Rumor: Gordie Clark Moving Towards Retirement?

[Amazing Kreiderman]

I'm surprised he wasn't fired years ago when he drafted J.T. Miller with Kucherov still on the board.

Did Tampa fire their guys as well for passing on Kucherov in the first round?

 

[SA16]

Did Tampa fire their guys as well for passing on Kucherov in the first round?

Why take him in the first round when you know other teams didn't do enough work? They knew they could get him in the second and someone else earlier.

 

[Dfence033]

What the hell are you talking about? Who is stating where that the Rangers should have drafted any one other than who they did?

The whole point was to counter the "Gorton got extremely luck in the draft by getting the lottery wins" argument.

This seems like a rather unnecessary and direct attack response to something that many others, including who I quoted, seemed to have no issue with. Not sure what the misunderstanding is?

Gorton and the Rangers DID get extremely lucky with the lottery wins. My point was that he/they shouldn't be docked points for making the easy pick, as if the only reason the prospect pool is great (or the only good thing they've ever done was those two picks), nor should they receive huge praise for making the easy pick, as if luck had nothing at all to do with the strength of the prospect pool.

The "should have drafted" comment was about ALL drafts, not Kakko and Laf. It's present multiple times in this very thread...

 

[True Blue]

This seems like a rather unnecessary and direct attack response to something that many others, including who I quoted, seemed to have no issue with. Not sure what the misunderstanding is?

Gorton and the Rangers DID get extremely lucky with the lottery wins. My point was that he/they shouldn't be docked points for making the easy pick, as if the only reason the prospect pool is great (or the only good thing they've ever done was those two picks), nor should they receive huge praise for making the easy pick, as if luck had nothing at all to do with the strength of the prospect pool.

The "should have drafted" comment was about ALL drafts, not Kakko and Laf. It's present multiple times in this very thread...

That is the point. If people want to dock points for the lottery wins, then they need to understand what the pipeline would most likely look had they not.

You seem to be treating the Lafreniere and Kakko picks as neutral. Do not dock points but do not give praise. By that notion, you are pretending that those picks did not exist to Gorton & JD. They did. Would they get points if they drafted Zegras and Lundell? Of course they would. So why would they not get credit for their overall body of work? You seem to want to penalize their hand for them getting dealt aces. Seems silly to me.

 

[Dfence033]

I think we say Zegras and Lundell because we know that's who they were targeting.

That's why we don't say, for example, Turcotte and Jarvis. Or Podkolzin and Amirov.

So that's where that tends to come from.

Definitely makes sense. I know you are well connected with the organization, so I will take both yours and Trxjw's knowledge as evidence that would have actually been the case.

Do you think you would view the prospect pool differently if they didn't win those lotteries, but managed to pull of those deals and grabbed Lundell & Zegras instead? I believe I would, and that's not a knock on those two. It's just neither was considered a near consensus top (or top 2) pick at the time, at least from the rankings I remember. And the cost in assets to make it happen likely means the Rangers also don't have a few others of our recently drafted kids.

 

[True Blue]

Do you think you would view the prospect pool differently if they didn't win those lotteries, but managed to pull of those deals and grabbed Lundell & Zegras instead? I believe I would, and that's not a knock on those two. It's just neither was considered a near consensus top (or top 2) pick at the time, at least from the rankings I remember. And the cost in assets to make it happen likely means the Rangers also don't have a few others of our recently drafted kids.

You are still missing the point. They would not have to pull of deals to get Zegras and Lundell. There would be no cost in assets.

 

[Dfence033]

That is the point. If people want to dock points for the lottery wins, then they need to understand what the pipeline would most likely look had they not.

You seem to be treating the Lafreniere and Kakko picks as neutral. Do not dock points but do not give praise. By that notion, you are pretending that those picks did not exist to Gorton & JD. They did. Would they get points if they drafted Zegras and Lundell? Of course they would. So why would they not get credit for their overall body of work? You seem to want to penalize their hand for them getting dealt aces. Seems silly to me.

Okay, so I believe the misunderstanding is that I'm suggesting they be evaluated on "body of work," rather than two picks that they lucked in to.

I agree with you, but my point was obviously not stated well enough. I tend not to evaluate too heavily on "no-brainer" picks, unless we are suggesting crediting GMs for not being so stupid as to pick someone other than McDavid, Matthews, Crosby, and Ovechkin. That's too low of a bar to judge a GM/scouts worth in my opinion, although for too many teams, that seems to be what they have (check out Colorado's non-top 10 overall picks, for instance).

 

[Dfence033]

You are still missing the point. They would not have to pull of deals to get Zegras and Lundell. There would be no cost in assets.

Okay, I'm done with the argument, but that is contrary to what the connected long-timers have suggested. They were discussing trading up to grab them. The Rangers, without the lottery win, were slated to draft something like 15th. Lundell was gone by then...

 

[True Blue]

Okay, I'm done with the argument, but that is contrary to what the connected long-timers have suggested. They were discussing trading up to grab them. The Rangers, without the lottery win, were slated to draft something like 15th. Lundell was gone by then...

Dude, what was confirmed that the Rangers tried to trade up to get them AFTER their lottery picks were made. Had they not won the lottery, the picks would have sat there for them for the taking.

Thanks for playing.

Plus it seems silly to play let's pretend and only change the factors that you wish while pretending that the rest of the field does not change. Should we also pretend that the Devs did not win their picks and that someone else drafted Hughes?

 

[kovazub94]

Why take him in the first round when you know other teams didn't do enough work? They knew they could get him in the second and someone else earlier.

Ok, then maybe frame your well thought out response as EVERY teams' head of scouting should've been fired. Why just the Rangers?

 

[SA16]

Ok, then maybe frame your well thought out response as EVERY teams' head of scouting should've been fired. Why just the Rangers?

Not all. Washington didn't have a pick until 119 that draft. That's not the fault of the scouting department.

 

[GoAwayPanarin]

Not all. Washington didn't have a pick until 119 that draft. That's not the fault of the scouting department.

They fall for it every time lmao.

 

[hi]

For the record, I don't think Clark leaving would be some sort of doomsday scenario. The good choices go beyond just Clark, just as the bad choices go beyond Clark. I have confidence that our scouting staff will still be in the upper tier of the league even after Gordie retires.

That being said, this idea that somehow Clark is a detriment to our scouting and player development is ludicrous. The Rangers have arguably the best prospect pool in the NHL. So I have no idea why anyone would be cheering the departure of someone who was a key part of putting that pool together.

I would hope that the most valuable franchise in the NHL, which has made 8 first round picks in the previous 4 drafts would have one of the best prospect pools in the league.

Gordie Clark has been in charge of Rangers drafts since 2005-06. 16 years. He's drafted one defenseman outside of the first round that's played at least 100 games in the NHL. Ryan Graves in 2013. Corey Potter is the second most recent on that list. Drafted in 2003

I get it. Clark has been around a long time. People like the man. But it's very obvious by just reviewing the Rangers draft history since he's been in charge that he isn't very good at drafting.

 

[kovazub94]

Not all. Washington didn't have a pick until 119 that draft. That's not the fault of the scouting department.

So substantially all. I'm glad you're so precise when calling for heads to roll of SUBSTANTIALLY all of scouting departments.

 

[kovazub94]

They fall for it every time lmao.

I'm glad you're amused - while as always continuing missing the point.

 

[Edge]

Definitely makes sense. I know you are well connected with the organization, so I will take both yours and Trxjw's knowledge as evidence that would have actually been the case.

Do you think you would view the prospect pool differently if they didn't win those lotteries, but managed to pull of those deals and grabbed Lundell & Zegras instead? I believe I would, and that's not a knock on those two. It's just neither was considered a near consensus top (or top 2) pick at the time, at least from the rankings I remember. And the cost in assets to make it happen likely means the Rangers also don't have a few others of our recently drafted kids.

I think if we swap out those guys from our picks we're probably still top five.

Laf and Kakko plus Zegras is a bit different because that would've apparently cost us Buch to get Edmonton's pick.

That one is a bit more complicated. I think Buch would've exploded in Edmonton (and had extra padding on top of what we've seen, especially this year). How would that have impacted expectation for Zegras? Would people have been upset we didn't get the pick and then some? What impact would it have had on Kakko and Kravtsov?

Those are all fair questions and ones I don't necessarily have answers to.

 

[GoAwayPanarin]

I'm glad you're amused - while as always continuing missing the point.

He was kidding dude.

Nothing he's posted in this thread was serious. SA does this from time to time and people always fall for it so the bolded is hilarious.

 

[Trxjw]

I would hope that the most valuable franchise in the NHL, which has made 8 first round picks in the previous 4 drafts would have one of the best prospect pools in the league.

Gordie Clark has been in charge of Rangers drafts since 2005-06. 16 years. He's drafted one defenseman outside of the first round that's played at least 100 games in the NHL. Ryan Graves in 2013. Corey Potter is the second most recent on that list. Drafted in 2003

I get it. Clark has been around a long time. People like the man. But it's very obvious by just reviewing the Rangers draft history since he's been in charge that he isn't very good at drafting.

So which is it? How does a guy who is "bad at drafting" build arguably the best prospect pool in the league? "He had a lot of picks" means nothing when you think the guy is bad at drafting. That's just more opportunities to make bad decisions.

Easy to single out defensemen when under Clark's watch we've drafted 7 forwards outside of the first who have over 300 games to their credit. 3 of whom have played over 600.

That's all before you consider that the first round tends to be where the vast majority of NHLers are taken and our record of first rounders has been among the best in the NHL. We've had 8 first round selections among D+4 players. 5 of whom are or have been top-9 forwards or top-4 defensemen for most of their NHL career. One is a clear bust. One looks like they'll come up well short of expectations and was traded for a 2nd who looks very promising. The eighth was considered one of the best prospects in the world and then, ya know, died.

Under Clark's watch we've been one of the better drafting teams in the NHL. All of the facts back it up. It's really not even up for debate at this point.

 

[kovazub94]

He was kidding dude.

Nothing he's posted in this thread was serious. SA does this from time to time and people always fall for it so the bolded is hilarious.

I see his post as a blank statement (not a reply to someone else) so it's impossible to figure out if it's a sarcasm or an honest point of view.

 

[Dfence033]

Dude, what was confirmed that the Rangers tried to trade up to get them AFTER their lottery picks were made. Had they not won the lottery, the picks would have sat there for them for the taking.

Thanks for playing.

Plus it seems silly to play let's pretend and only change the factors that you wish while pretending that the rest of the field does not change. Should we also pretend that the Devs did not win their picks and that someone else drafted Hughes?

Not sure who pissed in your cereal the last two days, but since you apparently can't engage in civil conversation without childish insults and no new information, goodbye.

 

[Dfence033]

I think if we swap out those guys from our picks we're probably still top five.

Laf and Kakko plus Zegras is a bit different because that would've apparently cost us Buch to get Edmonton's pick.

That one is a bit more complicated. I think Buch would've exploded in Edmonton (and had extra padding on top of what we've seen, especially this year). How would that have impacted expectation for Zegras? Would people have been upset we didn't get the pick and then some? What impact would it have had on Kakko and Kravtsov?

Those are all fair questions and ones I don't necessarily have answers to.

Agreed. Makes for interesting conversation pieces, but the real result is still a top-2 (are the Rangers still considered that?) prospect pool, but no centers. I think there is some valid criticism, and others who think every good player drafted after round 2 had to be a Rangers pick to be a successful scout or GM. Hard to do without giving up prime assets, and I can't suggest the Rangers didn't give up the right ones at the right times.

 

[Edge]

Agreed. Makes for interesting conversation pieces, but the real result is still a top-2 (are the Rangers still considered that?) prospect pool, but no centers. I think there is some valid criticism, and others who think every good player drafted after round 2 had to be a Rangers pick to be a successful scout or GM. Hard to do without giving up prime assets, and I can't suggest the Rangers didn't give up the right ones at the right times.

I think sometimes we also forget how relatively short of a window we've been working within.

For all the concerns about steps forward, or turning into a perpetual rebuild, we're really talking about 3, maybe 4 drafts to get to this point.

So many of our outcomes from the past 36 months really depend on timing and availability. We won two lotteries and we weren't in a position to take a center. Had we remained in our previous position, we might've grabbed two of them. Our later first round picks nabbed us some really good defensive prospects. So it's almost like we either picked too earlier, or too late to grab that sure-fire, BPA center prospect.

I can't say I'm too concerned about our ability to go out and acquire talent --- we really do have a lot to work with. I've always believed that talent will always return talent. But trying to turn question marks into talent is a far more daunting task.

 

[Roo Returns]

The Flyers took Giroux only after Bobby Clarke started to announce Sanguinetti's name on the podium, not realizing he had already been drafted.

There's never been anything that said the Rangers wanted Giroux. He was a bit of a reach at 22; 4-5 spots lower in most mocks.

Giroux was 100% on the Rangers radar. He was interviewed by them. He said so himself in a player profile on NBC in between periods back in the day.

 

[bobbop]

Giroux was 100% on the Rangers radar. He was interviewed by them. He said so himself in a player profile on NBC in between periods back in the day.

I'm sure they interviewed a lot of players and he may have been on their radar. I've seen nothing that ever said he was the pick if Sanguinetti was not available.

 

[Edge]

There were a few guys the Rangers were pretty high on that year --- with varying results.

Stewart, Foligno, Sanguinetti, Giroux, Berglund and Summers were all guys I remember there being increased chatter around.