Apr
04

Can the Rangers grab elite talent at the 10th overall pick?

April 4, 2018, by

oliver wahlstrom

As the days and games keep on moving along, it seems the Rangers will pick at tenth overall in the 2018 draft. There are a few other possibilities that make the Rangers either a top-seven or a top-three pick, but it’s getting more and more evident that the Blueshirts will pick at that 10 spot.

Rasmus Dahlin isn’t happening unless the Rangers win the lottery. At tenth overall, that’s about a 3.5% chance of happening. Filip Zadina and Andrei Svechnikov, currently slotted at #2 and #3 respectively, are only an 11.4% chance of happening. Even if the Blueshirts somehow get to 7th overall, that increases their odds to 6.5% (Dahlin) and 20% (top-three). Suffice it to say, we should be preparing to pick at tenth overall.

Make no mistake, the Rangers are going to need some help to get elite talent at 10th overall. The good news is that there is always the potential for that to happen. After all, Matt Barzal slipped to #16 because, well, Boston.

I spoke with Josh a little bit, and he seems to get the impression that the guys most likely to fall far enough for the Blueshirts to grab them would be Adam Boqvist or Oliver Wahlstrom, ranked at #5 and #6, respectively. It’s an interesting dynamic when you dive into it.

For Boqvist, a defenseman, to fall, then Ty Smith likely needs to be a reach pick by someone in the top ten. Not unfathomable, but not likely either. There’s also the potential for Evan Bouchard to be a reach pick in the top ten, pushing Boqvist out. Boqvist has the higher ceiling of these guys, but you never know what GMs and scouts see.

As for Wahlstrom, someone like Joel Farabee could be a reach pick and cause Wahlstrom to fall. He’s probably the most likely to fall out of the top seven, which appears to be the cutoff for elite talent this year. Of course there’s always Quinn Hughes, who seems to be right at the 8-10 range.

Assuming the Rangers don’t win (or completely lose and fall to 12) the lottery, there’s a good chance they could see one of Wahlstrom, Hughes, or Boqvist fall to them. I’m a big fan of cautious optimism, and seeing three guys ranked 6-9 (nice) who could possibly fall is always a positive sign. Optimism for the win.

"Can the Rangers grab elite talent at the 10th overall pick?", 5 out of 5 based on 20 ratings.
Categories : Offseason

66 comments

  1. George says:

    Noah Dobson could be an option at 10. Been a steady riser in the ranking this year and could be a top pairing/1D guy for us. Is right handed so could play with Skjei.

    • Lace says:

      No one thinks Gorton could package 2 of his 3 1st round picks for a top 5 or even 3 pick?

      • Reenavipul says:

        You’d have to package the 2 late picks to get a mid 1st, then package that and their actual pick to move up to maybe 4 or 5.

        The thing is, the level of talent is such that the player you get there isn’t that much better than what you get at 9 or 10.

    • Reenavipul says:

      You hope Dobson slides, but at 9 or 10 I’m taking Veleno or Hayton.

      I have no problems drafting undersized defencemen, but not in the top 10. Way too hit or miss for the value provided.

    • sherrane says:

      If he’s been a steady riser, he might be one the the reasons someone like Wahlstrom (currently one slot higher than Dobson) falls to us. We are still using the midterm rankings and there will be some changes in the final rankings. Last year Owen Tippett was the #4 North American skater in the midterms, dropped to 7th in the final rankings, and was drafted #10 by Florida. Chytil was ranked 15th among European skaters and rose to 11th in the final rankings and drafted #21. Kristian Vesalainen was ranked as the 4th European skater in the midterm, dropped to 7th in the final rankings and was drafted 24th by Winnipeg.

  2. Walt says:

    There are too many names out there to choose from, so I’ll leave it to the scouting department to handle. My only wish is they get the best available player when it’s their tern to select. This is probably the best way to approach the draft, selecting from the best of the best, making it easier to trade others who may not be as strong as the ones picked!!!!!!!

  3. agentsmith says:

    clark will pick some guy ranked 143rd bc the scout out in Europe just became a grandparent etc

  4. amy says:

    it is about the time that the scouts should do their homework and draft someone that can help this team now not later continue the youth movement

    • tanto says:

      You pick the best player available — whether they’ll help NOW or later makes no difference.

