Draft and UDFA Thread 2017-18

[Edge]

I disagree and we are discussing taking someone like Wahlstrom or Kotkaniemi like they are 100% sure-fire elite talent (which I believe many would disagree with). Loading up on talent allows organizations to make moves when a player becomes available. Every year players become available via trade or UFA. Get the player who they feel will fit this system and produce.

We are obviously speaking hypothetically but I don't think Farabee is that far off of #9. If we were talking someone like Miller I would agree but not seeing the huge gap between someone like Farabee and someone like Kotkaniemi.

In saying all of that, I am not even saying I would choose Farabee over someone like Wahlstrom, just that I wouldn't be up in arms if they took him. I'd still be excited for this team to add a player like him.

I think the terms "elite potential" and "BPA" are very subjective and we probably don't give enough credit to the differences in how we perceive those terms, even subconsciously.

When people describe elite, I find they are often talking about a skill set. Particularly skills that look flashier when they work --- stick-handling, shooting, skating, etc. But I don't know if there's quite as much thought given to transferable skills and how said player can apply them against the best competition in the world. It's one thing to dangle around a teenage defenseman who will be wearing a suit and tie to work in a half dozen years. It's another to do it against the best hockey players in the world.

We also tend to ignore percentages and odds when we talk about "homerun" swings. Yes, a homerun brings everyone to their feet. But how does the batting average look? Is hitting .240 with 40 homeruns worth more than hitting .260 with 35? How about .275 with 30? That's what scouts ask themselves. They're looking at things on a sliding scale.

But homerun picks are also like those guys who are late bloomers and put things together after one or two teams move on.

Everyone wants to find those guys --- and fans are particularly drawn to them because of the unique feeling of "discovering" someone before anyone else. It's the same with bands, or hobbies, or other aspects of our lives. We all want to be one of the ones who was ahead of the curve. But the reality is that for every guy you find like that, you probably also liked 10 guys who didn't make it. But no one comes on here touting their greatest misses --- why would we?

Right now, I think people are "hearing" things from people who like particular prospects and depending on their moods, that might sound more appealing at a given time. The interest in prospects on here fluctuates more than any other domain --- online or in the hockey world. But I don't know if we fully understand that.

I'm not sure there is a clear "elite" talent out there beyond the top two or three. There are guys who have the potential to reach those levels, but I'm not sure the gaps are as wide as some think. I think each guy has his own strengths and weaknesses. Some guys might have more goal scoring upside, but does that make them better prospects?

How do we value ceiling versus floor? How we value upside versus risk?

These are the many details that lead to variations in what we can perceive to be the BPA, or the prospect with the highest upside. But I think those details are important when looking at a player.

For example, Kotkaniemi and Tkachuk have a relatively high floors --- maybe two of the highest in the draft outside of Dahlin. But what if one isn't quite as sold on the ceiling? How does one weigh floor and ceiling against each other? How does one weigh that against guys like Boqvist or Wahlstrom? For each of us, it's likely to be different.

I say that mainly because we use terms like "reach" or "safe" and I don't think those are completely accurate in most cases. It's very rare for teams not to take the best player available, even when the pick fits a need. However, we have to consider that the formula they used to determine BPA is different from ours. Just because a team selects a player that others didn't think was the BPA, doesn't mean the team feels the same way. Additionally, you'd be surprised how many times a team has several guys scored the same.

It's not uncommon for a team to have 3 guys who score the same for them. Obviously you can't go up there and select all 3 with a single pick, so you have to put them into some order. That's where a team might look at depth, they might look at position value, they might opt for a different attributes depending on the year, they might look at handedness, they might look to trade down feeling that there is no discernible difference for them and pick up an additional asset.

In many ways, the entire process isn't all that different than what takes place (or used to) in politics or on a popular TV show --- the people on the outside take it way more personal than the people on the inside.

 

[Off Sides]

The attribute that is going to matter the most in some future playoff series is?

