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

[eco's bones]

Looking forward--if (or hopefully) Shesterkin signs with us next year--he will show up at training camp and Henrik (if he hasn't asked out) will be there with two years still to go on an $8.5 mil per contract. Shesterkin has been sharing the net with Mikko Koskinen the last couple years for SKA St. Petersburg. They put up similar numbers but while they've split the regular season games Koskinen's been getting the lion's share of playoff games. Shesterkin looks to be a great talent but he's also been playing for a championship caliber KHL team and there will be questions about whether he can be a starting guy who can play 50-60 games a year + playoff games (if they happen) and what he's going to look like when he goes from a great team in the KHL to an average at best and maybe very mediocre NHL team and has to battle with a future HOF'er for starts---if not Georgiev too.

Which is to say there are obstacles in Igor's way--and he still has a lot to prove. He's a reach to become the Rangers starter in 19-20--a possibility (not necessarily a probability) he can take over in 20-21 (Henrik's last year of term). He's also going to have to battle it out with Georgiev. Meanwhile how the rest of the Rangers team comes along is going to factor in too.

 

[Edge]

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.

I am interesting to see how the league treats the drafting of goalies moving forward.

When I was a kid, you often didn't even consider a goalie until the second round. Then by the early 90s, you started to see goalies sneaking into the first and the top 20. Within a few years, you had multiple goalies going in the first round, with some finding their way into the teens and occasionally the top 10. Then it quickly progressed to having goalies go first or in the top 5.

Now we've almost gone too far back the other way. While I generally view goalies as a third and beyond type of pick, it's not really a hard rule.

It's a true wildcard and your next great goalie really could from anywhere, at any time. They could be a draft pick or a free agent signing. So with that in mind, if you see a guy you really like, you role the dice.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

I am interesting to see how the league treats the drafting of goalies moving forward.

When I was a kid, you often didn't even consider a goalie until the second round. Then by the early 90s, you started to see goalies sneaking into the first and the top 20. Within a few years, you had multiple goalies going in the first round, with some finding their way into the teens and occasionally the top 10. Then it quickly progressed to having goalies go first or in the top 5.

Now we've almost gone too far back the other way. While I generally view goalies as a third and beyond type of pick, it's not really a hard rule.

It's a true wildcard and your next great goalie really could from anywhere, at any time. They could be a draft pick or a free agent signing. So with that in mind, if you see a guy you really like, you role the dice.

I think you're going to see the second and third round stay the sweet spot for most goaltending picks. It's an erratic position with an abundance of talent. I don't see it going back to the top 5 picks thing any time soon.

 

[Mac n Gs]

I am interesting to see how the league treats the drafting of goalies moving forward.

When I was a kid, you often didn't even consider a goalie until the second round. Then by the early 90s, you started to see goalies sneaking into the first and the top 20. Within a few years, you had multiple goalies going in the first round, with some finding their way into the teens and occasionally the top 10. Then it quickly progressed to having goalies go first or in the top 5.

Now we've almost gone too far back the other way. While I generally view goalies as a third and beyond type of pick, it's not really a hard rule.

It's a true wildcard and your next great goalie really could from anywhere, at any time. They could be a draft pick or a free agent signing. So with that in mind, if you see a guy you really like, you role the dice.

To add to what Jon just said, I think with salary cap and how much parity there is among skaters now, teams will put a greater emphasis on finding impact skaters to give them a competitive advantage. As a result, I think we’ll see goalies remain as primarily mid-round picks.

 

[Riche16]

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.

Georgiev?

 

[GeorgeKaplan]

Georgiev?

He’s still a question mark too IMO. He was so bad to start the season in Hartford they went out and signed Mezanec(spelling that off the top of my head). Georgiev really turned it on after Mezanec got hurt and had a really strong second half, but I don’t think that’s really enough to make an bet on what he’ll be going forward

 

[Hunter Gathers]

Georgiev?

Looks like a solid back-up right now. Not really sure I'd be banking on him as much more. I don't think we need 40 goaltending prospects, but I also don't want to have too few.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

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

I think the point was compared to the rest of the teams in the NHL, not the average person who follows hockey.

 

[Miamipuck]

Is this where where we talk about Joey Keane?

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

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.

Why? He had one bad tournament and a bunch of idiots overreacted? They didn't overreact to our first round pick Miller having just as bad of a tournament. He's allowed to do that because he's an "athlete" or "he just moved to defense", all of which applies to Wilde. Wilde had a great season. Judging him on one tournament is insane, although it happens all the time.

I think he probably dropped more due to the issue he had with getting into Michigan or however that situation played out. Tolvanen dropped a lot at the end for the same reason, and now it looks incredibly dumb. I wouldn't want Wilde playing in the OHL. I think thats a legitimate concern about his development, but he dropped for incredibly dumb reasons. He was easily a first round talent, and a high one.

