2020 Draft & Undrafted Free Agent Thread: Part II
- Thread starter Fugazy
- Start date
-
Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
- Status
Lion Hound
Pornhub Enthusiast
Steve Yzerman personally taking a look at Stutzle.
https://detroitsportsnation.com/rep...ell/detroit-red-wings-news/02/04/2020/218717/
https://detroitsportsnation.com/rep...ell/detroit-red-wings-news/02/04/2020/218717/
Mac n Gs
Drury plz
- Jan 17, 2014
- 22,835
- 13,558
Makes sense given they shocked a lot of people by taking Seider at 6OA. It's been paying dividends for them in Grand Rapids, so I'd imagine Yzerman would be comfortable dipping back into the DEL to nab another top prospect.
I would probably do the same and then root like crazy for Mysak to drop a few more spots in the 2nd.
Interesting that Lundell and Holloway seem to be lumped together. Would be happy with either. Schneider that late would interest me a lot if the Rangers were to get another late round pick.
Edge
Kris King's Ghost
They are both guys that probably are viewed by many observers as being support players. Different kinds of support players from one another, but support players nonetheless.
In Lundell's case, he could be a steady, limited frills workhorse on a third line (eventually a second line) who un-spectacularly nets you 20 goals and 50-60 points a season, maybe higher if you have some dynamic wingers paired with him (which the Rangers could potentially provide).
In Holloway's case, he's a bit of a Swiss army knife who could take on a number of different roles, at a number of different positions. There are some questions about the offensive upside, and exactly what the finished product looks like. But I do think he's a guy you look and say, "If the pieces come together, and I slide him into the right role, he could be exactly the type of player that winning teams have."
Gunler is the big swing, who probably has as much natural skill as anyone at the top of the draft, but raises some questions about how he applies it. If he can translate his skills, and learn how to deploy it against men, he could be a hell of a dangerous player. If he doesn't, and he resists efforts to help adjust his technique, he's going to be a guy who really struggles against advanced competition.
And that is where I come down. Ultimately, given how this draft is shaping up, at that point in the draft (outside the top 10), I would rather take those two than someone who can be a head case.
Amazing Kreiderman
Registered User
- Apr 11, 2011
- 45,070
- 40,920
Lion Hound
Pornhub Enthusiast
”Limited” ”2C ceiling” ”safe” ”low upside” ”not dynamic” ”average skater”
These are phrases that does NOT apply to Anton Lundell, this false narrative has to die.
These are phrases that does NOT apply to Anton Lundell, this false narrative has to die.
Edge
Kris King's Ghost
I have to respectively disagree on the upside portion, but I also say that with the caveat that I do not believe having 2C ceiling is an insult.
Updated my Lundell with comparables thread.
He’s now looking like solidly the best forward drafted out of Liiga at Even Strength since 14/15, Kakko the closest...
He’s now looking like solidly the best forward drafted out of Liiga at Even Strength since 14/15, Kakko the closest...
If you see a 2C ceiling in a guy legitimately destroying Liiga at 18 then i’m just not sure what you’re looking at.
Edge
Kris King's Ghost
I think he's a very smart player and that allows him play a game that lends itself well to playing against men. In that sense, he's probably the opposite of Gunler.
But when I look at the skills possessed by a lot of first line centers in the NHL, or even some of his peers in this draft that are seen as having first line upside, he doesn't really come out on top of the rankings.
Across the board Lundell ranks as very good, and that makes him more than the sum of his individual parts, but I'm not sure there are a ton of skill categories in this draft class where he ranks top 5, let alone when he is compared to the broader pool of players that includes other draft classes, other prospects, and NHL players.
So while what he's done this season is very impressive, I'm not really comparing him to his peers in Finland. I'm looking at how he matches up against established top six players in the NHL and how they looked at similar ages. And when I view it through that prism, he looks very good. But he doesn't necessarily jump to the upper tiers of those lists either.
Last edited:
Lion Hound
Pornhub Enthusiast
Happens all too often. I love going back into past guides and reading them. Its like getting misdiagnosed from a Doctor.
Also, that's not a knock on Edge. That guy knows his shit. Im talkin about professional scouting services in general.
Marc Staal "Physical, punishing defender"
Nick Suzuki "Too slow, too small to become a difference maker in the NHL"
Last edited:
Edge
Kris King's Ghost
One of the challenges is that everyone wants to believe their first round pick has a chance to be a star or an impact player. That's understandable, especially when you're picking in the top half of the draft.
