Y'all Wanna See a Dead Body? Chris Kreider Is the Best First-round Pick in 30 Years

[Br4d]

2 minutes ago, Karan said:

 

Generational talent is bit of a stretch. Those only come around every decade or so. But at the very least between the #1 and #2 picks, the Rangers should've landed with at least one bonafide superstar player, which wasn't the case. 

 

The Lafreniere and Kakko picks weren't opportunities so much as traps for the Rangers.  Lafreniere was the acknowledged #1 overall choice in that draft and unless the Rangers were trading the pick he was going to be it.  Kakko was a top 3 or 4 prospect in his draft and while the Rangers could have taken somebody else it would have been a controversial selection outside of maybe Kirby Dach - who has had a similar NHL career thus far.

 

The Rangers do an iffy job of scouting and drafting forwards.  It just is what it is.  Having those 2 high picks in a row just let them evaluate less than they otherwise would in making what now look like typically uninspired picks.

 

I do have to say that if I see the Rangers spend another 1st on a guy who is not known as a good skater I'm going to scream.  There are some things that are fundamental and if you keep ignoring them it just makes you look bad over time.

[RJWantsTheCup]

Skating is part of ice hockey?

[Karan]

On 8/28/2023 at 11:21 AM, Phil said:

 

Except they do suck at drafting. Look at the list in the OP again. It spans a stretch of 30+ years — well beyond the Gorton years. Gorton's selections are some of the worst, no doubt, but this has been an organizational problem for as long as I've been a fan.

 

While the OP about Kreider is pretty glaring, it'd be interesting to extrapolate this assessment of the past 30+ years across the league i.e. does this organization legitimately suck at drafting or are they just succumbing to the luck of the draw like majority of the other teams?

 

The other thing, which has already been touched on this thread, comes down to this organization's questionable developmental approach, particularly when it comes to top-end talent. 

[Long live the King]

35 minutes ago, fletch said:

 

It's easy to attack the Chicago franchise for the organizational culture.  The abuse of Kyle Beach while Quenneville was coach is probably still keeping Quenneville from having an NHL coaching job. 

 

Attacking the Chicago organization is ignoring the main points of my post.

1. It is possible to rebuild in an Original Six, large city.

2. Appropriate to this thread, Rangers haven't acquired, drafted, and/or developed generational young talent.

 

These points are relevant because of how the Rangers organization and management have chosen to construct a team roster and coaching staff.

 

Chicago went 47 years without a cup before Kane and Toews got there.  They made the playoffs once in the decade before.  How are you pointing to them as a road map for the Rangers?

[Pete]

1 hour ago, fletch said:

Attacking the Chicago organization is ignoring the main points of my post.

1. It is possible to rebuild in an Original Six, large city.

2. Appropriate to this thread, Rangers haven't acquired, drafted, and/or developed generational young talent.

I don't think anybody attack their organization. Facts are facts. They let Roenick, Amonte, Chelios, Zhamnov all leave over money. 

 

The point is they didn't intentionally go through a rebuild. It just happened to them. And there were times where there are games weren't even broadcast because The owner wanted fans going to the rink and paying for tickets.

 

What you call an attack I call just pointing out facts, I don't know why you would use them as a model franchise. 

[RangersIn7]

5 hours ago, RJWantsTheCup said:

Rangers had the chance to draft 2 generational talents, but ended up with Lafraniere & Kakko.    Normally the #1 and #2 overall will get you at least 1 generational talent.

It’s a term that gets thrown around, when in reality, if it’s real, you get 1-2 per Generation. That’s every 10-15 years in hockey terms. 
Basically, a couple show up per decade.

Thats it.

And it’s per position. 
 

The players you’d talk about are pretty obvious. It’s debatable at points, depending on the criteria.

 

Its an evalutory term, and it’s made about guys that have never played professionally and just graduated HS.
 

 

[RangersIn7]

2 hours ago, Pete said:

I don't think anybody attack their organization. Facts are facts. They let Roenick, Amonte, Chelios, Zhamnov all leave over money. 

 

The point is they didn't intentionally go through a rebuild. It just happened to them. And there were times where there are games weren't even broadcast because The owner wanted fans going to the rink and paying for tickets.

 

What you call an attack I call just pointing out facts, I don't know why you would use them as a model franchise. 

The Hawks didn’t change until “Dollar” Bill Wirtz died.

He was the worst major market owner of any sports franchise in any Big 4 league for more than 40 years.

By many accounts he was the worst owner in all of professional sports. 