 

[GeorgeKaplan]

I think the point was compared to the rest of the teams in the NHL, not the average person who follows hockey.

Even then, we’re so hyper focused on Rangers specific moves that we tend to gloss over other teams doing the same type of thing

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

Even then, we’re so hyper focused on Rangers specific moves that we tend to gloss over other teams doing the same type of thing

Some do, but there are definitely some teams that pick much closer to the consensus than other teams. The Isles are a good example of that. They routinely pick very close to the consensus in early rounds.

If you think about it logically, there will always be some who do and some who don't. Some come from a perspective of all players are relatively similar in ability and its mostly luck with player development that determines the outcome of draft picks. Others strong think they can pick out the players who will be the stars. I'm sure if you polled this forum, you'd get a split on that topic. Poll any diverse group of people, and you probably won't get widespread agreement. The same likely applies to NHL front-offices.

 

[Tawnos]

I think the point was compared to the rest of the teams in the NHL, not the average person who follows hockey.

That’s what I’m referring to also. The job of the scouting staff is to know better than their contemporaries.

 

[GoAwayPanarin]

Why? He had one bad tournament and a bunch of idiots overreacted? They didn't overreact to our first round pick Miller having just as bad of a tournament. He's allowed to do that because he's an "athlete" or "he just moved to defense", all of which applies to Wilde. Wilde had a great season. Judging him on one tournament is insane, although it happens all the time.

I think he probably dropped more due to the issue he had with getting into Michigan or however that situation played out. Tolvanen dropped a lot at the end for the same reason, and now it looks incredibly dumb. I wouldn't want Wilde playing in the OHL. I think thats a legitimate concern about his development, but he dropped for incredibly dumb reasons. He was easily a first round talent, and a high one.

Miller had a much better tournament lol.

You think that their decision may have had a little bit more to do than just the u-18's? They have much more insight to what went on with Wilde than you do.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

Miller had a much better tournament lol.

You think that their decision may have had a little bit more to do than just the u-18's? They have much more insight to what went on with Wilde than you do.

I don't discuss this branch of hockey with you anymore. I'm really not looking for any trouble. I can't speak to your motives.

 

[GeorgeKaplan]

Some do, but there are definitely some teams that pick much closer to the consensus than other teams. The Isles are a good example of that. They routinely pick very close to the consensus in early rounds.

If you think about it logically, there will always be some who do and some who don't. Some come from a perspective of all players are relatively similar in ability and its mostly luck with player development that determines the outcome of draft picks. Others strong think they can pick out the players who will be the stars. I'm sure if you polled this forum, you'd get a split on that topic. Poll any diverse group of people, and you probably won't get widespread agreement. The same likely applies to NHL front-offices.

I definitely agree, there’s a million ways to go about drafting and none of them are necessarily the right way.

I think the thing with the Islanders specifically (and this is just me spitballing and a completely separate tangent that I’m just thinking about now) is that they don’t have the financial means to really be spending on a quality scouting staff, so they tend to use outside resources to help fill out their information. Sometimes this works out really well (Barzal, potentially this past draft) and sometimes you get picks like Strome, MDC, Reinhardt, Nino (sort of), etc.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

That’s what I’m referring to also. The job of the scouting staff is to know better than their contemporaries.

I agree, but do they? If they don't, they either shouldn't be in the job anymore or they shouldn't be a team that goes off the board more often than other teams. I'm sure there's a good study out there, probably kept hidden within NHL teams, how all the teams stack up with their drafting performance.

 

[GoAwayPanarin]

I don't discuss this branch of hockey with you anymore. I'm really not looking for any trouble. I can't speak to your motives.

So you don't have an answer?

Got it.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

I definitely agree, there’s a million ways to go about drafting and none of them are necessarily the right way.

I think the thing with the Islanders specifically (and this is just me spitballing and a completely separate tangent that I’m just thinking about now) is that they don’t have the financial means to really be spending on a quality scouting staff, so they tend to use outside resources to help fill out their information. Sometimes this works out really well (Barzal, potentially this past draft) and sometimes you get picks like Strome, MDC, Reinhardt, Nino (sort of), etc.

Its an interesting theory. I've read that some teams have bigger and smaller scouting staffs than other teams. So I think that type of thinking might have some merit to it.

But I also think having more means of scouting and being more wild in your decision-making isn't necessarily an advantage. Being in the job doesn't mean you are good at it. Are our draft-decision makers good at their job? Hard to know, although I suspect everyone has their own opinion. If they aren't, I'd prefer them going closer to the consensus. Teams that are good at it and have significant financial means to put into scouting usually do get ahead though.

 

[GeorgeKaplan]

Its an interesting theory. I've read that some teams have bigger and smaller scouting staffs than other teams. So I think that type of thinking might have some merit to it.