If the answer is not talent I'll just agree to disagree.

 

[NYR Viper]

The attribute that is going to matter the most in some future playoff series is?

If the answer is not talent I'll just agree to disagree.

I don't see anyone disagreeing with looking for talent. But talent that can't get things done at the NHL level is useless. And there are multiple facets of a hockey game as well.

 

[Off Sides]

I don't see anyone disagreeing with looking for talent. But talent that can't get things done at the NHL level is useless. And there are multiple facets of a hockey game as well.

My point is without the game breaking talent as a foundation, nothing else really matters, the Rangers are still going to be that team who is at best is good but always fighting an uphill battle against teams who have that game breaking talent.

So there they are at this draft, should it play out as such, they can take some player that may have the game breaking talent but is more likely to not reach it, or they can take a player who does not have that talent but is more likely to not bust.

To me the answer is easy, risk the bust because if not the end game is never working out anyway.

 

[SnowFort]

I for one would be very disappointed if they took Farabee over Wahlstrom. Not that Farabee isn’t an intriguing prospect, but I believe Wahlstrom will be a better point producer and NHL player. That is just my opinion and prediction, and I understand why others would think otherwise.

 

[Edge]

We are assuming the percentages of each player reaching their 'potential' is the same. We are also assuming we all agree on said 'potential'.

This is an interesting point.

For example I think Kotkaniemi will almost certainly play in the NHL in a top six role. What I'm not sure about is whether he's a first line center.

I think Wahlstrom has 30+ goal potential, but if he's not a scoring winger, I'm not sure he makes it in another role.

I think Farabee is more likely to be a first line player than Kotkaniemi, but Kotkaniemi is a center who has the size and maybe a shot to be a first line center.

I think Dobson has slightly more upside than Bouchard, but Bouchard is the best defenseman now.

Neither of those guys strike me as guys who can take over a game and change it's direction, but their floors are higher than Hughes and Boqvist.

Depending on how one values certain elements, you can come up with different answers to the question.

For starters, what is ceiling? What is the best?

Is it the most points? Most goals? Best CORSI?

Is it the best spurts? The longest spurts?

Is it steady or danger?

Is it peak or longevity?

How do we measure points vs. a complete game? What's the exchange rate?

All things being equal, two players score the same for you, what position do you value more?

How do you value pure skill vs. likelihood of being able to use those skills in real-world, NHL settings?

How important do you think skating is?

Is said player closer to the finished product? Further? Is today's better prospect the guy you pick 5 years from now?

How much risk is too much? How "safe" is too safe"

Is one prospect benefiting from their environment more than another?

Etc. etc. etc.

If one isn't asking themself these questions, and more, they probably should be.

 

[doomscroll]

I think if Ranger fans saw him consistently, and can see the skill to go with the energy, and see how he performs in situations where he is a primary offensive driver (and not the responsible one in a combination with Hughes and Wahlstrom), they would love him very quickly.

Having said that, I really think there is a cluster of guys — with many of the names we’ve discussed — that is very close.

On a different note, NHL.com has some very solid interviews that probably give a more realistic view of how teams are looking at prospects and not how pundits and online observers do. The newest focuses on Bouchard vs. Dobson. But if you scroll down, you’ll see Hughes vs. Boqvist, and Denisenko vs. Kravtsov. Worth the reads:

2018 NHL Draft: Bouchard vs. Dobson

RE: Bouchard vs. Dobson, one thing I find interesting there is that part of the argument in favor of Dobson is his supposed potential to surpass Bouchard’s production at 18 y/o, yet Bouchard is less than three months older. If Dobson were to exceed Bouchard’s 17-18 production next season, the script could then flip to Dobson just edging-out what Bouchard did when the latter was a year younger. If the qualms about Bouchard’s skating have been dispelled as simply being an awkward stride a-la Jack Eichel, then I’m not sure what more he could have done to place himself above Dobson, save for being born 75 days later or appearing sexier on the ice.

