Confirmed with Link: Holden to Boston for Rob O'Gara + 2018 3rd round pick

[UnSandvich]

It's a mixed bad IMO.

While we didn't land the stars that Philly and St. Louis landed, we've arguably been more successful longer in recent memory --- both with our drafting and our on-ice accomplishments. So while they may have hit a homerun, you could argue that we actually manufactured more runs over the same time period of time.

But part of the problem is that the Rangers have never been able to put both elements together. Solid drafting and then getting that one over-the-top prospect. It's the difference between grading their draft an "A" versus a "B" and more than likely it's the difference between them having a cup or two.

Some of it is timing, some of it is luck.

Sometimes it is picking the wrong guys at a key moment (falling in love with your prospects and not moving them for Shanahan, etc.)

Other times it's crazy outcomes - we lost three promising first round picks, before the age of 21, during a roughly ten year span. I don't know of any other team in recent memories that has experienced that kind of situation.

There are moments I think someone sold their soul for that cup in 1994 and said, "I don't care if we don't win another championship for 50 years, I'll trade you all of them for this one, now."

To be fair, if it got Hank his Cup, I'd be ok with doing that again

 

[Edge]

Can’t.

We still have 26 years on the mortgage to Old Scratch.

 

[NCRanger]

I think my frustration with the draft isn’t with the actual picks, but where those picks have peaked. Staal because of the eye injury never ends up being a number 1 D. But even beyond that, why is it that this organization seems to never completely luck out with its picks? At least since the early 90s. We get good players. But our high end mind-first round offensive defenseman (MDZ) ends up topping out as a decent D, while you see a guy like Erik Karlsson and even Kevin Shattenkirk also picked as mid-first rounders.

Our JT Millers NEVER turn into Claude Giroux’s. Our Chris Kreiders NEVER turn into Vladimir Tarasenkos. And those are the good ones!

And this has been going on for 25 years.

It’s entirely bad luck, but bad luck is the hallmark of the Rangers organization. Jean Ratelle 1972. Ulf Nilsson 1979. (My dad thinks the players strike in 1992 ruined the Rangers momentum) Brian Leetch 1992-93. Eric Lindros 2002. Mats Zuccarello 2015. Then things like Cherneski and Cherepanov. Losing out on Crosby.

The organizational bad luck goes beyond the draft, but it certainly includes it. It’s why I’m 95% sure we’re not getting Dahlin, Svechnikov or Zadina no matter what we do.

The things that have happened to this organization go far beyond just coincidental "bad luck". It does seem like the notion of a "curse" is real, and things that have happened AFTER 1994 make what happened before '94 look mild.

Honestly, the 25 years after 1940 shouldn't even be considered due to the way the league operated with how players were allocated. It's really only in the 70's when the whole "1940" came into play,

 

[Ardi44]

dupe

 

[Ardi44]

The things that have happened to this organization go far beyond just coincidental "bad luck". It does seem like the notion of a "curse" is real, and things that have happened AFTER 1994 make what happened before '94 look mild.

Honestly, the 25 years after 1940 shouldn't even be considered due to the way the league operated with how players were allocated. It's really only in the 70's when the whole "1940" came into play,

Havent posted in ages, just have been lurking. But, i wanted to sign in to give a giants thumbs up to this comment. I read Bobby Orr's book a few years back and had no idea how that they allocated players based off of geography. Your comment is spot on

 

[Off Sides]

In the draft, I just dislike it when they don't give more weight to talent more so than anything else.

Not saying those other things should not be considered, likeness of that talent hitting it's ceiling or coming close to for sure needs to be weighed, but when it's a large gap in talent between one player and another especially with their 1st rounders, and then they still take the lesser talented, that is where my angst comes from.

 

[Mikos87]

It's a mixed bad IMO.

While we didn't land the stars that Philly and St. Louis landed, we've arguably been more successful longer in recent memory --- both with our drafting and our on-ice accomplishments. So while they may have hit a homerun, you could argue that we actually manufactured more runs over the same time period of time.

Some of it is timing, some of it is luck.

Some of it's goaltending.