But I also think having more means of scouting and being more wild in your decision-making isn't necessarily an advantage. Being in the job doesn't mean you are good at it. Are our draft-decision makers good at their job? Hard to know, although I suspect everyone has their own opinion. If they aren't, I'd prefer them going closer to the consensus. Teams that are good at it and have significant financial means to put into scouting usually do get ahead though.

Drafting is one of the most interesting things to think about for me. At this point it feels like it’s still more art than science, so there’s much more variety from person to person based on a million different things.

One of the things that’s really interested me over the past year or so (not that there’s really much to dig into here) is how there are people and smaller scouting agencies/teams that’ll compile 250+ player rankings for a draft when just about every NHL team generally keeps their lists to like 100-150 players long when they’re the ones that generally have the means to be making 300+ player lists for drafts, granted they probably tend to go much more in depth scouting on individual players than the individuals/agencies

 

[kovazub94]

I am interesting to see how the league treats the drafting of goalies moving forward.

When I was a kid, you often didn't even consider a goalie until the second round. Then by the early 90s, you started to see goalies sneaking into the first and the top 20. Within a few years, you had multiple goalies going in the first round, with some finding their way into the teens and occasionally the top 10. Then it quickly progressed to having goalies go first or in the top 5.

Now we've almost gone too far back the other way. While I generally view goalies as a third and beyond type of pick, it's not really a hard rule.

It's a true wildcard and your next great goalie really could from anywhere, at any time. They could be a draft pick or a free agent signing. So with that in mind, if you see a guy you really like, you role the dice.

Pros and cons analysis progression (regression). Team drafts Luongo or Fleury and it is more or less set for a decade of play-off appearances. Then you waste a pick on DiPietro (on top of trading Luongo lol), or draft Montoya or Blackburn (so sad) and you rethink this approach.

As many stated - if you hit on the talent it doesn't matter where it is drafted.

 

[nyr2k2]

I don't discuss this branch of hockey with you anymore. I'm really not looking for any trouble. I can't speak to your motives.

LOL it's not a street fight, no one is "looking for trouble." Why not just ignore someone instead of making passive-aggressive comments about not be able to "speak to your motives"? You post some weird stuff, man.

 

[Edge]

Why? He had one bad tournament and a bunch of idiots overreacted? They didn't overreact to our first round pick Miller having just as bad of a tournament. He's allowed to do that because he's an "athlete" or "he just moved to defense", all of which applies to Wilde. Wilde had a great season. Judging him on one tournament is insane, although it happens all the time.

I think he probably dropped more due to the issue he had with getting into Michigan or however that situation played out. Tolvanen dropped a lot at the end for the same reason, and now it looks incredibly dumb. I wouldn't want Wilde playing in the OHL. I think thats a legitimate concern about his development, but he dropped for incredibly dumb reasons. He was easily a first round talent, and a high one.

Eh, I think it was probably a bit more than just the tournament. The tournament just confirmed a lot of the concerns that were increasingly apparent --- defense, judgement, etc.

That's not a death sentence for the kid, but it's not necessarily the signs scouts want to see heading into the draft. In this case, he also wasn't helped by the depth of the draft. So if you're a scout, and you like a bunch of guys, you're going to have to be pretty blown away to take the kid who you feel didn't progress over the kid who did. That's a big part of what happened with a guys like Wilde and Miller.

You have kids who kept developing and improving and advancing, and then you had kids who kind of flatlined, or regressed, or seemed to look increasingly concerning against tougher competition.

There's a tendency to point out of the Tolvanens or other prospects who fell and rose again. We like to point to them as examples of not giving up on a prospect. And there's some truth to that.

But the ability to do primarily stands out because we lose count of the prospects who fall and then just keep falling.

Yes there are Tolvanens. And there also Angelo Espositos, and Charlie Stephens, and Jeff Browns, and a long, long list of names on the other side of the coin.

And people making almost the exact same argument you are today.

In the 20+ years I've followed prospects, I find there are certain constants that remain generation after generation. And one of those constants is that "things are different now."

Often times, they really aren't.

 

[Tawnos]

I agree, but do they? If they don't, they either shouldn't be in the job anymore or they shouldn't be a team that goes off the board more often than other teams. I'm sure there's a good study out there, probably kept hidden within NHL teams, how all the teams stack up with their drafting performance.

Frankly, I think the draft is 90% voodoo anyway. I don’t fully buy that a higher quality staff is that much more likely to result in a higher quality team. Too much luck. Even if you get the high picks, the timing of those picks matters more than anything.

The only thing scouts can really do effectively, is let the GM know if a player fits the overall vision of what he wants the team to be. On and off the ice.

 

[Kupo]

Do you guys think Allaire pushed for this pick?