[brooks] Rangers Getting Alarmingly Close to Forcing Jeff Gorton's Hand

[SaveByRichter35]

Ha' date=' this is one of the only forums on which I have sigs turned on. 31's sig reads, "FIRE VIGNEAULT" in like size 32 font.[/quote']

 

Thanks, mine is off too haha

[Giacomin]

I seeeee what you did, there.

 

Ha, was calling him McDermott all night. At least i wasn't calling him McBuckets.

 

Kinda fun video and article on Dermott. His first goal, the reaction, the cool standing O, plus some sweet highlights from Mathews, Marner and Willy.

 

So what did you scouts think of Dermott? He just turned 21 last month. 34th overall pick in 2015. Over 6 feet ~215lbs and fast.

 

I've been quite impressed. Plays 200' complete game. These are the kind of prospects I'd like to see the Rangers get their hands on. But how? We need to add legit young and fast talent.

[Future]

I've been quite impressed. Plays 200' complete game. These are the kind of prospects I'd like to see the Rangers get their hands on. But how? We need to add legit young and fast talent.

Every team in the league wants those prospects. It's not a matter of how, it's a matter of getting the right luck to be in position to acquire them.

[Fatfrancesa]

Well he was a second round draft pick. Not like they have tank to pick there. It would help if you don’t trade 2 second for Staal and Smith each

[Future]

Well he was a second round draft pick. Not like they have tank to pick there. It would help if you don’t trade 2 second for Staal and Smith each

No, but then you're basically arguing that the Rangers should have taken him in the first round. Which, ok fine. But is he on the board at, say, #24? Are you going to draft there and then try to trade up to jump TOR to get him. You have to tank to pick a guy valued at pick #35 with pick #35. Just as you have to be middle of the pack to get a guy valued at pick #50 with pick #50.

 

It's easy to say, in hindsight, that team X should have taken player Y a round before they did, but that's not realistic. Sometimes guys with a 2nd round grade - i.e. PK Subban - deserve higher. That doesn't mean you can go back and say, wow, X should have taken him in the top 5.

[Fatfrancesa]

Not saying that at all. I was responding to the post that you have to be lucky enough to be able to pick in the spot to take him. He was picked 34th. My point is that every team in the league has a chance to take him. Doesn’t mean you reach for him but chytil was picked earlier than most thought. Basic point is that there are good players to be had that aren’t top five picks. Teams that draft well pick up guys like that in the second round. Teams that trade away all their picks aren’t lucky enough to have a chance to get anybody.

[Future]

Not saying that at all. I was responding to the post that you have to be lucky enough to be able to pick in the spot to take him. He was picked 34th. My point is that every team in the league has a chance to take him. Doesn’t mean you reach for him but chytil was picked earlier than most thought. Basic point is that there are good players to be had that aren’t top five picks. Teams that draft well pick up guys like that in the second round. Teams that trade away all their picks aren’t lucky enough to have a chance to get anybody.

So then your point is that you should reach for him because, unless you tanked the season before, you don't get pick #34. The "every team passed on him" argument means that either they all graded him wrong OR they all should have reached for him. If it's the first, then you should be an NHL scout. If it's the latter, then you're asking to teams to draft with hindsight, which is impossible.

 

Yes, you need picks in the 2nd round to draft guys in the second round. But you still have to be in position to grab those guys who give you a greater return than most 2nd rounders. If you pick 50th, you're not going to get the guy who goes 34th. You're also not going to get the guy who should go 55th, unless you reach.

[Long live the King]

So then your point is that you should reach for him because, unless you tanked the season before, you don't get pick #34. The "every team passed on him" argument means that either they all graded him wrong OR they all should have reached for him. If it's the first, then you should be an NHL scout. If it's the latter, then you're asking to teams to draft with hindsight, which is impossible.

 

Yes, you need picks in the 2nd round to draft guys in the second round. But you still have to be in position to grab those guys who give you a greater return than most 2nd rounders. If you pick 50th, you're not going to get the guy who goes 34th. You're also not going to get the guy who should go 55th, unless you reach.

