Prospect Info: With the 88th Overall Pick the New York Rangers Select Joey Keane

[Kovalev27]

From what I can see early on he’s clearly usa’s best righty D and it’s not close

 

[Levitate]

From what I can see early on he’s clearly usa’s best righty D and it’s not close

Considering the other two notable players (Hughes and Samuelsson) are LD's, that doesnt' seem to be a wild preidiction

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

Walsh is also good. And then there’s Wilde whose not at this camp, but Keane should make the team this year.

 

[Levitate]

Walsh is also good. And then there’s Wilde whose not at this camp, but Keane should make the team this year.

Was just looking at the team white roster

 

[Cag29]

Even if that happens, which odds are it won't, it doesn't make it the right pick at that spot.

If he’s a star it is the right pick at that spot.

 

[ColonialsHockey10]

This pick fascinates me.

He’s not a traditional overager pick. This guy is a legitimate star in the OHL and still has another year of regular eligibility. I’m surprised he fell this far in the draft.

 

[Ola]

This pick fascinates me.

He’s not a traditional overager pick. This guy is a legitimate star in the OHL and still has another year of regular eligibility. I’m surprised he fell this far in the draft.

Yeah, maybe it’s an early sign of too many organizations looking too much at metrics that simply are based on pts?

Keane didn’t score a ton of pts. But he is so impressing.

John Klingberg is probably a top 3 offensive D in the game right now, so talented and dangerous, and he was 0+5 in 27 games with Frolundas U20 team his draft year. I am sure pts matters a lot on average, it’s something that should be looked at. But definitely not too much.

 

[Mac n Gs]

I wrote before the draft that Keane would be a really good overage target and a good RHD option. He's not the biggest, but he's a fluid skater, really smart positionally, and helped drive a lot of Barrie's play when Svechnikov wasn't demolishing anything in his path. I'm super happy about this pick, especially since our RD pipeline has been total ass lately. The organization has shown a nice shift towards targeting kids like Lundkvist and Keane over guys like Zboro.

 

[GeorgeKaplan]

I wrote before the draft that Keane would be a really good overage target and a good RHD option. He's not the biggest, but he's a fluid skater, really smart positionally, and helped drive a lot of Barrie's play when Svechnikov wasn't demolishing anything in his path. I'm super happy about this pick, especially since our RD pipeline has been total ass lately. The organization has shown a nice shift towards targeting kids like Lundkvist and Keane over guys like Zboro.

I’m with you, I like taking the kids that have instincts and can skate more than the kids who have a better grasp on the in’s and out’s of defensive play because the former can always learn the latter with more games and better coaching. Granted, it doesn’t always work like that, but if it does the player comes out of it being much more well rounded

 

[Edge]

If he ended up being a good starter and all the rest of the Rangers goalie prospects turned out to be not as good, it'd be a good pick.

Some of you are overthinking or overanalzying this. I don't really think it was a great spot to pick a goalie but to act like he has to become a generational talent to make it a good pick is insane

No kidding, Jesus.

I admit, Lindbom wouldn't have been my pick in the second. Frankly, Drury would've been in the conversation for me because I really liked his play.

But casting that aside for a minute, I think we're starting to embellish at this point. Lindbom wasn't some completely out of left field pick, and not he doesn't have to amount to a Hall of Famer to warrant being a second round pick.

Lundqvist should not be part of any conversation involving Lindbom. Assuming they ever share the ice together, they'd be at two completely different ends of their careers as indicated by the fact that Lundqvist is just about old enough to be Lindbom's father.

Regarding the prospects in the pipeline, they are just that right now --- prospects. And for as much as I love our depth, that list is one Shestyorkin away from not being nearly as air-tight, top-level as some are making it out to be.

Again, Lindbom wouldn't have been my pick, but we're really getting close to a bar conversation about fishing --- the tale keeps growing each time it's told.

 

[RGY]

I wrote before the draft that Keane would be a really good overage target and a good RHD option. He's not the biggest, but he's a fluid skater, really smart positionally, and helped drive a lot of Barrie's play when Svechnikov wasn't demolishing anything in his path. I'm super happy about this pick, especially since our RD pipeline has been total ass lately. The organization has shown a nice shift towards targeting kids like Lundkvist and Keane over guys like Zboro.

And Rangers scouts probably saw a decent amount of Keane’s play while scouting Svechnikov in case Svechnikov fell and/or the Rangers traded up

 

[Ghost of jas]

Maybe it’s just me, but Keane reminds me of Mike Green without the nasty wristshot.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

If he ended up being a good starter and all the rest of the Rangers goalie prospects turned out to be not as good, it'd be a good pick.

Some of you are overthinking or overanalzying this. I don't really think it was a great spot to pick a goalie but to act like he has to become a generational talent to make it a good pick is insane

I'll take this a step further. If he's a long-time NHL player regardless of starter or back-up, it's a good pick. When you're in the second, if you can get a long-term NHL player, it's viewed as generally a good pick. Not great, but good.

 

[Harbour Dog]

No kidding, Jesus.

I admit, Lindbom wouldn't have been my pick in the second. Frankly, Drury would've been in the conversation for me because I really liked his play.

But casting that aside for a minute, I think we're starting to embellish at this point. Lindbom wasn't some completely out of left field pick, and not he doesn't have to amount to a Hall of Famer to warrant being a second round pick.

Lundqvist should not be part of any conversation involving Lindbom. Assuming they ever share the ice together, they'd be at two completely different ends of their careers as indicated by the fact that Lundqvist is just about old enough to be Lindbom's father.

Regarding the prospects in the pipeline, they are just that right now --- prospects. And for as much as I love our depth, that list is one Shestyorkin away from not being nearly as air-tight, top-level as some are making it out to be.

Again, Lindbom wouldn't have been my pick, but we're really getting close to a bar conversation about fishing --- the tale keeps growing each time it's told.

While I agree with the sentiment behind your post, I strongly disagree that the Lindbom pick wasn't "out of left field".

Not only was it a terrible spot to take a goalie, but I don't remember seeing him ranked as even the 5th best guy at that position by literally anybody leading up to the draft. He was outside of most guys top ten.

Even taking into account the much higher value of 10th overall, I consider this pick to be as egregious as the McIlrath selection.

Also, we've gone pretty far OT for the Keane thread.

 

[LaffyTaffy]

What's funny to me is that Keane is known for most of his offense coming from a transition game, but last night he was basically leading the play in the offensive zone when they had possession. He was fantastic on defending zone entries and he was extremely involved in offensive plays. He looked like the second best USA dman last night behind Hughes. My only critique would be how many clunkers he unloaded, dude misses the net like Marc Staal. But it is only one game so hopefully thats not a norm for him.

 

[Edge]

While I agree with the sentiment behind your post, I strongly disagree that the Lindbom pick wasn't "out of left field".

Not only was it a terrible spot to take a goalie, but I don't remember seeing him ranked as even the 5th best guy at that position by literally anybody leading up to the draft. He was outside of most guys top ten.

Even taking into account the much higher value of 10th overall, I consider this pick to be as egregious as the McIlrath selection.

Also, we've gone pretty far OT for the Keane thread.

Lindbom's rankings were all over the place, which isn't terribly surprising --- anywhere from the 200s by some sites, to as high as 53 on the McKenzie/TSN list and 91 on McKeen's.

Personally, I had him pegged as more of a third round pick.

Having said that, when you get beyond the first round in most drafts things are pretty wide open. This draft, as was widely discussed, was no exception. With that in mind, I simply cannot put that in remotely the same context as the McIlrath selection. They're not even in the same hemisphere for me.

