Prospect Info: With the 39th Overall Pick the New York Rangers Select Olof Lindbom

[kovazub94]

No I would think they reached on both

Keane is a fine pick where he is. He was projected to potentially go in the 4th. Big difference between taking a 4th round guy in the 3rd and taking a 5-7th round guy in the 2nd

This is really not what I'm asking.

With information that we (as NYR fans) accumulated now on Keane from pre-draft and the way he has performed since in the prospect camp and so far in the WJSS, shouldn't you think that he has a better odds of becoming an NHL compared to statistical average of a late 3rd round pick?

This is how I consider "they know better than everyone esle".

 

[I Eat Crow]

Give our front office a little bit of leeway here. I'm not defending the pick, but if this is someone they really wanted even if he was projected to go later, the Rangers must have had intel that someone else was going to take him before their next pick at 70th overall. Same way the Rangers had intel that Miller was going to be taken before their next pick at 26, so they moved up to take him so Anaheim or Minnesota could not.

 

[NYRFANMANI]

I simply consider Wilde still being on the board, as the big time f***-up. We could have solidified an organizational need at RHD by picking Wilde.

Not only did we pick a G which we didn't need at the time and still don't; we've let a proper RHD talent go to our rival.

 

[Edge]

I simply consider Wilde still being on the board, as the big time ****-up. We could have solidified an organizational need at RHD by picking Wilde.

Not only did we pick a G which we didn't need at the time and still don't; we've let a proper RHD talent go to our rival.

Keeping in mind that Wilde developed A LOT of red flags as the season wore on.

A kid who was seen as potentially challenging for a top 10 spot as late as mid-season dropped to 41.

Could it work for the Islanders? You bet.

But I don't know if it's as much of a no-brainer as it would've been 6 months prior.

 

[Riche16]

Give our front office a little bit of leeway here. I'm not defending the pick, but if this is someone they really wanted even if he was projected to go later, the Rangers must have had intel that someone else was going to take him before their next pick at 70th overall. Same way the Rangers had intel that Miller was going to be taken before their next pick at 26, so they moved up to take him so Anaheim or Minnesota could not.

The scenario you outlined is a perfect one for trading down then and recouping another asset.

 

[haveandare]

It’s literally the job of the scouting staff to know better than everyone else.

And they literally just found Chytil in a spot nobody predicted a year ago.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

The root of the issue here is that there was first round talent left on the board

That's cool, but you can say that literally every single year. It's meaningless and shows a complete lack of understanding about draft outcomes to begin with.

In 10 years, if Lindbom is a NHL player and those alleged "first round talents" are in Europe, I doubt you'd post this. But since you're posting a completely meaningless thing now, it won't hurt you in the future.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

It’s literally the job of the scouting staff to know better than everyone else.

No, the guy ranting about all of the first round talent (that ironically didn't go in the first round) clearly knows better.

Look, I am not a fan of the pick. But I'm not going to sit there and post meaningless drivel about how the guy has to be a franchise player or rant and rave about all of this alleged first round talent that didn't go in the first round. Utter nonsense.

 

[Edge]

I think we often assume much when we freely float concepts like trading down or acquiring assets. We have to be a little careful about that.

We don't know where our guys had players ranked, we don't know where other teams had players ranked, and we don't know what, if any trades were out there.

If it was as clear cut as simply trading down because your guy will be there, you'd see a lot more teams doing it with regularity over a seven round, 217 pick draft.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

This is really not what I'm asking.

With information that we (as NYR fans) accumulated now on Keane from pre-draft and the way he has performed since in the prospect camp and so far in the WJSS, shouldn't you think that he has a better odds of becoming an NHL compared to statistical average of a late 3rd round pick?

This is how I consider "they know better than everyone esle".

It's also a hot take by OL considering Lindbom was ranked high by some and low by others. His rankings were all over the map. He's cherry picking his pre-draft rankings which is a pretty bad look (intellectually dishonest, IMO).

McKenzie had him as a second round pick. McKeen's as a late third rounder.

 

[HatTrick Swayze]

What I do see as pretty clear cut is the value of goalies in today's NHL. Sure the "talent they passed on" could all bust but give me a swing on that vs going off the board for a goalie all day - from a strategic standpoint alone.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

And they literally just found Chytil in a spot nobody predicted a year ago.

LOOK AT ALL THE TOP 15 PICKS WE LEFT ON THE BOARD TO TAKE CHYTIL THERE.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

What I do see as pretty clear cut is the value of goalies in today's NHL. Sure the "talent they passed on" could all bust but give me a swing on that vs going off the board for a goalie all day - from a strategic standpoint alone.

That's a completely different argument and fairly valid, IMO. Although I wouldn't say he was *THAT* off the board when you see where McKenzie had him.

 

[Riche16]

All of that being equal, when you are in full rebuild mode and have two 2nds and trade one to move up, you don't use the other on someone who is clearly not a NEED in your pipeline ATM.

You can't fill that need later or in later years.

 

[Edge]

That's cool, but you can say that literally every single year. It's meaningless and shows a complete lack of understanding about draft outcomes to begin with.

In 10 years, if Lindbom is a NHL player and those alleged "first round talents" are in Europe, I doubt you'd post this. But since you're posting a completely meaningless thing now, it won't hurt you in the future.

You know we often seem to overlook that every year there are talents who aren't seen as "first round" picks who rise, and talents who are that fall.

We sit back and say "Player X was ranked 70th overall on most lists, and we were able to nab him 110. That's a steal."

But we don't give much thought to the fact that one of the reasons the player went 40 picks later than expected is because other teams took players who were ranked lower.

As a result we often throw around certain buzzwords or phrases like steal, reach, stretch, safe, skilled, etc. without every fully acknowledging that there's so many different factors at work.

And most times, we tend to do it over second and third round picks who have probably 20 percent chances of playing more than 300 NHL games.

It's kind of like the novels we right on prospects/players who are on the bubble. We dedicate literally tens of thousands of words and HOURS of debate to guys who usually are no better than support players, for reasonably short periods of time, if they even make it at all.

The reality is that we won't know what the hell we have for a while still. It's way too early to proclaim victory or defeat on any of these kids yet. We can discuss their pros and cons, strengths and weaknesses, and debate their potential.

But we can't really declare wins and losses at this point for many of these kids. We're just not there yet.

 

[GeorgeKaplan]

All of that being equal, when you are in full rebuild mode and have two 2nds and trade one to move up, you don't use the other on someone who is clearly not a NEED in your pipeline ATM.

You can't fill that need later or in later years.

I don’t like the goalie pick, but I don’t like this line of thinking either

 

[Mac n Gs]

I really don’t want to hem and haw about this, but taking goalies this early is usually bad practice since predicting success with goalies I’d basically voodoo. I trust our scouts to find good goalies and like that they’ve been frequently bringing in goalies since we’ve seen how high the failure rate is with guys like Nell, Skapski, Halverson, etc.

I’m annoyed because our prospect pool isn’t that deep at the forward position, and I would have preferred the numerous skaters that went in the picks after him. I’m going to root for him because he’s a Ranger, but I will be bitter about seeing guys like Mozorov, Akil Thomas, BOG, Hallander, Drury, and Eriksson go after him.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

You know we often seem to overlook that every year there are talents who aren't seen as "first round" picks who rise, and talents who are that fall.

We sit back and say "Player X was ranked 70th overall on most lists, and we were able to nab him 110. That's a steal."

But we don't give much thought to the fact that one of the reasons the player went 40 picks later than expected is because other teams took players who were ranked lower.

As a result we often throw around certain buzzwords or phrases like steal, reach, stretch, safe, skilled, etc. without every fully acknowledging that there's so many different factors at work.

And most times, we tend to do it over second and third round picks who have probably 20 percent chances of playing more than 300 NHL games.

It's kind of like the novels we right on prospects/players who are on the bubble. We dedicate literally tens of thousands of words and HOURS of debate to guys who usually are no better than support players, for reasonably short periods of time, if they even make it at all.

The reality is that we won't know what the hell we have for a while still. It's way too early to proclaim victory or defeat on any of these kids yet. We can discuss their pros and cons, strengths and weaknesses, and debate their potential.

