Player Discussion Post Draft Discussion

[GregSirico]

 

[LeetchisGod]

I don't think they've soured on any of the guys and I definitely don't think they're terrible at evaluating the position. They pulled Georgiev out of nowhere and he looks really promising. Shesterkin wasn't a super-popular pick and yet he's now regarded as one of the top two or three goaltending prospects in the game. Talbot was a nothing that they picked up and turned into something. Huska was a late pick with good upside that has shown a lot of talent. Even if you extend it to non-prospects, they did great in finding Raanta and even Pavelec had a better-than-normal year while here. They're definitely identifying good players. They have some misses, too, but such is the nature of the position.

As for souring on them, I just can't see how that's the case. I think it's more a matter of the fact that goalies are hard to project. You could also have a situation where Hank finally retires, Shesterkin has decided to stay in Russia (unlikely, but still, not theoretically impossible), Huska busted, and then you're left with Georgiev--assuming he's even around. You have to continually keep adding to the cupboard with goaltenders because of their unpredictable development curves.

Again, I think the kid Lindbom went two rounds too early. I'm not defending where he was picked. But, I don't think the fact that he was picked is any reflection of how the team views its current goalies, or how the team evaluates goaltending talent. It might be indicative of an overvaluation of the position, but that's something different entirely. And lastly, I do think that the team is showing it wants to build from the net out--great goaltending, great defense, great forwards. In that order. I think that's why we keep adding goalies and defensemen.

This is a big problem. Teams are not winning the cup because of goaltending anymore. Having a number one center, center depth, elite forwards and a number one defenseman is far more important in today's NHL.

 

[Alluckks]

1st round is 80% of your grade imo, if not more

Rangers didn't leave raw talent on the table to go for grit or intangibles

B+

 

[broadwayblue]

1st round is 80% of your grade imo, if not more

Rangers didn't leave raw talent on the table to go for grit or intangibles

B+

Agreed, but if that's the case then the 2nd round is worth 15% of your grade. And with us having two picks in the top half of the round in a deep draft and then trading one pick and basically wasting another is pretty bad. So I'd argue the 2nd round drops our entire draft a full letter grade.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

Agreed, but if that's the case then the 2nd round is worth 15% of your grade. And with us having two picks in the top half of the round in a deep draft and then trading one pick and basically wasting another is pretty bad. So I'd argue the 2nd round drops our entire draft a full letter grade.

The pick we traded away wasn't in the top half of the 2nd.

A- for the 1st round
C for the rest of the draft
B overall

 

[nyr2k2]

This is a big problem. Teams are not winning the cup because of goaltending anymore. Having a number one center, center depth, elite forwards and a number one defenseman is far more important in today's NHL.

And they've used a 7, 9 and 21 on excellent forwards the past two years. They're not ignoring the offensive side of things.

 

[broadwayblue]

The pick we traded away wasn't in the top half of the 2nd.

A- for the 1st round
C for the rest of the draft
B overall

Sorry, you are correct, it was just outside of the top half. My point remains the same. We get an F for the 2nd round, which brings our total score down a full letter grade imo. I would have been happier if we put the 10 best available players on a roulette wheel and selected whichever name came up. Seriously. Give me Ryan Mcleod there or Akil Thomas. I almost don't care. Not a goalie who WE had no business taking in the top 50 picks.

 

[haveandare]

And they've used a 7, 9 and 21 on excellent forwards the past two years. They're not ignoring the offensive side of things.

Also, next year's draft is supposed to be forward heavy I think.

 

[LeetchisGod]

And they've used a 7, 9 and 21 on excellent forwards the past two years. They're not ignoring the offensive side of things.

I'm not saying they shouldn't take goalies. I'm saying they should take goalies in the later rounds when the forwards are less likely to make it. A few years ago they took Halverson with a second round pick when Brayden Point was available. The odds are that they passed on another quality forward to take Lindbom. For a team that struggles to draft offensive talent, that's not acceptable.

 

[Kaapo di tutti capi]

The sun isn't purple?

Uh oh....

 

[Edge]

I went with a B+ because I just don't think you can discount the upside of the first.

Even a kid like Lindbom, acknowledging the risk/value of taking a goalie in the second, has a lot of potential.

 

[doomscroll]

I feel like far too much stock is put into consensus rankings in a science as inexact as scouting. I don't see how anyone can look at a history of misplaced notions of "reaches" (Chytil) and "steals" (Shinkaruk) and think that a particular ranking can do anything more than provide a rough outline of how things may fall. Wahlstrom and Kravtsov, for example, play against a total dichotomy of competition in two immensely different leagues within two national systems of hockey that are of a stark difference in their development of players. Still, though, some people here seem to have vague inklings that one has a better shot than the next to be a real player in the NHL. I have a hard time believing that more than a handful of people aside from professional scouts (you know, like the ones who actually work to make these picks) have had the time to evenly split time watching a fair amount of USNTDP and Traktor games in order to get a good read on both players. If they do, I'm not convinced they would also have the necessary history with the game itself to adequately leverage those viewings with a scouting critique, nor a perception that isn't so clouded by particular biases that would lend to favouritism. It's one thing to try and gauge an individual's ability based on comparable histories of similar players and the facets of their skillsets, but it's another thing to rile yourself up about a bunch of players you may have only been familiar with in a casual light before they were either selected or passed on. We become infatuated with certain players because they are placed on the radar, either on our own accord or by popular scouts of aggregators of rankings, but those spotlights blind us into making believe that the radar of scouting journalism and casual scouting is the range of scouting as a whole.