  5. Jerry says:

    I’m not sure we’ll stay at 10.

  6. Mancunian Candidate says:

    Let’s have some optimism regarding finding elite talent—here’s an all-star team of 6 NHL players who went lower than the 10th pick:

    Jamie Benn (5th rd, 129th pick)
    Claude Giroux (1st, 22nd pick)
    Kyle Connor (1st, 17th pick)
    Duncan Keith (2nd, 54th pick)
    Erik Karlsson (1st, 15th pick)
    Henrik Lundqvist (7th, 205th pick)

    And there’s plenty more where these choices come from—take heart fellow Ranger fans, this team is due for some drafting luck.

    • Hatrick Swayze says:

      Barzal!

      • Mancunian Candidate says:

        Yeah, there’s another great example. If I had more time today I’d dig up a full 12-forward, 6-defenseman squad.

      • Reenavipul says:

        Barzal grew 3 inches from his draft year, had to fill out. If he stayed 5’10”, he’d be in Bridgeport.

        Sometimes you get a little lucky.

  7. Leetchie Nut says:

    Paging Dylan McIlrath…um Vladimir Tarasenko ….um….. Dylan McIlrath smh

    • Egelstein says:

      This is actually a pretty fair point. Has the scouting department changed a lot since the McIlrath pick? I’m not sure; I don’t really keep up on that type of stuff. I think that was still Clark at the helm then though, if I am remembering correctly.

      The Rangers were of course not the only team to miss on Tarasenko, but McIlrath was a significant reach then, even with his stock being higher before his knee issues derailed his development. It sure seemed/seems to me that they went for a style preference, because McIlrath was not only not the consensus best talent on the board at the time, but he wasn’t even the consensus best defender on the board at the time (Fowler). For a team that only gets to pick in the top ten ever so often lately, and on top of that had a penchant for trading what first round picks they did have some time, they really need to make this one count. Best player on the board, period.

      • joe from newburgh says:

        And, at the time, the fan base was screaming for a “big, tough” defenseman who could fight, and was happy with the pick. Well, McIlrath was that, for sure. Too bad that’s all he was.

        • Egelstein says:

          I wasn’t a frequent NYR blog reader then, so I might have not seen an adequate representation of the full fan response. I didn’t absolutely hate the pick with all my soul or anything like that. I saw it as a reach, sure, but not like they went completely off the board; I recall many mock drafts put him in the late teens to mid 20’s. There was no doubt he had the best reputation for toughness and grit in the entire draft, and at the WHL level, he showed flashes of being able to skate well enough to perhaps someday be shutdown bruiser and PIM machine. Then his knees betrayed him, and since he was fringe with his skating to begin with, little else worse could have happened to him in terms of his NHL trajectory.

          All of that said, no Rangers fans I know personally were floored by the pick. “Okay with it” is how I would generally describe how I felt the mood was – but again, just based on my own thoughts and those of some friends who follow closely enough to render an opinion, not a wider overall audience.

          • Walt says:

            I fall in the category of OK tough guy, who can be the next Jeff Beukeboom style shut down guy.

            Problem with the pick turned out to be the style incorporated by AV, his dislike for tough guys, and his knee injury. Think of his style of skating, not worse than Girardi, who under another system could be functional, while he was disadvantaged due to the d-system played under AV!

            • BOBBY B says:

              Spot on comment Walt, if not for the knee injury and him being jerked around by AV, Mcllrath could have been a solid cornerstone D-man. He had the make up of a Buekeaboom/McSorly/ Tinordi type of D-man, which at the time the organization needed, in fact till this day, they still need!!

              • Peter says:

                Dylan is a great kid, but his knees sunk him guys. He has washed out with a few teams, and nobody wanted him when waived. A lot of things are AV’s fault, but this ain’t one of them.

              • Egelstein says:

                I do think McIlrath looked essentially fine with the Rangers. I think he was playing better at times than some of the other defenders AV was favoring. He had his warts and shortcomings like any specialist – which is essentially what he was being that his skating was limited – but man did he throw bombs out there. Was nice to see someone actually hit AND stay in the play rather than watch, for example, Glass trying to throw hits and succeeding mostly in taking himself completely out of the play without actually disrupting the opposition.