 

You couldn’t watch a Blackhawks home game on TV any where in the Chicago Land Area on TV for DECADES.

 

He ran off Bobby Hull too. 
Countless players over the years.

He got booed by everyone in the stands the night they paid tribute to him in Chicago.

 

[fletch]

6 hours ago, Long live the King said:

 

Chicago went 47 years without a cup before Kane and Toews got there.  They made the playoffs once in the decade before.  How are you pointing to them as a road map for the Rangers?

 

5 hours ago, Pete said:

I don't think anybody attack their organization. Facts are facts. They let Roenick, Amonte, Chelios, Zhamnov all leave over money. 

 

The point is they didn't intentionally go through a rebuild. It just happened to them. And there were times where there are games weren't even broadcast because The owner wanted fans going to the rink and paying for tickets.

 

What you call an attack I call just pointing out facts, I don't know why you would use them as a model franchise. 

If your riposte is that the Hawks are a trash franchise in spite of winning 3 Stanley Cups, what kind of franchise does that make the Rangers when you have to go back to 1933 to get to a third Stanley Cup win?

[BrooksBurner]

5 minutes ago, fletch said:

 

If your riposte is that the Hawks are a trash franchise in spite of winning 3 Stanley Cups, what kind of franchise does that make the Rangers when you have to go back to 1933 to get to a third Stanley Cup win?

It makes them a franchise that continuously thinks aging stars like Panarin have what it takes to carry a team in the playoffs.

[Scott]

7 hours ago, RJWantsTheCup said:

Skating is part of ice hockey?

Sure would make things a hell of a lot easier around here if it were a priority for our favorite team.

[Pete]

1 hour ago, fletch said:

 

If your riposte is that the Hawks are a trash franchise in spite of winning 3 Stanley Cups, what kind of franchise does that make the Rangers when you have to go back to 1933 to get to a third Stanley Cup win?

Why are you moving the goal posts? Your point was that it's possible to rebuild an O6 team and you used the Hawks as the model, yet they never intentionally rebuilt.

 

Now you're shifting your stance.

Edited August 30, 2023 by Pete

[Pete]

 

1 hour ago, BrooksBurner said:

It makes them a franchise that continuously thinks aging stars like Panarin have what it takes to carry a team in the playoffs.

Do you have a point, or do you just need to say "Panarin" in every thread because you're still big mad?

[Long live the King]

3 hours ago, fletch said:

 

If your riposte is that the Hawks are a trash franchise in spite of winning 3 Stanley Cups, what kind of franchise does that make the Rangers when you have to go back to 1933 to get to a third Stanley Cup win?

 

So is Toronto a good franchise since the won a bunch of Cups in the 50s and 60s?  Did they successfully re build?

 

How about the Oilers since they won 5 cups in the 80s?  All their 1st overall picks make them good?

 

Is Montreal good?  Have they successfully  rebuilt?

 

Winning the cup is hard. 

[fletch]

7 hours ago, Long live the King said:

 

So is Toronto a good franchise since the won a bunch of Cups in the 50s and 60s?  Did they successfully re build?

This is closer to my point.  Winning 1 Stanley Cup is impressive, but the stated goal from my original post is to win multiple Cups.  During Toronto's run in the 50s and 60s, they certainly were a franchise that other teams wanted to emulate, with their roster construction, and how their organization was built.  There certainly was rebuilding when there were only a few franchises, but different than now when 32 teams are scrambling for talent.    

 

How about the Oilers since they won 5 cups in the 80s?  All their 1st overall picks make them good?

Pick your favorite team with multiple Cups, be the Oilers, the Islanders, the Lightning, whomever.  They had the stretch of championship hockey I want to experience with the Rangers in my lifetime.  I don't think Ranger's management style puts us on track to win multiple cups.  It puts on track for us to consistently be a playoff team and have a puncher's chance to have a run to a single Cup, like most NHL teams, rather than an elite team.  This is one of my consistent criticisms of current management.

 

Is Montreal good?  Have they successfully  rebuilt?

In their peak, they were the envy of every NHL franchise.  At least their fans have those memories to tide them over.

 

Winning the cup is hard. 

This is a cop-out.  For franchises that haven't won, you have to think about things like : 1. poor organization; 2. lack of talent; 3. unlucky; 4. inept.  For the Rangers, 'unlucky' would be the most comforting adjective, but I don't think that covers 100% of the drought.

 

[Pete]

If winning multiple cups in a short period of time is now the bar, then you'll always be disappointed. You may as well stop watching. 