 

On top of this, only a small percentage of 2nd round picks even make it. Wanye Simmonds was the last pick in the second round in 2007. 14 of the 2nd round picks in front of him never played an NHL game. Hell 5 of the 1st round picks that year never play a single NHL game. Does that mean the Kings were some draft wizards? They picked Oscar Moller (who played a total of 87 games, last appearing in 2010/2011) @ #52 before picking Simmonds @ #61.

 

Drafting 80% luck 20% skill.

[Giacomin]

You make a good nuanced point Future. Yet, on a broader level Fatty is saying that accumulating some of those late first rounders (say by trading Nash and Grabs to contenders) are valuable because you have chances to get good players like Dermott. Especially in next years draft, which is a deep/good one. It is based off the conversation that emphasized the extreme value of top 5-10 picks. The point being that later picks can also yeild valuable players, particularly late firsts and even seconds. Those picks should not be devaued the way a mid to late round pick is.

[Long live the King]

You make a good nuanced point Future. Yet, on a broader level Fatty is saying that accumulating some of those late first rounders (say by trading Nash and Grabs to contenders) are valuable because you have chances to get good players like Dermott. Especially in next years draft, which is a deep/good one. It is based off the conversation that emphasized the extreme value of top 5-10 picks. The point being that later picks can also yeild valuable players, particularly late firsts and even seconds. Those picks should not be devaued the way a mid to late round pick is.

 

Can is the key word. Less than half make it.

[Fatfrancesa]

No I actually said it doesn’t mean you reach for him. My post was a direct response saying teams wish they could be in a draft position to draft him.

 

Because he was drafted 34th doesn’t mean he was the 34th best player on every teams draft board. It means he was the best player available at the 34 th pick by the maple leaf scouts. Another team might have had somebody else that was left. Other teams could have had him as a first rounder we don’t know. Buchnevich was a third or fourth round pick. The rangers scouts saw the value there and make a great pick.

 

The point is and has always been that the higher the pick the better and the more you have even better yet. Discounting late firsts and seconds is ridiculous. The whole argument always has been. You’re point about McDermott is an example of that. Good players come from those spots every year pretty much. And this year especially there will be plenty.

 

Nobody is delusional enough to think they are getting Mcdavid there but a guy like McDermott would be a nice piece to add to a rebuilding core. The only delusion here is anybody ever thinking that this team was/is a contender. Thankfully I don’t have that baggage on my reputation as far as discussing anything about the sport.

 

When the trades go down and the draft picks are spent the majority of the people will love the prospects that are put into the pipeline. They may never work out but there will be excitement regarding the future of this team.

[Fatfrancesa]

Can is the key word. Less than half make it.

 

100% of 1st or 2nd round picks that you don’t have don’t make it. 100% of players that sign elsewhere do nothing for your team. I’ll take half, not to mention even guys who eventually don’t make it still have trade value for years. Most first of second round picks that don’t make it with their original team get dealt for a valuable player or at worst are traded for something of value before they are officially determined to be a nonnhler.

[josh]

Vesey, Hayes are first round picks we didnt have

 

They made it.

[Fatfrancesa]

Vesey was actually a third round pick.

[josh]

[Fatfrancesa]

And so what? Hayes was another useless late first. Being able to sign a college free agent doesn’t make your draft picks any less or more valuable. Having both would be nice, would it not?

 

Another thing people don’t seem to consider is the depth of young players entering the league. They are better prepared then even a decade ago and there are more of them. The growth of the usdt has had an impact. Not to mention that players no longer have to be 6 foot and 200 lbs to be considered an nhl prospect. Guys like marner wouldn’t have been first round picks ten years ago. Since size has become less and less a determining factor to a players success it has drastically expanded the player and draft pools

[josh]

I'm not really high on draft picks.

I care more about the on-ice product, rather than the 4 years prior. We'll always have some draft picks that make it, some that dont, some that bust, some FA we sign, etc etc. Its a crap shoot.

 

I think the most important part of being a contender, is top-end talent. How we get it, I dont care. Trade up in a draft, draft for a player, sign a player. dont matter to me, just highly unlikely to get it mid-late draft. Just get me closer to that W.