                I do also understand that a player like that who lacks versatility is only going to fit if sheltered and/or in a conservative defensive scheme, though. Neither of those things are part of AV’s game plan – IMO he often doesn’t shelter certain players when it seems it would be beneficial (this is one aspect of his vet favoritism issue in my eyes), and man/overload hybrid isn’t exactly an easy system to execute.

                All in all, it seems to me that McIlrath was unfortunately born about 20/30 years too late. His game would have been much better for the general 80s and 90s style of play. I do not think AV ruined him by any means – I agree his knees were/are the biggest issue – but I do also think he earned more of a chance in NY than he was given compared to some of the cast around him. IMO, he was not a liability out there – just needed to be used a very certain way. To note, this is coming from a guy who is glad enforcers are giving way to skill players…but what I liked best about The Undertaker was he didn’t need to actually fight to disrupt the other team (although, he certainly was willing). He was good at hitting and being physical in general.

        • pavel_burrito says:

          Good point, but since when does the front office listen to what the fan base screams for? AV still has the job, and they certainly did not stop trading assets for retreads until just now.

          • Ranger Ricky says:

            You can bet your last dollar that if Hank was younger. Shats didn’t get injured and Zuc and Nash were having a good year. What you see today would have been much different. This team would have made moves that more then likely would have ruined their future going after players like E. Kane and Plekanec

      • NumberEleven says:

        When we made this pick it was before the NHL rule changes, so the game at the time was slower (and clutching and grabbing weren’t penalized nearly as much as now) and big, strong defenders had a lot more value (and we had a need for that). Still not the best pick we could/should have made, but not the worst at the time either. In hindsight it’d be awesome to take Tarasenko instead, obviously, but with hindsight we could fix a lot of mistakes.

      • Blueshirt in Paris says:

        God I remember tha

  8. SalMerc says:

    Look for us to trade up to the top 5. I can see a player, a 1st and 2nd rounder getting this move from 10 to 4 or 5.

    • joe from newburgh says:

      If they can make that deal, I’m all for it. Basically, we’d be giving up a 2nd rounder and a player to get a top 5, instead of a #10, pick. Of course, we’ll have to wait until the ping pong balls get chosen before we’ll know.

    • tanto says:

      Nah, you’re looking at at least 2 1st rounders to move up in the Top 5. A 2nd added to our 1st more than likely won’t get that done.

      • Egelstein says:

        I concur. If I’m a GM with a top five pick right now in this particular draft, the discussions start at two firsts. I’m gonna ask for more and try to leverage further to get rid of an asset or two on my existing roster that I’d like to unload…but two firsts gets your foot in the door.

  9. Andy says:

    Draft is going to be interesting and I think we will trade up. 3 first’s. 2 second’s and 3 thirds. Spooner, Namestnikov, Vesey or Zucc. We have assets to move up. We won;t get to top 3, but we should be able to get close. I agree we can get elite talent at #10, but I am fine with giving up some assets to move up in this draft.We have quantity of draft picks but we need some quality too.

    • Ranger Ricky says:

      What player is up there that is worth giving up all of that??? We already have at least THREE D Men in our system that are going to be 1,2,3 D men As well as three or four more that could be top 3,4 as well as Shatty. So there is clearly no reason to give up all of that for a D man. And many are sayin that there are D men in this draft that could be top 2 D men at #10.

      Do any of you really think that Svechnikov or Tkachuk are worth giving up all of that??? I believe that Nemestnikov could be as good as any of them and he is already house broken. Now we just need to get players to play with him. As a GM Ide have to be blown away to move Spooner. With something I couldn’t refuse.

      If I moved anything it would be players that have already lived past their time here. Like Zuc, Krieds, or Hayes, You would have to offer me something for Vesey not ask me for Vesey. I think many of you are giving up on a future mainstay way too soon. This kid is Big and feisty and is still a NHL baby. He would be the last player I would trade. Unless it brings back a Traveras type player.

  10. Hatrick Swayze says:

    Sal / Joe / Andy

    If we’re looking to move up significantly we may be talking about Kreider or Buch along with the 10th. Don’t think many of the other pieces get us close.And I’m not sure my appetite for something like that.

    I’m thinking Vesey + the 10th would net us the 11th

    • jrrangersdad says:

      Namestnikov is in my opinion the most expendable. No way with Spooner and Vesey. They are hockey players!

      • tanto says:

        Right now that’s where I’m leaning as well. It seems like Spooner or Vlad (they’re similar), but I think Spooner has the higher offensive ceiling and Vlad the higher defensive ceiling.

    • Andy says:

      it’s going to take a basket of assets to move up.There’s teams like Chicago who need to rebuild and they are behind us in hte process regarding moving contracts and getting picks. Their farm system is also in pretty bad shape. Even worse than us. They could use a few extra assets to jump start the process. You can always take a bad contract back if the price to do so is right. Detroit could also be a fit too. They are in somewhat of cap hell and the team is not so good. Teams do deals for lots of reason. There’s always Edmonton. they pretty much gave away Taylor Hall(NJD) and Jordan Eberle (NYI) and unless Chiarelli gets fired we are due for a stupid deal favor us if you look at how well our neighbors have done.(said with sarcasm) So I would not rule anything out.

      • Ranger Ricky says:

        We are in cap hell right now We will not be bringing back players with high contracts at all. We have Girardi on the books still along with pending Buyouts of either Stall, Smith, Beleskey or Lundqvist coming up.

  11. Jack says:

    I used to think Clark was great at what he did…but I have lost faith in his entire scout team…it seems they are only good at finding value in foreign players in the later rounds and missing on the higher picks. Do they even have scouts in North America?

    • tanto says:

      Um, they didn’t have a 1st round pick for years (and didn’t even have some 2nd rounders too) … Skjei was a 1st rounder and he’s North American. Are you upset we drafted two Euros last year in the 1st round?

      • Jack says:

        I am upset we draft Del Zotto instead of Carlson, Bobby S., over Giroux and a host of other blunders. I like Lias but think he was a reach @ 7, when you had some players who have much higher ceilings.

        • tanto says:

          All teams make “mistakes” … you can apply the same logic for example to all the teams that passed on Stepan (if you redraft that year he goes in the top 6-8) or Kreider … or even Skjei, etc. You’re drafting 18 year old kids, this isn’t like the NBA or the NFL where you draft more developed and mature players.

  12. Leatherneck says:

    Joe Veleno and Barrett Hayton

    I don’t want Ty Smith….solid player but say at 18 on up….not at 10

    Wahlstrom might drop not because of talent but commitment to College…gotta get him…..He is worth the wait

    If we get pick #3….trade it…Svechnikov should go #2 but if he is there at 3 select him however if it’s Zadina trade down.

    Slight chance we can get to 7….Should’ve been in position but unlike other teams we gained senseless points.

    This talk of trading up….just silly….when we could’ve done it ourselves

    first 3 picks are not going to be traded

    I seriously want another first round pick and a high 2nd

    Spooner is the one we should keep but I see him getting dealt

    Gotta get Lundqvist to realize the situation so he can either embrace that we won’t be contending during his tenure here or he asks for a trade

    Islanders Islanders Islanders….this team is at a crossroads and very vulnerable

    • Egelstein says:

      I’d almost guarantee you that the front office does not envision them not contending again while Hank’s contract is still going. We fans can chop up the semantics all we want; re-stock vs. revamp vs. rebuild on the fly vs. full rebuild vs. blow it up, etc. If they were truly going for like a five year tear-down and build-up, AKA when Shestyorkin may be over and ready by, they probably would have truly gutted the team of anyone over age 25 for picks, not just gotten rid of the obvious choices. That’s when you execute a true fire sale, which they did not do. I highly suspect Gorton’s plan is to be back in legit contention year after next, and frankly I’d be surprised if anyone in the front office has even seriously considered asking Hank to waive his NMC.

      • Reenavipul says:

        If you lose the coach and put out a lineup of:

        Kovalchuk-Ziba-Kreider
        Buch-Namestnikov-Chytil
        Vesey-Hayes-Spooner
        Nieves-Andersson-Nash

        Skjei-Shatty
        Staal-Pionk
        O’Gara-Sproul/DeAngelo

        The 3rd pair is a bit problematic, but beyond that you’ve got a very competitive squad.

