Player Discussion Bigger Bust- McIlrath or Jessiman?

Bigger Bust?


  • Total voters
    99

Hunter Gathers

The Crown
Feb 27, 2002
106,716
11,933
parts unknown
Ironically, Brendl was another one I was lukewarm on and I didn't go out of my way to hide it in my coverage back then.

In 1999, my ideal haul from the first round of that draft would've been Lundmark and Jackman.

On one hand, I miss the old draft days where we had to really put in work to analyze a player (now, you can find videos, live streams, tons of scouting reports, etc.). However, on the other hand, I'm glad to be wrong a lot less than I was in the past. :laugh:
 

Edge

Kris King's Ghost
Mar 1, 2002
34,749
42,578
Amish Paradise
On one hand, I miss the old draft days where we had to really put in work to analyze a player (now, you can find videos, live streams, tons of scouting reports, etc.). However, on the other hand, I'm glad to be wrong a lot less than I was in the past. :laugh:

It's a double-edged sword.

On the one hand, it's nice to have conversations based in some realm of reality with more people.

On the other hand, the ability to form an opinion doesn't necessarily signify a deeper understanding of an issue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hunter Gathers

Hunter Gathers

The Crown
Feb 27, 2002
106,716
11,933
parts unknown
It's a double-edged sword.

On the one hand, it's nice to have conversations based in some realm of reality with more people.

On the other hand, the ability to form an opinion doesn't necessarily signify a deeper understanding of an issue.

Analytics, to me, also doesn't translate to prospect development. So that's going to be a big battle in the future with guys that don't want to watch kids play and mainly rely on analytics.
 

One Winged Angel

You Can't Escape
May 3, 2006
16,535
3,464
Long Island
Yeah the 1999 draft was the one that had me envisioning amazing things especially with Brendl. When he scored 73 for the Hitmen at age 17 I thought we had our super sniper. Talk about dashing hopes and dreams.

His problem was that he showed up to training camp one year completely over weight. 20-25 lbs, if I remember correctly. He had no drive or desire to make it in the NHL, but he damn sure had the talent.
 

Machinehead

GoAwayTrouba
Jan 21, 2011
142,897
113,897
NYC
Thought it was Savard and their first in 2000 for the 4th pick? Then, something like Cloutier to move up to take Lundmark? I could be wrong, but that is what I remember.

Edit: Nevermind, you are correct. from Savard's page on hockeydb.com: 1999-Jun-26 Traded from New York Rangers with round 1 pick in the 1999 draft (Oleg Saprykin) to Calgary Flames for Jan Hlavac, round 1 pick in the 1999 draft (Jamie Lundmark) and round 3 pick in the 1999 draft (Craig Anderson)

Cloutier: June 26, 1999: Traded to Tampa Bay by NY Rangers with Niklas Sundstrom and NY Rangers' 1st (Nikita Alexeev) and 3rd (later traded to San Jose - later traded to Chicago - Chicago selected Igor Radulov) round choices in 2000 Entry Draft for Chicago's 1st round choice (previously acquired, NY Rangers selected Pavel Brendl) in 1999 Entry Draft.

Hlavac was a solid Ranger too, but still...
 

One Winged Angel

You Can't Escape
May 3, 2006
16,535
3,464
Long Island
Analytics, to me, also doesn't translate to prospect development. So that's going to be a big battle in the future with guys that don't want to watch kids play and mainly rely on analytics.

It's been a battle for about 5-6 years. Look at how many clowns on here will look at someone's analyticals when said player is not in their market, but they'll try to act like they know what that player is all about.

Like that Juxtaposer moron on the Sharks board who trolls every Ranger thread on the trade boards trying to act like she knows what she's talking about when it comes to the Rangers, when anyone who actually watches the team knows that she doesn't know her ass from a hole in the ground.

Hawkey Talk Man is another just like her. I've had center ice every year since the inception of the package about 16 years ago and access to out of market games before that going back to 1998. Even with the package, you know how hard it is to watch another team aside from your own on even a semi-regular basis, nevermind watching some random player who plays on a team that you don't watch regularly?

