Page 7 of 27 FirstFirst ... 5678917 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 140 of 523

Thread: Nash for Picks in the 2018 Draft?

  1. #121
    Team Win BSBH Rookie
    josh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    23,240
    Rep Power
    208
    Quote Originally Posted by Fatfrancesa View Post
    And it doesn’t get better by hanging onto ufa players at seasons end that if traded would bring back a load of young assets. Just my opinion but those who argue to keep them for the hope of playoff miracles just doesn’t understand that the league changed dramatically when the cap came about. Young cheap quality players are like gold. The rangers dont have enough of them. In fact they are ranked dead last in terms of their prospect pool. The young guys they do have are all getting paid by this summer other than Buchnevich
    I dont know what you are looking at, but the entire ranking of the prospect pool is crap.
    The rangers have had the worst prospect pool since 1928. It didnt seem to stop them from being one of the best teams in the league over the last decade, even though they havent won a cup. Who cares if you have 13 forwards that might make the AHL. What matters is game-breaking prospect... which are usually NHL players. fuck prospect pools.

    Pittsburgh has been ranked the worst prospect pool since Crosby came...

    there is litterally zero correlation between prospect pools and future success.

  2. #122
    Moderator Junior Division
    Future's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    6,110
    Rep Power
    122
    Quote Originally Posted by Fatfrancesa View Post
    And it doesn’t get better by hanging onto ufa players at seasons end that if traded would bring back a load of young assets. Just my opinion but those who argue to keep them for the hope of playoff miracles just doesn’t understand that the league changed dramatically when the cap came about. Young cheap quality players are like gold. The rangers dont have enough of them. In fact they are ranked dead last in terms of their prospect pool. The young guys they do have are all getting paid by this summer other than Buchnevich
    No team wins a Cup without UFAs - most are buyers at the deadline and sell futures for a Cup run. If you are perpetually trading your vets to get assets, you will constantly have a lot of assets and never win dick.

    The cap actually means that you have to trade for good players at the deadline because you can't afford to keep all of your young talent. Let's say the Rangers trade Nash for Puljujarvi and Grabner for, say, Honka. What happens when Pulj, Honka, Buch, and Skjei are all all stars, need to be re-signed in two offseasons, and you can't fit them under the cap? You trade one of them? The cap means that you can't just build a massive stock of young players, because when their ELCs expired, you've got to dump good players. It's exactly what's happened to Chicago.

  3. #123
    Team Win BSBH Rookie
    josh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    23,240
    Rep Power
    208
    Quote Originally Posted by Future View Post
    No team wins a Cup without UFAs - most are buyers at the deadline and sell futures for a Cup run. If you are perpetually trading your vets to get assets, you will constantly have a lot of assets and never win dick.

    The cap actually means that you have to trade for good players at the deadline because you can't afford to keep all of your young talent. Let's say the Rangers trade Nash for Puljujarvi and Grabner for, say, Honka. What happens when Pulj, Honka, Buch, and Skjei are all all stars, need to be re-signed in two offseasons, and you can't fit them under the cap? You trade one of them? The cap means that you can't just build a massive stock of young players, because when their ELCs expired, you've got to dump good players. It's exactly what's happened to Chicago.
    Same issue we have now, too many middle 6 forwards. (aka - your previous prospect pool)
    Best teams, recently, are extremely top heavy teams - Pittsburgh, Chicago. 2nd teir being LA (every other season), SJ

  4. #124
    Senior Member Bantam Division
    Long live the King's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    1,496
    Rep Power
    43
    Quote Originally Posted by josh View Post
    Same issue we have now, too many middle 6 forwards. (aka - your previous prospect pool)
    Best teams, recently, are extremely top heavy teams - Pittsburgh, Chicago. 2nd teir being LA (every other season), SJ
    And to take it one step further, those teams are top heavy from consecutive YEARS of sucking and lucking into generational talent. Not from being sellers at the deadline for a couple extra picks in the 20's in one draft....

  5. #125
    Senior Member Pee-Wee Division
    Rangers4Life's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    637
    Rep Power
    18
    Our generational talent was drafted in the 7th round and plays the wrong position.