        • jrrangersdad says:

          Love the 1st and 3rd lines but the 2nd is a +/- disaster! 4th line is a bit odd – Grabner on the 4th over Nieves would be interesting. And you forgot Fast. He is on 4th line for whoever they don’t resign Grabner/Nash.

          I am not convinced half of that Defense is back. Only sure things are Skjei, Shatt, and Pionk. I’d take Gilmour over DeAngelo and prefer O’Gara over Staal if you can trade most his salary away. I think you have 2 new defensemen next season potentially pushing O’Gara and Gilmour off the team or to 7th D. Not sure what to think of Sproul at the moment.

        • Egelstein says:

          I concur. I mean, look at the games they have won since the deadline that they frankly had no business winning some of, but still did because these kids have some spring in their step and are opportunistic, and the core that was there before them isn’t exactly chopped liver on the forward side.

          Hopefully something will be done to get a more legit third pair rolling, be it acquiring a proven vet 3rd pair type via FA or trade, or, even better (so long as Gorton doesn’t get fleeced of course), acquiring a true 1st/2nd pair type and bumping Staal back down to a third pair role where he belongs…a player like O’Gara with a rookie or DeAngelo, I agree, is not ideal.

          I also have not fully written-off Smith, despite a strong urge to do so. It is not completely unheard of for guys to have a year like that and then actually get their shit together again, so fingers crossed for that, even if it may be or seem unlikely.

        • tanto says:

          I wouldn’t worry about the 3rd pairing, I don’t think O’Gara or Sproul will be with the club next year unless it’s as the 7th d’man. Look for one of Smith, Lindgren, Rykov or Hajek to slot there — just my gut talking

        • tanto says:

          I left Day out of the equation for now, but one has to be impressed with season and playoffs he’s having so far.

          • Ranger Ricky says:

            No matter what happens with Day he needs to go to the AHL for at least one year. Barring some sort of break out camp.

      • tanto says:

        Absolutely agree, this is a 2 year plan. They changed the dressing room dynamic and they got back prospects that will for the most part be ready at some point next year or the following to step in — heck, if they drop AV they might even be a playoff team next season when they institute a defensive system that keeps SOGs against reasonable.

  13. lv says:

    Hard to know which players to keep or trade on Rangers. If collectively we continue to allow 45-50 shots a game against, it can’t be that everyone on our team (forwards included) can’t play defense. Our coaching system is broken. Until Gorton realizes that, it won’t matter who we draft or who is on the ice.

    • Ranger Ricky says:

      FACT when you have a Pen Kill in the top 7 in the NHL its not the players its the system. They already have the players.

  14. Walt says:

    If anyone is interested, the NHL.com web site has an article with the scouting report on many kids who will be available this coming draft.

    “Five questions entering NHL Central Scouting final meetings”
    gives some great insight on players we know nothing about, as well as the top projected picks. Enjoy the reading!!!!!!

  15. Odielicious says:

    Just so we are all clear on this….ANthony Duclair 3rd round of 2013 was the last pick that has made the NHL for us. Just so we are all clear he was selected in the 2013 draft. Since that pick there have been 29 other players selected and you guessed it except for Chytil and Andersson all have been flops. And to count either Chytil or Andersson as successes at this point might just be a little premature like last night’s romantic encounter.

    Absolutely no faith in Clark and his team. Noting this in your minds will help you digest this upcoming draft when we end up picking a 40th ranked pick with our 1st pick at the 9th slot all cause of a hunch and he has tremendous upside which will be the spin to the public. Sorry for the cup half empty, but the Rangers got no one out of that 2015 draft. And we had 7 picks. Yes they were all late round picks but still no one.

    2015 2 41 Ryan Gropp Canada LW
    2015 3 62 Robin Kovacs Sweden RW
    2015 3 79 Sergey Zborovskiy Russia D
    2015 3 89 Aleksi Saarela Finland C
    2015 4 113 Brad Morrison Canada C
    2015 4 119 Daniel Bernhardt Sweden RW
    2015 7 184 Adam Huska

    How many of these guys will actually play in the NHL? Kovacs has already quit playing hockey. Maybe Gropp? Saarela did he even start playing for Carolina? Atleast he got us Staal for a couple weeks.