These people think they're fooling everyone, they're not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Inferno

One Winged Angel

You Can't Escape
May 3, 2006
16,535
3,464
Long Island
As for the post itself, it's easily Jessiman.

The Rangers had a decent pick in a year where the draft was deep and they couldn't afford to take a swing like that in the first round, due to the sheer lack of depth in the farm system. Blackburn was the best prospect they had in quite some time, he was done at that point after the accident. Brendl was traded for Lindros after showing that he had zero drive. The organization was on it's last legs with Lundmark, who they had been waiting to see something from, but he never did anything, then Peca injured him in a game with a knee-on-knee hit (how ironic, the guy who cried bloody friggin murder about Darcy Tucker). Tyutin was the team's crown jewel at that point. They had traded the 2002 1st rounder for Pavel Bure (ended up being Petr Taticek - bust). They didn't know what they had in Prucha, Lundqvist was just starting to make a name for himself and wasn't that top goaltending prospect yet and after that, they didn't have anything.

It was a terrible decision and there were so many other players enjoying great success playing against tougher competition (the ECAC was not nearly what it is today) and these players were safer and better picks. My aunt was high up in MSG at the time and I had also played hockey with someone who was even higher up than her. They both said that there was a rumored deal that almost went through earlier on in that season that would have sent Jarome Iginla and Calgary's 2003 first rounder to the Rangers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: YearOfTheCat

Paulie Walnutz

Make HF Great Again
Oct 1, 2008
10,596
7,849
I remember the one pre season game Mr. MSNBC spin man Micheletti hyped up how Jessiman took boxing lessons in the off season to help with his “physical game”, and right after Joe mentioned it he got his ass kicked by some no name scrub on the Devils.
 
  • Like
Reactions: YearOfTheCat

Machinehead

GoAwayTrouba
Jan 21, 2011
142,897
113,897
NYC
This is exactly what I meant. Jessiman was a pick where it seemed they were banking on greatness. Sure you can blame them for misreading his potential, but at least the intentions were good. With McIlrath the intentions were always absurd. This is my #1 gripe. At least with the Jessiman pick they "tried".
Had I seen your disclaimer in post 14 before I voted, I would have voted McIlrath.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SnowblindNYR

Hunter Gathers

The Crown
Feb 27, 2002
106,716
11,933
parts unknown
What do you mean?

I don't view analytics as being all that important with picking prospects. Development curves are all too variable, league quality too variable. You're talking about guys playing with 98% or more of players that will never play above the minor leagues. And you're also talking about guys who are all still growing.
 

Captain Lindy

Formerly known as Kreider Beast
Apr 1, 2006
15,178
11,230
Virginia
Ryan Getzlaf was picked [along with a few other really good NHL'ers] after Jessiman so to me, that is a gigantic bust. If we picked Getzlaf, we would have won the Cup in '14.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KOVALEV022473

Filthy Dangles

Registered User*
Oct 23, 2014
28,607
40,201
Bigger 'reach' - McIlrath

Bigger 'bust' (player they turned out to be vs pegged to potentially be'): Jessiman
 

Filthy Dangles

Registered User*
Oct 23, 2014
28,607
40,201
I don't view analytics as being all that important with picking prospects. Development curves are all too variable, league quality too variable. You're talking about guys playing with 98% or more of players that will never play above the minor leagues. And you're also talking about guys who are all still growing.

You mean production at lower levels? I would agree. It's a tool but just one. Look at MacKinnon vs Drouin production on 2013 Halifax team.
 

Hunter Gathers

The Crown
Feb 27, 2002
106,716
11,933
parts unknown
You mean production at lower levels? I would agree. It's a tool but just one. Look at MacKinnon vs Drouin production on 2013 Halifax team.

I mean everything. The only advanced stat for lower levels that I really put much attention on is primary points.But even then, you need to put so much focus on the age of the prospect, whether he is D+1 or D+2, etc. And even when you have a fair D+1 v. D+1 comparison, you then need to focus on their age and body development.