[Fatfrancesa]

I fine with that. But trading up on the draft means you need the assets to do so. Nhl gms do value draft picks, at least 30 of them do. So having those picks or prospects are the assets you need. Flushing them down a toilet for improbable cup runs is poor asset management. Forget the past. Right now there are assets to be had for ufas. It doesn’t matter what becomes of those picks. Trade them for talent, develop them, bust boom, it doesn’t matter. There is no value in a ufa for a team with no hope so recoup the assets

[josh]

I fine with that. But trading up on the draft means you need the assets to do so. Nhl gms do value draft picks, at least 30 of them do. So having those picks or prospects are the assets you need. Flushing them down a toilet for improbable cup runs is poor asset management. Forget the past. Right now there are assets to be had for ufas. It doesn’t matter what becomes of those picks. Trade them for talent, develop them, bust boom, it doesn’t matter. There is no value in a ufa for a team with no hope so recoup the assets

I understand.

I'm that rare dude that trusts management. I'll still give my opinion, but for the most part, most of the time I trust them. Youll always have an Eric Staal move here and there, but those trades are no longer the norm.

[The Dude]

I understand.

I'm that rare dude that trusts management. I'll still give my opinion, but for the most part, most of the time I trust them. Youll always have an Eric Staal move here and there, but those trades are no longer the norm.

 

Am I the only one who is sick and tired of hearing how terrible the Eric Staal trade was?

 

The guy put up 65 points last year. All star this year and already has more points NOW than the Rangers point leader of last season.

When was the last time a Ranger put up 65 points in a season??? Oh it was Nash back in 14/15, in that ghost season where he scored 42 goals that many love to ignore ever even happened....

 

Ranger management took a risk in thinking Staal needed a change of scenery. Well, he did.

 

Maybe the coach should have used him as a center more often, or not broken up a line that was clicking with him on it.

 

The guy has blown up and gotten back on track. AV couldn't use him...

 

I'll trade all the 2nd rounders in the world and a b level prospect for a guy who will put up 65 points. Can we stop shitting on that trade and maybe realize AV is more of a reason why that trade didn't help the team? Because obviously that player is able to produce at a high level still.

 

This wasn't directed at you Josh. More so those who get all bent out of shape when someone suggests making a trade for anyone not under the age of 25, or dealing draft picks..

[Fatfrancesa]

Am I the only one who is sick and tired of hearing how terrible the Eric Staal trade was?

 

The guy put up 65 points last year. All star this year and already has more points NOW than the Rangers point leader of last season.

When was the last time a Ranger put up 65 points in a season??? Oh it was Nash back in 14/15, in that ghost season where he scored 42 goals that many love to ignore ever even happened....

 

Ranger management took a risk in thinking Staal needed a change of scenery. Well, he did.

 

Maybe the coach should have used him as a center more often, or not broken up a line that was clicking with him on it.

 

The guy has blown up and gotten back on track. AV couldn't use him...

 

I'll trade all the 2nd rounders in the world and a b level prospect for a guy who will put up 65 points. Can we stop shitting on that trade and maybe realize AV is more of a reason why that trade didn't help the team? Because obviously that player is able to produce at a high level still.

 

This wasn't directed at you Josh. More so those who get all bent out of shape when someone suggests making a trade for anyone not under the age of 25, or dealing draft picks..

 

Two major problems with the trade.

 

1. There were signs everywhere that the rangers had problems defending. They should have never been adding at that deadline especially being that they had already gone for it the prior 3-4 years by trading their prospects and picks. Again if he wasn’t a rental than fine

 

2. And this is the biggest problem. There was no thought of what they were going to do with Staal. They added the name but they the coach and FO seemed to have a huge disconnect to what his role was supposed to be. From day 1 his usage made zero sense.

 

That trade was a major mistake. People come on here and complain about the Paul Carey’s, dd, Holland, etc. those guys are on this team because the rangers were fast and lose with their picks and prospects for years. Say all you want how these uncertain assets work out. The rangers raided their feeder system to extinction and this is what you get. Signing Vesey and Hayes put off some of that pain and softened the blow. Thank god those guys signed here, there was no guarantee they would.