    • Reenavipul says:

      Kovacs didn’t quit hockey, playing in Sweden for Luleå and pretty well at that.

      But yeah, 2015 was a flat out disaster. It was also Sather’s last draft as the GM.

      • Walt says:

        Reen

        What can we expect from Sather, he always was cavalier about giving away our valuable picks. He thought the other GM’s were coming around for their trick, or treats, and didn’t want to disappoint them!!

    • Brett says:

      So, do you recognize any of these names?

      46 RW Daniel Sprong
      137 C Dominik Simon
      167 LW Frederik Tiffels
      197 C Nikita Pavlychev

      That’s Pittsburgh’s 2015 draft class. Maybe you could calm down just a touch about writing off the Rangers scouting efforts.

      • Reenavipul says:

        The 1st rd pick got them the player that got them Carl Hagelin. So even then, that gets them ahead of the Rangers.

        Sprong is still a prospect, Simon is splitting time with the big club and the farm, Teffets just did his 1st season in N. America and Pavlychev is still in college.

        As for the Rangers, Morrison was never tendered, Kovacs isn’t even on the reserve list, Bernhardt is on the side of a milk carton and won’t be offered, Zbor is the 10th choice defenceman in Hartford, Saarela will be lucky to play above Charlotte.

        That leaves Gropp(who will have a hard time making it out of Hartford) and Huska(who could be just a guy.)

        That’s not a good batting average, even with more and better picks.

        • tanto says:

          Actually Huska has done well in college and is a potential sleeper along with Wall (great freshman year, bad sophomore year) … of course there’s a good chance that both will be blocked by Shesty and Georgiev (if we find a way to keep him through the expansion draft).

    • Walt says:

      Sorry my man, but we didn’t have a #1 for some four years. What can we expect when you draft 897th, a diamond in the rough? I think your a bit rough on the staff with this post only due to the piss poor management of our picks over the course of the last who knows many years!!!!!!!!!

      • CTfan says:

        Didn’t have a 1st round pick for four years because of the same crew who are running the show now.

        • tanto says:

          You can disagree with them on the players they obtained with those trade deadline deals, but you can hardly blame them for trying. If they had beaten LA (and they should of/could of barring NHL mistakes and some bad puck luck) then you wouldn’t even be talking about this — or maybe you would if you just had the hankering to be negative).

          • Egelstein says:

            I don’t believe I’ve ever seen a closer 4-1 series (in any sport) than that Cup Finals. Every 50/50 puck luck chance seemed to bounce LA’s way. It could have just as easily gone 4-1 the other way, and you just don’t see that very often.

            That said, you hit on a fair point here for me. I don’t know as I blame them for trying. I do blame them for going after names in some of those scenarios rather than fits. There was arguably no place that was a great fit on the team for Eric Staal for example, but they overpaid to get him anyway, because he is Eric Staal.

    • Ranger Ricky says:

      I see you left out Buchnevich, Shestyorkin who could be the best Goalie prospect in the NHL. Huska is coming along just fine. Gropp is still a good prospect. About a year away from proving himself. Ty Ronning is playing better then almost anyone in the system. And could be one year away. If not sooner. Do not give up on Gettinger. Many are saying that Sean Day is going to impress next year. Brandon Crawley has already played for Hartford only drafted last year He is way ahead of schead. And keep a close eye on Barron. A very under ratted Center who was drafted late because of his going to the NCAA

      And remember this guy was looking like a number one goalie before getting injured. Mackenzie Skapski

      So that at least 8 players that could make the NHL still. Buch has already done so. As well as Duclair. Skapski was well on his way. And if you add in Anderson and Chytil. That would make 13 players in 5 years that still have a shot at making it in the NHL and from the looks of it your getting at least 5 NHL players out of a possible 32 draft picks. Minus 4 NUMBER ONE PICKS in that time and THREE number 2s

      And only got 15 NHL players from 2004 to 2012

  16. Larry says:

    Blackhawks just won, there’s a chance NYR can pick 8th instead of 10th.
    .