2011 Rangers Draft Pick Review

[UAGoalieGuy]

Figured we could change things up a bit looking back at the 2011 NHL Draft at the 5 year mark and how the picks turned out for the Rangers so far.

1st Round (15 O/A): JT Miller. Of the 15 other picks after him, I think Miller is arguably the best player currently.

Pick Rating: A

2nd Round (No picks): Rangers held the 45th and 57th picks in the second round (57th pick the Rangers got from Washington through Carolina when they Traded Bobby Sanguinetti to the Canes in 2010).

Those two picks along with Roman Horak went to the Flames for Tim Erixon who was later dealt to Columbus for Nash.

Notable players taken those picks or after in that round: Matt Nieto, Nikita Kucherov, Markus Granlund, Mario Lucia and Shane Prince.

Rating: N/A due to no selections but turning two seconds into Erixon who was part of the Nash deal is solid.

3rd Round (72nd O/A): Steven Fogarty. Not really anyone of note picked after him in this round except for Catenacci and Rau. Its been a long road for Fogarty but it looks like he could turn out to a bottom 6 player with leadership abilities.

Rating: B so far.

4th Round (106th O/A): Michael St. Croix. Pretty much a bust. No notable players taken after him at this point although Johnny Gaudreau was taken two spots before the Rangers pick.

Rating: F

5th Round (134th and 136th O/A): Shane McColagan and Samuel Noreau. Rangers got the 134 O/A selection as part of the Erixon trade. Both players are busts. Only notable player taken after this picks in the round was Nikita Nesterov.

Rating: F

6th Round (172nd O/A): Peter Ceresnack. Bust. No notable players taken after this pick in the round currently.

Rating: F

7th Round (No selection): Pick was traded to the Yotes with Miika Wiikman for Andres Eriksson. No notable players taken at or after this pick currently.

Rating: N/A

Overall Rating: B the Rangers got a quality player in the first round that should end up being a regular second line player and a player that should turn into at least a regular fourth line player. They also used the seconds that eventually turned into pieces the Rangers used to acquire Nash.

The later round picks are always a crap shoot so i didn't hold that much weight to them in my rating.

What are your thoughts and opinions on the 2011 draft?

Click to read more...

 

[mike14]

We played it pretty safe with JT, he most likely going to at least be a solid bottom 6 forward, the question was whether he could utilise his tools enough to play top 6 minutes.
I thought we overpaid for Erixon, but as you say him turning into part of the Nash trade makes it ok. It would have been interesting to see if we could have traded up for Saad/Jenner if we had of kept the picks.
It would have been nice to take Shaw instead of Noreau/McCoglan, but at the 5th round it is pretty much a crap shoot

 

[SingnBluesOnBroadway]

Not sure how Miller gets an "A".

 

[Mac n Gs]

Ah, the good ol Tim Erixon trade. What a time.

 

[Thordic]

Not sure how Miller gets an "A".

Because he was the best pick on the board at the time?

Saad and Kucherov have turned out to be better players at the moment, but on draft day Miller was way ahead of them. If we had picked Saad or Kucherov over Miller on draft day people would have been screaming.

Miller was absolutely the right pick at the time. Hindsight is 20/20 but you can't use that to judge draft picks who were ranked nowhere near each other.

 

[darko]

We played it pretty safe with JT, he most likely going to at least be a solid bottom 6 forward, the question was whether he could utilise his tools enough to play top 6 minutes.
I thought we overpaid for Erixon, but as you say him turning into part of the Nash trade makes it ok. It would have been interesting to see if we could have traded up for Saad/Jenner if we had of kept the picks.
It would have been nice to take Shaw instead of Noreau/McCoglan, but at the 5th round it is pretty much a crap shoot

He had 43 points (22 goals). That's borderline top-6 production already.

 

[Thordic]

He had 43 points (22 goals). That's borderline top-6 production already.

He means at the time of the draft, not now.

 

[HatTrick Swayze]

The Miller pick is definitely an A, relative to what was on the board / the "consensus".

Bit of a reach / bold move at the time. Not insanely so. But McNeill/Armia were the consensus BPA at 15 (maybe Beaulieu too but with Erixon trade, MDZ and McIlrath in 2010 didn't see them going D) and the Rangers did well.

 

[Ghost of jas]

Getting a productive top 6 forward in the 1st round a pick #15? That's an 'A' in my book.

 

[Joey Bones]

At the time, Miller was a projected middle 6 two-way/grinding forward with a potential scoring touch. The way he's progressed into a top 6 two-way forward that does score/playmake is an "A" everyday of the week.

Most often the safer bets end up becoming the players that last a while in the NHL. Too early to tell, but Brady Skjei was a safe pick, too, and is already looking to be something special.

 

[UAGoalieGuy]

From where he was picked to how he's progressed Miller is definitely an A at this point.

 

[broadwayblue]

What happened to St. Croix? I remember there was a guy on here hyping him up pretty good.

 

[nyr2k2]

What happened to St. Croix? I remember there was a guy on here hyping him up pretty good.

Yeah he was just some Edmonton homer.

