article: Rangers? Should Alter Draft Lottery Fate

[Gravesy]

I'm in no way, shape or form comparing him to Crosby. We're talking about goals scored as the only metric for deciding on a high draft pick. Tkachuk is projected at 25+. Crosby scored 29 this season. So a similar output (projected) in goals.

The point being, there aren't that many players in the league capable of playing a game like Tkachuk and putting up 25 goals + (Crosby is a totally different player btw). So using that as the only metric seems flawed to me.

 

It would be better to say "The Rangers need goalscoring first and foremost, so I'd go with that". That's fine. But Pete is talking about whoever picking him being disappointed, and I don't think you can say that based purely on his projected goalscoring or lack thereof.

[Future]

Completely missed the point. It's not about other draft years or other players. The only comparison to make is the players on the board while you're on the clock. If you have...

 

Player A) 40/40 guy, dynamic offensive threat, guy you point to on the bench when you really need a goal

 

Player B) 30/30 guy, plays a hard physical game, willingly goes to the dirty areas

 

Both are valuable. Which is worth a top 10 pick?

 

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

I think you could make the argument that, if player B has those traits and player A doesn't, player B is more likely to hit his ceiling. If you know that they're going to project to that, then of course you take A, but that's not a world we live in.

[Pete]

What insight do you have on tkachuk that nobody else is seeing.

 

Your point of scouts/GM?s/coaches are sometimes wrong could apply to anyone of the draft.

 

 

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

Ok. And?

[Pete]

I'm not sure the only parameter you look for when drafting players is goals, although it's obviously important when drafting a forward early.

In any case this guy is projected to be one of the best 2 way players in the league, adding immense physicality and grit whilst putting up around 25 goals a season.

That's a goals output on par with guys like Wheeler, Gaudreau and Crosby.

 

There is only a small handful of players like that in the league, and every single one of them are incredibly important pieces for their teams. I don't think whoever is lucky enough to get him will regret it at all, but time will tell.

I think anyone taking him at 3 will regret it.

 

At 9...less regrets.

[Future]

I don't understand discrediting anything other than goal scoring. I'd rather have 25-goal, 55-point power forward who is noticeable at both ends, even when they aren't scoring, than a 30-goal, 65-point finesse player all day, even if that means sacrificing a few points. Would anyone honestly take Matt Duchene over Ryan Johansen?

 

The problem with this team, as we complain about all the time, is that they are flat, have no guts, etc. etc. It takes players to change that. I'm not saying I would or wouldn't take Tkachuk at 4, but this whole conversation seems like its about arbitrarily capping his scoring ceiling and discrediting the other parts of his game to push some narrative that he shouldn't go in the top 5.

[Gravesy]

It seems that some people think these players grow on trees. "You can get that sort of player in the 2nd round". No, you can't.

I agree the Rangers need goalscoring, but we sure as hell need someone like Tkachuk as well.

[josh]

I'm not trading anything to go up and get him.

 

That's the discussion.

[Vodka Drunkenski]

I do think that?s the thinking, I think people are reluctant to give up a haul of assets to move up to grab him. If you?re going to move up, you move up for the talented goal scorer.

[Pete]

I'm not trading anything to go up and get him.

 

That's the discussion.

Exactly.

 

You can get 2 way 50 point players later in the draft. And we do just that, consistently. Callahan, Dubinsky, Stepan. Would anyone have taken any of those guys at 4?

 

Add to that, we have Lias for this. Isn't that his write up? Gritty...Leader...hard to play against.

 

We took our Toews. Time to grab a Kane. (metaphorically speaking)

[Long live the King]

I think you could make the argument that, if player B has those traits and player A doesn't, player B is more likely to hit his ceiling. If you know that they're going to project to that, then of course you take A, but that's not a world we live in.

 

You could argue that they did exactly that with Andersson, and people complain. If the top three forwards on the board while we're on the clock are Wahlstrom, Kotkaniemi, and Tkachuk, Tkachuk is my 3rd choice.

