Changing our draft strategy

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

Gordie Clark admitted that the Rangers didn't pick the best player available in 2010, but instead took a player that they felt filled a need in the organization.

Stu Bickel's eventual replacement! Im bursting with anticipation.

 

[Thirty One]

Stu Bickel's eventual replacement! Im bursting with anticipation.

Well I don't know about that. He may eventually complement Bickel well, though.

 

[jniklast]

I think Giroux isn't a good example. Even the Flyers prefered Sanguinetti, so we more or less went BPA. Tarasenko surely would be a better example, but that has been discussed many times, and of course the jury is still out on McIlrath.

Overall I think the draft strategy has been fine. Drafting a star player at our recent positions simply is very, very difficult and little more than a crapshoot. It's not as easy as comparing some probabilities of players reaching this or that potential. It's not a video game and there are no simple numbers

 

[Thirty One]

I think Giroux isn't a good example. Even the Flyers prefered Sanguinetti, so we more or less went BPA.

That is one of those rumors that is said enough until it is accepted as fact.

 

[Pizza]

As many have stated: The Rangers have an organizational philosophy that will keep them from ever tanking a season.

You rarely, rarely get a game changer in the middle of the draft. When we did tragedy struck.

Unless something unusual happens, they will not be in a position to draft high end offensive players. The one chance they had recently, they chose a different direction....and there will continue to be endless discussion on that.

The Rangers will continue to draft the likes of Anisimov, Hagelin, Callahan, Dubinsky, Kreider, Miller, et.al. in the hope that luck smiles and we land a Zetterburg. It's drafting the very best player available. You could do far worse and the Rangers have done better than most in recent years

 

[frankthefrowner]

I love how people dont want us to Draft another dman... The thing about all our good young dmen are they eventually are going to have to get paid. There will be holes in our defense at some point that will need to be filled.. They will be filled by guys like Skeij and Mac and whoever we draft in the future.

Our system keeps popping out good young players.. whatever they are doing they should probably keep doing it.

 

[jniklast]

That is one of those rumors that is said enough until it is accepted as fact.

Maybe, maybe not. Anyway, Sanguinetti was ranked higher pre-draft and a good case can be made that, at that time, he was the BPA. Of course, in hindsight it wasn't the case, but you simply don't know the future. Meanwhile, Tarasenko was a consensus BPA talent-wise over McIlrath. So 2010 is a valid example of the Rangers not going BPA, while 2006 simply wasn't.

 

[Thirty One]

Maybe, maybe not. Anyway, Sanguinetti was ranked higher pre-draft and a good case can be made that, at that time, he was the BPA. Of course, in hindsight it wasn't the case, but you simply don't know the future. Meanwhile, Tarasenko was a consensus BPA talent-wise over McIlrath. So 2010 is a valid example of the Rangers not going BPA, while 2006 simply wasn't.

Yeah, I didn't see many places that had Giroux ahead of Sanguinetti. But I haven't seen any solid evidence that suggests that Clarke forgot the name because they wanted Sanguinetti, and not because he was an old man.

 

[jniklast]

Yeah, I didn't see many places that had Giroux ahead of Sanguinetti. But I haven't seen any solid evidence that suggests that Clarke forgot the name because they wanted Sanguinetti, and not because he was an old man.

Huh? So you think the Rangers simply forgot Giroux? They, and most "experts", thought that Sanguinetti would be the better player. Also the Rangers were lacking in offensive defensemen, so they took the (assumed) better player that also filled a hole over Giroux, who was considered not as good a prospect at that time.

Was it bad scouting? Maybe, but then again half the league took worse players over Giroux. Or maybe it was just bad luck, as luck is maybe the biggest factor of all in a process that involves predicting the future of human beings.

 

[HatTrick Swayze]

You could do far worse and the Rangers have done better than most in recent years

This is something that easily gets overlooked. It's easy to say "why didn't we take Giroux, or Eberle, etc?" but the fact of the matter is the Rangers have done a very good job the last few years with at least pulling NHL talent - especially relative to other teams & draft position.

 

[Thirty One]

Huh? So you think the Rangers simply forgot Giroux? They, and most "experts", thought that Sanguinetti would be the better player. Also the Rangers were lacking in offensive defensemen, so they took the (assumed) better player that also filled a hole over Giroux, who was considered not as good a prospect at that time.

Was it bad scouting? Maybe, but then again half the league took worse players over Giroux. Or maybe it was just bad luck, as luck is maybe the biggest factor of all in a process that involves predicting the future of human beings.

Bobby Clarke, not Gordie.

I had to re-read my post several times before I realized where the miscommunication was .

I'm not saying it was bad scouting, by any means. Obviously Giroux is better than Sanguinetti, but you can't fault the Rangers for taking him. I was personally pumped when Sanguinetti was there.

 

[jniklast]

Bobby Clarke, not Gordie.

I had to re-read my post several times before I realized where the miscommunication was .

I'm not saying it was bad scouting, by any means. Obviously Giroux is better than Sanguinetti, but you can't fault the Rangers for taking him. I was personally pumped when Sanguinetti was there.

Ah ok, that makes sense now

 

[Dorado*]

When was the last time the NYR actually drafted some one who could flat out shoot the puck ? Brendl ( bust ) . Thomas has an NHL shot but is a dwarf . Love to draft a defenseman who can shoot the puck . Staal takes forever to wind up , McDonagh has an average shot and MDZ misses the net all the time . Dubi did not have a good shot and AA had one but also took an hour to get off .