There are way too many factors when dealing with guys under 21 that are still growing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Monument

NickyFotiu

NYR 2024 Cup Champs!
Sep 29, 2011
14,651
6,288
Hugh Jessiman every time for me.

Not just because Hugh Jessiman taught us that we need to be prepared for huge busts at all times and therefore were wary of the possibility when McIlrath came around, but compared to Jessiman, McIlrath at one time showed a little bit of promise at one point which is/was more than I can say about Jessiman at any stage of his career past draft day.
Few players have rookie college seasons like Hugh had. He was never really the same after his ankle injury. I'm not sure what happened. We have had some bad first round luck. Cherneski blew out his knee cap. Blackburn messed up his shoulder. Cherpy tragically passed away during a game.

The guy that stayed pretty healthy and should have been pretty good was Sanguenetti. He could really skate and shoot.
 

Lion Hound

@JoeTucc26
Mar 12, 2007
8,239
3,612
Montauk NY
The game was different at the time Jessiman was drafted. It wasn't just the Rangers salviating over a 6'6 power forward with a supposed scoring touch. In those years everyone was looking for the next Eric Lindros. Jessiman's scouting reports were calling him a poor mans Lindros. Picking him 12th, wasn't like they completely went off the grid. The results were what they were. He busted. I would say he was the bigger bust.
 

nyr2k2

Can't Beat Him
Jul 30, 2005
45,712
32,940
Maryland
Brendl and Lundmark don't belong anywhere near this discussion, and that is because of the context of their draft class. In that draft, you had Patrik Stefan go #1! Then, of course, the Sedin twins--the only really good thing to come from that round of the draft. Brendl and Lundmark were very reasonable picks where they were taken. I mean look at the rest of the round--the top picks behind Brendl were Tim Connolly (#5), Taylor Pyatt (#8), Barrett Jackman (#17), Nick Boynton (#21), and then Marty Havlat (#26). So other than Havlat, are we lamentin that we missed out on Taylor Pyatt? You can certainly make the case that trading for the spot where we picked Lundmark was unwise, but the picks themselves were okay for that draft. It's just that the draft was trash.

Also, I take issue with the idea that Jessiman was a sure thing to be anything at the NHL level other than a bottom-sixer. He always had skating issues (not as important then as it is now, but still) and while he had size, he didn't play a game commensurate to that size. In his draft year he was #20 among NA skaters in the CSS rankings, and while the Rangers were attracted to his size and his roots and allegedly had him #4 on their board, there was a damn good reason he was available to them at #12. Jessiman was a mid-to-late first round pick that had some question marks attached. Hurting his ankle obviously exacerbated his shitty skating, there's no doubt. But, even once he decided to start fighting a couple years after turning pro, he still was hardly a power forward. He didn't play that game at all. He played like he was six inches shorter and 40 pounds lighter. He was never a given to do anything.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Off Sides

Bleed Ranger Blue

Registered User
Jul 18, 2006
19,799
1,811
The 2003 draft was one of the best of all-time in terms of talent in round 1, so I think the Jessiman pick hurt more in that regard.

The McIlrath pick was simply archaic. The Rangers got pushed around a lot in the 2009-2010 season and I think that had a bearing on their subsequent draft pick. Unfortunately, the game was trending in a direction that did not suite McIlrath's strong suits. Unlike 2003, however, you didn't have 10 very good eventual NHL'ers picked right behind him. That makes it a little easier to swallow here in hindsight land.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KOVALEV022473

Bleed Ranger Blue

Registered User
Jul 18, 2006
19,799
1,811
The 2003 draft was one of the best of all-time in terms of talent in round 1, so I think the Jessiman pick hurt more in that regard.

The McIlrath pick was simply archaic. The Rangers got pushed around a lot in the 2009-2010 season and I think that had a bearing on their subsequent draft pick. Unfortunately, the game was trending in a direction that did not suite McIlrath's skill set. Unlike 2003, however, you didn't have 10 very good eventual NHL'ers picked right behind him. That makes it a little easier to swallow here in hindsight land.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad