Giacomin Posted May 12, 2018 Share Posted May 12, 2018 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Posted May 12, 2018 Share Posted May 12, 2018 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeetchFan Posted May 12, 2018 Share Posted May 12, 2018 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted May 12, 2018 Author Share Posted May 12, 2018 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeetchFan Posted May 12, 2018 Share Posted May 12, 2018 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeetchFan Posted May 12, 2018 Share Posted May 12, 2018 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giacomin Posted May 12, 2018 Share Posted May 12, 2018 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Posted May 12, 2018 Share Posted May 12, 2018 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giacomin Posted May 12, 2018 Share Posted May 12, 2018 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Posted May 12, 2018 Share Posted May 12, 2018 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.