[Fatfrancesa]

I’m not trading up for anybody after Dahlin Svechnikov and Zadina are gone.

[Future]

You could argue that they did exactly that with Andersson, and people complain. If the top three forwards on the board while we're on the clock are Wahlstrom, Kotkaniemi, and Tkachuk, Tkachuk is my 3rd choice.

People always complain, that's not a barometer of anything, and I don't know why drafting Andersson matters in this context.

 

So?

[Gravesy]

Exactly.

 

You can get 2 way 50 point players later in the draft. And we do just that, consistently. Callahan, Dubinsky, Stepan. Would anyone have taken any of those guys at 4?

 

Add to that, we have Lias for this. Isn't that his write up? Gritty...Leader...hard to play against.

 

We took our Toews. Time to grab a Kane. (metaphorically speaking)

 

Well the idea is that Tkachuck is going to develop into someone vastly superior to those guys.

And I’m expecting Tkachuk to comfortably outperform Lias in literally every facet of the game. Sorry.

And again, I don’t think you can get anyone near as good in his category later in the draft.

But I think I’ve said my piece on this. I’d trade up to get him. Obviously.

[CBrowningPI]

I?m not trading up for anybody after Dahlin Svechnikov and Zadina are gone.

Amen to that.

 

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

[CBrowningPI]

I hope they can get Sammuelson with their late 1st pick. Good breed.

 

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

[Puck Head]

I hope they can get Sammuelson with their late 1st pick. Good breed.

 

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

 

Samuelson and Drury lol

 

 

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

[The Dude]

Completely missed the point. It's not about other draft years or other players. The only comparison to make is the players on the board while you're on the clock. If you have...

 

Player A) 40/40 guy, dynamic offensive threat, guy you point to on the bench when you really need a goal

 

Player B) 30/30 guy, plays a hard physical game, willingly goes to the dirty areas

 

Both are valuable. Which is worth a top 10 pick?

 

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

 

But that year is very similar as far as what's there. The top 4 are pretty set in stone. Then there a big huge mess of misses and hits then super hits. Super hits come from 15on and are more finesse guys that are out on the ice as teams top scorers. Those picks were and still are risky due to the players possibility of not coming over right away or ever. I don't think that has changed.

 

In a quick rebuild year, if you have the 5th - 10th pick, you don't pick a guy who may not want to come to NA any time soon. You take the NA power forward who can probably make the roster out of camp. Buuuut, Scandinavianns are an exception to that rule it seems.

[Zuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuc]

Exactly.

 

You can get 2 way 50 point players later in the draft. And we do just that, consistently. Callahan, Dubinsky, Stepan. Would anyone have taken any of those guys at 4?

Add to that, we have Lias for this. Isn't that his write up? Gritty...Leader...hard to play against.

 

We took our Toews. Time to grab a Kane. (metaphorically speaking)

 

Caping his ceiling at 50 points and compairing him to Callahan and Dubinsky is unfair. All the scouts and coaches that has followed him and his older brother has said that he is the most talented. Matthew had 49 points in 68 games in his second season. Brady could easily be a 70-80 point player and that u won't find in the later rounds (ofcourse you could win the lottery, but you get my point).

 

Im not sure I would trade up to get him, but if we had the 4th or 5th pick (or if he somehow drops to #9) I would take him in a heartbeat. Tkachuk is the kind of player you kickstart a rebuild with (unless u get a Crosby/McJesus).

[Pete]

Caping his ceiling at 50 points and compairing him to Callahan and Dubinsky is unfair. All the scouts and coaches that has followed him and his older brother has said that he is the most talented. Matthew had 49 points in 68 games in his second season. Brady could easily be a 70-80 point player and that u won't find in the later rounds (ofcourse you could win the lottery, but you get my point).

