Nash for Picks in the 2018 Draft?

[Long live the King]

Hoping your draft picks pan out is also hope.

[josh]

I don't agree. The best strategy for Cup success is strong drafting. The only way to win the Cup is playing playoff games, but playing them when your chances of winning is very low, or at least not very high, isn't a strategy. It's hope.

 

 

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

 

Fine, then realize we drafted great with the guys on our roster. Lets take the next step and fix what our draft picks didnt.

 

Look at the Penguins, they had to go out and get what their draft picks didnt give them - Kessel, Shultz, Dupuis, Hagelin, Cullen, Hornqvist, Bonino, Daley, etc etc

[Phil]

It is. One with a stronger track record of pulling teams into contention than riding free agency and poorly performing veterans into the playoffs is.

 

It's why I asked that very specific question that you don't seem willing to answer head on.

 

Who is closer to a Cup, in your estimation -- Toronto or Minnesota?

 

 

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

[lefty9]

Fine, then realize we drafted great with the guys on our roster. Lets take the next step and fix what our draft picks didnt.

 

Look at the Penguins, they had to go out and get what their draft picks didnt give them - Kessel, Shultz, Dupuis, Hagelin, Cullen, Hornqvist, Bonino, Daley, etc etc

do the rangers have a Crosby or Malkin on their team,plus I dont see see the pens trading two number ones for a 38 year old player.

The penguins know how to tank a rebuild when they have to,that's how they got two players like Crosby and Malkin,and before that someone named jagr and before that someone named Mario,where are those players for the rangers,I am still waiting and hoping

[LONG LONG LONG TIME FAN]

Then why did you respond!?!?

 

Obviously, you do not know the definition of the word discussion.

[Long live the King]

Obviously, you do not know the definition of the word discussion.

Oh, ok. Stupid me.

 

Sent from my [device_name] using http://Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk

[josh]

do the rangers have a Crosby or Malkin on their team,plus I dont see see the pens trading two number ones for a 38 year old player.

The penguins know how to tank a rebuild when they have to,that's how they got two players like Crosby and Malkin,and before that someone named jagr and before that someone named Mario,where are those players for the rangers,I am still waiting and hoping

No one has a Crosby and a Malkin.

We have a Lundqvist. maybe a Tavares in July.

 

No, the Penguins got lucky with Crosby and Malkin, who will both be in the discussion as top 10 players of all time.

Theyre drafting was pretty poor, outside those picks. 5 - Ryan Whitney 1 - MAF 2 - Jordan Staal

 

I should add, the Rangers had some high draft picks during that span, too (even though we are led to believe they traded all of their draft picks for old guys).

7 - Malhotra

4 - Brendl

9 - Lundmark

10 - blackburn

6 - Montoya

 

I thought draft picks got you cups?

[Future]

14 regulation wins in 43 games all season. Be fooled all you want by the nhls inflation of points. Playoff games are not played three on three or breakaway contests.

Are we going to gloss over the fact that CBJ, who has played 2 more games than NY, also has 14 regulation wins? They've also got a negative differential.

 

Should they sell Johnson and Calvert?

[Fatfrancesa]

I could careless what Columbus does. If I was a fan of that team and watched them on a nightly basis I’d have an opinion. The only team I care about is the rangers. The rangers do not have a cup team that is my opinion if you disagree then great.

 

As far as what has happened in the recent past, it absolutely matters in how the rangers approach this deadline. While not every trade was a bad one they all have one thing in common other than the smith trade. That being we traded away multiple first and second round picks, two of our top prospects and the only thing the rangers have to show for it is smith. Who just to point out they resigned to what looks to be an albatross contract. Discussing whether they should have gone for it in seasons past I agree is a waste of time. What is worth discussing is what those trades has done to the cupboard of what’s coming through the pipeline.

 

Trading Stepan was both a contract dump but also a ramification of those prior trades for the rangers wanted to start restocking the system by what they targeted as the return for him.