 

By no means do I think all those trades were poor ideas. It was just the one after another that was the problem. Amazingly two or three weeks ago you and others were still advocating for more buying at the deadline. If anything is tiresome and annoying, it’s fans asking for more of what’s crippling this team now.

 

Most have changed their tune at this point seemingly forgetting how ridiculous their argument was only weeks ago. Now forgotten,apparently their credibility intact, telling other posters what they are tired of reading. That was a terrible trade it is brought up because then as it is now buying is a mistake. It is brought up because hopefully you learn from mistakes. It’s brought up again because still there are people here who have not.

[Giacomin]

Am I the only one who is sick and tired of hearing how terrible the Eric Staal trade was?

 

The guy put up 65 points last year. All star this year and already has more points NOW than the Rangers point leader of last season.

When was the last time a Ranger put up 65 points in a season??? Oh it was Nash back in 14/15, in that ghost season where he scored 42 goals that many love to ignore ever even happened....

 

Ranger management took a risk in thinking Staal needed a change of scenery. Well, he did.

 

Maybe the coach should have used him as a center more often, or not broken up a line that was clicking with him on it.

 

The guy has blown up and gotten back on track. AV couldn't use him...

 

I'll trade all the 2nd rounders in the world and a b level prospect for a guy who will put up 65 points. Can we stop shitting on that trade and maybe realize AV is more of a reason why that trade didn't help the team? Because obviously that player is able to produce at a high level still.

 

This wasn't directed at you Josh. More so those who get all bent out of shape when someone suggests making a trade for anyone not under the age of 25, or dealing draft picks..

 

Fair enough dude. However, never forget good decisions are more often situational, than fixed or formulaic. If you play poker you know there are times when you go all in with a pair of Aces and there are times you check or even fold. It is situational poker, which is the only way to play winning poker. Play every hand by the book (mathmatically) and you are doomed. This is not opinion. It is the most important lesson to learn in poker.

 

For me, the Eric Staal trade is water under the bridge and I'm no longer focussed on it. My issue is this current Ranger team is not in the situation where we should be adding older and slower former stars because we are not one older star away from contending.

 

Additional situation. We have traded 5 #1s and a bunch of #2s the past 5-6 years or so. That situation influences how we approach future trades. You can't keep refinacing your house, eventually you are mortgaged to the hilt. We've gone to the well too many times. Eventually it becomes prudent to value our upcoming draft picks so that we don't find our already depleted system even more bare, for longer. The situation calls for mgmt to emphasize bringing in more quality youth, not the opposite.

 

I promise not to whine about traded #1s and 2s, if you promise not to ask mgmt to trade upcoming top picks for guys past their prime or rentals.

[Giacomin]

Two major problems with the trade.

 

1. There were signs everywhere that the rangers had problems defending. They should have never been adding at that deadline especially being that they had already gone for it the prior 3-4 years by trading their prospects and picks. Again if he wasn’t a rental than fine

 

2. And this is the biggest problem. There was no thought of what they were going to do with Staal. They added the name but they the coach and FO seemed to have a huge disconnect to what his role was supposed to be. From day 1 his usage made zero sense.

 

That trade was a major mistake. People come on here and complain about the Paul Carey’s, dd, Holland, etc. those guys are on this team because the rangers were fast and lose with their picks and prospects for years. Say all you want how these uncertain assets work out. The rangers raided their feeder system to extinction and this is what you get. Signing Vesey and Hayes put off some of that pain and softened the blow. Thank god those guys signed here, there was no guarantee they would.

 

By no means do I think all those trades were poor ideas. It was just the one after another that was the problem. Amazingly two or three weeks ago you and others were still advocating for more buying at the deadline. If anything is tiresome and annoying, it’s fans asking for more of what’s crippling this team now.

 

Excellent stuff. I deleted your last superflous paragraph, so folks focus solely on your solid logical analysis.

 

I was going to say much of what you did about the Staal deal, but figured it is best to put it behind us and focus on the future. However, since you covered it well, I'll add another point that rarely is discussed.

