Post-Game Talk: Rangers win 2-1 over Jeff Skinner & Friends

Three Stars


  • Total voters
    36
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.

Hi ImHFNYR

Registered User
Jan 10, 2013
7,173
3,087
Wherever I'm standing atm
Giving up assets to move up in the draft doesn't seem like the best possible scenario for a rebuilding team. I'd like to keep as many picks as possible. Not to mention, we likely aren't going to be able to trade up far enough to get the elite talent in the draft.
Keeping JT Miller and Brady Skjei (Mid-later 1st round picks) doesn't seem like the better option if you can get Pat Laine. These aren't top picks, they're late firsts and we absolutely should use them to get a top talent bc this opportunity is very, VERY hard to come by. JT Miller and Brady Skjei's are at the back end of every 1st round. That's usually all there is unless you strike gold like we maybe did with Chytil But if the only reason you keep the late 1sts is on the VERY off chance you can strike gold then the right move is to go with the already top prospect at the top of the draft.
 
Last edited:

Hi ImHFNYR

Registered User
Jan 10, 2013
7,173
3,087
Wherever I'm standing atm
Nobody is going to trade a top-3 pick and nobody is going to trade a lottery pick before the lottery. The Rangers have to win the lottery with THEIR pick or it isn't happening. The only exception to that is if someone like Florida or Calgary win the lottery and want to leverage that high pick to improve their chances for next season.

Moving up in the draft from number 10, unless it's into the top-3, which as I said, isn't likely to happen, isn't going to increase your chance at elite talent. In the 20 years between 1991 and 2011, out of 140 draft choices 4-10 overall, THIRTEEN players have either finished top 10 in points, goals, or points among D during a season. 9%. That's it and that's a super low bar. Corey Stillman and Jeff O'Neill are among those 13. As many have done it as the 7th pick as the 4th. More have done it as the 5th pick than any other slot and no one at 8 or 10. And honestly, picking 3rd isn't any better, but since it's a lottery pick I didn't include that.

And that doesn't even get into the slight gambler's fallacy about any of this. None of those "probabilities" apply to individual players.

The point is... let's not make a trade to move up. It isn't really worth it. The real key to the draft, in my opinion, is quantity of picks. I'm not interested in any trades that reduce the number of picks we have except in one situation. That situation would be where someone wants to trade us a high quality 21-23 year old for a veteran and a later first. Something like Pesce or Hanifin for Zuccarello and Boston's 1st. Otherwise, keep the picks we have an add to them.

Literally everything you just said (except for not trading a lotto pick before the lotto, that I agree with) applies moreso to the backend of the 1st or in the later rounds. Also I think it's disingenuous to frame the argument as NEEDING to be top 10 in those categories to qualify as worthy of moving up for.

You have a very flawed premise here. That said, it is always a risk. If you don't believe in the risk with a specific player at say pick 4 then that's what you've scouted out. If you believe this simply bc of the argument you laid our here then I think you're making this decision based on the wrong things. (And I disagree w your assumption we can't trade into the top 3 btw).

You don't trade up for a spot, you trade up for a player you've scouted. The spot thing is irrelevant. Nobody is trading out of the 4th spot to go to the 5th spot just bc more teams got it right at 5.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Krams

Brooklyn Rangers Fan

Change is good.
Aug 23, 2005
19,237
8,238
Brooklyn & Upstate
The problem ends up being that this is a typical half-assed rebuild where we don't acquire elite talent.

We've done this a number of times. While Farabee is nice, he's not a gamebreaking player. This is just a typical New York Rangers move. We will "rebuild" with some nice young pieces and then spend money on free agents. What will end up happening is a middling team with cap problems that goes through the same process 10 years from now.

Rinse and repeat.

I've already seen this movie.
I understand what you're saying, but I think that's true of picking anywhere outside the top 3.

So, while it'd be nice if they'd finished 6th or 7th OA, unless those higher lottery odds translated into a move up, I don't think there's much difference between drafting 10th vs. 6th or 7th, especially in this draft.