 

Im not sure I would trade up to get him, but if we had the 4th or 5th pick (or if he somehow drops to #9) I would take him in a heartbeat. Tkachuk is the kind of player you kickstart a rebuild with (unless u get a Crosby/McJesus).

I didn't cap anyone at anything. I'm going on what I heard his projections are. I'm also directly responding to people saying they would rather have a 25 goal 60-point player. You can get those guys later on, you don't grab them in the top five.

 

I want somebody to tell me he's Jamie Benn. And no one is saying that he's Jamie Benn.

 

As far as anyone mentioning his goal output be in the same area as Crosby, Crosby Paces between 40 and 50 goals, definitely in the high 30s. Using his 29 goals from this year, which if you go back and look at his stats as it down year, is disingenuous.

[Gravesy]

Why is he projected to be picked 3 or 4 by literally everyone if you can get that sort of player later anyway?

I don’t get it.

[Pete]

One more time for the folks in the back:

 

I didn't cap anyone at anything. I'm going on what I heard his projections are. I'm also directly responding to people saying they would rather have a 25 goal 60-point player. You can get those guys later on, you don't grab them in the top five.

 

I want somebody to tell me he's Jamie Benn. And no one is saying that he's Jamie Benn.

 

(FYI Benn was a 5th rd pick...Just sayin')

[Fatfrancesa]

Nobody is saying they’d prefer a guy who scores 25 goals to the forward who scores 40. If Tkachuk falls to 9 the rangers would be idiots to pass on him. There is little risk to him. His floor when he’s three/ fours years into his nhl career is 25. Zadina for instance has the potential to be a monster scorer but he’s also coming from a low structured high scoring league. His game is not complete. He has potential to bust as well. Zadina is the better pick but Tkachuk is the safer one. Safe at an all but guarantee top 6 forward who plays a 200 ft game and will at worst be a 20/55 guy all while being the toughest guy on your team. At 9 you cant pass on him for others that come with so much risk. Add in the fact you have two late first and two seconds to take home run swings.

[Pete]

Nobody is saying they’d prefer a guy who scores 25 goals to the forward who scores 40. If Tkachuk falls to 9 the rangers would be idiots to pass on him. There is little risk to him. His floor when he’s three/ fours years into his nhl career is 25. Zadina for instance has the potential to be a monster scorer but he’s also coming from a low structured high scoring league. His game is not complete. He has potential to bust as well. Zadina is the better pick but Tkachuk is the safer one. Safe at an all but guarantee top 6 forward who plays a 200 ft game and will at worst be a 20/55 guy all while being the toughest guy on your team. At 9 you cant pass on him for others that come with so much risk. Add in the fact you have two late first and two seconds to take home run swings.

 

Again, though...

I think anyone taking him at 3 will regret it.

 

At 9...less regrets.

 

What most of us are saying is that we wouldn't trade up to take him at 4, either. It's not worth the assets to move up to draft that kind of player.

 

And let's be honest, how many players drafted in the top 5 have a "200 ft game"? That's really not what you're going for there.

 

Add in to the fact that you already made this pick with Lias, it seems silly to try and do it again (meaning move up for the rights to draft a "safe" player).

 

I don't think I'd really care if they took him at 9 unless someone like Wahlstrom was on the board.

[Fatfrancesa]

He’s a safe pick but he’s a much better prospect than lias. He’s a safe top 6 forward. Lias was a safe 3rd line guy. Tkachuk is a better pick than wahlstrom too. I don’t by any means want to trade up to get him but at 9 he’s a steal. He shouldn’t be labeled as a 200 ft guy as a knock. The point is the guy is going to score 25 goals and be responsible and add the element of physicality. He’s a guy that you won’t only measure with goal production, though is goal production will be pretty good.

[ThirtyONE]

I love how the board goes round and round talking themselves in and out of players. Tkachuk isn't falling to #9 because he's a good player. We should just stop worrying about it. Personally, I'd be thrilled if they traded up for him. You want a change of organizational direction, he'd be a good start.