 

Trading the ufas on this team would be a correction to the assets lost. Losing them for nothing hurts this team going forward obviously. If this team was a strong contender than I would agree is a tough decision. However I think there is about 20 games to go to the deadline. What kind of response do you need to see from this team that would bury the concerns that have manifested over the first 44 games? It’s easy just to say they need 25 points in those 20 games or something like that. But does it matter that they have no structure? Does it matter they are in the bottom three in andvanced stars during that stretch? Will they win games being out shot 2-1. Will hank single handily be the reason?

 

To me unless some drastic change occurs in the structure of this team then the writing is on the wall. Results of course matter but so does how those results come about. By no means do I think I know everything about hockey but I’ve played and followed it daily for basically my whole life. This team winning the cup would have to make me admit I know nothing about the nhl or the sport. I don’t think I’m wrong and I’d bet anything I’m not but I guess it’s possible I’m just a pessimist

[lefty9]

No one has a Crosby and a Malkin.

We have a Lundqvist. maybe a Tavares in July.

 

No, the Penguins got lucky with Crosby and Malkin, who will both be in the discussion as top 10 players of all time.

Theyre drafting was pretty poor, outside those picks. 5 - Ryan Whitney 1 - MAF 2 - Jordan Staal

 

I should add, the Rangers had some high draft picks during that span, too (even though we are led to believe they traded all of their draft picks for old guys).

7 - Malhotra

4 - Brendl

9 - Lundmark

10 - blackburn

6 - Montoya

 

I thought draft picks got you cups?

as a ranger fan,how would I know.

When was the last time the rangers had a first overall pick,let's see maybe in the70s

[lefty9]

Not Even in the. 70s ,Brad Park was second overall,I think it was in the sixties

[Fatfrancesa]

Although many on here want to wait and see where the rangers are by deadline, they do need to be aware that this deadline seems to have a lot of good forwards on the market.

Kane, Hoffman, brassard, patches, maybe athanasiou. I just hope the rangers get the most for Nash and Grabner and as these pieces fall so do the teams who maybe suitors

[LONG LONG LONG TIME FAN]

as a ranger fan,how would I know.

When was the last time the rangers had a first overall pick,let's see maybe in the70s

 

1965 - Andre Veilleux

1986 - Brian Leetch - 1st round -- #9

[Sod16]

Not Even in the. 70s ,Brad Park was second overall,I think it was in the sixties

 

That was in 1966 and it was not a real draft. It was a draft of players unprotected by their junior teams, which means next to none of value. That Park was available was a fluke. He was very undersized, I believe about 5-8 at age 18, but he had a tremendous late growth spurt and grew to 6-0. Jim Gregory of Toronto thought he was too small and did not keep him on the Marlboros' protected list. Park's book "Play The Man" had the details on how he came to be unprotected. The first real draft, where teams could not protect their entire sponsored junior teams roster, was not until 1969. Even then the fix was put in for Montreal and they were allowed to pick the first French Canadian player.

 

Since the real draft began in 1969, the Rangers have never had a pick higher than the #4 that they traded for ion 1999. I think every other team in the league has had a top 3 pick at some point.

[Dunny]

That was in 1966 and it was not a real draft. It was a draft of players unprotected by their junior teams, which means next to none of value. That Park was available was a fluke. He was very undersized, I believe about 5-8 at age 18, but he had a tremendous late growth spurt and grew to 6-0. Jim Gregory of Toronto thought he was too small and did not keep him on the Marlboros' protected list. Park's book "Play The Man" had the details on how he came to be unprotected. The first real draft, where teams could not protect their entire sponsored junior teams roster, was not until 1969. Even then the fix was put in for Montreal and they were allowed to pick the first French Canadian player.

 

Since the real draft began in 1969, the Rangers have never had a pick higher than the #4 that they traded for ion 1999. I think every other team in the league has had a top 3 pick at some point.

 

Excellent stuff, thanks for the info.

[Dunny]

Looking at that '66 Draft, it's clearly a joke.

 

But

 

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php?pid=11654

 

LOL

[The Dude]

I could careless what Columbus does. If I was a fan of that team and watched them on a nightly basis I’d have an opinion. The only team I care about is the rangers. The rangers do not have a cup team that is my opinion if you disagree then great.

 

 

You don't care what they do, don't watch their games, yet know the Rangers don't stack up against one of the top teams in the east? How can we take your opinion on the matter with any validity if you admit you don't know anything about the competition?

