Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 60 of 60

Thread: Rangers Draft Strategy: Keep it Simple, Stupid

  1. #41
    Russian Meddling BSBH Rookie
    josh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    24,073
    Rep Power
    234
    Quote Originally Posted by LeetchFan View Post
    Trade all our picks to get up as high as possible, hopefully 4 or 5. I'd love 2 or 3 but not sure those teams will want to do it.

    I'd also assume a bad contract as an inducement since I think we have some cap room.
    For Dahlin or Svechnikov I probably would. Zadina, probably not.
    As Phil mentioned, 4-9 is anyone’s guess. We could potentially get the guy we want at 4 with the 9th pick. Plus, youll get good, quality depth guys in the late 20s that can really help.

    Another option that bros have mentioned is keeping 9, and using Names/Spooner with BOS and/Or TB picks to move up as far as you can.
    Lias Andersson for #AJT2019

  2. #42
    Senior Member Squirt Division jsrangers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    264
    Rep Power
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by LeetchFan View Post
    Trade all our picks to get up as high as possible, hopefully 4 or 5. I'd love 2 or 3 but not sure those teams will want to do it.

    I'd also assume a bad contract as an inducement since I think we have some cap room.
    No way I would do that for 4 or 5, and I hate throwing away cap space when they can hopefully spend it wisely somewhere else. We certainly have enough roster spots to try and upgrade.

  3. #43
    Senior Member Bantam Division
    Giacomin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    2,484
    Rep Power
    66
    Quote Originally Posted by josh View Post
    You getting your information from the internet again?
    I just watched him play 3 playoff games this past month. Eliteprospects, two scouting services and a few prospect reports are showing him at 5'10'. I'm seeing no variance anywhere.

    I don't disagree with the assessment of his play, or Boqqvist, I'd just be cognizant, and hesitant of the size of these guys. There are only a few defenders this small in the NHL, and they all have injury problems.

    Regardless, I dont think either are on the board at 9.

    But, with the concerns I mentioned, perhaps there's a possibility a team trades back a few spots... Do you go 9th + 28th for 6 or 7th? (And here, I probably would, if not for the concerns I mentioned)
    Couple of things. Unaware of any health issues with Hughes. Not sure one concussion should cause Boqvist to drop much. I he falls take him. Same for Hughes.

    The Rangers will wait until the combine before putting together their board. Then evaluate the grade differences between prospects. At that point, mgmt may decide to target one or more prospects that might require a trade up. If mgmt has serious conviction on someone, this is the year to make a trade.

    Looking at the cost of moving up:
    In 2008, Toronto moved from 7 to 5 and it cost pick 68 and a future 2nd.
    That same draft Nashville moved from 9 to 7 at a cost of pick 40.
    Prior to that Carolina moved from 8 to 4 and it only cost pick 59.
    Pitt moved from 3 to 1 and it cost Mikael Samualsson and a swap of pick 55 for 73.

    If a team is looking to add picks, I'd strongly consider using one or more of picks 48,70,88,101, 132 to improve any of our top 4 picks. I'd also strongly consider moving one of our RFAs and/or Shatty on draft day, as well.
    Last edited by Giacomin; 05-11-2018 at 08:56 PM.

  4. #44
    Very Large Member BSBH Prospect
    Vodka Drunkenski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    14,073
    Rep Power
    124
    Quote Originally Posted by LeetchFan View Post
    Trade all our picks to get up as high as possible, hopefully 4 or 5. I'd love 2 or 3 but not sure those teams will want to do it.

    I'd also assume a bad contract as an inducement since I think we have some cap room.
    Thatís exactly what we donít want to do
    Hidden Content

    Let's Go Rangers!

  5. #45
    Senior Member Bantam Division
    Giacomin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    2,484
    Rep Power
    66
    Quote Originally Posted by Phil in Absentia View Post
    Unless you're getting 2 or 3, there's no reason to move up. The difference between 4 and 9 is marginal.
    Phil, I'm not comfortable with that premise/assumption at all. For one, (king, josh and whoever may differ) but I'd take Tkachuk over Wahlstrom. If I had to trade Wahlstrom AND our 48 pick for Tkachuk it would be a no-brainer.

