2019 NHL Draft: New York Rangers make eight total selections

The 2019 NHL Draft is over, and the Rangers made eight selections:

Robertson in the second round was by far the “safest pick” of the bunch, but that doesn’t mean it was a bad pick. Based on value, picks versus rankings, the Rangers had a solid draft.

We will have more in-depth analysis of the draft results in the coming days.

"2019 NHL Draft: New York Rangers make eight total selections", 5 out of 5 based on 4 ratings.
Show More


  1. No, it was a good draft for sure … aside from Kakko. That said I wish they had focused a little more on the forwards early in the draft and had given though to moving up in the 2nd round (There were a number of REAL good prospects available earlier in the round). Even after that they could have gone with good value picks like Patrik Puistola, Pavel Dorofeyev and Slepets.

    1. I agree with you on the forwards, but in fairness Matthew Robertson was too great a pick to pass up at 49. He brings a lot defensively to the prospect pool that we don’t have.

  2. Great draft. I consider the 2nd 1st round pick to be Trouba

    With Kakko, Kravtsov, Shesty, Trouba coming into camp. I have some decent hopes for all of them. While I wouldn’t say they are shoe ins for a cup. I do think just on paper the team should make the playoffs. 60% chance.

    The rest of the picks might crack the nhl roster. And one or two of them should in some capacity from a cuppa to regular time.

  3. Like Robertson 49 glad they picked someone today who weighs more than I do 🙂 team is still weak down the middle but hey they took more than jusy baby steps this weeks towards fixing the roster and stocking the farm. Everyone enjoy the run up to FA season!

  4. Ciccolini probably has the best chance to make the show after Kakko & Robertson, even if he doesn’t turn pro for 3 years.

    Skinner’s a project, will need to put on 25 lbs for him to turn pro.

  5. Supposedly Leevi is a steal at 130. One of the fastest skaters in the draft.

    Not bad overall.

      1. Looks like, if anything, Rangers trying to trade Vesey there, not Howden.

        So I would surmise that Oilers wanted Howden and Rangers may be offering Vesey.

              1. I don’t believe this. Talent is talent, and if the Oilers accept Vesey, a player that has no future for us, then it is worth the shot that Jesse can turn it around.

                I would do that deal in a second. Oilers are losing Jesse one way or another. If they get a guy that pots 16 goals, then that’s a win for them, even if it is for one year.

              2. Swarty, it is far from a guarantee my friend, but who cares? His upside is worth the risk.

                Vesey is getting traded anyway. If it can be for a buy low potential top 6 talent, then you take the chance.

              3. I hear you there dude – There is definitely upside there, but there is also the possibility he does flame out.

                If I were to make a deal like this I would give them Vesey straight up and then toss in a conditional draft pick based on some measure of Puji effectiveness like points. Not sure that is an allowed condition though. Usually it is something like games played.

      2. Me too if the Ranger club is going to give up on their prospects after they played only one season of pro ie: Howden/Andersson. Then why bother drafting or trading for young players in the first place.

    1. Patrick Newell without the scoring.

      Undersized guys need outsized scoring. He was over 1ppg in junior, but not enough to catch your eye.

        1. H/W ratio is good, so he’s got 4 years to add to his frame to become a homeless man’s Zuccarello.

      1. If only it was that easy to predict player development. They don’t all have to be Top 6 guys.

        1. Unless he shoots up another 4 inches, he’s really easy to project.

          1: he’s a forward
          2: he’s short
          3: he did well in a junior league, but not well enough to stick with a bad men’s side or do much of anything in that limited ice time.

          You’re not even getting the immortal Patrik Virta.

          1. Sure he’s not Virta, he’s being drafted at 18 not 20. lol

            He got drafted right where he should have been drafted (actually he was rated a lot higher — his consensus ranking was around 90). Yeah he’s small, yeah he’s a long shot … but you can’t just go by numbers all the time. Hey if you want to paint a masterpiece you 100% won’t do it with a paint by numbers kit, there’s a little more to it.

            Once you get past the best players in the draft you’re projecting future development. This idea that you can judge a player’s future development based solely on what they do from the ages of 16-18 is farcical. This is why you have plenty of 1st and 2nd round busts and why you have guys drafted in the 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc. rounds turning into very serviceable NHL players. At least he’s got one basic trait down pat, he’s a speedster …

            1. If wishes were horses, we’d all win the Kentucky Derby. He’s a dwarf who can skate.

              He’s a deviation below Virta his age 18 year, best of luck with that.

              1. Reen I respect you as knowledgeable but I have to seriously disagree with your dismissive attitude regarding prospects in general. Yes, it’s very easy to dismiss the vast majority of prospects right off the bat —- we ALL know the ODDS of playing a few games in the NHL (circa 25%+), even less that a prospect can become a career NHLer, even less than that that they can become an impactful player. What’s the point and fun in that?

                The thing is … unless you have some very specific knowledge about a player to determine where they are in their developmental process, special circumstances, etc. you’re basing your evaluation on limited data — not to suggest that isn’t often times enough … and again, we already know the “odds” are stacked against these kids. Some kids peak early, some only put it together later in life, some kids will themselves to improve every year, some waste their natural talents.

                We are drafting 18 year olds, let that sink in for a minute. We are judging these kids based on a few snapshots of their life … it pretty much all comes down to what they do in this one pivotal year of their life — was it a good year, did they battle injuries, were there particular distractions in their life, was their body changing, are they over confident, did they go through a bout of insecurity, were they blackballed for some reason, are they favored for some reason, did their coaches hold them back or push them forward, etc. etc. etc.

