2018 NHL Draft: Quantity vs. Quality?

[GoAwayPanarin]

Hopefully nothing.

Not worth it, and I'm not a Tkachuk hater.

 

[Holocene]

If it actually played out like this https://www.tsn.ca/tsn-hockey-mock-draft-post-lottery-edition-1.1071168
with Wahlstrom and Boqvist falling to 9 and 10 would anyone be upset moving our next 1st+ for #10?

 

[Irishguy42]

If it actually played out like this https://www.tsn.ca/tsn-hockey-mock-draft-post-lottery-edition-1.1071168
with Wahlstrom and Boqvist falling to 9 and 10 would anyone be upset moving our next 1st+ for #10?

Sign me up.

It isn't great to move up to a non-Top 3 while already in the 4-15ish bracket.

But moving into that bracket from much lower, like with the BOS and TBL picks, is a good move.

I would also love being able to low-key cockblock the Islanders by picking Wahlstrom AND Boqvist/Hughes with the two picks immediately before them.

 

[SML2]

Sign me up.

It isn't great to move up to a non-Top 3 while already in the 4-15ish bracket.

But moving into that bracket from much lower, like with the BOS and TBL picks, is a good move.

I would also love being able to low-key cockblock the Islanders by picking Wahlstrom AND Boqvist/Hughes with the two picks immediately before them.

Those two Isles picks are making me sweat. They're going to get two really nice players. Calgary is going to regret that deal.

 

[ReggieDunlop68]

Why not both? If the Rangers are high on Boqvist per se and they get the feeling Chicago is going to take him at 8, see if you can swap with Van for one of our later 2nd rounders. You still keep quantity and ensure you get some quality. Also, most of the GM's drafting in the top 10 are not very good. They are ripe to be taken advantage of. I have no problem paying to move up if a GM is going to be stupid.

If not, stay where you're at.

We need an abundance, not just a plethora.

 

[mike14]

If it actually played out like this https://www.tsn.ca/tsn-hockey-mock-draft-post-lottery-edition-1.1071168
with Wahlstrom and Boqvist falling to 9 and 10 would anyone be upset moving our next 1st+ for #10?

Are you saying your next year's first or our next pick this year?
For this year's next pick it would obviously depend on the + but I'd hope they gave it serious consideration. If it's next years; I don't know enough about the 2019 draft, but we could be looking at finishing around 8th last again, so I'd be hesitant to give it up for #10 this year

 

[Edge]

If it actually played out like this https://www.tsn.ca/tsn-hockey-mock-draft-post-lottery-edition-1.1071168
with Wahlstrom and Boqvist falling to 9 and 10 would anyone be upset moving our next 1st+ for #10?

Maybe. I’m hesitant because it might end up being a lottery pick again.

My initial reaction was a strong yes. And then I thought about The Flyers and The Canes.

 

[Holocene]

Are you saying your next year's first or our next pick this year?
For this year's next pick it would obviously depend on the + but I'd hope they gave it serious consideration. If it's next years; I don't know enough about the 2019 draft, but we could be looking at finishing around 8th last again, so I'd be hesitant to give it up for #10 this year

Maybe. I’m hesitant because it might end up being a lottery pick again.

My initial reaction was a strong yes. And then I thought about The Flyers and The Canes.

Yeah, sorry. I meant either the TB or Boston pick.

 

[Fvital92]

Again, it depends on context. Last year, I would've given the 7, the 21 (which I would've subsequently regretted), and potentially a third pick to get to 3, 4, or 5 to take Pettersson. But unlike last year, this draft appears loaded, into the second round. I just gave a number of instances in which I'd absolutely be cool with moving up, but I'm not at all comfortable saying in a vacuum, "yeah, look to trade up".

That's the thing, this draft APPEARS loaded, it might suck in the end. Last year appears after all loaded now and was know at the time as weak.
You have to trust your scouts.

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

You're already under the impression we're missing on those picks.

I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt here but this looks like goalpost shifting or strawman building. I never said I was under that impression at all. I pointed out the possibility, that's all.

Your comment that I was responding to utterly, definitively and completely dismissed the notion of trading up.

Example 1

More picks are better than less picks..

There is no wiggle room here. No “Unless..”. You don’t even acknowledge the possibility that the talent at the top of the draft could be worth it.

Depending on what we can get for the pick 28-31, I'd be willing to move down to get even more picks. Get an extra early 2nd and another 3rd. We can take so many swings at that point. We need to replenish a system that is barren.
.

Again not a single thought paid to the possibility that we can miss on the majority of these picks and the few we land could easily windup being average players at best.

If we had an already deep system, lacking high end talent but having depth, I'd be willing to package to move up from 9. But, right now, we need as many picks as possible.

And again, here you assert that you are not even entertaining the idea of moving up bc of what you see as a system that is so completely lacking in depth that the idea of trading up can not possibly be entertained.

