2020 Draft & Undrafted Free Agent Thread: Part II

[TheWhiskeyThief]

In a bit of bad news, the Portland Winterhawks field for bankruptcy. Sad to see such an iconic team go.

Owner went BK, team is fine beyond the whole COVID thing.

 

[Leetch3]

Who do you think, from your insight, is on their short list?

They definitely have been aggressive in the previous classes. Zegras is one I forgot about, TBH, but I remember when those reports were coming out. No doubt that they'll focus in on "their guy".

they have been aggressive trying to move up to get their guy for several years now (going back to Keller in 2016), unfortunately unsuccessfully each time....but the 2 things that I've liked most about this approach is that 1) they have not tried to move up just for the sake of moving up. they have a guy they are targeting and if they can't move into a spot to get that guy they don't bother. and 2) each of those guys has turned out to be a good player and they were right to identify him....obviously sucks that we haven't landed them, but its a positive that our staff is identifying the right guy.

 

[Trxjw]

Which would definitely make some of us scratch their heads. I for one think that Lundell will slide and be in that range. I'm not sure if I would trade up two spots for him, though. I absolutely would for Rossi, Holtz or any of Lafreniere, Byfield, Stutzle, Drysdale.

Yeah I think we all have our guys who we'd move up for. I'm so-so on Lundell. I never get to see a lot of tape on European players, but he seems like the kind of player the Rangers would like. Personally I'm not in love with the idea of giving up two 1sts to get him. That being said, I don't place nearly as much value on being closer to pro-ready as I expect the Rangers do. So that might play a big factor in their valuation.

 

[dshea19]

Yeah I think we all have our guys who we'd move up for. I'm so-so on Lundell. I never get to see a lot of tape on European players, but he seems like the kind of player the Rangers would like. Personally I'm not in love with the idea of giving up two 1sts to get him. That being said, I don't place nearly as much value on being closer to pro-ready as I expect the Rangers do. So that might play a big factor in their valuation.

Agreed, but with signing Panarin and extending Kreider, they have established their window and seem to be focused on doing things in support of that window, so I get the thinking. Within the next 5 years or so we will see if they were right.

 

[mas0764]

Bruh, you are missing my point. The initial argument was that you'd move Buch, two firsts and a defensive prospect like Miller or Lundkvist for Eichel or Barkov. Not only does it not work cap-wise, but it puts a dent in the wing depth (with Buch) and depletes the defensive prospect pool DRASTICALLY!!

And I said I'm using Eichel or Barkov as an example. Obviously I'm saying the Rangers should be looking for something that DOES work, cap-wise.

That being said, I don't know if I agree that Barkov at $5.9m doesn't work cap-wise. If it means you have to let Strome and his projected $5m+ cap hit walk in free agency... so be it. I'd kinda much rather have Barkov. He also has two years left on his contract so it gets us through the Lundqvist-Staal-Smith contract completion.

I'm also completely lost on how this "drastically" depletes the defensive prospect pool.

We have, at the moment, long term defensive pieces either on the team or in the system as follows:

Trouba
Fox
DeAngelo
Lindgren
Lundkvist
Miller
Robertson
Jones
Rykov
Hajek
Reunanen
Skinner
Gross
Sjalin
Ragnarsson

Plus any defensemen we draft with picks this year.

The "NHL-likelies" on that list extend at least down to about Hajek or Reunanen. That's 10 or 11 likely NHL caliber defensemen. We cannot possibly keep them all (and we started by parlaying some of this depth by trading Keane for Gauthier already). And we basically already have an above-average or better future top-4 in place on the roster.

I would propose trading one or two of them in a deal. That's not "drastically depleting" anything. Even if you dealt Lundkvist AND Miller, you have four under-25 NHL defensemen on your roster already in Trouba, DeAngelo, Fox, and Lindgren, with Robertson, Jones, Rykov and Hajek likely more than enough options to fill out the last 2 spots. And that's if you even want all home-grown D. You could easily sign a lower end veteran or two.

We have plenty of D options. Trading even 2 of these prospects in a 3-for-1 or 4-for-1 deal should NOT be off the table to upgrade the roster at the C position.

After those two, the Rangers have Jones and Robertson who "could" become top-4 defenders. It's not a given. With K'Andre and Nils, at least they've shown better improvements towards being No. 1's let alone top-4. Does that make them disposable? Why just give up on their potential for a player (with enormous cap hit) to play No. 2 center? None of what you're saying now is helping that absurd trade proposal.

It's not "giving up" on their potential. It's trading value for value.

The Rangers have an organizational strength, and it's D prospects. Even losing 1-2 of them, we are still loaded.

On the other hand, we have very little at forward in terms of prospects, in particular center, especially if Lias is out of the picture.

We have Mika Zibanejad - but after that, center depth - which IMO is the most important part of a consistent cup contender - is down to maybe Chytil and then restoration projects like Strome, who is pretty clearly dependent on Panarin for his top-line production (certainly last year shows he may be a USEFUL player without Panarin, but not an elite one).

Even at wing, we have Panarin, Kakko, and Kravtsov on hand as long-term top-6 options. Oh, and Kreider is locked up now too.

Center is the spot that above anything else could use a young impact player on par with Panarin, Zibanejad, Kakko, or Kravtsov's caliber/potential.

Secondly, Strome and Buch are not disposable assets, either.