I think it would be beneficial to take a moment to really think about how much we know about player development and scouting before vapidly throwing criticism at professional scouts who supplement a mutli-billion dollar worldwide enterprise. I'm not saying we should blindly appeal to the authority of Gorton and co., but at least allow these picks to marinate for more than three days before dragging them through the mud. A player like Lindbom may have been picked too early, or he may have been targetted by another team picking soon afterward. He may have been under-scouted by most, or he may have been too highly esteemed by the Rangers. He may succeed and become an NHLer down the line, or he may bust alongside 20 other second-rounders. It may come back to haunt us, but it is more than likely that we will be, at worst, indifferent to this pick down the line.

 

[nyr2k2]

I'm not saying they shouldn't take goalies. I'm saying they should take goalies in the later rounds when the forwards are less likely to make it. A few years ago they took Halverson with a second round pick when Brayden Point was available. The odds are that they passed on another quality forward to take Lindbom. For a team that struggles to draft offensive talent, that's not acceptable.

I said in my first post directed to you that they picked Lindbom two rounds too early. I just don't think that's because they're bad evaluating goalies or don't like the ones they have. That's all.

 

[Harbour Dog]

The first round was between a B and a B+ for me, and that's the majority of the grade.

That said, maybe they could of leaned away from LHD with some later picks, so I evened that B/B+ tweener to a B.

And, the G pick at 39 is still frustrating to think about, so I dropped the score another notch.

B-

 

[Steve Kournianos]

Just finished up my top-31 for 2019 that will post on Sporting News NHL. Doing a podcast tonight for Blueshirt Radio, and then another on Tuesday for Tilted Ice and then that's it for 2018.

Disappointed in their draft but hope every pick proves me wrong. Well except Kravtsov, who I know will be a fan favorite.

 

[Polar Bear]

Just finished up my top-31 for 2019 that will post on Sporting News NHL. Doing a podcast tonight for Blueshirt Radio, and then another on Tuesday for Tilted Ice and then that's it for 2018.

Disappointed in their draft but hope every pick proves me wrong. Well except Kravtsov, who I know will be a fan favorite.

You really didn't like the Miller or Lindkvist selections? I thought each were taken as expected they would be and have fairly good upsides respectively.

 

[CaptBagel]

C-

I like all 3 1st rounders
But the board went haywire
For me once zad makes it to 6 u go get him
Since they didn't I had dob Wahl and fara slightly ahead of krav
I would have tried to get 10 guaranteeing one of these guys plus their guy krav
I'd went Dob at 9 Krav at 10
But OK we didn't make either trade
So krav over Dob Wahl and fara I can live with
Miller is an interesting prospect
I think he's the biggest boom or bust player in the draft
Only played D for 2 years
I think the risk is worth it at 26
Not worth losing 48 for
If I do move up I'm only giving 70
And if they did accept that trade I'm actually picking Bokk
But at the end of the day I would have stood pat
Miller and bokk would have been gone but I rated Berggren close to them so I go Berggren at 26
28 I like Lundkvist
@ 39 u have to go Wilde
I had him ranked late first just behind Lundkvist
And at 48 Hallander would have been a steal.
70 another steal with Lauko
88 pekar
So if no trades it could have looked like this:
Kravtsov
Berggren
Lundkvist
Wilde
Hallander
Lauko
Pekar

Basically we got miller instead of Lias's future wings in Hallander and Berggren
That would have been a sweet swede line
Of course at the time u don't know Hallander slides so far down
Overall its the goalie pick and the fact we got a project LD instead of 2 forwards that lead me to my grade

 

[Fvital92]

 

[bobbop]

So...

Carp has knowledge the Ducks were taking him at #23.
I have it on good authority he was Minnesota's choice at #24.
And Allucks had knowledge that the Leafs taking were him at #25.

Popular guy.

 

[Irishguy42]

So...

Carp has knowledge the Ducks were taking him at #23.
I have it on good authority he was Minnesota's choice at #24.
And Allucks had knowledge that the Leafs taking were him at #25.

Popular guy.

So Gorton cockblocked three teams in a row, all in front of him originally? Excellent.

 

[Edge]

So...

Carp has knowledge the Ducks were taking him at #23.
I have it on good authority he was Minnesota's choice at #24.
And Allucks had knowledge that the Leafs taking were him at #25.

Popular guy.

He was one of the more talked about players heading into the draft. I think that was one of the million questions I was asked on the afternoon of the draft.

There were varying opinions on where he would go, and some teams were skeptical about him. But overall, I’d say there was far more intrigue than dismissal.

He’s a top notch athlete — a natural athlete, not just a hockey player type.

His ability to learn a very different position and grow also got notice.

His size and speed combination caught a lot of attention.

And he’s very coachable. He’s willing to learn and he’s willing to try.

He’s kind of the poster child for the Rangers draft in that he’s going to need time to cook. But if you give him that time, there’s a good amount of potential there.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

I'm going to take a different stance from most people.

I didn't like the Lindbom pick, but outside of that pick and the sixth rounder, I thought we did a good job 2-7. I thought we did a terrible job in Round 1. And we traded away a first round pick in the process.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

I feel very comfortable in saying that everyone drafted after #1 will fall short of Brian Leetch, let alone the guys who were available at 9.

What about the players who were available at 8?

 

[Fvital92]

I'm going to take a different stance from most people.

I didn't like the Lindbom pick, but outside of that pick, I thought we did a good job 2-7. I thought we did a terrible job in Round 1. And we traded away a first round pick in the process.

What? Do you mean a 2nd round pick?

 

[broadwayblue]

What about the players who were available at 8?

He said everyone after 1. That includes 8, no?