[Fatfrancesa]

Do you watch Columbus every night and know who is doing what other than stats? I watch them when their on and I’m able to do so. I see them every time they play the rangers I know enough. That said I could careless what plagues them because I have zero interest in that team. Also they are one of about 14 possible playoff teams out of the east. For some reason they are brought up like they matter anymore then the others. Why? So the rangers are as good as Columbus maybe better according to whomever. So what? I watch as much hockey as I can but I go out of my way to either go to or watch every game involving the rangers.

 

I can pretty much guarantee nobody on here watches every teams every game. You’re point is ridiculous and just trying to bait? It’s exactly posts like this that have no point other than to cause confrontation that brings any discussion to a halt.

[Mike]

Do you watch Columbus every night and know who is doing what other than stats? I watch them when their on and I’m able to do so. I see them every time they play the rangers I know enough. That said I could careless what plagues them because I have zero interest in that team. Also they are one of about 14 possible playoff teams out of the east. For some reason they are brought up like they matter anymore then the others. Why? So the rangers are as good as Columbus maybe better according to whomever. So what? I watch as much hockey as I can but I go out of my way to either go to or watch every game involving the rangers.

 

I can pretty much guarantee nobody on here watches every teams every game. You’re point is ridiculous and just trying to bait? It’s exactly posts like this that have no point other than to cause confrontation that brings any discussion to a halt.

 

I don't think he's trying to bait you into arguing. Yes, it's impossible to watch every team's every game, but some people are hockey 1st, Rangers 2nd. That doesn't mean the Rangers mean any less to them over someone who only watches the Rangers, or makes them anything less than a die hard fan. I'll watch any game at any level when I can, and sometimes can't watch the Ranger game live, but will go back and watch even if they lose say, 7-2 !

 

With that said, I don't think watching 3-4 games for one specific team is enough to pass serious judgement on them, but it's good to keep an eye on as many games as possible imo.

[Fatfrancesa]

Who said I watched 3-4 games? Somebody brought up Columbus on a ranger site. What does columbus’s Decisions have to do with the rangers and what ails them. To use the point that this rangers can’t make tradexdeadline deals because Columbus wouldn’t has no basis. I’ve seen plenty of Columbus I know what they are. Probably not a cup team in my opinion but in my opinion probably better suited than the rangers to make a trade to go for it if they feel like it. Again probably ill advised but who cares.

 

Now let the discussion go in that direction. Instead of it being about what the rangers do let’s discuss Columbus because like I said it’s bait for all the mental midgets to cloud the discussion.

 

Let’s forget that these arguments were made before the isles game. The majority who commented attacked me and my pessimism. Two games later and everyone wants the coach fired and Elliot Fucking Friedman is saying the rangers might even be willing to trade zucc and mcd. He’s not saying that because he believes the rangers are cup contenders. He’s saying it because guess what it’s his job to watch every teams every game and he knows along with anyone with a clue the rangers have zero chance this year.

 

I know exactly what I’m talking about and instead of coming off like a know it all about all things hockey and every team I’m trying to keep the conversation on topic. Instead the constant badgering and baiting continues.

I never questioned his fandom or his knowledge. In fact I responded to an obvious troll job respectively and tried to keep it civil. Instead I get a doubling down with another person who has no idea how many Columbus games I watch. All I said is that I don’t watch every game because I’m not a fan. I don’t think about Columbus situation because I’m not a fan and I can careless if they never win.

 

Enough of the bullshit.

 

The argument of the wisdom of trading Nash and Grabner seems now to be over. Fact is the original argument wasn’t even that. It was how could you even think About making those trades according to those arguing.

 

In my opinion anyone with a clue knows this team isn’t a contender. So should I question their knowledge about the rangers or at least try and have a civil discussion

[Mike]

Who said I watched 3-4 games? Somebody brought up Columbus on a ranger site. What does columbus’s Decisions have to do with the rangers and what ails them. To use the point that this rangers can’t make tradexdeadline deals because Columbus wouldn’t has no basis. I’ve seen plenty of Columbus I know what they are. Probably not a cup team in my opinion but in my opinion probably better suited than the rangers to make a trade to go for it if they feel like it. Again probably ill advised but who cares.