The more and more I think about it, the more I believe that taking Bouchard, if he is on the board at 9, could be a coup for the Rangers when all is said and done. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to look down the road and find GMs kicking themselves for not seeing the forest for the trees regarding Bouchard’s potential.

 

[NYR Viper]

My point is without the game breaking talent as a foundation, nothing else really matters, the Rangers are still going to be that team who is at best is good but always fighting an uphill battle against teams who have that game breaking talent.

So there they are at this draft, should it play out as such, they can take some player that may have the game breaking talent but is more likely to not reach it, or they can take a player who does not have that talent but is more likely to not bust.

To me the answer is easy, risk the bust because if not the end game is never working out anyway.

I have heard comparison's in playing style of Farabee to Parise. Those guys aren't 'sexy' but they get the job done and put up points. Flashy doesn't always equal better

 

[Edge]

The attribute that is going to matter the most in some future playoff series is?

If the answer is not talent I'll just agree to disagree.

I understand.

But define talent for me.

It's kind of the same questions I posted above:

Is it the most points? Most goals? Best CORSI?

Is it the best spurts? The longest spurts?

Is it steady or danger?

Is it peak or longevity?

Driving play? Generating shots? Stat sheets?

How do we measure points vs. a complete game? What's the exchange rate?

All things being equal, two players score the same for you, what position do you value more?

How much risk is too much? How "safe" is too safe"

Is is ability to control the flow of a game, or change it?

Is it the guy who keeps it competitive for 30 minutes, or the guy who has a way of showing up for 2 minutes but getting the GWG?

Is it hot at the right time, or dependability?

Keeping in mind that there might not be a right or wrong answer to any one of these questions. (It's not a gotcha scenario.) I'm merely saying terms like "talent" can be very deceptive.

Each of us has a pretty good idea of how we define talent. Most of us would be surprised as to how much room for interpretation there is when we get below the surface.

 

[Edge]

RE: Bouchard vs. Dobson, one thing I find interesting there is that part of the argument in favor of Dobson is his supposed potential to surpass Bouchard’s production at 18 y/o, yet Bouchard is less than three months older. If Dobson were to exceed Bouchard’s 17-18 production next season, the script could then flip to Dobson just edging-out what Bouchard did when the latter was a year younger. If the qualms about Bouchard’s skating have been dispelled as simply being an awkward stride a-la Jack Eichel, then I’m not sure what more he could have done to place himself above Dobson, save for being born 75 days later or appearing sexier on the ice.

The more and more I think about it, the more I believe that taking Bouchard, if he is on the board at 9, could be a coup for the Rangers when all is said and done. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to look down the road and find GMs kicking themselves for not seeing the forest for the trees regarding Bouchard’s potential.

The NHL article I posted last night is very interesting and, I would say, probably pretty reflective of how teams are approaching the two.

The main argument when it comes to experience is the extra season Bouchard has under his belt, moreso than age.

But I'll be damned if I don't think these two are very, very close.

 

[Edge]

I for one would be very disappointed if they took Farabee over Wahlstrom. Not that Farabee isn’t an intriguing prospect, but I believe Wahlstrom will be a better point producer and NHL player. That is just my opinion and prediction, and I understand why others would think otherwise.

It's interesting to me.

Assuming both guys hit their ceiling (unlikely but it makes for an easier conversation), I think Wahlstrom produces more goals and probably more points.

But I also don't think it's 40 percent more than what Farabee produces if he hits his ceiling.

Let's assume it's 10 goals and 15 points.

The interesting question for me is how much are those 10 goals and 15 points worth?

Are they scored in clusters? Is it streaky or consistent? Are they timely goals are points against inferior defenses? Does one guy feast on weaker teams?

Does one guy need a certain type of center to succeed? A certain type of system? How do we value adaptability vs. danger?

Beyond that, how much do we value a point differential at the cost of defense or other aspects of the game?

If Wahlstrom indeed produces more goals and points, but Farabee is also deployed on the Penalty Kill and in all situations, what's the exchange rate on that?

What's the cutoff on the value? Is it 5 goals more, 10, 15? Most people assume Farabee is the more complete player in terms of defense and effort, but at what point does the production trump that?

I'll be the first to tell you, I don't have concrete answers for any of the questions I just asked. But I will admit that it's something to think about when we look at these two, and any of the kids potentially in our range.

 

[Ghost of jas]

My gut feeling remains that the pick is either going to be Boqvist or Kotkaniemi. Nothing concrete, just the feeling I get. I also believe the Rangers are trading up to take Kravtsov.

 

[Off Sides]

I understand.

But define talent for me.

It's kind of the same questions I posted above:

Is it the most points? Most goals? Best CORSI?

Is it the best spurts? The longest spurts?

Is it steady or danger?

Is it peak or longevity?

Driving play? Generating shots? Stat sheets?

How do we measure points vs. a complete game? What's the exchange rate?

All things being equal, two players score the same for you, what position do you value more?

How much risk is too much? How "safe" is too safe"

Is is ability to control the flow of a game, or change it?

Is it the guy who keeps it competitive for 30 minutes, or the guy who has a way of showing up for 2 minutes but getting the GWG?

Is it hot at the right time, or dependability?

Keeping in mind that there might not be a right or wrong answer to any one of these questions. (It's not a gotcha scenario.) I'm merely saying terms like "talent" can be very deceptive.

Each of us has a pretty good idea of how we define talent. Most of us would be surprised as to how much room for interpretation there is when we get below the surface.

My measurement, goals are the most important aspect and the toughest thing to make happen on the ice, if there is a prospect who has a goal scoring talent I'd take him over the all around player. I could always try to find that more all around player through several other means, they found Stepan in the 2nd, but I'm not getting a guy who puts in ~35-40 goals per year unless he is about to decline to putting in ~20 per year.

It's a little different if there is a Barzal there that can be identified, a guy who can transport the puck up ice and beat just about any defensive scheme the other team is putting out there.

Is Farbeee either of those things? If not I'm still leaning towards someone who I think has a chance to score NHL goals or some center that maybe could solve it a as #1C if those choices are available.

Actually I'd even take a defender in that spot if he had any potential to be a top pair.

 

[Lion Hound]

I am also on the Farabee bandwagon here and have been so since very early on in the draft thread.

Couple of things...

1) I also have him ranked #8. Over Dobson, Kotkaniemi and Bouchard
2) I don't agree that Kotkaniemi has this rumored higher upside. I think Farabee is more complete for the now, and i feel his skillset, his head for the game, and his skating all put him above Jesperi for the long term.
3) I think his style of hockey is Taylor-made for today's NHL.

I'd be very happy Farabee was the guy. I won't be at all dissapointed if Dobson, Bouchard or even Kotkaniemi are the guy. I would be dissapointed if the reached on any one else with the pick. Smith, Hayton, Veleno, Noel etc. Id actually be furious at that.

 

[Dijock94]

RE: Bouchard vs. Dobson, one thing I find interesting there is that part of the argument in favor of Dobson is his supposed potential to surpass Bouchard’s production at 18 y/o, yet Bouchard is less than three months older. If Dobson were to exceed Bouchard’s 17-18 production next season, the script could then flip to Dobson just edging-out what Bouchard did when the latter was a year younger. If the qualms about Bouchard’s skating have been dispelled as simply being an awkward stride a-la Jack Eichel, then I’m not sure what more he could have done to place himself above Dobson, save for being born 75 days later or appearing sexier on the ice.

The more and more I think about it, the more I believe that taking Bouchard, if he is on the board at 9, could be a coup for the Rangers when all is said and done. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to look down the road and find GMs kicking themselves for not seeing the forest for the trees regarding Bouchard’s potential.

I would be thrilled with Bouchard as well. Big time shot and some silky mitts.

 

[eco's bones]

I think the terms "elite potential" and "BPA" are very subjective and we probably don't give enough credit to the differences in how we perceive those terms, even subconsciously.

When people describe elite, I find they are often talking about a skill set. Particularly skills that look flashier when they work --- stick-handling, shooting, skating, etc. But I don't know if there's quite as much thought given to transferable skills and how said player can apply them against the best competition in the world. It's one thing to dangle around a teenage defenseman who will be wearing a suit and tie to work in a half dozen years. It's another to do it against the best hockey players in the world.

We also tend to ignore percentages and odds when we talk about "homerun" swings. Yes, a homerun brings everyone to their feet. But how does the batting average look? Is hitting .240 with 40 homeruns worth more than hitting .260 with 35? How about .275 with 30? That's what scouts ask themselves. They're looking at things on a sliding scale.

But homerun picks are also like those guys who are late bloomers and put things together after one or two teams move on.

Everyone wants to find those guys --- and fans are particularly drawn to them because of the unique feeling of "discovering" someone before anyone else. It's the same with bands, or hobbies, or other aspects of our lives. We all want to be one of the ones who was ahead of the curve. But the reality is that for every guy you find like that, you probably also liked 10 guys who didn't make it. But no one comes on here touting their greatest misses --- why would we?

Right now, I think people are "hearing" things from people who like particular prospects and depending on their moods, that might sound more appealing at a given time. The interest in prospects on here fluctuates more than any other domain --- online or in the hockey world. But I don't know if we fully understand that.

I'm not sure there is a clear "elite" talent out there beyond the top two or three. There are guys who have the potential to reach those levels, but I'm not sure the gaps are as wide as some think. I think each guy has his own strengths and weaknesses. Some guys might have more goal scoring upside, but does that make them better prospects?

How do we value ceiling versus floor? How we value upside versus risk?

These are the many details that lead to variations in what we can perceive to be the BPA, or the prospect with the highest upside. But I think those details are important when looking at a player.

For example, Kotkaniemi and Tkachuk have a relatively high floors --- maybe two of the highest in the draft outside of Dahlin. But what if one isn't quite as sold on the ceiling? How do one weigh floor and ceiling against each other? How does one weigh that against guys like Boqvist or Wahlstrom? For each of us, it's likely to be different.

I say that mainly because we use terms like "reach" or "safe" and I don't think those are completely accurate in most cases. It's very rare for teams not to take the best player available, even when the pick fits a need. However, we have to consider that the formula they used to determine BPA is different from ours. Just because a team selects a player that others didn't think was the BPA, doesn't mean the team feels the same way. Additionally, you'd be surprised how many times a team has several guys scored the same.

It's not uncommon for a team to have 3 guys who score the same for them. Obviously you can't go up there and select all 3 with a single pick, so you have to put them into some order. That's where a team might look at depth, they might look at position value, they might opt for a different attributes depending on the year, they might look at handedness, they might look to trade down feeling that there is no discernible difference for them and pick up an additional asset.

In many ways, the entire process isn't all that different than what takes place (or used to) in politics or on a popular TV show --- the people on the outside take it way more personal than the people on the inside.

There's a mental picture that comes into play as far a truly elite player. Just skating, stickhandling and shooting skills don't get a player to an elite status. The player has to have the drive to be the best.

