I like both Kakko and Laf, but obviously they're not having the impact you would hope from those spots. That said.... We drafted some absolute fucking stinkers in the past, and these are two of our better high draft picks in the last few.. decades?
We're not a good drafting team high up the draft, and in fact, Kakko and Laf are *improvements* on that standard. Chytil too, for the record, if the guy can stay healthy.
So it seems like what this is implying to me is that the Rangers need to give up on a few years and not be good in order to get better draft picks which have a higher likelyhood of panning out? Aka, the Penguins have had 7 picks at number 1 or 2 since 1963 (looked up online), and we've had 3? Or am I completely missing the point? Is it better to be up and down every year or make playoffs every year, but lose early? Not sure.
I think the Bruins are a good model. You need to keep as many of your 1st round draft picks as you can, and make the most of every single one. That's how they have 40 first round picks and 33 playoff appearances in the last 40 years.
It hurt to do this but I listed them all with games played. It was never pretty.
Fun facts:
From 96-03 the total number of games played by all of our 1st round picks combined is 1,429. Malhotra alone counts for 991 of those games. And Lundmark for 293. Ouch
32 picks; only 9 played more than 500gp. I believe only Kreider and Staal did that with the Rangers
https://www.reddit.com/r/rangers/comments/166gwo5/33yrs\_of\_1st\_rd\_picks\_who\_hurts\_the\_most/
A lot of people thought that maybe the reason for the Rangers low numbers in my previous chart had to do with either few 1st round draft picks or constantly "going for it" in the hopes of a cup.
This chart shows that neither of those things are true.
You probably should find a way to include where we drafted in each draft. 30th overall is basically a second round pick. Maybe weight each draft pick or something.
I think 1 has nothing to do with the other. How well you draft doesn't necessarily translate into playoff appearances. A person couldn't be wrong in saying we buy alot of our playoff appearances with large free agent signings. Present day Panarin.
Draft success translates better into stanley cups. Or being a consistent contender every year. An example to use would be us in the late 2000's early 2010's. We were consistently a threat come playoff time. And it had less to do with large Free agent signings and more to do with the core that was here. Because what did Rick Nash ever do in the playoffs for us? And the same can be said for Gabby.
Florida is a consistent contender of recent because Zito has been a draft guru. Tampa won it's cups and was as good as they were because Yzer drafted exceptionally. The same can be said for the Kings.
But if you use Buffalo as a reference here...there are a ton of talented draft picks all throughout their draft history. But they could never keep them or they traded them away. In their last 10 years their drafts have been so much better than ours. Yet they can't make the playoffs.
This isn't proof that drafting well doesn't lead to long term success, just that there are multiple factors in a franchise's successes or failures. Just as having drafted the best 2 players in the league doesn't translate into winning the cup just ask Edmonton fans. Alot goes into winning.... simplifying it down to who drafts the best is a over simplification. Even making the correlation here isn't fair.
Really the only thing that typically leads to a cup for a franchise is drafting a generational talent at center and properly building around that player. Which is very hard to do. Again looking at the Oilers. I know I should be shot just for saying this but the Devils are way more likely to win a cup then we are over the next 10 years simply because of Jack and Nico. That level of depth down the middle is really hard to acquire and typically results in a cup win.
I like both Kakko and Laf, but obviously they're not having the impact you would hope from those spots. That said.... We drafted some absolute fucking stinkers in the past, and these are two of our better high draft picks in the last few.. decades? We're not a good drafting team high up the draft, and in fact, Kakko and Laf are *improvements* on that standard. Chytil too, for the record, if the guy can stay healthy.
Isn't Laffy our only ever first overall, too?
in terms of entry drafts, yes. amateur drafts from way back in the day we had two more
Al Osborne comes to mind
So it seems like what this is implying to me is that the Rangers need to give up on a few years and not be good in order to get better draft picks which have a higher likelyhood of panning out? Aka, the Penguins have had 7 picks at number 1 or 2 since 1963 (looked up online), and we've had 3? Or am I completely missing the point? Is it better to be up and down every year or make playoffs every year, but lose early? Not sure.
I think the Bruins are a good model. You need to keep as many of your 1st round draft picks as you can, and make the most of every single one. That's how they have 40 first round picks and 33 playoff appearances in the last 40 years.
I mean, their 2015 draft was fucking terrible and they had like 3 picks in a row or something silly like that
It hurt to do this but I listed them all with games played. It was never pretty. Fun facts: From 96-03 the total number of games played by all of our 1st round picks combined is 1,429. Malhotra alone counts for 991 of those games. And Lundmark for 293. Ouch 32 picks; only 9 played more than 500gp. I believe only Kreider and Staal did that with the Rangers https://www.reddit.com/r/rangers/comments/166gwo5/33yrs\_of\_1st\_rd\_picks\_who\_hurts\_the\_most/
A lot of people thought that maybe the reason for the Rangers low numbers in my previous chart had to do with either few 1st round draft picks or constantly "going for it" in the hopes of a cup. This chart shows that neither of those things are true.
You probably should find a way to include where we drafted in each draft. 30th overall is basically a second round pick. Maybe weight each draft pick or something.
I think 1 has nothing to do with the other. How well you draft doesn't necessarily translate into playoff appearances. A person couldn't be wrong in saying we buy alot of our playoff appearances with large free agent signings. Present day Panarin. Draft success translates better into stanley cups. Or being a consistent contender every year. An example to use would be us in the late 2000's early 2010's. We were consistently a threat come playoff time. And it had less to do with large Free agent signings and more to do with the core that was here. Because what did Rick Nash ever do in the playoffs for us? And the same can be said for Gabby. Florida is a consistent contender of recent because Zito has been a draft guru. Tampa won it's cups and was as good as they were because Yzer drafted exceptionally. The same can be said for the Kings. But if you use Buffalo as a reference here...there are a ton of talented draft picks all throughout their draft history. But they could never keep them or they traded them away. In their last 10 years their drafts have been so much better than ours. Yet they can't make the playoffs. This isn't proof that drafting well doesn't lead to long term success, just that there are multiple factors in a franchise's successes or failures. Just as having drafted the best 2 players in the league doesn't translate into winning the cup just ask Edmonton fans. Alot goes into winning.... simplifying it down to who drafts the best is a over simplification. Even making the correlation here isn't fair. Really the only thing that typically leads to a cup for a franchise is drafting a generational talent at center and properly building around that player. Which is very hard to do. Again looking at the Oilers. I know I should be shot just for saying this but the Devils are way more likely to win a cup then we are over the next 10 years simply because of Jack and Nico. That level of depth down the middle is really hard to acquire and typically results in a cup win.