                All this to say that statistics are all fine and good, but predicting future development of an individual isn’t just based on purely scientific data, tangible data — there is other data to consider. Again, odds are you’re correct 90% of the time — especially if the judgment about whether a kid will play in the NHL is in the negative. There are only so many spots available on a NHL roster at any given time. Many are called but few are chosen.

              2. That’s a whole lot of verbiage just to go “they’re kids blahblahblah”

                Above I wrote about who stood a chance and why. You don’t need fancy stats, you don’t need to see them(but it helps put the numbers in context)

                Give me their height, weight, league and box car stats and I can give a rough estimation of how they’ll project. 25+ years of following prospects gives you a good idea of what it takes to make it.

                You can like their motor, you can like their size and you can like whatever, but if they’re not producing at whatever level you’re getting them at(unless playing against men) then they have no chance.

                Even when they’re producing you have to look at it with a jaundiced eye. Adam Tambellini for example. Had the height, could never put on the weight even though he tore up the BCHL. That’s why he stalled out in the AHL. He needs to closer to 215 than 195(and he doesn’t even weigh that) to unlock his potential.

              3. I have over 25 years+++ of following prospects closely as well and for you to say they don’t need to be seen is hyperbole of the first order. Yeah sure, an 18 year old forward in a league of 16-19 year olds scoring 10-20 points in 50+ games doesn’t stand any measurable chance, well maybe measurable as in the margin of error (+/- 1%) … obviously there are thousands of cases similar to that every year. Those you can just eliminate.

                However a kid who has great wheels and had a slightly down year (by expectation only) playing in a junior league where he scored 1.25 ppg (he did play 8 games in Liiga and 30 Internationally) and led his team in scoring by 5 points when the next two guys played in 13 more games (in other words he didn’t have anyone to play with) … a kid who averaged a ppg in International play … to suggest that kid doesn’t have any potential to offer is a stretch. Again, the odds are against him — as they are for any kid drafted in the 5th round … but you can’t just dismiss him out of hand because he isn’t 6’1″ 190 pounds. You can’t possibly know where he is in his developmental process unless you do a deep enough dive into who he is as a person and what he was up against — and you better have seen him play (in person) … that’s what scouts do.

                Again he faces great odds of ever developing into more than an ECHL/AHL tweener (and maybe even less than that), that’s where a lot of draft prospects end up, their peak so to speak …

              4. Seeing them live(especially for D) matters for context, but you really don’t need to see forwards.

                I saw Vesalainen early in his draft year when he was on a line with Joel Lundkvist and he ticked all the boxes: size, skating, positioning.

                He just never scored.

                He struck lightning his D+1 year with HPK, but he went back to not scoring.

                If I had never seen him, my 1st instinct would be that he couldn’t cut it. My viewing told me he wasn’t getting touches, that with more chances he’d score more. But he wasn’t getting touches because he couldn’t score when he got them.

              5. You don’t look at prospects like that 2 or 3 times, you have a high percentage of your staff see him over the course of a full year. A guy like Leevi has been seen countless times, especially due to his 30 International games playing against better competition. I’m sure the Rangers had 5-10 sets of eyes on him at U18, etc.

  6. The Rangers seem to do pretty well. Pronman said that getting 3 NHL players out of a draft is an excellent draft, and Pronman said that that is very possible with this Ranger draft.

    I would have liked for the Rangers to trade up for Kaliyev. The usual BS about attitude, etc. caused him to fall. But the kid scored 51 goals in juniors. FIFTY ONE. He definitely wold have been worth the risk to take. Very high upside potential.

    The bottom line is, that after Kakko, who may be slotted into the first line right off the bat, the rest is a crapshoot, and no one really knows how the play of these young men will translate to the NHL.

    We will find out.

    The Avs did extremely well. Byram and Newhook, wow.

    1. Every grade I’ve seen runs from an A- to an A overall, so their draft was well-received — and not just because of Kakko. Now we let time judge the fruits of their labor.

    1. Normally I would never want to give up 4 firsts, but Marner is so young that it may be worth if to offer sheet him, by some team.

      But buyer beware, he’s a great player, but how much of that is based on his Toronto linemates? I would think at least some of it.

      1. Yes very true…We have collected so many 1’s last 3 drafts and are loaded with prospects I def think about it

        1. Outside people have said that the Rangers have one of the best prospect pools in the league right now.

          When would you think that you would ever hear that?

      2. Maybe … but 1st round picks are the lifeblood of any organization. You basically put all your eggs (4 of them) in 1 basket and that leaves you with a very small margin for error. At this point in the team’s development I would be focused on a Center more than a wing — because it all comes down to what type of player will Chytil (maybe Howden) become and when, or whether there’s a winger in this group that can transition to center. I feel pretty good about everything else.

        1. Absolutely Tanto…The ONLY reason I am for this is because of the stock piling we have done.

          1. We’re stockpiling because the cupboard was totally bare …. and good teams continually stock it. Listen I think Marner is a great player but basically he had two very good seasons and one great season. He’s done it early but he’s had a lot of help. Is he a generational talent, that’s my question. If this is Connor McDavid at age 22 I’m all over that — but he isn’t. McDavid on a bad team has THREE 100 point seasons and scored 48 points in 45 games his rookie season (at 18 years old) — Marner had 61 points in 77 games as a rookie (at 19 years old), then 69 in 82 and now 94 in 82. So yeah, McDavid (a center) is a full cut above Marner (a winger) as a player and easily worth the FOUR 1st rounders. Look at their career totals, they’re not even in the same ballpark, zip code, state.

              1. Yep, so I’m a pass (although I admit I thought about it) … besides, if I wanted to piss off all the other League GMs it better be for a McDavid. 😉

  7. The left side of our D now has a RFK Stadium Washington Redskins season ticket type waiting list for a job lol

Back to top button