Everyone knows the NHL is competitive--that all players want to win. Some players do want to win more than others though---there are degrees to that too and they can make a real difference. Case in point when Rick Nash says he just wants to be one of the 'guys'---that's not fine from a guy who is expected to lead your offense. When you look at Henrik--he does not accept losing with very much grace. He has the right mentality and he's always used that mentality to push himself and his team harder and further. Lias Andersson might not have the same skillset as others in his draft year but he has shown signs of having a mentality similar to Lundqvist. Not everybody is throwing their silver medals into the stands after losing a championship game. For most the idea wouldn't even occur to them. Mark Messier--a win at all cost mindset. It's not the usual NHL player saying 'I want to win' shit. With Messier it was well beyond that and if that kind of mindset becomes contagious in your locker room your team is going to win--it's only a matter of time. So yes you want players with the talent and the skillsets and all that but sometimes guys with less accomplish more (Justin Williams) because their drive and mentality help them to achieve beyond more skilled players. You get a superbly skilled player like Messier though who has the right mentality then you got gold.

 

[Charlie Conway]

I don't have a whole lot to add here (but in HF fashion, I'll do it anyway!)

I've been reading a lot about the prospects, and, if anything, it seems there's so much out there that there's not a consensus beyond the first 2 picks. So I'm going off of you guys and also trusting our scouting staff to get the guy they want or think is best. BPA. Between 3-10, there's so much debate that I hope that any trade up is really worth our while.

I wasn't sure who we'd go with. I'll admit I've been buying into the Kotka hype.

Has Alexeyev been falling? He was a prospect I was keeping an eye on earlier in the season, but, with work and grad classes, I ended up losing track of all of this. He was a player I was thinking to target with the latest first pick, though it looks like he might fall towards the early second.

He's big, uses it, is mobile, and is strong defensively. Good skater with a long stride. Good IQ. Seems to be a smart player with a two-way game and few mistakes. I don't think there's a strong offensive side to his game that will develop, however.

The reason he might fall (and has been) is because of a previous knee injury he appears to have fully recovered from. He also missed games when his mother passed away. Wondering if he might fall into our laps in the early second and would be a good pick there.

 

[Gardner McKay]

Draft night really is a mystery. I don't think it would surprise anyone for the draft to as expected. It also wouldn't surprise anyone for Montreal, Ottawa, etc to start doing stupid shit and creating an absolute frenzy on the draft floor. What do I mean by stupidity? Montreal drafting Kotkaniemi at 3, Ottawa passing on Zadina at 4 to take a defensemen because they are scared about EK leaving, Arizona taking Zadina/Tkachuck at 5, another team trading up to 6/7 to take Hayton because they are nervous about him being taken with Kotkaniemi going so early and then next thing you know, we are at picks 7/8 and Dobson, Wahlstrom, Bouchard, Tkachuck/Zadina still on the board.

 

[Kovalev27]

My point is without the game breaking talent as a foundation, nothing else really matters, the Rangers are still going to be that team who is at best is good but always fighting an uphill battle against teams who have that game breaking talent.

So there they are at this draft, should it play out as such, they can take some player that may have the game breaking talent but is more likely to not reach it, or they can take a player who does not have that talent but is more likely to not bust.

To me the answer is easy, risk the bust because if not the end game is never working out anyway.

spot on.

which is why I was so angry last year despite liking lias andersson as a player and person and I have no doubt he'll play for us

however we cannot do this again. we need to go after game breaking talent.

 

[HatTrick Swayze]

My gut feeling remains that the pick is either going to be Boqvist or Kotkaniemi. Nothing concrete, just the feeling I get. I also believe the Rangers are trading up to take Kravtsov.

My gut is a US kid this year. Tkachuk, Hughes, Wahlstrom, Farabee. With Stepan, McD, Miller all exiting the org in the last 12 mos. Just a baseless hunch.

 

[Edge]

I don't have a whole lot to add here (but in HF fashion, I'll do it anyway!)

I've been reading a lot about the prospects, and, if anything, it seems there's so much out there that there's not a consensus beyond the first 2 picks. So I'm going off of you guys and also trusting our scouting staff to get the guy they want or think is best. BPA. Between 3-10, there's so much debate that I hope that any trade up is really worth our while.

