productive but he's not really projected as a top-6 player. Had he not gotten hurt, he might have had a shot at the 4c role to start the season.
    Ronning is 18 and had 5 points in 12 games in the AHL. The drop in production wasn't significant (59-53 points). I don't think he's projected as more than a bottom 6 guy either.

    There's not a lot of top flight talent in the system, but there's a bunch of NHL prospects. Calling these guys filler, at this point, is exaggerative.

    Tambo sucks though, lol

  14. #34
    #MakePetrGreatAgain BSBH Legend
    Phil in Absentia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    82,376
    Rep Power
    366
    That depends on your definition of filler. If your "best" prospects project as fourth-line players, I'd call that filler. What franchise doesn't have these types of players in their pipe, and really, is the gap between developing one and signing one as a free agent that great in terms of on-ice impact? I know it is financially simply because of the nature of dealing with Unrestricted free agency, but on the ice I'm skeptical.
    Hidden Content

    "Everyone says you should be a good loser. If you’re a good loser, you’re a loser."
    - John Tortorella


    "I've always said, I'd rather tame a tiger than paint stripes on a kitty cat."
    - Dean Lombardi


    "Don't take refuge in the false security of consensus, and the feeling that whatever
    you think you’'e bound to be okay, because you're in the safely moral majority."

    - Christopher Hitchens

  15. #35
    Senior Member Bantam Division
    Long live the King's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    1,137
    Rep Power
    27
    Quote Originally Posted by Phil in Absentia View Post
    That depends on your definition of filler. If your "best" prospects project as fourth-line players, I'd call that filler. What franchise doesn't have these types of players in their pipe, and really, is the gap between developing one and signing one as a free agent that great in terms of on-ice impact? I know it is financially simply because of the nature of dealing with Unrestricted free agency, but on the ice I'm skeptical.
    Ok, so lot of talk about Fast's value lately. What if Kovacs or Stromwall can become the next Fast? Is having a young, hungry defensively responsible guy, that can still chip in 20-30 points for under $1M or valuable than hoping a UFA will be fill the role for money? Right now we're paying Fast and Lindberg $1.6M and that's probably half the price compared to if we had veteran UFA in those spots.

  16. #36
    #MakePetrGreatAgain BSBH Legend
    Phil in Absentia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    82,376
    Rep Power
    366
    That's great. But what I'm saying is that I wouldn't object to someone calling them filler. They are, in that they are much more easily replaced than a top-six forward, for example.

    I also acknowledged the monetary aspect. I understand UFA's cost more money by default. But the on-ice impact doesn't change much between drafting one and buying one. The biggest advantage to drafting is the cost control, not on ice impact.
    Hidden Content

    "Everyone says you should be a good loser. If you’re a good loser, you’re a loser."
    - John Tortorella


    "I've always said, I'd rather tame a tiger than paint stripes on a kitty cat."
    - Dean Lombardi


    "Don't take refuge in the false security of consensus, and the feeling that whatever
    you think you’'e bound to be okay, because you're in the safely moral majority."

    - Christopher Hitchens

  17. #37
    Moderator Junior Division
    Future's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    5,669
    Rep Power
    112
    Quote Originally Posted by Phil in Absentia View Post
    That depends on your definition of filler. If your "best" prospects project as fourth-line players, I'd call that filler. What franchise doesn't have these types of players in their pipe, and really, is the gap between developing one and signing one as a free agent that great in terms of on-ice impact? I know it is financially simply because of the nature of dealing with Unrestricted free agency, but on the ice I'm skeptical.
    I thought Dunny meant "filler" as completing the ranks in the AHL and minors. When talking about prospects, I wouldn't really call NHL-calibre players filler, even if they are only going to be 4th liners.

  18. #38
    Just a Simple Country Squire BSBH Prospect
    Dunny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    10,913
    Rep Power
    197
    They aren't NHL calibre players and I don't think that after this year they've done anything to change that view.

    Nieves will get looks because he has tools. He's done precious little with those tools. At any level.

    Even so, I would call guys that play 15 or so games a year for 2 or 3 years in the bottom 3, filler.

    It's a term that's really prevalent in MLB, I'm borrowing it for this purpose.

  19. #39
    #MakePetrGreatAgain BSBH Legend
    Phil in Absentia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    82,376
    Rep Power
    366
    I would in the context of talking about draft impact. It's great to get games played out of players, even bottom-six, but if the majority of your picks, including second and third-rounders, are all only evolving into fourth-line players, you're not getting much value.
    Hidden Content

    "Everyone says you should be a good loser. If you’re a good loser, you’re a loser."
    - John Tortorella


    "I've always said, I'd rather tame a tiger than paint stripes on a kitty cat."
    - Dean Lombardi


    "Don't take refuge in the false security of consensus, and the feeling that whatever
    you think you’'e bound to be okay, because you're in the safely moral majority."

    - Christopher Hitchens

  20. #40
    Moderator Junior Division
    Future's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    5,669
    Rep Power
    112
    Quote Originally Posted by Dunny View Post
    They aren't NHL calibre players and I don't think that after this year they've done anything to change that view.

    Nieves will get looks because he has tools. He's done precious little with those tools. At any level.

    Even so, I would call guys that play 15 or so games a year for 2 or 3 years in the bottom 3, filler.

    It's a term that's really prevalent in MLB, I'm borrowing it for this purpose.
    Yea but at this point, there's nothing to say whether or not Nieves or Ronning could or couldn't be a long-term 4th liner. There's no reason why they couldn't have the same career arc as, say, Fast and Brian Boyle.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •