NYR have named John Lilley Director of Player Personnel and Director of Amateur Scouting.

[Off Sides]

I'll re-ignite the TDA convo in the Georgiev thread.

Great, I have an excellent conspiracy theory involving Smith also going to the Canes.

 

[GoAwayPanarin]

Yes and no.

We have three players who will be crossing or approaching that threshold in the next year or so - Buchnevich, Duclair and Skjei.

Toronto does not.

If we expand the time period in question, it actually doesn't do Toronto any favors because if we go back to 2007 we'd also have to include Fast, Stepan, Weise and Hagelin as picks outside the first we generated that they didn't over the same period. And that's also with excluding guys like Miller and Kreider from our first rounds.

So if we're looking at the same time periods, expanding the criteria boosts our numbers more than their numbers. That's just a fact.

Looking more closely, our 2018-2020 drafts also look considerably more promising than theirs. Even taking Laf and Kakko off the equation, we've found some very promising talent with very encouraging post draft success. Again, that's without our top picks.

Right now, even going with your approach, we're outpacing them by quite the distance.

We had 6 1st round picks in that time frame.

They had 2. Even if you want to take the lottery picks out of it we doubled them up 4-2.

We chose 3 times in 2018 before they chose once. We had 16 picks in the top 3 rounds compared to just 9 for them over the same time frame.

I would hope that our drafts look more promising.

 

[nyr2k2]

It's just folly to try to compare what the Rangers have done on draft day over the past X number of years to what Toronto has done, and try to use that comparison to draw conclusions about Lilley, who was working in a more junior capacity for most of the time Clark was steering our ship.

Bad front offices and scouting departments are littered with good people, and vice versa. Daniel Dore has been a scout for us for almost 15 years and was in the same capacity with Boston for a decade prior to that. Over the past 20 years Peter Stephan went from VP of Hockey Ops to Pro Scout to Amateur scout with us. Anyone want to tell me about him? Please, share with me your favorite stories about Rich Brown's time as an amateur scout over the past 20 years. When we were drafting poorly was it because these guys sucked? Who sucked more? Were some of them good and some bad? Which of these guys is responsible for drafting which players? Come on.

I'm interested in what Lilley has done the past five or so years when he served in a leadership capacity and had much more input in the decision-making process. What Toronto did in 2008 in the guy's second years as a scout is absolutely f***ing irrelevant to me. If you want to make the point that that Toronto has drafted poorly because they're poorly staffed, sure, that seems reasonable, but as I mentioned even bad departments have good employees.

So, do we want to look at Toronto's last five or six drafts, or are we just going to continue coming up with arbitrary metrics and half-assed analyses that don't demonstrate a single f***ing thing about individual employees of Toronto? This is actually a rhetorical question because other than the drafts from 4 or 5 years ago, it's still too early to tell what we're looking at.

Anyway, I said I'd steer clear of this and now I really will. Promise.

 

[Foxy]

Yes and no.

We have three players who will be crossing or approaching that threshold in the next year or so - Buchnevich, Duclair and Skjei.

Toronto does not.

If we expand the time period in question, it actually doesn't do Toronto any favors because if we go back to 2007 we'd also have to include Fast, Stepan, Weise and Hagelin as picks outside the first we generated that they didn't over the same period. And that's also with excluding guys like Miller and Kreider from our first rounds.

So if we're looking at the same time periods, expanding the criteria boosts our numbers more than their numbers. That's just a fact.

Looking more closely, our 2018-2020 drafts also look considerably more promising than theirs. Even taking Laf and Kakko off the equation, we've found some very promising talent with very encouraging post draft success. Again, that's without our top picks.

Right now, even going with your approach, we're outpacing them by quite the distance.

Toronto has Connor Brown, 2012. Idk why we'd go back to 2007 at all? He was a rookie amature scout then, I doubt he had a large say in anything the Leafs did.

I also like our drafting the past few seasons, but Toronto looks like it will also have success with some later picks from under Lilley's tenure. They had 3 players from later rounds in the top 6 in scoring at the World Junior Summer Showcase, also Robertson 53rd, is starting to get a look in the NHL. So while I agree that I like our picks better, its not the end of the world were we hired some scrub who has missed on every pick ever. In fact after promoting Lilley the Leafs drafts seemed to get drastically better.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

At the end of the day, we're not poaching someone from Tampa, or Carolina, or LA, or some of the other teams we admire.

If this wasn't announced, no one would be saying, "I know what we need! Let's grab someone from Toronto. They've clearly got their shit together in the scouting/drafting department!"

So, the point of others, we can't say anything definitively at this time. But it's also not a move where you go, "Wow, this looks really good on paper and I think we really nailed this one."

I get it, it's unfair to expect Das Wunderkind to perform magic right out of the gate. But I was hoping for a bit more than what we've seen and by the time get to the third and fourth move, there is a pattern of decent but underwhelming.

I don't think we've done bad. I don't think we've done great. I do think we need to be closer to great to take things to the next level though.

I have no problem with this hire. I don't know enough to really judge Lilley. I'm sure Drury did his due dilligence and we can debate whether or not Lilley was the right choice. But as you alluded to, the cream of the crop isn't available.

You're not getting the guys who are top-3 in their profession. Not everyone wants to live and work in New York. But also, one person doesn't have enough impact to turn around a franchise. Scouting and drafting relies on so many facets, that it's simply impossible to just say "Let's hire this guy and we will draft better".

I just hope the guy doesn't get criticized based on unfair expectations.

 

[Ola]

Great, I have an excellent conspiracy theory involving Smith also going to the Canes.

I am pretty sure that they — lead by RBA — felt that they couldn’t quite get enough energy from the group when it mattered the most. It can’t be a coincidence that they looked at TDA, Virtanen and co at the same time. Sometimes you need a little edge in the room too. More or less smaller conflicts. That just keeps people on their toes.

 

[Edge]

The last Ranger selected to play more then 400 games in the NHL was selected in 2011!!! Including 1st rounders. Thats 10 years with 0 players playing 400 games. Its almost like it takes most players 3 years to develop and then it takes about 5 years to play 400 games, so you are discounting the last 8 years with this metric and it would only include his time as an armature scout with the Leafs. Also, both teams will have players getting their 400th game from later drafts next season.

The Rangers last player selected outside the first round to play 100 games in the NHL was also selected in 2013. Even looking at Tampa, their last player with 100 games outside the 1st round was selected in 2015. So the it not like Leafs are not too far off.

Anyway, the 2021, 2020 and 2019 Leaf drafts where Liley was director look good so far.

So just a quick circle back on thi.

Since 2011 - Toronto has had one player taken outside of the first round who is going to play more than 400 games any time soon --- Connor Brown.

In that same time period, the Rangers have selected two guys who are approaching that milestone. This also doesn't take into account how they're late first rounders performed relative to draft position. It also doesn't take into account things like Toronto valuing Tyler Biggs above JT Miller in the US program, which was Lilley's focus area at the time. That was one of the selling points back when Biggs was selected by Toronto.

Okay, but beyond that, we also went back and looked at 2007. Expanding the window we see that Toronto only gains one player in the 400+ club. Meanwhile the Rangers gain four.

So in the expanded window of draft success, the Rangers have essentially outpaced Toronto for finding talent outside the first round by a factor of 3-1.

If we look at both teams taking players from the US - the Rangers have had their misses and they've also taken Kreider, J.T. Miller, Stepan and Skjei. Lilley and Toronto took Hayes, Bracco, etc. It's really not even close, nor have we included K. Miller or Zach Jones, or evaluated what we think of guys like Skinner, Keane, etc. as prospects/assets.

Okay, in the too early to judge category we have the 2018-2020 NHL drafts.

Let's even take Kakko and Lafreniere off the table. That's not fair to include them.

In 2020 you've got Amirov vs. Schneider. I like Amirov, but I don't think many people would trade him for Schneider. A year our and we still have a lot of pros saying Schneider should've been the Leafs pick there. The next round they took Hirvonen and we took Cuylle. I'm fine with that one too. If we look to the middle rounds, I can't see me trading Garand, Berard, Vierling for their guys in the same range.

In 2019, I like their Robertson. I like ours just as much if not more. Can't say I'd trade Jones or Skinner for the alternatives.

2018, I wouldn't trade Sandin for Lundkvist. Can't say I'd take many of their choices over the asset Keane became, or Pajuniemi.

Would we trade Chytil for Liljegren from 2017? Would we trade Barron for anyone Toronto took ahead of him?

That's the thing, short-term or long-term it's really not much of a debate.

Let's forget for a second that this was the Rangers hire. Let's assume it was the Devils who made the hire. Would we be talking about how good or promising Toronto's selections have been? No, because we never viewed them that way. We weren't mentioning them like we were Carolina, or Tampa, or Boston, or Vegas, or others. They never came up. We never viewed them as something we wanted to strive for, or as even being on our level.

If we're doing it now it's only because it already happened and we have to try and make sense of it. But two weeks ago I don't think anyone would've been riding to the defense if John Lilley was a name that was floating out there. And I think we all pretty much recognize that.

 

[Edge]

I have no problem with this hire. I don't know enough to really judge Lilley. I'm sure Drury did his due dilligence and we can debate whether or not Lilley was the right choice. But as you alluded to, the cream of the crop isn't available.

You're not getting the guys who are top-3 in their profession. Not everyone wants to live and work in New York. But also, one person doesn't have enough impact to turn around a franchise. Scouting and drafting relies on so many facets, that it's simply impossible to just say "Let's hire this guy and we will draft better".

I just hope the guy doesn't get criticized based on unfair expectations.

I think your first comment about Toronto's draft history is pretty telling.

 

[Edge]

Toronto has Connor Brown, 2012. Idk why we'd go back to 2007 at all? He was a rookie amature scout then, I doubt he had a large say in anything the Leafs did.

I also like our drafting the past few seasons, but Toronto looks like it will also have success with some later picks from under Lilley's tenure. They had 3 players from later rounds in the top 6 in scoring at the World Junior Summer Showcase, also Robertson 53rd, is starting to get a look in the NHL. So while I agree that I like our picks better, its not the end of the world were we hired some scrub who has missed on every pick ever. In fact after promoting Lilley the Leafs drafts seemed to get drastically better.

I'm looking at the entire tenure of what Lilley has done as a professional, from his work as a scout to his work as a front office leader.

And, looking over the entire scope of his career, we have yet to find anything particularly noteworthy or better than what we had.

He was over US scouting and yet we don't have any standout US players to point.

He was a key player in the overall draft strategy and I don't think we came away with compares to what we did in the same slots.

So it begs the question, outside of not being able to judge him, what exactly do we think we're looking at here?

Let's just focus on THAT for a second.

 

[Edge]

It's just folly to try to compare what the Rangers have done on draft day over the past X number of years to what Toronto has done, and try to use that comparison to draw conclusions about Lilley, who was working in a more junior capacity for most of the time Clark was steering our ship.

Bad front offices and scouting departments are littered with good people, and vice versa. Daniel Dore has been a scout for us for almost 15 years and was in the same capacity with Boston for a decade prior to that. Over the past 20 years Peter Stephan went from VP of Hockey Ops to Pro Scout to Amateur scout with us. Anyone want to tell me about him? Please, share with me your favorite stories about Rich Brown's time as an amateur scout over the past 20 years. When we were drafting poorly was it because these guys sucked? Who sucked more? Were some of them good and some bad? Which of these guys is responsible for drafting which players? Come on.

I'm interested in what Lilley has done the past five or so years when he served in a leadership capacity and had much more input in the decision-making process. What Toronto did in 2008 in the guy's second years as a scout is absolutely f***ing irrelevant to me. If you want to make the point that that Toronto has drafted poorly because they're poorly staffed, sure, that seems reasonable, but as I mentioned even bad departments have good employees.

So, do we want to look at Toronto's last five or six drafts, or are we just going to continue coming up with arbitrary metrics and half-assed analyses that don't demonstrate a single f***ing thing about individual employees of Toronto? This is actually a rhetorical question because other than the drafts from 4 or 5 years ago, it's still too early to tell what we're looking at.

Anyway, I said I'd steer clear of this and now I really will. Promise.

Fine, we can't judge anything he's done.

So tell me what over the last five years intrigues you. Tell me what you think they did better than us. Tell me how their US scouting was --- any year. Show me his finds. Show me his results. Show me something tied back to him that moved the needle. Keeping in mind that we didn't just higher him to be a scout, but to help oversee the scouts.

We don't have to use any arbitrary metrics and half-assed analysis. Give me something to go on other than "I don't know, I can't judge, or it's too soon to know."

Because if that's all we have, that's why there is some concern or should be.

 

[nyr2k2]

Fine, we can't judge anything he's done.

So tell me what over the last five years intrigues you. Tell me what you think they did better than us. Tell me how their US scouting was --- any year. Show me his finds. Show me his results. Show me something tied back to him that moved the needle. Keeping in mind that we didn't just higher him to be a scout, but to help oversee the scouts.

We don't have to use any arbitrary metrics and half-assed analysis. Give me something to go on other than "I don't know, I can't judge, or it's too soon to know."

Because if that's all we have, that's why there is some concern or should be.

I think it's fair to try to evaluate him since he took over as Director of US Scouting. I just think it will be difficult and particularly subjective since many of those players are still works in progress. His time as Director of Amateur Scouting would be the most telling, but that's even more difficult to evaluate since we're talking about lots of picks that are still teenagers. But, if we really want to do that, sure, let's do it.

I don't think I've ever said not to judge him; I just took issue with you making apples-to-oranges comparisons and using Toronto's overall organizational failings as an indictment of him as an individual. And I said I, personally, do not have enough information to judge him. An extension of that is that I would think it's silly for others to do so, but if you think you know enough about him to make that judgment, go for it. You're a knowledgeable person, so that's fine.

I can't show you his finds. I can't show you his reports. I have no idea what he brought to the table as a scout. Literally, no idea. Do you? Do any of us? I addressed this myself in an earlier post. Continuing with the trend of you completely ignoring what I've actually said in my posts, while instead making demands that I justify why I like this hire (even though I said I had no opinion on it, like, 30 times), I said this a couple pages back:

"Which brings me back to Lilley. I do believe it's bordering on absurd to judge his ability to succeed in these positions by looking at what an entire organization did when he was an amateur scout for a decade; unless someone has actual insight into the job he did, the reports he filed on specific players, the guys he advocated for and against, there's really not a lot to glean from that. I do think it's appropriate to evaluate his brief tenure as Director of US Scouting and then as Director of Amateur Scouting."

I don't know, man. I just don't see enough to evaluate him individually. You seem to want to look at him skeptically because he came from an organization that hasn't drafted well in the past. That's fine. I'm not interested in doing that. I see in your other post, you mention that you don't see anything from him in his past that is "better than what we had." That last part, to me, is key--I'm not looking at this move in the context of, "Are we better now than we were with Clark?" And that's because Clark stepped back before Gorton and JD left. This isn't a situation where we cut loose Clark and replaced him with this guy. We had to replace Clark whether Dolan intervened or not. Which, again, brings me back to the whole idea that some people seem to be assessing this move based on the emotions that have arisen from Drury's other moves, which to me isn't the way to do it.

This whole thing, to me, feels like the day after the NFL draft when everyone is rushing to get out their draft grades and fanbases are literally out for blood if their GM has done what is perceived to be a poor job. What's the rush? The paint hasn't dried. Let it settle. Maybe the guy is terrible. Maybe he's going to be the Next Big Thing. I don't know. Drury, who was so revered by this board and this fanbase as recently as a few months ago, seems to have faith in him. I'll wait and see. You panic.

Please have the last word. This is one of those discussions that isn't going to resolve itself in any positive way.

 

[Foxy]

I'm looking at the entire tenure of what Lilley has done as a professional, from his work as a scout to his work as a front office leader.

And, looking over the entire scope of his career, we have yet to find anything particularly noteworthy or better than what we had.

He was over US scouting and yet we don't have any standout US players to point.

He was a key player in the overall draft strategy and I don't think we came away with compares to what we did in the same slots.

So it begs the question, outside of not being able to judge him, what exactly do we think we're looking at here?

Let's just focus on THAT for a second.

Being the optimist that I am, you could look and say he was working for a mess of an organization that was the Leafs until 2015. I don't even know how we outsiders could judge an individual scouts performance without knowing the recommendations he made that they passed on or took.

As to his work as a front office leader, I think you can look at the Leafs drafting and say its much better since the 2019 draft when they promoted Lilley to director. Like you said they have sucked at drafting since before 2007, and looking at their 2020 draft, they might have a couple late round picks who will make it to the NHL.

Also, and correct me if I'm wrong, but the position he is taking is currently vacant. With Gorton and JD having moved Clark to a Scout/ senior advisor role. Do you know who they had in mind for the position? Because it feels like you really hate Lilley.

 

[Edge]

I think it's fair to try to evaluate him since he took over as Director of US Scouting. I just think it will be difficult and particularly subjective since many of those players are still works in progress. His time as Director of Amateur Scouting would be the most telling, but that's even more difficult to evaluate since we're talking about lots of picks that are still teenagers. But, if we really want to do that, sure, let's do it.

I don't think I've ever said not to judge him; I just took issue with you making apples-to-oranges comparisons and using Toronto's overall organizational failings as an indictment of him as an individual. And I said I, personally, do not have enough information to judge him. An extension of that is that I would think it's unreasonable for others to do so, but if you think you know enough about him to make that judgment, go for it.

I can't show you his finds. I can't show you his reports. I have no idea what he brought to the table as a scout. Literally, no idea. Do you? Do any of us? I addressed this myself in an earlier post. Continuing with the trend of you completely ignoring what I've actually said in my posts, while instead making demands that I justify why I like this hire (even though I said I had no opinion on it, like, 30 times), I said this a couple pages back:

"Which brings me back to Lilley. I do believe it's bordering on absurd to judge his ability to succeed in these positions by looking at what an entire organization did when he was an amateur scout for a decade; unless someone has actual insight into the job he did, the reports he filed on specific players, the guys he advocated for and against, there's really not a lot to glean from that. I do think it's appropriate to evaluate his brief tenure as Director of US Scouting and then as Director of Amateur Scouting."

I don't know, man. I just don't see enough to evaluate him individually. You seem to want to look at him skeptically because he came from an organization that hasn't drafted well in the past. That's fine. I'm not interested in doing that. I see in your other post, you mention that you don't see anything from him in his past that is "better than what we had." That last part, to me, is key--I'm not looking at this move in the context of, "Are we better now than we were with Clark?" And that's because Clark stepped back before Gorton and JD left. This isn't a situation where we cut loose Clark and replaced him with this guy. We had to replace Clark whether Dolan intervened or not. Which, again, brings me back to the whole idea that some people seem to be assessing this move based on the emotions that have arisen from Drury's other moves, which to me isn't the way to do it.

This whole thing, to me, feels like the day after the NFL draft when everyone is rushing to get out their draft grades and fanbases are literally out for blood if their GM has done what is perceived to be a poor job. What's the rush? The paint hasn't dried. Let it settle. Maybe the guy is terrible. Maybe he's going to be the Next Big Thing. I don't know. Drury, who was so revered by this board and this fanbase as recently as a few months ago, seems to have faith in him. I'll wait and see. You panic.

Please have the last word. This is one of those discussions that isn't going to resolve itself in any positive way.

Sure, I can give you a little background on him.

Prior to taking over as Director of US Scouting he primarily oversaw the scouting of the US National Program. In his time there, probably one of the more publicized picks was Biggs --- whom he felt was the best player on the US National Team. That includes Miller, Gibson, etc.

You look at his tenure overseeing that and there's an awful lot of names that didn't become Leafs - Zucker, Rust, Grzelyck, Compher, Greenway, etc.

I get it, a lot of teams didn't pick those guys. But the Leafs never took those guys, just about any year. Either they mis-identified them, or they didn't believe in them enough to take them over the guys they did take ---- which routinely didn't work for them.

Okay, maybe his bosses were morons and they ignored him. But you'd think over that long of a period of time, at some point he'd had influence or he'd sneak one in. But that didn't happen. Okay, maybe that's not a condemnation of him. But it's not a praise either.

But here's the thing - we didn't hire him to be a scout. We hired him to be a key player. And so he has to stand out more than just some nameless scout. In this case, we know what he was over. He didn't hit out of the park, for whatever the reason.

I'm not putting the entire organization on Lilley from when he was a scout. You're right, that is unfair. I am looking at the area he was specifically responsible for, and I'm looking for results. Kind of like when we've had our US National Scouts consistently find us talent from those ranks, or from the US National Program, or when specific European scouts were finding us a Chytil, or when we were finding Hagelin and Fast from Sweden, etc. I wanna point to a period in time where we know the area Lilley was over and he pushed for things that had positive results.

I really don't think that is unrealistic for the amount of time he spent in one key area for the Leafs.

When we move beyond that to his later roles, I want to look at how they compare to not just what the Leafs did but how we did. What are his hits, how do they compare to ours, what kind of value did he find?

If we look at the 2016-2018 timeframe, I still don't think Toronto did particularly well. Maybe they did better than before, but that doesn't inherently say much. At this point, that 2016 class is 5 years ago and definitely has Lilley's fingerprints on it.

They actually went to the US program in that draft, and they missed on a pair of kids from that program Woll at 62 and Greenway at 72. They passed on Lindgren for Grundstrom and Fox to take Woll --- who was part of the same program, which Lilley was primarily scouting on way to being promoted to director of all US scouting in 2016. And again, that is supposedly where Lilley was supposed to have the most knowledge and expanded influence around that time.

Again, not the only team who missed on them, But there's a pattern of not hitting either. That's a prime example of what I'm referring to that ties directly into the area Lilley oversaw. That is one where if he hits, we've got something to talk about there. But he doesn't, so it becomes another example of "where are the hits?"

 

[bobbop]

The last player they took outside the top 10 that played more than 400 games in the NHL was selected by them in 2007. That's 14 years!

The last player selected by them outside of the first 34 picks to play more than 100 games in the NHL was selected 8 years ago.

If anything, based on pure coincidence, the last time they had a draft with mid and later round gems was 2006 ---- the year before Lilley joined the organization.

This is their draft record guys:

Toronto Maple Leafs Draft History at hockeydb.com

I fairly sure Drury is happy and confident with his choice. If the team can’t draft well, it will probably kill his career.

I feel about the same way I did when John Davidson brought in half his family to the scouting department. Concerned, but not crazy. That seemed to work out OK. Frankly, I hope they keep Morehouse around.

Neither you or I know how much control Dubas exerted over the draft. Given his background, I suspect it was a lot. Much different that Gorton.

I’m always concerned but I can’t control it, I don’t have inside information about it and I’ll have to live with it.

 

[Edge]

I fairly sure Drury is happy and confident with his choice. If the team can’t draft well, it will probably kill his career.

I feel about the same way I did when John Davidson brought in half his family to the scouting department. Concerned, but not crazy. That seemed to work out OK. Frankly, I hope they keep Morehouse around.

Neither you or I know how much control Dubas exerted over the draft. Given his background, I suspect it was a lot. Much different that Gorton.

I’m always concerned but I can’t control it, I don’t have inside information about it and I’ll have to live with it.

I have no doubt Drury is happy with his choices.

I will say that I find it interesting that the Rangers were interested in Hardy, who ended up in Toronto, only to hire Lilley from Toronto.

 

[Edge]

Being the optimist that I am, you could look and say he was working for a mess of an organization that was the Leafs until 2015. I don't even know how we outsiders could judge an individual scouts performance without knowing the recommendations he made that they passed on or took.

As to his work as a front office leader, I think you can look at the Leafs drafting and say its much better since the 2019 draft when they promoted Lilley to director. Like you said they have sucked at drafting since before 2007, and looking at their 2020 draft, they might have a couple late round picks who will make it to the NHL.