I wasn't sure who we'd go with. I'll admit I've been buying into the Kotka hype.

Has Alexeyev been falling? He was a prospect I was keeping an eye on earlier in the season, but, with work and grad classes, I ended up losing track of all of this. He was a player I was thinking to target with the latest first pick, though it looks like he might fall towards the early second.

He's big, uses it, is mobile, and is strong defensively. Good skater with a long stride. Good IQ. Seems to be a smart player with a two-way game and few mistakes. I don't think there's a strong offensive side to his game that will develop, however.

The reason he might fall (and has been) is because of a previous knee injury he appears to have fully recovered from. He also missed games when his mother passed away. Wondering if he might fall into our laps in the early second and would be a good pick there.

The top two is set. From there it's a matter of opinion and preference.

I'd think Zadina is probably third on most lists, but could go as low as sixth in the right scenario --- though it's a longshot.

Kotkaniemi probably isn't a consensus top 10 for everyone, but could go as high as third.

Boqvist could go fourth, or not go in the top 10.

Hayton could be on a single top 10 list, and still go ahead of a guy who is in the top 10 for more than half the league.

Switching gears to Alexeyev, I think there's some question as to just how good he can be. There's a lot of evidence this guy can be a pretty complete two-way threat. But for a number of reasons, some beyond his control, the entire package hasn't come together --- especially in spotlight situations. Being a little older than the other prospects, there are some questions as to whether he will put those pieces together and some debate as to whether he's just more of a late bloomer.

I'll say this much, if he he's healthy and things fall into place, Alexeyev could put up 20 goals and 80+ points in the WHL next season to go along with a physical presence. I don't know if his ceiling is quite first pairing, but second pairing is definitely within the realm of his talent level. However, he's also a kid who could struggle to adjust to the pro game and need more time.

For a lot of teams, it could simply be a matter of them liking other players just a little more. I'd say his drafting range isn't all that far off from where Hajek was a couple of years back --- he could go in the early to mid 20s, or he could slip into the late 30s.

 

[I Eat Crow]

My gut is a US kid this year. Tkachuk, Hughes, Wahlstrom, Farabee. With Stepan, McD, Miller all exiting the org in the last 12 mos. Just a baseless hunch.

I have the same hunch. The Rangers will try and trade up for Hughes or Tkachuk. If they can't, I think Farabee is the guy at 9. I can't picture Wahlstrom being the guy for some reason

 

[Edge]

I think Tkachuk and Hughes are very high on their list.

I would think Farabee should be high on their list, but I feel less sure about that one.

 

[Off Sides]

spot on.

which is why I was so angry last year despite liking lias andersson as a player and person and I have no doubt he'll play for us

however we cannot do this again. we need to go after game breaking talent.

I was never that angry about Lias, to me it made some sense then as without Chytil they had pretty much nill safer bet NHL prospects.

They have added in those two, plus Howden, Hajek, maybe Pionk, they have Buch, Skjei, those are pretty safe players/prospects.

I think it's great if Farabee were added to that but not at #9.

This may be the Rangers only chance at #9 or earlier over the next several drafts. While I'd like to see them do this again next draft, have a relatively high pick plus some later ones, I don't think they have any intention of allowing that to happen. It's not like the East is so great they could not be in the top 8 that go to the playoffs or just miss them.

I also believe that some of the teams picking before the Rangers are going to do some off the board picking. Rangers may have a chance to take a #6, #7 or even a little earlier ranked prospect at #9.

I just can't think they are going to have a better chance to be in that position again any time soon.

 

[Edge]

Some players dropping present tougher scenarios for me than others.

Boqvist or Hughes dropping would definitely be tough to pass up, maybe Wahlstrom.

Bouchard, Dobson or Kotkaniemi, not so much.

Boqvist and Hughes appear to have the potential to take over a game and change its trajectory. The others I'm not quite as sure about, though I think they're really good prospects.