As I just posted in the draft thread, I certainly don't see it as a big enough difference to be willing to move one of our later 1st rounders (or even one of the 2nds), to move up. Much rather have 3 shots at a Kucherov/Barzal/Rantanen outside the top 3, as opposed to 1-2 slightly better chances.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Off Sides

Amazing Kreiderman

Registered User
Apr 11, 2011
44,816
40,285
The problem ends up being that this is a typical half-assed rebuild where we don't acquire elite talent.

We've done this a number of times. While Farabee is nice, he's not a gamebreaking player. This is just a typical New York Rangers move. We will "rebuild" with some nice young pieces and then spend money on free agents. What will end up happening is a middling team with cap problems that goes through the same process 10 years from now.

Rinse and repeat.

I've already seen this movie.

True, and this is why I am not happy with us winning games in recent weeks. It serves no purpose at all.

Fans keep saying that Bergeron, Datsyuk, Pastrnak, Benn, Stone and a f*** ton of other really good players were drafted outside the top-10 but those are the exception. The notion that we will be able to draft two of these star-caliber players outside the top-10 in a single draft is just ridiculous.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hunter Gathers

Hi ImHFNYR

Registered User
Jan 10, 2013
7,173
3,087
Wherever I'm standing atm
Much rather have 3 shots at a Kucherov/Barzal/Rantanen outside the top 3, as opposed to 1-2 slightly better chances.
Here's a thought and I wonder if anyone has done the math to give actual percentages but here's how I feel about this.

You want 3 chances that, when put together, add up to about 1 % chance at Barzal; or a 50/50 at Laine?

I could be wrong with the premise I'm settingup there but that's how I see this and in this case it's absolutely a no brainer to trade up
 

Brooklyn Rangers Fan

Change is good.
Aug 23, 2005
19,237
8,238
Brooklyn & Upstate
Here's a thought and I wonder if anyone has done the math to give actual percentages but here's how I feel about this.

You want 3 chances that, when put together, add up to about 1 % chance at Barzal; or a 50/50 at Laine?
But, again, that's not the comparison. If I can package the 10 and the 27 to move up to 2 or 3 and draft Svechnikov, of course I do it. But if that's the cost just to move up to 6 or 7 to grab a Bouchard, then I'd rather just stick at 10, draft Wilde – and then add a Bokk or an Olofsson at the back of the round.
 

Tawnos

A guy with a bass
Sep 10, 2004
28,820
10,397
Charlotte, NC
Literally everything you just said (except for not trading a lotto pick before the lotto, that I agree with) applies moreso to the backend of the 1st or in the later rounds. Also I think it's disingenuous to frame the argument as NEEDING to be top 10 in those categories to qualify as worthy of moving up for.

You have a very flawed premise here. That said, it is always a risk. If you don't believe in the risk with a specific player at say pick 4 then that's what you've scouted out. If you believe this simply bc of the argument you laid our here then I think you're making this decision based on the wrong things. (And I disagree w your assumption we can't trade into the top 3 btw).

You don't trade up for a spot, you trade up for a player you've scouted. The spot thing is irrelevant. Nobody is trading out of the 4th spot to go to the 5th spot just bc more teams got it right at 5.

What I’m saying is that the reality of the draft outside of the top-2 is that there’s a pretty strong likelihood that the scouts are going to get it wrong on a player picked in the first round, if the aim is to pick an “elite” player. And moving up to pick a player you like, whatever the slot, doesn’t change that likelihood one bit.

In the context of the conversation we were having about elite players, this absolutely applies. If you’re moving up to try to get a solid NHL player, the conversation is a little different.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Off Sides

SnowblindNYR

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Nov 16, 2011
51,728
30,169
Brooklyn, NY
Why are we still trotting out Lundqvist, then? We don't have a single reason to play him. He's talented enough to steal us games down the stretch.

It's really just bad coaching/management. AV is playing for his job and we are allowing him to do it.

If you want bad goaltending fire Allaire.
 

Hunter Gathers

The Crown
Feb 27, 2002
106,467
11,445
parts unknown
True, and this is why I am not happy with us winning games in recent weeks. It serves no purpose at all.