 

[nyr2k2]

I don't know if guys that fail taken in the later rounds should get an F, given the vast majority of them fail. For a guy like St. Croix, organizational filler is about what you'd expect there, and given his upside if he panned out, I think it was a good pick. I'd call that something like a C. An F, for me, would be going off the board for someone with low upside who never pans out. Or someone so thoroughly mediocre like McColgan that you don't even give him an ELC. Like Noreau I'd give a C as well.

 

[UAGoalieGuy]

I don't know if guys that fail taken in the later rounds should get an F, given the vast majority of them fail. For a guy like St. Croix, organizational filler is about what you'd expect there, and given his upside if he panned out, I think it was a good pick. I'd call that something like a C. An F, for me, would be going off the board for someone with low upside who never pans out. Or someone so thoroughly mediocre like McColgan that you don't even give him an ELC. Like Noreau I'd give a C as well.

Makes sense. Cerseneck is an F as well. D for Norreau and St. Croix because they didn't even make it to the AHL.

Hell they didn't even play well in the ECHL.

 

[nyr2k2]

St. Croix was great in the ECHL his first season and good the next. Not sure what happened this year.

There's still a place in the AHL for goons, so Noreau may yet catch on there. I thought he looked okay at the AHL level the two or three times I saw him there.

 

[wafflepadsave]

The Miller pick is definitely an A, relative to what was on the board / the "consensus".

Bit of a reach / bold move at the time. Not insanely so. But McNeill/Armia were the consensus BPA at 15 (maybe Beaulieu too but with Erixon trade, MDZ and McIlrath in 2010 didn't see them going D) and the Rangers did well.

Yeah I remember really pining for McNeil and was bitter when they took Miller!

 

[Hunter Gathers]

I have no qualms with giving the Miller pick an A.

I'd probably rate it an A- if I had to be picky.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

I don't know if guys that fail taken in the later rounds should get an F, given the vast majority of them fail. For a guy like St. Croix, organizational filler is about what you'd expect there, and given his upside if he panned out, I think it was a good pick. I'd call that something like a C. An F, for me, would be going off the board for someone with low upside who never pans out. Or someone so thoroughly mediocre like McColgan that you don't even give him an ELC. Like Noreau I'd give a C as well.

I remember McColgan being projected as a top-5 pick a year before being drafted. He was compared to RNH in terms of talent, but then he had some injuries and he was never the same. Drafting him with a 4th round pick was a low risk, high reward decision. I will never judge those as an F

 

[UAGoalieGuy]

I remember McColgan being projected as a top-5 pick a year before being drafted. He was compared to RNH in terms of talent, but then he had some injuries and he was never the same. Drafting him with a 4th round pick was a low risk, high reward decision. I will never judge those as an F

I can seer your logic in that, but IMO low risk or not if they don't even make it to the ECHL it's a bust pick.

On a side note he played for St. Thomas University this year. His team looks like they were pretty brutal, only winning 2 games.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

I always hoped he would recover. He was over a PPG at age 16-17 in the WHL with Kelowna. The talent was there, but the injuries really messed him up

 

[nyr2k2]

I remember McColgan being projected as a top-5 pick a year before being drafted. He was compared to RNH in terms of talent, but then he had some injuries and he was never the same. Drafting him with a 4th round pick was a low risk, high reward decision. I will never judge those as an F

I remember him being touted as a potential first round pick based on his pure skill, but I don't recall any RNH comparisons or anyone expecting him to go near the top five. Even with the skill there were always massive questions about his frame. I also don't recall any bad injuries--and he played pretty much a full season each year, so IDK.

I don't disagree with you in regards to taking those upside picks. I was okay with St. Croix based on the same idea. Still, your scouts need to be able to identify if a guy isn't even going to be able to hack it in the ECHL. ****, he wasn't even particularly good playing at 20 in Junior A with Penticton.

Honestly with any of these grades, though, I'd have to look at the whole board for each pick. If you take a guy in the fifth that becomes an AHL scrub but everyone else taken after him is stuck in the ECHL or something, then that's a good pick in my mind. If you can find BPA or near-BPA that's good, regardless of what "best" actually entails. Grading on a curve.

 

[Bluenote13]

2K2, bingo.

You have to grade on a curve. If not, Blackburn and Cherepanov get F's their draft years. That doesn't tell the full story. But people don't have time for the full story, letter grades are fast and easy.

 

[UAGoalieGuy]

I always hoped he would recover. He was over a PPG at age 16-17 in the WHL with Kelowna. The talent was there, but the injuries really messed him up

Yeah he pretty much had the same production every year after that. Never took that next step.

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

`Saad over Miller wouldn't have been a reach at all. At the time there was plenty of justification for it. I'm not upset about it, never was, just saying it wasn't that cut and dry.

I barely watched this year though so i missed most of Miller's coming out season. Still it's not like he turned into an all star here. Considering what was picked not long after him that could be important.

It might end up being a very solid B+ pick when all is said and done. Hindsight should come into play this long after a pick otherwise why go back after time has passed and rate the pick?

St. Croix just went completely backwards in his development. He was a better player overall right after he was drafted then he was just 2 or 3 years later. Don't know if he just wasn't putting the work in or what. Even in the traverse city tourny he was making plays everywhere and looked great.