article: Rangers Draft Strategy: Keep it Simple, Stupid

[ThirtyONE]

Sounds familiar.

[LarryBiv]

IMO, the top 10 can be extended to 15. Literally picks 11-15 can get in top 10. I've seen mocks which have Tkacuk and Hughes in top 7, which possibly leaves Wallstrom and Boqvist available to us. Crazy huh? We will get a really good player, UNLESS we go and act stupid AWAY from the players often mentioned. I can see Hughes dropping in our lap.

[LarryBiv]

I wonder how different hockey would be if the Pens didn't draft Malkin because they already had Crosby and drafted a winger or defenseman instead.

 

Guess your point is about taking that best player available. Good point. Everyone KNEW that tandem would be a force to be reckoned with for 10+ years, just a matter of filling in the right pieces with good goaltending. If we had those 2, rounded out with our 18 others, we would win a cup or 2 as well. Just about anyone would.

[josh]

IMO, the top 10 can be extended to 15. Literally picks 11-15 can get in top 10. I've seen mocks which have Tkacuk and Hughes in top 7, which possibly leaves Wallstrom and Boqvist available to us. Crazy huh? We will get a really good player, UNLESS we go and act stupid AWAY from the players often mentioned. I can see Hughes dropping in our lap.

 

Medicine woman is 5'6 on skates.

[ThirtyONE]

What are the thoughts on both Carolina and Edmonton saying they're willing to trade their picks?

 

Going #9 and #10 would be outrageous. Maybe there's a move for Zucc to Oilers to play wing with McJesus. Maybe Klefbom in return for other assets.

 

Many many options out there.

[Phil]

If you're going for 2 or 3, you're losing something critical, like Zibanejad, on top of 9, and maybe more. If you don't land Tavares, too, that's cutting off your nose to spite your face.

 

 

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

[Fatfrancesa]

I’m really hoping kandre miller is available at 26. Would love to grab him there, huge upside

[Giacomin]

Medicine woman is 5'6 on skates.

 

Quinn Hughes is 5'10" and around 175. He and Tkachuk were both very dominating and stood out in the NCAA playoffs. I was concerned about Quinn as a defender, but he really impressed me during the 2nd half of the season and playoffs. He (like Boqvist and Dahlin) is explosive on offense and drives possession and seems to have a great command of the game. We'd be super lucky if he were to slip to #9. Same for Boqvist. Both look like dynamic top-pairing Dmen who will put up big time points.

[Phil]

I still wonder if Boqvist's concussion doesn't drop him. I'd love to snag him at nine because other teams repeatedly pass due to the recency of his injury.

 

 

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

[josh]

Quinn Hughes is 5'10" and around 175. He and Tkachuk were both very dominating and stood out in the NCAA playoffs. I was concerned about Quinn as a defender, but he really impressed me during the 2nd half of the season and playoffs. He (like Boqvist and Dahlin) is explosive on offense and drives possession and seems to have a great command of the game. We'd be super lucky if he were to slip to #9. Same for Boqvist. Both look like dynamic top-pairing Dmen who will put up big time points.

 

You getting your information from the internet again?

 

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)

[Puck Head]

Malkin was drafted the year before Crosby was drafted - and they werent going to pass over Crosby - especially when Malkin was still in Russia and the chance of him defecting was rather low.

 

*After Crosby, they took Jordan Staal over Toews, Backstrom and Kessel. Brassard, Mueller and Okposo were highly touted prospects as well.

After that, they took C Angelo Esposito instead of Pacioretty.

 

 

 

*Please note that this was the season after Eric Staal had his good season and won a cup. Jordan was viewed as the "younger, meaner, better, faster, better scorer, and better hands version" of his older brother.

 

Jordan was never suppose to be as good as Eric was as a prospect.

 

 

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

[Future]

I’m really hoping kandre miller is available at 26. Would love to grab him there, huge upside

I'd like that pick. He reminds me a lot of Sean Day.

[Respecttheblue]

I still wonder if Boqvist's concussion doesn't drop him. I'd love to snag him at nine because other teams repeatedly pass due to the recency of his injury.

 

 

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

 

Our great hopes have been so bitten by concussions in the past that I'd be very reluctant to go that route on anything recent.

I realize a lot of kids may have concussions in their backgrounds, and other still might have unreported concussions. We've seen Nash, Zibs, McDonagh, Zucc, Staal, Gaborik all hampered, or even stopped short in a promising career, like Sauer, and the list goes on, not to mention the obvious Lindros and LaFontaine. , but I am just so leery of this these days, not that what I think matters even a speck, but I would hope our drafters are aware of our bad luck in this regard.

[LeetchFan]

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.

[Phil]

Unless you're getting 2 or 3, there's no reason to move up. The difference between 4 and 9 is marginal.

 

 

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

[josh]

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.

[Scott]

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.

[Giacomin]

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.

[Vodka Drunkenski]

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.

 

That?s exactly what we don?t want to do

[Giacomin]

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.

[Phil]

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.

[Giacomin]

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 .

[NYR Cafe Joe]

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.

[Ranger Lothbrok]

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.

[Ranger Lothbrok]

Also, have a STRONG feeling they're going to reach for Kaut at #9.