Unfortunately, that means it's almost taken as an insult if you think a kid projects as more of a support player or "only" a second line player. Neither of those things are insults.
If I were to post in the roster building thread that we have a chance to trade for a 20 goal, 55 point player, who is only 24 years old, most people are intrigued.
If I were to post in the draft thread that a player we might draft looks like a 20 goal, 55 point player, people aren't quite as excited. There's a lot more push-back there.
There are many levels between elite and awful, and most players fall somewhere in-between. Except for right before the draft, then everyone's a potential star.
Unfortunately, that means it's almost taken as an insult if you think a kid projects as more of a support player or "only" a second line player. Neither of those things are insults.
If I were to post in the roster building thread that we have a chance to trade for a 20 goal, 55 point player, who is only 24 years old, most people are intrigued.
If I were to post in the draft thread that a player we might draft looks like a 20 goal, 55 point player, people aren't quite as excited. There's a lot more push-back there.
There are many levels between elite and awful, and most players fall somewhere in-between. Except for right before the draft, then everyone's a potential star.
Last edited:
Joey Bones
***** 2k16
@Edge @ManUtdTobbe
If I could squeeze in for a second....
I think it's incredibly obvious that Lundell is having a tremendous season and the numbers Tobbe put up match what one watches. But I, too, need to look for the future potential. Could he make it consistently in the NHL? How will he match up with an opposing top 6? Will he be a driver or a supporter in say two or three years? Will he be able to ultimately reach his potential down the line?
I think those questions can be asked for whoever the prospect may be. In all reality, most prospects won't become players in the NHL and even then some won't come close to matching their potential on draft day. Lundell has every chance to be one (and it's looking likely), but just because someone is killing it one season, doesn't mean that they will kill it the next. It's all about development and trajectory. For Lundell, based off his two seasons in Liiga, absolutely is deserving of a top 10 talent and has that potential to be a solid 1C. It's up to him if he can reach that goal.
All-in-all, I guess what I'm saying is that I agree with both of you and think both your opinions are right.
If I could squeeze in for a second....
I think it's incredibly obvious that Lundell is having a tremendous season and the numbers Tobbe put up match what one watches. But I, too, need to look for the future potential. Could he make it consistently in the NHL? How will he match up with an opposing top 6? Will he be a driver or a supporter in say two or three years? Will he be able to ultimately reach his potential down the line?
I think those questions can be asked for whoever the prospect may be. In all reality, most prospects won't become players in the NHL and even then some won't come close to matching their potential on draft day. Lundell has every chance to be one (and it's looking likely), but just because someone is killing it one season, doesn't mean that they will kill it the next. It's all about development and trajectory. For Lundell, based off his two seasons in Liiga, absolutely is deserving of a top 10 talent and has that potential to be a solid 1C. It's up to him if he can reach that goal.
All-in-all, I guess what I'm saying is that I agree with both of you and think both your opinions are right.
Edge
Kris King's Ghost
And to be clear, I have Lundell ranked 10th on my list. He’s also the 8th ranked forward. So it’s not like I have him ranked way down the list.
But when I look at the 7 forwards ahead of him, those guys have some pretty impressive tools. I could argue they don’t necessarily all have them as neatly organized as Lundell, but you can’t help but notice them.
Forget about the list of buzz words we use for a minute - ceilings, floors, potential, safe, dynamic, etc. etc.
When I see the 7 forwards I have ahead of Lundell, I see at least one or two things they do at a level that current first line players did when they were 17 or 18. The way they control the puck, or turn on a dime, or how they shoot, or skate, or back teams up. In probably every category but hockey sense, there are at least 5 of them that I rate ahead of Lundell right now. And I also take into consideration how they rate compared to other players I’ve seen at the same age. For example, it’s not just how Lundell compares to Raymond, it’s how he compares to Turcotte, or Pettersson, or someone else. And that can be a real pain the ass for a number of reasons, including but not limited to league, age, role, teammates, and a bunch of other things.
Lundell performs well in those comparisons, but he’s not necessarily eclipsing them either. For me there’s a noticeable cut off, and Lundell seems to consistently come in just after that.
So, could he be a first line player? Sure.
Is he the guy I’d put my money on? Eh, probably not.
Would I take him at 8-10 with other forwards off the board? Yes, easily.
Would I take him over the 7 forwards I have ahead of him? At this point, probably not. I’d have a hard time passing on some of those tools, even if Lundell’s tools are better organized.
But when I look at the 7 forwards ahead of him, those guys have some pretty impressive tools. I could argue they don’t necessarily all have them as neatly organized as Lundell, but you can’t help but notice them.
Forget about the list of buzz words we use for a minute - ceilings, floors, potential, safe, dynamic, etc. etc.
When I see the 7 forwards I have ahead of Lundell, I see at least one or two things they do at a level that current first line players did when they were 17 or 18. The way they control the puck, or turn on a dime, or how they shoot, or skate, or back teams up. In probably every category but hockey sense, there are at least 5 of them that I rate ahead of Lundell right now. And I also take into consideration how they rate compared to other players I’ve seen at the same age. For example, it’s not just how Lundell compares to Raymond, it’s how he compares to Turcotte, or Pettersson, or someone else. And that can be a real pain the ass for a number of reasons, including but not limited to league, age, role, teammates, and a bunch of other things.
Lundell performs well in those comparisons, but he’s not necessarily eclipsing them either. For me there’s a noticeable cut off, and Lundell seems to consistently come in just after that.
So, could he be a first line player? Sure.
Is he the guy I’d put my money on? Eh, probably not.
Would I take him at 8-10 with other forwards off the board? Yes, easily.
Would I take him over the 7 forwards I have ahead of him? At this point, probably not. I’d have a hard time passing on some of those tools, even if Lundell’s tools are better organized.
Last edited:
BKGooner
Registered User
- Jun 23, 2017
- 785
- 547
Who has to be off the board already to make Drysdale the Rangers pick? I’m not interested in a d that high but in the 8_10 range I think you either take him or move the pick. I also think something strange has happened if he is still there at 8_10 like Ottawa getting Lafreniere and Askarov or something.
Too many good forwards in this draft to ever make Drysdale a NYR pick imo
Don't see it. If they are choosing and have a shot at one of the Swiss boys or a Drysdale, they take the forward. I would hope.
That said, if they get a late first and a Schnieder is hanging around, I have no problem taking him.
Brooklyn Rangers Fan
Change is good.
I think you mean Swedish, yes?
As for Drysdale, if they finish out of the top 7 forwards, he is somehow still on the board, and no one is willing to offer a compelling package for the pick, you've got to take him. Can't pass on a potential first=pairing D in favor of a potential 2nd line forward simply because forward is the greater need. (Hopefully it doesn't come to that, however.)
Ahh, yes. Thanks for the correction.
That is going to be an interesting pick. Logic says to always go BPA, which means Drysdale ahead of a Lundell or Holloway. Doesn't it? Or do you take Lundell there?
Does that mean ahead of a Perfetti? Tough choice. I feel like the need is another top forward. But you are right, if they fall out of the top 7 or so (which I do not think they will) it comes again to BPA vs. org need.
But I actually think that the choice will be made for them as Drysdale goes top-7.
BKGooner
Registered User
- Jun 23, 2017
- 785
- 547
This is kind of the scenario I am thinking.Top 3 go as expected, next couple of teams jump on the remaining forwards before the 2nd drop off in forward talent and someone takes Askarov in the top 9. Drysdale is sitting there. Not a need for the Rangers at all, but clearly BPA.Somoeone would have to offer up a nice package for teh privilege to pick him if i am GM and if it doesn't happen you have to make the pick and then go forward hunting later with all of our d prospects.
- Jul 16, 2005
- 14,857
- 13,013
I think of Lundell as a first liner like I think of Kreider as a first liner.
Capable, but not a team-carrier or line-carrier.
Edge
Kris King's Ghost
Let's for a moment say that the Rangers pick 8th and 7 forwards come off the board first.
Gorton is on the clock and both Drysdale and Lundell are on the board. I have to tell you, that would be interesting to watch.
Drysdale would be very hard to pass up in that spot, even though our RHD depth would be stupid good at that point. Having said that, it would trigger a follow-up, post-draft move and that's where things can get exciting.
But I think Drysdale comes off prior and it's a non-issue. Just fun to speculate about.
Gorton is on the clock and both Drysdale and Lundell are on the board. I have to tell you, that would be interesting to watch.
Drysdale would be very hard to pass up in that spot, even though our RHD depth would be stupid good at that point. Having said that, it would trigger a follow-up, post-draft move and that's where things can get exciting.
But I think Drysdale comes off prior and it's a non-issue. Just fun to speculate about.
- Status