Also, and correct me if I'm wrong, but the position he is taking is currently vacant. With Gorton and JD having moved Clark to a Scout/ senior advisor role. Do you know who they had in mind for the position? Because it feels like you really hate Lilley.

I think they've gotten better, but I wouldn't consider them good. And that's part of my concern here. Forget about pulling from a a team that does something better than us, I'd at least like to pull from a team who does it as well as us. For all their improvements, I don't see Toronto fitting that criteria. I don't know if anyone would've named them as fitting that criteria prior to this announcement.

I think right now his greatest accomplishment is Robertson. I like Robertson, but not enough to hang a reputation on. Just like our own Matthew Robertson or Zach Jones wouldn't do the same for someone in the same position for us over a similar timeframe. That's criticism is not exclusive to Lilley for me.

The position is in a state of flux right now, as is the overall department. Beyond Clark, who has been phased over the last several years, you have Bobrov moving out, you have uncertainty with Morehouse at the moment, as well as a handful of others. I don't mind change inherently, but I'd like to see us at least drawing from areas where we can say, "Yeah, they've got track record and/or some trend-setting going on in their previous role." Lilley just isn't that guy for me.

At best, his recent work in Toronto is incomplete/TBD, at worst it's less than what we've done. Prior to that, I see some clear misses coming from an area of scouting that he oversaw and was locked-in on.

Yes, every team has their misses. But I want to see some hits in there too. I don't.

And in Lilley's case, he's not a roaming US scout. He had a very specific focus area. Misses happen, but lemme see some hits as well. There's not a lot there.

So maybe his recommendations were ignored. Maybe they went back and reviewed his recommendations and said, "Hey, this guy knows what he's talking." But then you see him start to gain influence, and a voice in the Leafs organization and you see a draft like 2016 where Toronto passes on some great players to come out of the program Lilley supposedly knew like the back of his hand --- including Fox.

In that situation, it's not like he's losing an argument to the guy who likes a kid out of Sweden. He's also not a newb to the assignment. The Leafs went into Lilley's scouting area and took someone like Woll instead of Fox. That IS his backyard. And if he's not winning those battles, than what is realistically left?

If we're going to evaluate him on anything, we have to at least evaluate him on the areas for which he had a direct hand in shaping. In this case, that's pretty close to the bone. Again, maybe they ignore him. But even assuming they do, it means he had Fox and Woll close enough that it was a debate and/or he didn't have pull to get his guy despite coming up on 10 years with the organization. I don't think either is something to brag about.

Even if I subscribe to the belief that Lilley is an incomplete grade and it's hard to judge his success and failures, and I admittedly don't really buy into that, I think we needed to aim higher. I don't see anything that makes him a better choice than what we already had, and I frankly see quite a bit that causes concern.

Ironically enough, one of the other names that was tied to the Rangers was Hardy. He just went to Toronto and by some reports was at least part of the reason that Lilley might have been available. There are other names floating around out there, including overlap with the AGM position. We'll see what happens.

 

[redwhiteandblue]

The key with Drury will be the upcoming moves - how we approach the center position, who we keep, who we lose, who we bring in.

I think we're a more balanced team, on paper. I think we're more a versatile team, on paper.

Our success will owe a lot to whether Kakko, Lafreniere and Chytil really step up. If they all really begin to establish themselves as legit, performing top six players you'll have a lot of questions answered. If they struggle, we've got more questions we need to address and the fallout of potential moves.

They key will be patience though. We can't be looking to abandon ship 15 or 20 games in. I think a full season will help with our ebbs and flows.

I think we're at a sink or swim point with Chytil as a second line center. I think Kravtsov can very well start the season on the third line and be better for it --- and we have the potential to make it worthwhile. I think a Kreider, Goodrow, Kravtsov third line would be good for him.

I think moving Strome eases a log-jam. If we try to jam him into things, or jam Kreider into a top six role I think things get more difficult.

But the top young talent we have is crucial to how things play out.

I'm bullish on what Chytil can do with the 2C spot. So much that it kind of makes my head hurt thinking about how hard we're trying to solve an issue that has a strong part of the solution in house.

I just don't see why you wouldn't want to move him there and hope for the best, not to mention there's perceivably no reason to not give him an 'audition' even if the team isn't as bullish.

Feels like to me a pretty good answer is staring them in the face.

 

[Edge]

I'm bullish on what Chytil can do with the 2C spot. So much that it kind of makes my head hurt thinking about how hard we're trying to solve an issue that has a strong part of the solution in house.

I just don't see why you wouldn't want to move him there and hope for the best, not to mention there's perceivably no reason to not give him an 'audition' even if the team isn't as bullish.

Feels like to me a pretty good answer is staring them in the face.

I feel like I'd be pretty comfortable going with:

Lafreniere-Zibanejad-Kakko
Panarin-Chytil-Blais (Kravtsov down the line)
Kreider-Goodrow-Kravtsov (swap with Blais down the line)
Hunt (Barron)-Rooney (Barron)-Reaves (Hunt)

Lindgren-Fox
Miller-Trouba
Nemeth (Robertson/Jones)-Lundkvist/Schneider

I'd prefer not to keep Strome for too long because I feel like we'd end up pushing Kravtsov right out of the top 9 in that scenario. I think Kravtsov can benefit from a third line role. I don't think the benefit is there having him on the fourth.

I'd prefer not to force Kreider into the top 9 and swap LAfreniere over to the right side. I think it has a similar impact as above and stacks the Rangers young talent into a situation that isn't to their full benefit.

If the Rangers believe Barron is a left wing, I think he eventually becomes Kreider's replacement on the third line. You can break him in the fourth this season.

If they believe Barron is a center, I'd give him a ton of reps in Hartford and have him come up a little later. In theory he becomes a third line center at some point, flanked by Goodrow and and Blais in a post-Kreider world.

I think I'd like to see Jones/Robertson and Schneider get a ton of time down in Hartford. I'm also not opposed to Lundkvist getting a ton of time to start as well.

I'd like to push to see what we have with our young forward talent. These aren't the Callahan's and Dubinsky's of yesteryear. We need to develop them a bit differently. That means we need to move a forward and the likely candidate is Strome.

I don't love the idea of Eichel right now, but it also depends on the cost and the timing.

I think we have a more flexible and balanced lineup on paper right now. I think execution will be key.

 

[RangerBoy]

Al Murray runs the TB scouting department. Steve Yzerman hired him from Hockey Canada. Everyone says Murray is one of the best scouting directors in the NHL. Murray was with the LA Kings before joining Hockey Canada. His track record with the Kings wasn't great. I remember Dean Lombardi cleaned house when he became the GM in LA.

The Kings fired Al Murray, the director of amateur scouting, and a large portion of the amateur scouting department Friday, a source close to the team said.

Murray has been with the team for 18 years, the last 13 as director of amateur scouting. Grant Sonier, the assistant director of amateur scouting, also was fired.

General Manager Dean Lombardi declined to comment.

Murray’s departure was the last step in the complete overhaul of the franchise, which began last spring when General Manager Dave Taylor was fired. While Taylor remains as a consultant, nearly everyone else in the front office has been fired or reassigned within AEG, the Kings’ parent company.

The Kings have had a spotty amateur draft record in recent seasons. They had eight first-round picks between 2000 and 2004 and only four of those players are still in the organization.

Amateur scouting heads are fired

Did Murray smarten up between his LA and TB jobs?

This board would have exploded if the Rangers hired Murray to run their amateur scouting department after his stint in LA. Al Murray? He was awful in Los Angeles.

Lilley could be terrific in his current role. Lilley could be terrible in his current role.

Was Lilley running the Maple Leafs draft? They have Reid Mitchell who is their director of hockey and scouting operations. Is it a group effort in Toronto? How involved is Kyle Dubas? He is involved. Does Mitchell run the draft? Does they form a consensus?

Lilley will be the boss in NY. We will see what he does with the Rangers. Don't f*** it up.

 

[Levitate]

I'd like to push to see what we have with our young forward talent. These aren't the Callahan's and Dubinsky's of yesteryear. We need to develop them a bit differently. That means we need to move a forward and the likely candidate is Strome.

Again I think this is why they moved Buchnevich too...it's unfortunate there was no good market for him, maybe there were subjectively better offers, but from all accounts there just didn't seem to be the kind of return we'd expect out there and the Rangers were both concerned about his contract cost and impact on the lineup time for the younger players.

I think we have a more flexible and balanced lineup on paper right now. I think execution will be key.

Yeah, it'd be interesting to see what the team as constructed now would do but I suspect they have more moves they want to make before the season starts

 

[Edge]

Again I think this is why they moved Buchnevich too...it's unfortunate there was no good market for him, maybe there were subjectively better offers, but from all accounts there just didn't seem to be the kind of return we'd expect out there and the Rangers were both concerned about his contract cost and impact on the lineup time for the younger players.



Yeah, it'd be interesting to see what the team as constructed now would do but I suspect they have more moves they want to make before the season starts

I know of at least one discussion that I preferred to what we got for Buch. I think the Rangers preferred Blais and what they think he can still become though. Generally speaking I think the Buch situation came down to preference rather than options. If they're right on Blais, it eases the sting. If they're not, the value gap widens.

I think the lynchpin on all of this is what comes next. A lot of these moves are set-up moves and so it's the next (or the one after) that feels like it ties everything together.

 

[Barnaby]

He could have asked in a less "gotcha" way.

I do think that these guys ask these kids tough questions and put some stress on them to see how they react. At the very least Yakupov should've known what questions were coming by talking to his agent. At this stage you have to figure these kids are going through mock interviews beforehand with so much potential money on the line.