But we can't really declare wins and losses at this point for many of these kids. We're just not there yet.

Agreed. That's why I only looked at guys up to 2015. Makes no sense to look at these picks until a couple of years down the road. I'm sure you remember when we picked Shane McColgan and how everyone was in love with getting a guy who was a first round talent who fell to the 5th round.

That pick sure went well.

If anything, I'm normally not a fan of selecting fallers. So these alleged "first round talents" who fell would normally be guys I'd avoid, anyway. Give me a riser any day of the week a good 90% of the time.

 

[Edge]

I really don’t want to hem and haw about this, but taking goalies this early is usually bad practice since predicting success with goalies I’d basically voodoo. I trust our scouts to find good goalies and like that they’ve been frequently bringing in goalies since we’ve seen how high the failure rate is with guys like Nell, Skapski, Halverson, etc.

I’m annoyed because our prospect pool isn’t that deep at the forward position, and I would have preferred the numerous skaters that went in the picks after him. I’m going to root for him because he’s a Ranger, but I will be bitter about seeing guys like Mozorov, Akil Thomas, BOG, Hallander, Drury, and Eriksson go after him.

There were a number of guys I liked at 39 still on the board.

But I also have to take into account that they were still on the board because other guys who were ranked lower, were taken higher.

So while we're debating trading down and maximizing value for picks, we seem to be ignoring that we could make that argument for a bunch of players who forced the guys we liked to fall in the first place. (Which is part of my broader point that we tend to isolate certain events and not take into account the broader picture that helped shape the scenario we insist on viewing in isolation.)

We're focused on guys we took higher than expected, and guys we passed on. But that's not unique to the Rangers.

We can look at this draft and make that argument for a bunch of teams, with a bunch of players.

It also kind of pokes holes in the "just trade down" scenarios that everyone seems to think are widely available --- it often doesn't take into account that other teams are often working with a substantially different list and that there might not actually be a trade match.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

All of that being equal, when you are in full rebuild mode and have two 2nds and trade one to move up, you don't use the other on someone who is clearly not a NEED in your pipeline ATM.

You can't fill that need later or in later years.

I would argue that goalie, until Shesty proves himself as heir apparent, is definitely a need. Hank is 36 and 37 in March. I think the bold makes sense, but saying that goalie clearly wasn't a need doesn't.

 

[eco's bones]

Lindbom was a surprise for me. Would I have minded if we had taken Wilde? Not at all....but yeah players sometimes drop for very good reasons. It's a matter of waiting and seeing at this point.

Some years back we had two firsts in Blackburn and Montoya---one of whom was almost certainly to become our No. 1 goalie but as it turned out a little known 9th round pick who became not only our No. 1 goalie but pretty much a HOF shoo in when he retires meanwhile Blackburn's career ended with a freak injury and Montoya turned into a career backup. Things don't always go according to script. I panned the pick hard when the Rangers made it--doing it all over again right now I'm still not picking him but there are no do over's and it's still a wait and see. Whatever else happens after Henrik retires you would think between Shesterkin, Georgiev, Lindbom and Huska---at least one of them will be a pretty decent replacement.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

There were a number of guys I liked at 39 still on the board.

But I also have to take into account that they were still on the board because other guys who were ranked lower, were taken higher.

So while we're debating trading down and maximizing value for picks, we seem to be ignoring that we could make that argument for a bunch of players who forced the guys we liked to fall in the first place. (Which is part of my broader point that we tend to isolate certain events and not take into account the broader picture that helped shape the scenario we insist on viewing in isolation.)

We're focused on guys we took higher than expected, and guys we passed on. But that's not unique to the Rangers.

We can look at this draft and make that argument for a bunch of teams, with a bunch of players.

It also kind of pokes holes in the "just trade down" scenarios that everyone seems to think are widely available --- it often doesn't take into account that other teams are often working with a substantially different list and that there might not actually be a trade match.

Right. And we need to realize that McKenzie's list isn't from his own brain. It's from his discussions with pro scouts and folks running the draft. If he had Lindbom at 53, it's not because he saw him play 20 times. It's because he likely has a few people saying they are targeting him in that range.