 

Now let the discussion go in that direction. Instead of it being about what the rangers do let’s discuss Columbus because like I said it’s bait for all the mental midgets to cloud the discussion.

 

Let’s forget that these arguments were made before the isles game. The majority who commented attacked me and my pessimism. Two games later and everyone wants the coach fired and Elliot Fucking Friedman is saying the rangers might even be willing to trade zucc and mcd. He’s not saying that because he believes the rangers are cup contenders. He’s saying it because guess what it’s his job to watch every teams every game and he knows along with anyone with a clue the rangers have zero chance this year.

 

I know exactly what I’m talking about and instead of coming off like a know it all about all things hockey and every team I’m trying to keep the conversation on topic. Instead the constant badgering and baiting continues.

I never questioned his fandom or his knowledge. In fact I responded to an obvious troll job respectively and tried to keep it civil. Instead I get a doubling down with another person who has no idea how many Columbus games I watch

 

I wasn't questioning what you watch or your opinion. I estimated 3-4 games based on your comment of watching them when they're on or play the Rangers. I was saying Dude wasn't baiting you. I think he was genuinely asking you a question based on how he posts here. Sometimes things could be read the wrong way.

 

In addition, you've probably watched more Colombus games than I have. My point wasn't to debate who watches what teams. I just know a few people here watch other teams more frequently than expected. I also have no idea if Dude watches the Blue Jackets. Lol

[Fatfrancesa]

Columbus

Bob had a hot start not as good lately but it’s his usual vacation

 

Outside of their top pair werenski and jones their defense has been underperforming. They have discussed breaking them up but have not yet. Johnson asked for a trade

 

Their power play was a strength last year but terrible this year

 

Atkinson and foligno after having break out years last year are having awful years this year

 

They are having trouble finding a top line center but as of now Dubois looks like he’s growing into the role

 

I have zero idea why sonny Milano doesn’t play more

 

Josh Anderson has been very good but probably isn’t a top line player

 

Panarin started off slow but has since started scoring too bad he’s the only one with consistency lately.

 

Columbus does have a solid farm system and most of their core are very young outside of bob and panarin

 

Dubi was stripped of the a

 

I’m not clueless

[lefty9]

That was in 1966 and it was not a real draft. It was a draft of players unprotected by their junior teams, which means next to none of value. That Park was available was a fluke. He was very undersized, I believe about 5-8 at age 18, but he had a tremendous late growth spurt and grew to 6-0. Jim Gregory of Toronto thought he was too small and did not keep him on the Marlboros' protected list. Park's book "Play The Man" had the details on how he came to be unprotected. The first real draft, where teams could not protect their entire sponsored junior teams roster, was not until 1969. Even then the fix was put in for Montreal and they were allowed to pick the first French Canadian player.

 

Since the real draft began in 1969, the Rangers have never had a pick higher than the #4 that they traded for ion 1999. I think every other team in the league has had a top 3 pick at some point.

that was my point,the rangers never drafted an elite forward in the draft,so there goes to show how important it is to draft first or second overall

[lefty9]

1965 - Andre Veilleux

1986 - Brian Leetch - 1st round -- #9

why bring up Leetch,he wasn't a number one overall

[Flynn]

That was in 1966 and it was not a real draft. It was a draft of players unprotected by their junior teams, which means next to none of value. That Park was available was a fluke. He was very undersized, I believe about 5-8 at age 18, but he had a tremendous late growth spurt and grew to 6-0. Jim Gregory of Toronto thought he was too small and did not keep him on the Marlboros' protected list. Park's book "Play The Man" had the details on how he came to be unprotected. The first real draft, where teams could not protect their entire sponsored junior teams roster, was not until 1969. Even then the fix was put in for Montreal and they were allowed to pick the first French Canadian player.

 

Since the real draft began in 1969, the Rangers have never had a pick higher than the #4 that they traded for ion 1999. I think every other team in the league has had a top 3 pick at some point.

 

Great info.. I learned something today!

 

The part about not picking in the top 3 is really crazy if you think about the law of averages