    Second, it is too early. Let's wait till the combine, among other things. The interviews and other tests may reveal one player in the 5-10 range as much more desirable than another. Or one or two Dmen may jump off the page, in the Rangers eyes, over the other two. The cost to move a couple of picks and secure the guy we want might be very manageable given the extra 2nd and two 3rds.

    Hard to say the difference is negligible. That was the thought in 2011 when the Bruins were choosing between 5 Dmen at 9. They thought Dougie Hamilton had a few intangibles they really liked. The next 4 picks were similarly rated Dmen. Brodin, Siemens, Murphy and Oleksiak. Turned out the difference was significant.

    Even last year, it was rumored that once Makar was off the board Gorton wanted Elias Petersson then Cody Glass. Well they were both picked just before us. Based on last year, Petersson is the far better prospect and it looks like Glass has the edge too. I'd rather have the higher pick and my choice of talent.

  6. #46
    If you ain't first, you're last! BSBH Legend
    Phil in Absentia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    84,027
    Rep Power
    397
    Quote Originally Posted by Giacomin View Post
    Phil, I'm not comfortable with that premise/assumption at all. For one, (king, josh and whoever may differ) but I'd take Tkachuk over Wahlstrom. If I had to trade Wahlstrom AND our 48 pick for Tkachuk it would be a no-brainer.

    Second, it is too early. Let's wait till the combine, among other things. The interviews and other tests may reveal one player in the 5-10 range as much more desirable than another. Or one or two Dmen may jump off the page, in the Rangers eyes, over the other two. The cost to move a couple of picks and secure the guy we want might be very manageable given the extra 2nd and two 3rds.

    Hard to say the difference is negligible. That was the thought in 2011 when the Bruins were choosing between 5 Dmen at 9. They thought Dougie Hamilton had a few intangibles they really liked. The next 4 picks were similarly rated Dmen. Brodin, Siemens, Murphy and Oleksiak. Turned out the difference was significant.

    Even last year, it was rumored that once Makar was off the board Gorton wanted Elias Petersson then Cody Glass. Well they were both picked just before us. Based on last year, Petersson is the far better prospect and it looks like Glass has the edge too. I'd rather have the higher pick and my choice of talent.
    OK, let me rephrase, then: Unless you're getting two or three, there's almost certainly no justifiable reason to move up. The difference between 4 and 9 is likely marginal and more specifically not worth the cost of all three of the Rangers' picks.

    There. Provisos out the wazoo.

    On a related note, I like Tkachuk a lot, but I'm having an awfully difficult time buying any argument that suggests he's worth trading 9, 26, and say 31 for.
    Hidden Content

    "Everyone says you should be a good loser. If youíre a good loser, youíre 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

  7. #47
    Senior Member Bantam Division
    Giacomin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    2,484
    Rep Power
    66
    Quote Originally Posted by Phil in Absentia View Post
    OK, let me rephrase, then: Unless you're getting two or three, there's almost certainly no justifiable reason to move up. The difference between 4 and 9 is likely marginal and more specifically not worth the cost of all three of the Rangers' picks.

    There. Provisos out the wazoo.

    On a related note, I like Tkachuk a lot, but I'm having an awfully difficult time buying any argument that suggests he's worth trading 9, 26, and say 31 for.
    Yes agreed. I'm interested in moving up, but not at that cost. I'd be looking at the 2nd from the Devils and/or our 3rd rounders as the bait to move up. And I'm not suggesting we move into the top 3.

    I also just started a thread with a more creative, if not unorthodox option, to trade up. Wouldn't normally do a thread like that, but it is slow wait for this damn draft .
    Last edited by Giacomin; 05-12-2018 at 12:16 AM.

  8. #48
    Junior Member NYR Cafe Joe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    6
    Rep Power
    0
    My prediction?

    The top-8 everyone predicts gets drafted, the Rangers briefly consider Kotkaniemi before selecting Dobson, who is a nice mix of BPA/need.