McKenzie isn't a scout. He's a compiler of scouting information. He clearly had evidence that Lindbom was going to go in the 2nd round.

 

[Edge]

Agreed. That's why I only looked at guys up to 2015. Makes no sense to look at these picks until a couple of years down the road. I'm sure you remember when we picked Shane McColgan and how everyone was in love with getting a guy who was a first round talent who fell to the 5th round.

That pick sure went well.

If anything, I'm normally not a fan of selecting fallers. So these alleged "first round talents" who fell would normally be guys I'd avoid, anyway. Give me a riser any day of the week a good 90% of the time.

It's so funny, for more than 20 years this board has always been so passionate about those second and third round picks. Everyone swearing that so-and-so was going to be a star and teams are fools for passing on him.

Sometimes, they're right. It's a pretty awesome feeling to find that guy.

But a lot of times, the names this board falls in love with end up being trivia questions. Within two years, we often almost completely forget we were ever in love with that player. In fact, we often downplay it --- "Yeah, I liked him. But I wasn't crazy about him."

There are so many names on here through the years that this board got worked up over, that it's entertaining to go back and look.

Rob Globke?
Daniel Fernholm?
Rocco Grimaldi?

How in the hell could be pass on Jordan Schroeder? What the hell were they thinking? Why didn't we have the balls to trade up for Jeremy Morin? He would've been worth trading up for when we saw he was there!

The point being, that with rare exception, the scenarios are not nearly as "end of the world" as we make them out to be.

We all have our preferences, but there's not nearly as many clear-cut, everyone saw it coming scenarios as we like to believe.

 

[Mac n Gs]

There were a number of guys I liked at 39 still on the board.

But I also have to take into account that they were still on the board because other guys who were ranked lower, were taken higher.

So while we're debating trading down and maximizing value for picks, we seem to be ignoring that we could make that argument for a bunch of players who forced the guys we liked to fall in the first place. (Which is part of my broader point that we tend to isolate certain events and not take into account the broader picture that helped shape the scenario we insist on viewing in isolation.)

We're focused on guys we took higher than expected, and guys we passed on. But that's not unique to the Rangers.

We can look at this draft and make that argument for a bunch of teams, with a bunch of players.

It also kind of pokes holes in the "just trade down" scenarios that everyone seems to think are widely available --- it often doesn't take into account that other teams are often working with a substantially different list and that there might not actually be a trade match.

Yeah, and I’d even that this extends all the way to the top of the first round. Like you said, it’s easy for us to overlook how each team ranks players since it’s never public information and to fuss about trading up or down.

Back to Lindblom, I just don’t think goalies are that valuable, and it’s statisitically more likely to find a goalie later in the draft than a good skater. The run on goalies suggests that Gorton kind of sent teams into scramble mode, but I’ll still remain adamant that goalies shouldn’t even be a thought until the 3rd, preferably the 4th.

I think it’s also important that I mention that I do think Lindblom is a helluva goalie and his WJC performance was very impressive. It’s not a knock on him as a prospect, it’s the process about drafting hum that has me frustrated.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

It's so funny, for more than 20 years this board has always been so passionate about those second and third round picks. Everyone swearing that so-and-so was going to be a star and teams are fools for passing on him.

Sometimes, they're right. It's a pretty awesome feeling to find that guy.

But a lot of times, the names this board falls in love with end up being trivia questions. Within two years, we often almost completely forget we were ever in love with that player. In fact, we often downplay it --- "Yeah, I liked him. But I wasn't crazy about him."

There are so many names on here through the years that this board got worked up over, that it's entertaining to go back and look.

Rob Globke?
Daniel Fernholm?
Rocco Grimaldi?

How in the hell could be pass on Jordan Schroeder? What the hell were they thinking? Why didn't we have the balls to trade up for Jeremy Morin? He would've been worth trading up for when we saw he was there!

The point being, that with rare exception, the scenarios are not nearly as "end of the world" as we make them out to be.

We all have our preferences, but there's not nearly as many clear-cut, everyone saw it coming scenarios as we like to believe.

I remember all of the battles between offdacrossbar and myself over Morin. Even after it was clear that he was a bust, lol.