  6. #126
    Moderator Junior Division
    Future's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    6,110
    Rep Power
    122
    Quote Originally Posted by Long live the King View Post
    And to take it one step further, those teams are top heavy from consecutive YEARS of sucking and lucking into generational talent. Not from being sellers at the deadline for a couple extra picks in the 20's in one draft....
    Bingo.

  7. #127
    Senior Member Squirt Division Fatfrancesa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    462
    Rep Power
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by josh View Post
    I dont know what you are looking at, but the entire ranking of the prospect pool is crap.
    The rangers have had the worst prospect pool since 1928. It didnt seem to stop them from being one of the best teams in the league over the last decade, even though they havent won a cup. Who cares if you have 13 forwards that might make the AHL. What matters is game-breaking prospect... which are usually NHL players. fuck prospect pools.

    Pittsburgh has been ranked the worst prospect pool since Crosby came...

    there is litterally zero correlation between prospect pools and future success.
    You couldn’t be more wrong. It’s actually funny. Prospects are rated based upon potential. Having guys who don’t have high upsides according to those who actually scout players doesn’t bold well for your future.
    As far as the rangers not having a top prospect pool since 1928. Again you are so wrong you should probably stop posting.
    The years leading up to you know the beginning of the 90’s when some good things happened the rangers had a massive amount of highly rated prospects. Um richter kovalev leetch amonte weight marchant zubov nemchinov katpotsev etc. they were very highly rated and they were the foundation for what was to come. Some stayed some were traded for pivotal pieces.
    Same thing with the past run of excellence. The rangers did it through the draft or prospect pool. They again were ranked extremely high. Callahan Dubi arty Staal Girardi hank etc. The rangers did not make rash moves they built up with the draft. And they were ranked very high as far as their future.

    Every good team started with a great prospect pool. They might have been bad at the time but if you pay attention you know which teams are going to be good in the years to come.
    Your whole premise of it not mattering what talent is in your system shouldn’t have to be explained why it’s important.

  8. #128
    Senior Member Squirt Division Fatfrancesa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    462
    Rep Power
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by Future View Post
    No team wins a Cup without UFAs - most are buyers at the deadline and sell futures for a Cup run. If you are perpetually trading your vets to get assets, you will constantly have a lot of assets and never win dick.

    The cap actually means that you have to trade for good players at the deadline because you can't afford to keep all of your young talent. Let's say the Rangers trade Nash for Puljujarvi and Grabner for, say, Honka. What happens when Pulj, Honka, Buch, and Skjei are all all stars, need to be re-signed in two offseasons, and you can't fit them under the cap? You trade one of them? The cap means that you can't just build a massive stock of young players, because when their ELCs expired, you've got to dump good players. It's exactly what's happened to Chicago.
    Perpetually trading our vets. You’re funny. The rangers can go five years without a number 1 pick until last year and that’s your statement? The only perpetual thing going on here is that the rangers never sell and they always buy to appease what they must believe is a less than smart fan base. This team has done the exact thing you are again asking them to do again for almost 100 years. They have actually built up depth in their prospect pool on two occasions that I can think of and in both cases they enjoyed all the success this team has ever had. Yet you have no patience. It doesn’t mean you can’t go for it when the time is right because that is what results in cups including our lone one. But this is not that team.
    They haven’t played more than 20 minutes a night ever. They get outshot by 20 every night. They are horrible on the blue line and worse down the middle. By the grace of hank they are again in the mix. Hank can be Fucking god and he’s not enough. This is not the same team as 14 it’s not even close.

  9. #129
    Team Win BSBH Rookie
    josh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    23,240
    Rep Power
    208
    Quote Originally Posted by Fatfrancesa View Post
    You couldn’t be more wrong. It’s actually funny. Prospects are rated based upon potential. Having guys who don’t have high upsides according to those who actually scout players doesn’t bold well for your future.
    As far as the rangers not having a top prospect pool since 1928. Again you are so wrong you should probably stop posting.
    The years leading up to you know the beginning of the 90’s when some good things happened the rangers had a massive amount of highly rated prospects. Um richter kovalev leetch amonte weight marchant zubov nemchinov katpotsev etc. they were very highly rated and they were the foundation for what was to come. Some stayed some were traded for pivotal pieces.
    Same thing with the past run of excellence. The rangers did it through the draft or prospect pool. They again were ranked extremely high. Callahan Dubi arty Staal Girardi hank etc. The rangers did not make rash moves they built up with the draft. And they were ranked very high as far as their future.

    Every good team started with a great prospect pool. They might have been bad at the time but if you pay attention you know which teams are going to be good in the years to come.
    Your whole premise of it not mattering what talent is in your system shouldn’t have to be explained why it’s important.


    Richter - 2nd round pick
    kovalev - 15th overall
    leetch - 9th overall
    amonte - 4th round pick, traded
    weight - 2nd round pick, traded
    marchant - 7th round, traded
    zubov - 5th round pick
    nemchinov - 12th round
    katpotsev - 8th round

    Wow, you are right, Its all about rebuilding.


    Henrik, Staal, Zuccarello, Kreider, Miller, Hayes, Skjei, McDonagh, Fast, Boo, Letteiri, Vesey, Buchnevich. 66% of the team made up of draft picks and prospect pool.

  10. #130
    Senior Member Bantam Division
    Long live the King's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    1,496
    Rep Power
    43
    Quote Originally Posted by Fatfrancesa View Post
    Same thing with the past run of excellence. The rangers did it through the draft or prospect pool. They again were ranked extremely high. Callahan Dubi arty Staal Girardi hank etc. The rangers did not make rash moves they built up with the draft. And they were ranked very high as far as their future.
    So you say josh should stop posting, and then go on to list a group of players that A) never won a cup and B) includes only 1 first round pick and thats supposed to back up your argument for being sellers?

    I'll take Miller, Kreider, Buch, Zib, Hayes, Vesey, and Skjei over every single one of those guys you mentioned.

  11. #131
    Senior Member Squirt Division Fatfrancesa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    462
    Rep Power
    8
    Hawks. Kane and towed were top picks. Keith and seabrook crawford Saad hjarlmasson we’re picked in spots you are so quickly dismissing

    Kings. Doughty top pick. Every other guy was not.
    Pens Crosby Malkin fleury top picks
    Letang sherry Murray guetntzel orpik everyone else same as before

    Nashville
    Weber Josi ekholm ellis all in your dismissed positions. Even their top offensive talent forsberg was acquired by trading erat at the deadline which is one example of what a contending team over pays.

    Tampa Stamkos and hedman top picks
    Kucherov point vaseliski nemestikov kilorn palat dismissed

  12. #132
    Senior Member Squirt Division Fatfrancesa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    462
    Rep Power
    8
    Who said anything about rebuilding? There is no point is holding onto valuable players who are ufas when you don’t have a chance to win. You have decided that 1st and 2nd round picks have no value or apparently prospects either. I disagree. Trading those two does nothing in the chances of this team they already have none. I agree they have a decent core to build upon which does not include the two we are discussing. The rangers have spent years dismissing their farm. It’s why Carey and Lettieri and Holden play. Who comes up after Lettieri? There is nothing there. Yes Anderson and chytil are good prospects but you can’t have enough.
    And I’ll take richter leetch zubov kovalev weight and amonte any day. We are seriously arguing which group is better? I’m guessing you weren’t alive to see these guys play?

  13. #133
    Senior Member Squirt Division Fatfrancesa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    462
    Rep Power
    8
    The argument is that you can’t get a good player with the picks you get for Grabner or Nash? I don’t get it. The only guarantee of not getting a good player is not having the picks at all. They are gone anyway most likely why would you throw away those draft picks. It only makes you stronger and at worse deepens your pool in which to add when you should be adding.
    Does anyone think this team can win the cup? Is the goal to win a round? If it is then that is pathetic. Sadly it has been the case for so long that apparently the fan base is ok with that.

  14. #134
    Senior Member Bantam Division
    Long live the King's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    1,496
    Rep Power
    43
    Quote Originally Posted by Fatfrancesa View Post
    Hawks. Kane and towed were top picks. Keith and seabrook crawford Saad hjarlmasson we’re picked in spots you are so quickly dismissing

    Kings. Doughty top pick. Every other guy was not.
    Pens Crosby Malkin fleury top picks
    Letang sherry Murray guetntzel orpik everyone else same as before

    Nashville
    Weber Josi ekholm ellis all in your dismissed positions. Even their top offensive talent forsberg was acquired by trading erat at the deadline which is one example of what a contending team over pays.

    Tampa Stamkos and hedman top picks
    Kucherov point vaseliski nemestikov kilorn palat dismissed
    Ok, here it is again since apparently you missed it earlier...

    Chicago first won in 2009-2010. Prior to that, from 1997 to 2008 (12 years) they absolutely sucked. Record of 343 - 414 - 145. 7th fewest wins in the league. Between 1997 and 2005, they had 8 top 15 draft picks and they still sucked enough to draft Toews #3 in 2006 and Kane #1 in 2007. Is that what you want the Rangers to do? Suck miserably until they luck into drafting a Toews and a Kane?

    Pittsburgh first won in 2008-2009. Prior to that, from 2001 to 2006 they had the FEWEST wins in the NHL. 100 - 178 - 50. During those 5 years they drafted #5, #1, #2, #1, #2. They were lucky enough to draft two players better than Toews and Kane in Malkin and Crosby. They got lucky that there was generational talent available to coincide with the beginning of their suckiness.

    They both sucked for a looooong time before drafting Kane/Toews and Crosby/Malkin who by the way are all exceptional players that make everyone else better.

    Nashville, hasn't won shit. Tampa, hasn't won shit.

    Let's do another. The Kings, only other team you mentioned that won a cup. From 2002/2003 through 2008/2009 they won the SECOND FEWEST GAMES IN THE LEAGUE OVER 7 YEARS. Here are their picks in that time: 2003 - 13, 26, 27 (still sucked); 2004 - 11 (still sucked); 2005 - 11 {Kopitar} (still sucked); 2006 - 11, 17 (still sucked); 2007 - 4 (still sucked); 2008 - 2 {Doughty}, 13 (still sucked); 2009 - 5 Finally won in 2011

  15. #135
    Senior Member Bantam Division
    Long live the King's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    1,496
    Rep Power
    43
    Quote Originally Posted by Fatfrancesa View Post
    Who said anything about rebuilding? There is no point is holding onto valuable players who are ufas when you don’t have a chance to win. You have decided that 1st and 2nd round picks have no value or apparently prospects either. I disagree. Trading those two does nothing in the chances of this team they already have none. I agree they have a decent core to build upon which does not include the two we are discussing. The rangers have spent years dismissing their farm. It’s why Carey and Lettieri and Holden play. Who comes up after Lettieri? There is nothing there. Yes Anderson and chytil are good prospects but you can’t have enough.
    And I’ll take richter leetch zubov kovalev weight and amonte any day. We are seriously arguing which group is better? I’m guessing you weren’t alive to see these guys play?
    No team is going to trade themselves out of the playoffs. That would be an incompetent GM. Anyone watching almighty Tampa? Vasilevsky has given up 15 goals in his last 3 starts and Hedman got hurt in a knee on knee collision and had to be helped into the locker room tonight, but yea they're totally untouchable everyone else should just give up. Lot of competitive spirit there.

  16. #136
    Senior Member Bantam Division
    Long live the King's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    1,496
    Rep Power
    43
    Quote Originally Posted by Fatfrancesa View Post
    The argument is that you can’t get a good player with the picks you get for Grabner or Nash? I don’t get it. The only guarantee of not getting a good player is not having the picks at all. They are gone anyway most likely why would you throw away those draft picks. It only makes you stronger and at worse deepens your pool in which to add when you should be adding.
    Does anyone think this team can win the cup? Is the goal to win a round? If it is then that is pathetic. Sadly it has been the case for so long that apparently the fan base is ok with that.
    Having the picks doesn't guarantee a good player, it doesn't even guarantee a marginal player. The goal is to win as much as possible. Putting all your eggs in the draft pick basket means losing for YEARS and waiting for Kane/Toews, Crosby/Malkin, or Doughty/Kopitar to fall into your lap. As a fan, I'm not okay with losing for 10 years with my finger crossed that we land the next magic combo.

  17. #137
    Senior Member Squirt Division Fatfrancesa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    462
    Rep Power
    8
    Is that what it means? So having draft picks guarantees you being terrible? How is that? Having no picks would guarantee you not getting a good player. It’s not hard to understand but I’ll try one last time.
    The higher the draft pick the better odds at drafting a good player. The more of those said high draft picks the better the odds at drafting a good player. Now when a players contract runs out they do not play for you anymore unless you resign them. That player is free to go wherever he wants. If your goal is to win you will want to maximize the talent on your team. Having no players would guarantee your team sucks

  18. #138
    Team Win BSBH Rookie
    josh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    23,240
    Rep Power
    208
    If you are expecting to draft some magical player to turn your franchise into a winning team for 20 seasons, your best bet is being shitty for over a decade in hopes to land 2 generational players.