Edited August 30, 2023 by Pete

[RangersIn7]

12 hours ago, BrooksBurner said:

It makes them a franchise that continuously thinks aging stars like Panarin have what it takes to carry a team in the playoffs.

Panarin is still in his prime. 

[BrooksBurner]

1 minute ago, RangersIn7 said:

Panarin is still in his prime. 

Doubtful.

[BrooksBurner]

6 minutes ago, Pete said:

If winning multiple cups in a short period of time is now the bar, then you'll always be disappointed. You may as well stop watching. 

Yes. Let’s set the bar low. Rangers fans gonna Rangers fans.

Edited August 30, 2023 by BrooksBurner

[Br4d]

13 hours ago, BrooksBurner said:

It makes them a franchise that continuously thinks aging stars like Panarin have what it takes to carry a team in the playoffs.

 

The Rangers do tend to get the back half of a player's career when they are in decline.

 

That worked great with Messier but failed miserably with Esposito.

 

People forget how great Esposito was right up until the point the Bruins decided he was past it and convinced the Rangers to give up Brad Park for him.

[RangersIn7]

1 hour ago, BrooksBurner said:

Doubtful.

I understand the skepticism. But until production declines or there is a noticeable drop in his quality of play, it’s hard to say he’s not. 
 

Coming off a 30 goal, 90 point season 
 

[RangersIn7]

1 hour ago, Br4d said:

 

The Rangers do tend to get the back half of a player's career when they are in decline.

 

That worked great with Messier but failed miserably with Esposito.

 

People forget how great Esposito was right up until the point the Bruins decided he was past it and convinced the Rangers to give up Brad Park for him.

Messier was 30 when they traded for him, but he was not at all in decline and would play another 12 seasons. 

[Pete]

1 hour ago, BrooksBurner said:

Yes. Let’s set the bar low. Rangers fans gonna Rangers fans.

Realistic expectations vs unrealistic.

 

This is why you're forever unhappy. Nothing is good enough for you.

Edited August 30, 2023 by Pete

[Br4d]

15 minutes ago, Pete said:

Realistic expectations vs unrealistic.

 

This is why you're forever unhappy. Nothing is good enough for you.

 

It's not unrealistic to expect a franchise that is as consistently good as the Rangers to win a cup now and then.

 

The Rangers never get over the top because you usually can't acquire championship caliber players in free agency or via trade.  Those players are usually not available that way, you have to draft them and develop them and win the thing by good old homegrown cooking.

 

The one cup the Rangers have won in the last 82 years was because a leader capable of taking them there actually became available in a rare event as the Oilers championship teams were being broken up.

 

Since then we've had the same routine that has plagued the Rangers since the early 70's - acquiring good veteran players via trade or free agency and then failing to get over the top because if those players were capable of that they wouldn't have been on the market in the first place.

 

Patrick Kane last year was like the poster boy for why this doesn't work.  He came over from a bad team late in his career and couldn't help the Rangers.  If he'd still been capable of adding the win to the roster he would never have been available.

Edited August 30, 2023 by Br4d

[RangersIn7]

27 minutes ago, Br4d said:

 

It's not unrealistic to expect a franchise that is as consistently good as the Rangers to win a cup now and then.

 

The Rangers never get over the top because you usually can't acquire championship caliber players in free agency or via trade.  Those players are usually not available that way, you have to draft them and develop them and win the thing by good old homegrown cooking.

 

The one cup the Rangers have won in the last 82 years was because a leader capable of taking them there actually became available in a rare event as the Oilers championship teams were being broken up.

 

Since then we've had the same routine that has plagued the Rangers since the early 70's - acquiring good veteran players via trade or free agency and then failing to get over the top because if those players were capable of that they wouldn't have been on the market in the first place.

 

Patrick Kane last year was like the poster boy for why this doesn't work.  He came over from a bad team late in his career and couldn't help the Rangers.  If he'd still been capable of adding the win to the roster he would never have been available.

Except adding Kane last year was not a mistake. It was just something that wound up as not working.

 

But it was in no way a mistake to add him, Or Tarasenko or Mikkola or Motte at the deadline last season.

Yes, Kane was not 100%. It was known.

It just did not work.

Thats all.

There were various reasons as to why.

Coaching was chief among them.

 

They've made the appropriate fix on paper. 
We just need to see how it plays out.

I do not have major issues with the roster or player decisions.

 

Let’s go!

[RangersIn7]

Also Kane wasn’t in the rebuilding picture in Chicago.

Nor did he want to be.

 

He can still very much be an effective player.