You presented this idea and I addressed your idea that we cannot trade up under any circumstances. That’s all I did. Nowhere did I even come close to implying that it’s a certainty that we will absolutely miss on the majority of our picks. I pointed out the possible, reasonable outcome that you were ignoring. That’s all.

Dahlin and Svechnikov are above the rest in the draft.

Cool. I agree. Although I acknowledge either of them could bust too.

Those two can be had at either 2 or 3

I would also not package our late 1sts to move to 3.

What?

 

[True Blue]

Sign me up.

VERY risky as the Rangers could be a lottery team again next year. In a deep draft, one can make a case that good things come to those who wait. The Rangers have an abundance of picks. They should be able to fine quality and quantity.

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

VERY risky as the Rangers could be a lottery team again next year. In a deep draft, one can make a case that good things come to those who wait. The Rangers have an abundance of picks. They should be able to fine quality and quantity.

Agreed. Under NO circumstances should this team be trading next year's pick.

Furthermore, they have more than enough capital to make moves without doing so, so why even entertain the idea?

 

[JimmyG89]

I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt here but this looks like goalpost shifting or strawman building. I never said I was under that impression at all. I pointed out the possibility, that's all.

Your comment that I was responding to utterly, definitively and completely dismissed the notion of trading up.

Trading up is a terrible idea. You never win the value battle. Trading up on draft day is a bad decision. Percentages of the players making it, beyond the lottery picks, is such a small difference that it doesn't make any sense.

Example 1

There is no wiggle room here. No “Unless..”. You don’t even acknowledge the possibility that the talent at the top of the draft could be worth it.

We're not getting up to #1 or #2. Past that, the player available at 3 and the player available at 9, in this draft, are not very different, in terms of value, expected outcome, potential. They are all similar, and this is someone who like Zadina.

Again not a single thought paid to the possibility that we can miss on the majority of these picks and the few we land could easily windup being average players at best.

The simple fact that I'm saying that we're getting more swings to replenish the system is in fact admittance that we could miss on picks and that having more of them will get better results.

And again, here you assert that you are not even entertaining the idea of moving up bc of what you see as a system that is so completely lacking in depth that the idea of trading up can not possibly be entertained.

It would absolutely be a terrible idea to trade up. Once again, you never win the value of that trade. You'll always be on the short end of it.

You presented this idea and I addressed your idea that we cannot trade up under any circumstances. That’s all I did. Nowhere did I even come close to implying that it’s a certainty that we will absolutely miss on the majority of our picks. I pointed out the possible, reasonable outcome that you were ignoring. That’s all.

If we miss on both later picks

This is the only scenario that you presented. Is it possible? Sure it is, so is bombing out at 9 or getting one of the better players in the draft.

Cool. I agree. Although I acknowledge either of them could bust too.

Those two can be had at either 2 or 3

There is about a 1% chance that those are not the top 2 picks. The gap from those two and the next batch of players is too high for them to be passed at 1 or 2.

What?

The difference between picking Zadina/Boqvist instead of the like of Dobson/Hughes/Farabee is not worth one of the later firsts. There will be players worth getting around 25-31 in this draft. Just look at the back end of the last draft. Tons of talent left on the board: Vesalianen, Frost, Tolvanen, Kostin, Poehling. If you want to jump into the early 2nd, as those players could easily be late firsts as well, you have Timmins, Hague, Heponiemi, Jesper Boqvist.

We have deficiencies across the board. Our strongest position is center, followed by goalie. We need wingers, right handed D, even left handed D, and this draft is oozing with those positions.

 

[Irishguy42]

VERY risky as the Rangers could be a lottery team again next year. In a deep draft, one can make a case that good things come to those who wait. The Rangers have an abundance of picks. They should be able to fine quality and quantity.

I never said we'd be trading next year's first.

 

[True Blue]

I never said we'd be trading next year's first.

I thought that you said to sign you up for trading the Rangers next first rounder + to get 10 overall?

If not that, then what are you trading to get the pick? I doubt that that Edmonton would take the two late first rounders and give up the 10th overall pick.

 

[Holocene]

I clarified a few posts down I meant the TB or Boston pick not our 1st rounder next year.

 

[Riche16]

I get the gist of all of this but quality (read elite, generational, whatever...) is hard to come by.

I still don't see how the NYR are getting that "elite" piece(s) that they need.

 

[True Blue]

I clarified a few posts down I meant the TB or Boston pick not our 1st rounder next year.

The question stands. What can you possibly give to Edmonton in addition to the TB or Boston pick to entice them to give up the 10th overall pick? If not next year's #1, then what? I doubt that two second and a late first rounder would do it.

 

[Holocene]

The question stands. What can you possibly give to Edmonton in addition to the TB or Boston pick to entice them to give up the 10th overall pick? If not next year's #1, then what? I doubt that two second and a late first rounder would do it.

I'm asking for Ranger fans' points of view. I wanted to gauge what is an acceptable trade up. Plus, it's Chia. Us trading a late 1st and Jimmy Vesey for 10th is not really outside the realm of possibility.