 

[duhmetreE]

He didn't like Yakupov.... so that's something.

 

[Levitate]

I know of at least one discussion that I preferred to what we got for Buch. I think the Rangers preferred Blais and what they think he can still become though. Generally speaking I think the Buch situation came down to preference rather than options. If they're right on Blais, it eases the sting. If they're not, the value gap widens.

I think the lynchpin on all of this is what comes next. A lot of these moves are set-up moves and so it's the next (or the one after) that feels like it ties everything together.

yeah that's why I said subjective, at least to some extent. It's obvious the Rangers wanted a change in their lineup that went beyond just cost and scoresheet value.
but I dunno wtf comes next, I hope they don't force something for the sake of doing something

 

[redwhiteandblue]

I feel like I'd be pretty comfortable going with:

Lafreniere-Zibanejad-Kakko
Panarin-Chytil-Blais (Kravtsov down the line)
Kreider-Goodrow-Kravtsov (swap with Blais down the line)
Hunt (Barron)-Rooney (Barron)-Reaves (Hunt)

Lindgren-Fox
Miller-Trouba
Nemeth (Robertson/Jones)-Lundkvist/Schneider

I'd prefer not to keep Strome for too long because I feel like we'd end up pushing Kravtsov right out of the top 9 in that scenario. I think Kravtsov can benefit from a third line role. I don't think the benefit is there having him on the fourth.

I'd prefer not to force Kreider into the top 9 and swap LAfreniere over to the right side. I think it has a similar impact as above and stacks the Rangers young talent into a situation that isn't to their full benefit.

If the Rangers believe Barron is a left wing, I think he eventually becomes Kreider's replacement on the third line. You can break him in the fourth this season.

If they believe Barron is a center, I'd give him a ton of reps in Hartford and have him come up a little later. In theory he becomes a third line center at some point, flanked by Goodrow and and Blais in a post-Kreider world.

I think I'd like to see Jones/Robertson and Schneider get a ton of time down in Hartford. I'm also not opposed to Lundkvist getting a ton of time to start as well.

I'd like to push to see what we have with our young forward talent. These aren't the Callahan's and Dubinsky's of yesteryear. We need to develop them a bit differently. That means we need to move a forward and the likely candidate is Strome.

I don't love the idea of Eichel right now, but it also depends on the cost and the timing.

I think we have a more flexible and balanced lineup on paper right now. I think execution will be key.

That lineup (more or less) is what I'm hoping to see and have been. Simply put, I don't see Ryan Strome as a reason to a) lose sleep b) stunt Chytil's growth or c) risk losing Chytil in a trade because we have a different solution in Strome. That's kind of first and foremost to me, I think his game is so so close. Grab some assets for Strome and move on.

As far as the rest of the lineup, I agree with a lot of what you're saying. I'm not so gloom and doom on Kreider's contract. He is what he is at this point.. but if he is a consistent 25 goal threat, who wreaks havoc on PP1 in front, and gives 2 or 3 years of potting 30+, big deal IMO. That would be something a lot of teams don't have, and we grew that player. A Tkachuk would have been nice but here we are, it's not ideal but we will be ok. I think he's completely fine playing 3rd line and contributing to a relentless line with scoring touch and PP1 duty. Not an issue to me unless he's taking even strength ice time from anyone.

As far as Kravtsov and Barron, I'm mostly there. I'm not going to be hurt if Krav starts on the 3rd line but I think he would do very well starting there or on Art's line. Barron I feel like they should at least know what the plan is right now with him, he's had quite a bit of AHL time. Are we developing a Center or Wing? I'm fine with either, especially with adding Goodrow, but my feeling is they think he's a wing at this point. Didn't Howden even center over him in the lineup? I did like his game and think at this point he could be well suited to play 4th line minutes and develop into a purely middle six guy on the wing.

I'm very much with you on the Hartford playing time. For once we have a pipeline that we could and should litter with AHL time. Nothing is truly forcing our hand to use them, and it will be a good learning experience. If someone is truly knocking on the door by TDL, praise be to whoever it is you visit on Sunday, we've gotten richer in assets.

I'm very much in favor of feeding ice time to the kids like drinking from a fire hose. It's very bullish, but I see big steps forward from Kakko and Laff, and Krav will flash some brilliance. I like Gallant, the more he's here the more I have a feeling this is 'right place, right time' kind of feeling. I think Kreider can flourish under him, he doesn't seem afraid to play kids, had some success developing them even if not a guru, has the hunger to win, and something to prove. I'm excited for what this team does this season. I see them turning a lot of heads and making a lot of believers out there.

Lastly, I'm so out on Eichel it's not even funny. I get doing diligence but man... why are we willing to swing and take the risk at all? There will be a better option that presents itself, worthy of spending our good assets on, even if that player isn't 'as good as' Jack today or the version of himself that was a PPG. I'm not sure you're going to see that Eichel anymore anyways.