 

[Edge]

Some of it's goaltending.

Philly in the 1990s.

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

These two quote are the gist of it. Being able to consistently identify future NHLer is what the Rangers done very well recently and should not be underestimated. Passing on a universally acknowledged choice for a bust hurts but it's been sooooo long this narrative should be expired by now under the statute of limitation.

Heck, it's not even that the narrative should be expired. The narrative is wrong and was always wrong.

People just wanted to have reasons to hate the front office and it was pure blasphemy to credit them for anything at all around that time. Hank was pure dumb luck but Jessiman? No luck involved at all according to them. I get it. Wounds from the dark ages were too fresh. So people were desperately fabricating reasons that weren't backed up by data.

Now if you want to push the narrative that they butchered their 03 and 10 1st round picks but their overall drafting was above average at worst...that is and always will be valid. But that narrative won't help 'prove' how 'atrocious' the FO was at the time so people don't go with that.

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

Tyutin [2/40]
Zidlicky [6/176]
Dubinsky [2/60]
Callahan [4/127]
Sauer [2/40]
Anisimov [2/54]
Hagelin [6/168]
Stepan [2/51]
Fast [6/157]

About 1 per year† since Lundqvist's draft year [2000]. All of whom have had about as much or more success than the 4 players you mentioned Staal's unfortunate injury not withstanding.

†RangersTown™ unfortunately started throwing away 2nd and 3rd round picks too during the latter end of the New Era®

I missed the memo folks. 2nd round picks are late picks?

Sorry if I'm wrong about the following but it isn't clear to me. It looks like the premise of the post I'm quoting here is 1st round success vs success in all other rounds combined. It looks like the purpose of this premise is to prove we have not been good/good enough in the first round.

If so, that's a bad argument. it's not a valid way to prove whether or not our first round picks weren't good enough.

If you got actual professionals in a room to objectively measure the Rangers first round success in that time period relative to everyone else/what's expected. Would they objectively come out near the top of that list? That's how you measure it. I very strongly suspect they would.

When you look at overall drafting, I suspect they STILL come out near the top of that list. Probably higher. If you look at trading for recently drafted prospects, we come out about as high as can be I'd bet.

The amateur drafting is not and has not been a problem. It has not been anything less than top of the league for over a decade. The name of the game is consistency. Consistently drafting players who turn pro OR at least get their value up high enough that they can be flipped for a player who does go on to produce.

since the 99 debacle, and a lot of them have been stinkers..

Is the purpose of this to prove that the majority of the time in recent history, the NYR Fo has been bad at drafting, especially in the 1st round? Because if that's the goal then I disagree with going all the way back to 99 considering since 2004 it's clearly a completely different story, consistently. Why stop at 99? Why not go back to 94 and credit them for Kovalev or let's go back to when they drafted Leetch. I am probably just missing something in context bc I'm tired. If so, I apologize.

 

[McD37]

For some reason I believe Rangers get lucky this year and get the chance to pick high. If you look at the lottery teams, there is not other team that deserves it more after all their efforts and success in recent years.

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

For some reason I believe Rangers get lucky this year and get the chance to pick high. If you look at the lottery teams, there is not other team that deserves it more after all their efforts and success in recent years.

I strongly disagree with your "deserves it" idea.I get why you're saying it and I've thought similar things. Like that Edm and Pitts deserve to never win a lottery again. Maybe It's my lizard brain having a gut negative reaction to the thought of having it handed to us by an unreasonable amount of luck. Or it's just that I see it as everyone on an even playing field in terms of who deserves it more...except pitts and edm. They're not even...they should never get it again

 

[will1066]

Wrong thread

 

[Tawnos]

For some reason I believe Rangers get lucky this year and get the chance to pick high. If you look at the lottery teams, there is not other team that deserves it more after all their efforts and success in recent years.

I would say the teams that are in multi year periods of suffering deserve it more. Rangers have been bad for 5 months.

More specifically, fanbases deserve it. Care less about whether the teams do

 

[Mikos87]

Philly in the 1990s.

Those were some good teams. But they never had a goalie that stole wins in the playoffs.