 

[Roo Returns]

I think there's been a lot of overreaction and negativity towards the Rangers and Gordie Clark in the last week because the team is off to rough start and there's depth issues.

The fact is that there always was going to be the same one year gap in wave of Rangers prospects turning pro going back to the beginning of last season;

Of guys who have contracts or probably will; Fasth and Lindberg are still in the SEL, St. Croix is still in Juniors, Noreau is still in juniors, and Skeji/Nieves/Fogarty are all early in their NCAA careers with 2-4 more years to go.

There's also guys like Mcolgan, Ceresnak, and Spelling who may or may not earn contracts, and even the free agents such as Myles Bell, Andre Sjustr, Brock Beukeboom, and now Andrea Branca who are all being scouted and might be added as free agents.

Just next year the organization will have 4-6 new players who have more offensive skill than this group.

And yes it stunk the Giroux is a star and Sangs is a 3rd pair DMan, but if Fasth reaches his potential, it worked out.

Also Werek who looks to be an AHL or 4th liner in the NHL was turned into Lindberg who at least on potential looks to be the better overall player.

Losing Kundratek hurt, but let's see if Ferriero and Mashinter amount to something.

It all sort of evens out. The Rangers won the Cup in 94 for several drafting reasons; in 1986 because Scott Young was chosen early and a power forward chosen by Calgary ultimately passed away, and Craig Patrick had to "settle" for Brian Leetch after Anders Hedberg urged him to take Leetch.

Guy LaFleur leaves as a UFA in 1989 and as a comp pick in 1990, the Rangers draft Sergei Zubov.

You never know. If Fasth can continue to do in the North American game what he's done in the SEL and add some weight and stay healthy, and McLIrath and Skeji become contributors, Gordie looks like a genius again.

 

[SingnBluesOnBroadway]

Pretty sure you are...

Are you really asking me to explain what the Rangers did in the 2010 draft?

 

[nsvoyageurs]

I would go with the best player available; although one reason to pause on that would be if you're the Rangers, and your first pick is up in the 2013 NHL Entry Draft (I'm assuming it'll be in the 2nd round, though if it's a 1st round pick acquired in a trade; hallelujah), and the best player is a goaltender? Do you take Lundqvist's possible replacement/acquire another asset to trade down the road or fill a more pressing need with that pick? I would be inclined to try to trade the pick and get more picks.

 

[BroadwayStorm]

Best player available

 

[offdacrossbar]

NDARK


thats the rangers strategy on draft day. gordie simply refers to the above

Never Draft A Russian Kid



or this one too.

BNRPA

Best Non Russian Player Available

 

[Pizza]

Clark was the man front and center immediately after the Rangers picked Chere at 17.

The video is out there some where. Charlie? Loffen?

 

[Beacon]

The question is what's better: a player who has a 75% chance of becoming another Taylor Pyatt, a player who has a 50-50 chance of becoming another Callahan or a player who has a 25% chance of becoming Giroux?

Taking the best player available should answer that question on its own.

That's a ridiculous response. This assumes that we know who will turn out to be the best player, which of course we do not. Every player has the ceiling and the risk factor. The question is how much of a ceiling do you want and how much of a risk factor can you tolerate.

 

[Beacon]

Who is to say that this player can't play adequately on the defensive side of the puck?

When you are drafting at #25 or even #12, you are getting someone with some serious holes in his game. If his offense is great, then his defense is bad, if his defense is also great, than he's injured, if he's healthy, then he's tiny, if he's big, then he's dumb.

No draft has 25 guys like Joe Thornton who was all-around good as an 18-year-old... and went at #1 overall. There's a reason guys slip down and that's because something in their game made the teams drafting at #1, #5, #10 dislike them.

Samsonov had a ton of offensive skill, more than anyone else in his draft year, but was only 5-foot-8. Boynton was big and strong, but little upside. Brewer was seen as a good all-around guy, but nothing particular special in any field. And we are talking about guys drafted in the top-10 here. They already had clear flaws that I distinctly remember being identified by the THN and the Red Line Scouting Report.

Once you get out of non-playoff draft spots, you are going to be dealing with some very serious flaws. To say, "he has great offense, but who says he'll have bad defense" is wishful thinking. If he has great offense and solid defense and good IQ and good size, the kid will go in the top-5. If he lasts to #25, there's a serious issue there.

 

[Beacon]

Stu Bickel's eventual replacement! Im bursting with anticipation.

McIlrath can skate faster with two broken knees than Bickel on turbo-charged skates.

 

[Zil]

That's a ridiculous response. This assumes that we know who will turn out to be the best player, which of course we do not. Every player has the ceiling and the risk factor. The question is how much of a ceiling do you want and how much of a risk factor can you tolerate.

It's impossible to pin down what those factors are when you're dealing with 18-year-old kids. No two organizations are going to see every kid the same way either. It's not the like the kids are all sitting around with a bunch of success rates pinned to them.

 

[iggyDDS]

Draft strategy: take the best player available.

This is money.

 

[Pizza]

I think there's been a lot of overreaction and negativity towards the Rangers and Gordie Clark in the last week because the team is off to rough start and there's depth issues.

We can all argue what Rangers fans should be thankful for, but the fact that Sather hired Clark and Gorton should be two of them we really count our blessings on.

They have made some mistakes, but no way this organization is in any where near the shape it's in right now with out them.