    I feel like the bottom of the 1st round will be forward-heavy. Plenty of solid forwards could be available like righty-shooting Thomas, Kaut, Bokk, Kupari, Denisenko and Noel and lefty shooting guys like McLeod, Lundestrom, Kravtsov, Gustafsson, Berggren, Hallander, Olofsson, etc.

  9. #49
    Formerly Richter Redux Midget Division
    Ranger Lothbrok's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    4,513
    Rep Power
    109
    Agree with OP. BPA with your highest first round pick, every time, NO EXCEPTIONS. While there are no exceptions, there's one qualifer: if two players are approximately equal in talent, and you have an obvious need vs. an obvious strength, you draft for the obvious need.

    Example: 2010 at the 10th overall pick. Fowler and Tarasenko are both on the board. Tarasenko is the best forward available, Fowler the best d-man. Fowler is ranked higher by almost every scouting service. If you're loaded with D prospects, especially ones that are supposed to be offensive d-men, you take Tarasenko, and vice versa.

  10. #50
    Formerly Richter Redux Midget Division
    Ranger Lothbrok's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    4,513
    Rep Power
    109
    Also, have a STRONG feeling they're going to reach for Kaut at #9.

  11. #51
    Senior Member Bantam Division
    Giacomin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    2,484
    Rep Power
    66
    Quote Originally Posted by Ranger Lothbrok View Post
    Also, have a STRONG feeling they're going to reach for Kaut at #9.
    Rather the Rangers just try to get a guy like Kaut by upgrading one of the later first rounders. They can't fall in love with a guy, then reach for him. Better to either trade back or trade up for a target, unless the player is at the top of your board when picking. Get max value out of our picks. In our situation we have the ammo to consider trading up in this draft.

    In addition, I'd even throw out your premise in your earlier post. We are not deep enough anywhere to pass on the best player. If two guys are truly even then the tiebreakers should be readiness or character or size or speed or some other important intangible that gets priority.

  12. #52
    Keep your fkin head up BSBH Rookie
    Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    29,954
    Rep Power
    317
    Quote Originally Posted by Giacomin View Post
    I just watched him play 3 playoff games this past month. Eliteprospects, two scouting services and a few prospect reports are showing him at 5'10'. I'm seeing no variance anywhere.



    Couple of things. Unaware of any health issues with Hughes. Not sure one concussion should cause Boqvist to drop much. I he falls take him. Same for Hughes.

    The Rangers will wait until the combine before putting together their board. Then evaluate the grade differences between prospects. At that point, mgmt may decide to target one or more prospects that might require a trade up. If mgmt has serious conviction on someone, this is the year to make a trade.

    Looking at the cost of moving up:
    In 2008, Toronto moved from 7 to 5 and it cost pick 68 and a future 2nd.
    That same draft Nashville moved from 9 to 7 at a cost of pick 40.
    Prior to that Carolina moved from 8 to 4 and it only cost pick 59.
    Pitt moved from 3 to 1 and it cost Mikael Samualsson and a swap of pick 55 for 73.

    If a team is looking to add picks, I'd strongly consider using one or more of picks 48,70,88,101, 132 to improve any of our top 4 picks. I'd also strongly consider moving one of our RFAs and/or Shatty on draft day, as well.
    I’m not saying the reports are wrong, but a lot of times they’re off. It’s rare you’ll see a height difference on different sites. Unless a kid is still growing, it usually doesn’t change. Eliteprospects is off, a lot, especially with their statistics of midget players. There’s a lot of games that aren’t recorded.
    Hidden Content
    $1080 and counting

  13. #53
    Member Mite Division LeetchFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    35
    Rep Power
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by Phil in Absentia View Post
    Unless you're getting 2 or 3, there's no reason to move up. The difference between 4 and 9 is marginal.
    Is that the consensus, Phil ? I'm not into the draft speculation with the NHL like I am with MLB or NFL.

    Even if there's no difference between 4 and 9 it might pay to have the CHOICE.

    Maybe we get lucky and can get #2 or #3. Maybe a trade or ca$$$h helps us get it.