 

Eric Staal was struggling all year and seemed to be descending fast. I'd be willing to bet had he been traded to the Wild he would not have fared much better. So why is Staal producing so well in Minn? I think it is because he seriously rededicated himself to hockey, getting in shape and finding his best game again. We've seen this with top players before. They finally realize that they can no longer rely on a young body to take care of itself and they have to dig deep and work harder to get and stay in shape. I was widely reported that Staal went into the offseason and busted ass to rejuvenate his game and work on his body, his cardio, his strength, his skills, etc.

 

It paid off and supposedly Mark somewhat followed his lead this off season. Which may explain why Mark has gone from a liability to being servicable.

 

Regardless, for the Rangers Staal was a rental who did not have an off season to regain his form and learn our system. Therefore, situationally it was a terrible trade for the reasons you and I have mentioned.

[josh]

Am I the only one who is sick and tired of hearing how terrible the Eric Staal trade was?

 

The guy put up 65 points last year. All star this year and already has more points NOW than the Rangers point leader of last season.

When was the last time a Ranger put up 65 points in a season??? Oh it was Nash back in 14/15, in that ghost season where he scored 42 goals that many love to ignore ever even happened....

 

Ranger management took a risk in thinking Staal needed a change of scenery. Well, he did.

 

Maybe the coach should have used him as a center more often, or not broken up a line that was clicking with him on it.

 

The guy has blown up and gotten back on track. AV couldn't use him...

 

I'll trade all the 2nd rounders in the world and a b level prospect for a guy who will put up 65 points. Can we stop shitting on that trade and maybe realize AV is more of a reason why that trade didn't help the team? Because obviously that player is able to produce at a high level still.

 

This wasn't directed at you Josh. More so those who get all bent out of shape when someone suggests making a trade for anyone not under the age of 25, or dealing draft picks..

 

I don't disagree with you.

 

 

I don't like the Staals.

[The Dude]

Fair enough dude. However, never forget good decisions are more often situational, than fixed or formulaic. If you play poker you know there are times when you go all in with a pair of Aces and there are times you check or even fold. It is situational poker, which is the only way to play winning poker. Play every hand by the book (mathmatically) and you are doomed. This is not opinion. It is the most important lesson to learn in poker.

 

For me, the Eric Staal trade is water under the bridge and I'm no longer focussed on it. My issue is this current Ranger team is not in the situation where we should be adding older and slower former stars because we are not one older star away from contending.

 

Additional situation. We have traded 5 #1s and a bunch of #2s the past 5-6 years or so. That situation influences how we approach future trades. You can't keep refinacing your house, eventually you are mortgaged to the hilt. We've gone to the well too many times. Eventually it becomes prudent to value our upcoming draft picks so that we don't find our already depleted system even more bare, for longer. The situation calls for mgmt to emphasize bringing in more quality youth, not the opposite.

 

I promise not to whine about traded #1s and 2s, if you promise not to ask mgmt to trade upcoming top picks for guys past their prime or rentals.

 

This is hockey. Not poker... These analogies are meaningless. I hate when people try to insert work or other sports scenarios into hockey.

 

Eric Staal isn't an old slow player. Again. He was an all star this year and is outscoring every single Ranger this year as well as last year's top scoring Ranger and the season is only half over....

 

If the Rangers can add a Allstar at the cost of a 2nd and a b level prospect, I do it. I don't care if said player has a future for years and years with the team. GET TALENT. Age does not matter when the team is in dire need of a top line player.

 

If the Rangers could have gotten Staal or a player like Staal a month ago at that cost, they would be insane NOT to.

 

I don't want to trade 1st rounders. Not unless it's for a sure fire first line player. Obviously now with the season looking more lost than it did a month ago, such a first liner would have to be signed to a reasonable deal past next season.

 

2nds are available for rentals any time in my book. A good rental. Eric Staal good. Fuck. Joe Thornton good, even at age 5,865.

 

I agree 100% about trading firsts in the past. But that's more because I didn't like most of the players they got for them. I think they got raped in the MLS trade. Hated the Yandle trade..