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

I'm asking for Ranger fans' points of view. I wanted to gauge what is an acceptable trade up. Plus, it's Chia. Us trading a late 1st and Jimmy Vesey for 10th is not really outside the realm of possibility.

Oh, absolutely. I think we're all hoping to see at least one pending RFA+late first rounder for higher first rounder type transaction. Spooner might make more sense, however, given that he's got more value and is an ex-Boston player.

Maybe something like:

TBL pick + Spooner <–> #10OA + 2019 3nd?

 

[Lays]

If it actually played out like this https://www.tsn.ca/tsn-hockey-mock-draft-post-lottery-edition-1.1071168
with Wahlstrom and Boqvist falling to 9 and 10 would anyone be upset moving our next 1st+ for #10?

Nope. I’d try for Zucc+1st for that 10th spot. I’d even go as far as Zucc+Vlad+latest 1st

 

[Ghost of jas]

The question stands. What can you possibly give to Edmonton in addition to the TB or Boston pick to entice them to give up the 10th overall pick? If not next year's #1, then what? I doubt that two second and a late first rounder would do it.

Griffin Reinhart was enough for the 15th overall.

 

[ReggieDunlop68]

Edit: poll is meant to discuss pick value, i.e. not 1st liner vs. 2x 2nd liner

Ummm...the animal in your avatar is a rodent, not a predator. It lacks canines and only has those long incisors.

 

[Tawnos]

I get the gist of all of this but quality (read elite, generational, whatever...) is hard to come by.

I still don't see how the NYR are getting that "elite" piece(s) that they need.

They're going to have to luck into it, to an extent.

I mean, think of it this way.

Of the 20 skaters (with repeats) who were 1st team all-stars over the last 4 seasons, only 9 were top 5 picks.

So yes, elite quality is hard to come by, but teams get lucky all the time. Aside from superstitions which aren't actually real (but are fun to joke about), there's no reason the Rangers can't be one of those teams.

Since so much is luck, and barring being able to acquire the 1st or 2nd this year, I like our chances of getting an elite talent better by keeping all of our picks than by trying to use them to move up.

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

Trading up is a terrible idea. You never win the value battle. Trading up on draft day is a bad decision. Percentages of the players making it, beyond the lottery picks, is such a small difference that it doesn't make any sense.

Example 1



We're not getting up to #1 or #2. Past that, the player available at 3 and the player available at 9, in this draft, are not very different, in terms of value, expected outcome, potential. They are all similar, and this is someone who like Zadina.




The simple fact that I'm saying that we're getting more swings to replenish the system is in fact admittance that we could miss on picks and that having more of them will get better results.




It would absolutely be a terrible idea to trade up. Once again, you never win the value of that trade. You'll always be on the short end of it.



If we miss on both later picks

This is the only scenario that you presented. Is it possible? Sure it is, so is bombing out at 9 or getting one of the better players in the draft.



There is about a 1% chance that those are not the top 2 picks. The gap from those two and the next batch of players is too high for them to be passed at 1 or 2.



The difference between picking Zadina/Boqvist instead of the like of Dobson/Hughes/Farabee is not worth one of the later firsts. There will be players worth getting around 25-31 in this draft. Just look at the back end of the last draft. Tons of talent left on the board: Vesalianen, Frost, Tolvanen, Kostin, Poehling. If you want to jump into the early 2nd, as those players could easily be late firsts as well, you have Timmins, Hague, Heponiemi, Jesper Boqvist.

We have deficiencies across the board. Our strongest position is center, followed by goalie. We need wingers, right handed D, even left handed D, and this draft is oozing with those positions.

With the internet at your fingertips and all sorts of examples of how trading up netted MASSIVE returns...you continue to blindly insist trading up always fails. According to you "You never win the value battle"

K.

Should we have traded that 9th pick in 86 so we could draft luminaries like Kim Issel and Jamie Nichols?

Why did we keep 9 when we could've had the 11 and 32 pick from Hartford to get Marc Laforge and Scott Young instead of Brian Leetch? (Something tells me you might miss the actual point and respond with ' well who says Hartford would've even wanted to make that trade at the time')

It's amazing what people will ignore in order to blindly pitch a narrative regardless of all context. Bonus points for continuing to push the idea that I was at all implying that my scenario is the only possibility (I didn't, I made that pretty clear). Sorry I'm being a bit nasty in this reply but the fact you did this twice, especially after I took the time to clearly show I wasn't doing this is incredibly annoying so i lost patience.

There are examples of trade ups that totally failed and trade ups that MORE then netted back what was given up to move up. (Contrary to the bafflingly wrong statements you just made)

It's ALMOST like there's risk in drafting at any position. Almost like there are no sure things so any strategy has been proven to work or fail in any given draft. Almost like individuals have been picked between 3-9 that have gone on to be WAY better than the next 5 guys picked after them combined.

I don't get why it's so hard for you to simply say "I just don't like the talent enough to trade up using our other 1sts but obviously there's always a chance a team could guess right." But then I guess you'd have to admit you don't actually know and god forbid...