  14. #54
    If you ain't first, you're last! BSBH Legend
    Phil in Absentia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    84,027
    Rep Power
    397
    It's not that there's no difference at all. I was probably too terse before. It's that, at least for the proposed price of all three of the Rangers' picks, there's no one in that 4-8 range who would justify paying it.

    Also, there's no cash trading allowed in the NHL. Hasn't been a thing for more than a decade.


    Sent from my iPhone using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk
    Hidden Content

    "Everyone says you should be a good loser. If youíre a good loser, youíre 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. #55
    Member Mite Division LeetchFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    35
    Rep Power
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by Phil in Absentia View Post
    OK, let me rephrase, then: Unless you're getting two or three, there's almost certainly no justifiable reason to move up. The difference between 4 and 9 is likely marginal and more specifically not worth the cost of all three of the Rangers' picks. There. Provisos out the wazoo.
    On a related note, I like Tkachuk a lot, but I'm having an awfully difficult time buying any argument that suggests he's worth trading 9, 26, and say 31 for.
    Are you saying the Rangers want those multiple picks not because they are talented per-se....but because it increases our odds of finding a diamond in the rough with more picks ?

    Because by-and-large, most NHL 1st-round picks do NOT start and make an impact like in the NFL.

    I want to trade them because if we move up high enough I am assuming we'll get a more certain talent who is more likely to make the team and be an impact player (and yeah, I remember Pavel Brendle @ #4).

    But if you and others here want all those picks because of a "shotgun approach" to finding a talent among mostly-equally talented prospects, that COULD make sense also.

    My preference however is quality over quantity. FWIW.

  16. #56
    Member Mite Division LeetchFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    35
    Rep Power
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by Phil in Absentia View Post
    It's not that there's no difference at all. I was probably too terse before. It's that, at least for the proposed price of all three of the Rangers' picks, there's no one in that 4-8 range who would justify paying it.
    Understood....

    Also, there's no cash trading allowed in the NHL. Hasn't been a thing for more than a decade.
    Taking back a "bad" contract, I mean.

  17. #57
    Senior Member Bantam Division
    Giacomin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    2,484
    Rep Power
    66
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike View Post
    I’m not saying the reports are wrong, but a lot of times they’re off. It’s rare you’ll see a height difference on different sites. Unless a kid is still growing, it usually doesn’t change. Eliteprospects is off, a lot, especially with their statistics of midget players. There’s a lot of games that aren’t recorded.
    Sure, though I haven't seen anyone listing him at less than 5'10". Definitely possible it is wrong, which is why I like the combine. Teams gets fresh and accurate 1st hand measurements.

  18. #58
    Keep your fkin head up BSBH Rookie
    Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    29,954
    Rep Power
    317
    Quote Originally Posted by Giacomin View Post
    Sure, though I haven't seen anyone listing him at less than 5'10". Definitely possible it is wrong, which is why I like the combine. Teams gets fresh and accurate 1st hand measurements.
    Yeah, he’ll be 5’10 forever now.
    Hidden Content
    $1080 and counting

  19. #59
    Senior Member Bantam Division
    Giacomin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    2,484
    Rep Power
    66
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike View Post
    Yeah, he’ll be 5’10 forever now.
    Well you know those 18 year olds. They are men now, know more than most adults and you'll never find them in your fridge.

    BTW, Josh where are you getting your info? I hope it wasn't from that interview where the enamored kid was crouching for a better peak at the lovely lady. These days for more accuracy they measure the kids when they are standing up straight and without any cleavage in the vicinity.

  20. #60
    Keep your fkin head up BSBH Rookie
    Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    29,954
    Rep Power
    317
    Quote Originally Posted by Giacomin View Post
    Well you know those 18 year olds. They are men now, know more than most adults and you'll never find them in your fridge.

    BTW, Josh where are you getting your info? I hope it wasn't from that interview where the enamored kid was crouching for a better peak at the lovely lady. These days for more accuracy they measure the kids when they are standing up straight and without any cleavage in the vicinity.
    I meant on the scouting reports. Lol
    Hidden Content
    $1080 and counting

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions

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