Fans keep saying that Bergeron, Datsyuk, Pastrnak, Benn, Stone and a **** ton of other really good players were drafted outside the top-10 but those are the exception. The notion that we will be able to draft two of these star-caliber players outside the top-10 in a single draft is just ridiculous.

Yep. But for some reason, we are just allowing AV to try and salvage his job. And, to a lesser extent, I guess some short-sighted people care about Hank's stupid 30 win mark.
 

Hunter Gathers

The Crown
Feb 27, 2002
106,467
11,445
parts unknown
I understand what you're saying, but I think that's true of picking anywhere outside the top 3.

So, while it'd be nice if they'd finished 6th or 7th OA, unless those higher lottery odds translated into a move up, I don't think there's much difference between drafting 10th vs. 6th or 7th, especially in this draft.

As I just posted in the draft thread, I certainly don't see it as a big enough difference to be willing to move one of our later 1st rounders (or even one of the 2nds), to move up. Much rather have 3 shots at a Kucherov/Barzal/Rantanen outside the top 3, as opposed to 1-2 slightly better chances.

There's a higher chance of hitting the lottery AND a higher chance on hitting on your pick. It's a two-fer.
 

Amazing Kreiderman

Registered User
Apr 11, 2011
44,816
40,285
Yep. But for some reason, we are just allowing AV to try and salvage his job. And, to a lesser extent, I guess some short-sighted people care about Hank's stupid 30 win mark.

I've said it before, but ironically, Lundqvist's never-ending motivation and drive to win games, is going to be the reason he won't get a ring.

This team can never compete without elite talent, and we can not get elite talent without getting a top-3 pick. Who cares about that 30-win stat? It'll look great on his resume as he will go down as the best player to never win a Cup.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hunter Gathers

Brooklyn Rangers Fan

Change is good.
Aug 23, 2005
19,237
8,238
Brooklyn & Upstate
There's a higher chance of hitting the lottery AND a higher chance on hitting on your pick. It's a two-fer.
The point about the lottery is clear – and I'll be ecstatic if the Rangers somehow manage to eke out 7th or 8th rather than 1oth overall for that reason.

But I was more referring to draft position once the lottery is over. Presuming they don't win (and odds are against it, no matter where they wind up), I'd rather stick with 10 and 27 as opposed to packaging the two to move up a few spots as others have suggested.

(I think we may be discussing separate points. :laugh:)
 

Hunter Gathers

The Crown
Feb 27, 2002
106,467
11,445
parts unknown
The point about the lottery is clear – and I'll be ecstatic if the Rangers somehow manage to eke out 7th or 8th rather than 1oth overall for that reason.

But I was more referring to draft position once the lottery is over. Presuming they don't win (and odds are against it, no matter where they wind up), I'd rather stick with 10 and 27 as opposed to packaging the two to move up a few spots as others have suggested.

(I think we may be discussing separate points. :laugh:)

Right, I do not want to trade up. That's a waste of assets to me. I DO want a better draft position, though. Which is why all of this nonsensical post-elimination winning is so stupid.
 

lilphildub

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Nov 17, 2009
720
147
Why are we still trotting out Lundqvist, then? We don't have a single reason to play him. He's talented enough to steal us games down the stretch.

It's really just bad coaching/management. AV is playing for his job and we are allowing him to do it.

Because no team actually loses on purpose? You're living in fantasy a land.

Why does Edmonton still play McDavid? Buffalo with Eichel? Kane in Chicago? And the list goes on. Just stop. They sat Shattenkirk for the rest of the year. They brought in a couple rookies. That's as close as its gonna get to "tank"
 

Hunter Gathers

The Crown
Feb 27, 2002
106,467
11,445
parts unknown
Because no team actually loses on purpose? You're living in fantasy a land.

Why does Edmonton still play McDavid? Buffalo with Eichel? Kane in Chicago? And the list goes on. Just stop. They sat Shattenkirk for the rest of the year. They brought in a couple rookies. That's as close as its gonna get to "tank"

I see that you don't grasp this very simple concept. No one is saying to lose on purpose.

HTH, tho.
 