So while Lindbom would not have been my pick at the spot, I go back to the original premise of the argument which is to say that just because we didn't "like" a pick shouldn't mean that we suddenly raise the bar unrealistically so that the prospect is almost destined to fail. That's neither fair, nor a good barometer for success.

If we wouldn't place certain expectations on a prospect or pick we liked, we should avoid placing those expectations (or greater expectations) on the picks and prospects we didn't like.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

Lindbom's rankings were all over the place, which isn't terribly surprising --- anywhere from the 200s by some sites, to as high as 53 on the McKenzie/TSN list and 91 on McKeen's.

Personally, I had him pegged as more of a third round pick.

Having said that, when you get beyond the first round in most drafts things are pretty wide open. This draft, as was widely discussed, was no exception. With that in mind, I simply cannot put that in remotely the same context as the McIlrath selection. They're not even in the same hemisphere for me.

So while Lindbom would not have been my pick at the spot, I go back to the original premise of the argument which is to say that just because we didn't "like" a pick shouldn't mean that we suddenly raise the bar unrealistically so that the prospect is almost destined to fail. That's neither fair, nor a good barometer for success.

If we wouldn't place certain expectations on a prospect or pick we liked, we should avoid placing those expectations (or greater expectations) on the picks and prospects we didn't like.

My main problem with the Lindbom pick isn't even that he was taken at 39th. It's simply that I value the goaltending position fairly low.

 

[Mac n Gs]

Edit: moved to the Lindblom thread

 

[GeorgeKaplan]

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.

My biggest let down from the whole draft was Addison going to the Penguins in the late second/third, I can’t even remember where he was picked because I don’t want to think about it

 

[Edge]

My main problem with the Lindbom pick isn't even that he was taken at 39th. It's simply that I value the goaltending position fairly low.

I tend to be the same way and there were guys on the board I would've taken ahead of Lindbom without giving it much thought.

I actually don't disagree with the fans who wanted someone else pick there.

I think what I find interesting is when that argument, or the one you presented (which I tend to agree with), isn't seen as being enough on it's own. That's where we get into the territory where we start to really lay it on rather thick.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

I tend to be the same way and there were guys on the board I would've taken ahead of Lindbom without giving it much thought.

I actually don't disagree with the fans who wanted someone else pick there.

I think what I find interesting is when that argument, or the one you presented (which I tend to agree with), isn't seen as being enough on it's own. That's where we get into the territory where we start to really lay it on rather thick.

It's just a matter of splitting up valid opinions in which we disagree and stupid hot takes that clog up the board.

I certainly didn't want him there, either, and there are a number of guys I'd take ahead of him still. But some of this stuff is just laughable nonsense.

 

[Kovalev27]

What's funny to me is that Keane is known for most of his offense coming from a transition game, but last night he was basically leading the play in the offensive zone when they had possession. He was fantastic on defending zone entries and he was extremely involved in offensive plays. He looked like the second best USA dman last night behind Hughes. My only critique would be how many clunkers he unloaded, dude misses the net like Marc Staal. But it is only one game so hopefully thats not a norm for him.

He does everything well except shoot the puck. He has a garbage shot.

 

[Kovalev27]

For what it’s worth lindbom was the best goalie at the u18 tourney. Easily the most polished. Think he opened up some eyes for sure during that tourney.

 

[Cag29]

My main problem with the Lindbom pick isn't even that he was taken at 39th. It's simply that I value the goaltending position fairly low.

Which is a mistake. Goaltender is an important position.
My list as far as difficulty to play. I’ve played them all. Watched them all.
1-center
2-goalie
3-defense
4-wing.
All important to me wing has the most freedom. Just cover your point and go score.

 

[Ghost of jas]

My main problem with the Lindbom pick isn't even that he was taken at 39th. It's simply that I value the goaltending position fairly low.

This. So much this. I don’t believe a goalie should be drafted before the 4th round. Also, considering that I still believe the Rangers are not very deep organization-wise at forward, and there were many good opportunities to add quality candidates at that spot, I still despise the pick.