  19. #139
    Keep your fkin head up BSBH Rookie
    Mikey37's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    29,584
    Rep Power
    292
    Ok, found it .... Here's a list of teams that were in contention at the deadline, sold players because they didn't really think they had a chance that year, and then won a cup with the picks used from those trades a few seasons later:
    Hidden Content
    $1080 and counting

  20. #140
    Moderator Junior Division
    Future's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    6,110
    Rep Power
    122
    I'll just go down the list here...
    Quote Originally Posted by Fatfrancesa View Post
    Perpetually trading our vets. You’re funny. The rangers can go five years without a number 1 pick until last year and that’s your statement? The only perpetual thing going on here is that the rangers never sell and they always buy to appease what they must believe is a less than smart fan base. This team has done the exact thing you are again asking them to do again for almost 100 years. They have actually built up depth in their prospect pool on two occasions that I can think of and in both cases they enjoyed all the success this team has ever had. Yet you have no patience. It doesn’t mean you can’t go for it when the time is right because that is what results in cups including our lone one. But this is not that team.
    I never said the Rangers have been sellers. I said teams who are perpetually selling never win.
    Quote Originally Posted by Fatfrancesa View Post
    Who said anything about rebuilding? There is no point is holding onto valuable players who are ufas when you don’t have a chance to win. You have decided that 1st and 2nd round picks have no value or apparently prospects either. I disagree. Trading those two does nothing in the chances of this team they already have none. I agree they have a decent core to build upon which does not include the two we are discussing. The rangers have spent years dismissing their farm. It’s why Carey and Lettieri and Holden play. Who comes up after Lettieri? There is nothing there. Yes Anderson and chytil are good prospects but you can’t have enough.
    And I’ll take richter leetch zubov kovalev weight and amonte any day. We are seriously arguing which group is better? I’m guessing you weren’t alive to see these guys play?
    Selling UFAs at the deadline, especially when you are in the playoffs, is rebuilding. Nobody has said that picks have no value.

    The 94 team was a buyer at the deadline, they traded Amonte.
    Quote Originally Posted by Fatfrancesa View Post
    The argument is that you can’t get a good player with the picks you get for Grabner or Nash? I don’t get it. The only guarantee of not getting a good player is not having the picks at all. They are gone anyway most likely why would you throw away those draft picks. It only makes you stronger and at worse deepens your pool in which to add when you should be adding.
    Does anyone think this team can win the cup? Is the goal to win a round? If it is then that is pathetic. Sadly it has been the case for so long that apparently the fan base is ok with that.
    Nobody is making that argument. The argument is that forfeiting any opportunity to win now for a late-first or second-round pick isn't a smart move. Those players have as good a shot as never making the NHL as they do of becoming impact players.
    Hawks. Kane and towed were top picks. Keith and seabrook crawford Saad hjarlmasson we’re picked in spots you are so quickly dismissing

    Kings. Doughty top pick. Every other guy was not.
    Pens Crosby Malkin fleury top picks
    Letang sherry Murray guetntzel orpik everyone else same as before

    Nashville
    Weber Josi ekholm ellis all in your dismissed positions. Even their top offensive talent forsberg was acquired by trading erat at the deadline which is one example of what a contending team over pays.

    Tampa Stamkos and hedman top picks
    Kucherov point vaseliski nemestikov kilorn palat dismissed
    The fact that you are referencing teams who A) tanked completely to get top 5 picks or B) haven't won a cup is odd, since neither are any sort of template for the Rangers. That's not to mention the fact that the Blackhawks have traded a number of prospects and first-round picks over the years and the Kings are largely built around Doughty and a bunch of guys they traded picks and prospects for. Those two are the benchmark for being buyers, at the deadline and otherwise.

    You're referencing Top 5 picks, which is something the Rangers haven't been bad enough to get. So either you're arguing for a tank (which is a rebuild) or you don't understand that a top-5 pick isn't the same as a pick in the 20s.

Page 7 of 27 FirstFirst ... 5678917 ... 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
  •