Hunter Gathers

The Crown
Feb 27, 2002
106,467
11,445
parts unknown
Also, the ridiculous comparison of a young superstar in McDavid (who DOES benefit the team by playing and learning) versus a declining player not part of the overall future of the team wasn't even addressed in my post. Such a comparison is so silly that it shows a complete ignorance on what stage of rebuild each team is in.

Edmonton already has their superstar piece. We do not.

Also, Chicago won a couple of Cups and is in cap hell going forward. Another terrible comparison.
 

lilphildub

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Nov 17, 2009
720
147
Also, the ridiculous comparison of a young superstar in McDavid (who DOES benefit the team by playing and learning) versus a declining player not part of the overall future of the team wasn't even addressed in my post. Such a comparison is so silly that it shows a complete ignorance on what stage of rebuild each team is in.

Edmonton already has their superstar piece. We do not.

Also, Chicago won a couple of Cups and is in cap hell going forward. Another terrible comparison.

You're right no one is saying lose on purpose. You're just saying bench our best player to have a better chance at losing. So you want to bench Lundqvist because he's old? He needs rest? If he feels better staying loose and playing then you let him play. You mentioned he steals games on his own. So your plan is to bench him to not win.. what am i missing here? You definitely implied sitting him to have a better chance to lose so that AV doesn't save his job.

Also every player can improve from playing whether you're 40 or 20. Are you worried Lundqvist will be tired by the time the new NHL season starts? Him playing the last 5 games of the season are gonna make him worse in the long run? That's just ridiculous. Your logic is flawed
 

Hunter Gathers

The Crown
Feb 27, 2002
106,467
11,445
parts unknown
You're right no one is saying lose on purpose. You're just saying bench our best player to have a better chance at losing. So you want to bench Lundqvist because he's old? He needs rest? If he feels better staying loose and playing then you let him play. You mentioned he steals games on his own. So your plan is to bench him to not win.. what am i missing here? You definitely implied sitting him to have a better chance to lose so that AV doesn't save his job.

Also every player can improve from playing whether you're 40 or 20. Are you worried Lundqvist will be tired by the time the new NHL season starts? Him playing the last 5 games of the season are gonna make him worse in the long run? That's just ridiculous. Your logic is flawed

He actually does need to rest since he has a ton of miles on him and he's old. He's a huge cap hit for us going forward. The idea that we should just keep trotting him out because of . . . reasons . . . makes me laugh. It just shows a complete lack of understanding. I've actually said this in the past. A number of times. It's not a controversial point at all. Why we are playing an old goalie with a huge cap hit that we need to succeed next year and the year after is beyond me.

If you need any other explanation let me know.
 

lilphildub

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Nov 17, 2009
720
147
He actually does need to rest since he has a ton of miles on him and he's old. He's a huge cap hit for us going forward. The idea that we should just keep trotting him out because of . . . reasons . . . makes me laugh. It just shows a complete lack of understanding. I've actually said this in the past. A number of times. It's not a controversial point at all. Why we are playing an old goalie with a huge cap hit that we need to succeed next year and the year after is beyond me.

If you need any other explanation let me know.

No other explanation is needed. Thank you for what is your opinion. For him to stay in good shape mentally and physically Lundqvist thinks he needs to keep playing. He's even considering playing in the World Championships. I do get resting him to avoid injury or "miles" but playing the last couple games make a small difference in miles on him. Not playing him on back to backs or a heavy workload is understandable. But I wouldn't shut him down. If that was the case then they should've benched him the second the letter came out
 

Hunter Gathers

The Crown
Feb 27, 2002
106,467
11,445
parts unknown
No other explanation is needed. Thank you for what is your opinion. For him to stay in good shape mentally and physically Lundqvist thinks he needs to keep playing. He's even considering playing in the World Championships. I do get resting him to avoid injury or "miles" but playing the last couple games make a small difference in miles on him. Not playing him on back to backs or a heavy workload is understandable. But I wouldn't shut him down. If that was the case then they should've benched him the second the letter came out

So he's basically like every other old player who thinks he's invincible.

About all I needed to know.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->