They kind of are.

Again, we have pretty much locked in right now Panarin and Kreider on the left for our top-6. Kakko figures to lock in on the right. Zibanejad at one top-6 center spot.

This basically leaves two spots in the top-6 long term that are yet to be filled - a center spot and a wing spot. Right now, Strome and Buch are filling them, but my whole plan is to acquire another player who is certain or relatively certain to fill that center spot in this hypothetical trade. So if Strome has to move - fine - the center I've acquired is filling that spot. If instead we acquire a prospect who can't quite fill it this year, it will be a high-end prospect that I don't mind waiting on a year.

In the absence of making this trade, it's still decently likely that Chytil and Kravtsov take those two spots from Strome and Buch anyway. So Strome and Buch likely end up disposable anyway, long term, unless they take reduced salaries to remain in third line roles.

Who, right now, can replace them? Nobody. Kravtsov could on wing, but he's not even close yet. There is no point to move them now, when they can't get someone to replace them. They won't just sell them off. They're important to the team.

But I'm not saying sell them off for spare parts, I'm saying if I can parlay them (either in the actual trade itself, or by trading prospects and then cutting loose Strome/Buch's cap hits) into a for sure sub-25 top-6 center, that's an upgrade worth trading for. And as already demonstrated, trading two defensive prospects does not deplete the pool significantly.

Thirdly, management has been aggressive. They reportedly sent multiple proposals to move up and get Elias Pettersson and the year before that for Clayton Keller. They're doing their homework and unfortunately haven't landed one.

Ok, and so that's exactly what I'm saying they should continue to try to do. The Rangers sat at 7 and 21 in 2017. Pettersson went 5th, but apparently the Rangers tried to trade up to get him.

Obviously we can't "mind control" a team ahead of us to force them to trade, but here's where I'm saying, get aggressive. If the Rangers could have dealt 7 and 21 for Petterson, they should have. If they had a defensive prospect they could have added, they should have. This year, if the Rangers can deal 13, 23, and maybe Miller or Lundkvist, plus throw in Buch, they should if it lands them a top player. Let's say, in theory, Stutzle slides out of the top 3, and they can convince someone in that 4-6 range to take that deal, so the Rangers can get up and get him.

How depleted are we?

Panarin, Kreider, Zibanejad, Strome, and likely Kakko still slot into that top 6. Buch is missing (traded), but Chytil or Stutzle slide in to replace him - and keeping in mind that our coach has no qualms playing a player like Fast or Lemieux in the top-6 as well.

The bottom 6, then, still consists of Chytil/Stutzle, Fast, Lemieux, Gauthier and Howden. Kravtsov is still soon on the way.

The defense still has DeAngelo, Trouba, Fox, and Lindgren. It still has EITHER Lundkvist or Miller on the way. It still has Robertson, Rykov, Hajek, and Jones on the way.

We are still loaded! And now we have a long term, high end center in Stutzle.

The final piece to the puzzle - a number 1 caliber center to run with, or eventually replace, Zibanejad. Insulated long term from ever having a gaping hole at center that would prevent us from competing for cups for a decade or more.

And all it cost us was Buch (who eventually has no room on this roster anyway), one extra first (since we had to exercise one pick to select Stutzle, that's not a cost, that was a receipt in trade), and Miller/Lundkvist, one of whom basically has no room on this roster anyway).

How can you say no, frankly?

 

[mas0764]

For the Rangers it might all come down to where they have him ranked. I don’t think it’s out of the realm of possibility that they have Lundell in their top 5 or 6 and view him as a guy who has a shot to be center a first line someday.

If Lundell is viewed in that light, as opposed to a nice second line center, that potentially changes the conversation.

But as the Rangers showed last year, there’s at least somewhat of an appetite to be aggressive with the guys they want and to use picks as currency rather than savings bonds.

If the Rangers view Lundell as this year’s Zegras, they might value that more than taking a flyer on a guy in the 20s.

But I do think the list for them is pretty short.

Yeah, exactly. Get the Zegras type, now. This is your last shot with high draft picks of your own, frankly. Strike now. Overpay if you have to.

13 and 23 is a no brainer to move up for Lundell, if they have him that high, or Rossi, even.

But I expect it would take more than that to get up in range for those guys. More likely they have to move into the top 7 or 8 to get one.

Should you toss in Buch? Georgiev? A defensive prospect like Miller, Lundkvist, or Robertson? Two of those names?

I kinda say yes. You don't start with that offer but landing a player like Stutzle, Rossi or Lundell, if they think he's that good, is vital to the Rangers, NOW. They need that long term center option that Andersson was supposed to be. That center who can be a #2 replacing Strome relatively soon, and long term, might be an adequate or even elite #1 center like Zibanejad.

 

[mas0764]

The team/system is clogged with bottom 6 centers(Lias, Barron, Howden, Fogarty & Richards)if relatively barren elsewhere up front. Not exactly swinging for the fences on Lundell. Defensively aware, just hasn’t flashed any elite skill when I’ve seen him and has never put up the kind of numbers to suggest he’s got that potential. He’s not a bum, just doesn’t have the ceiling compared to what’s available in the mid-teens. Then you start getting into the league quality and that opens up a whole can of worms. Finland produces a lot of hockey talent, it’s just that none of them play in Finland.

I think, in fairness, Lundell isn't on the same tier with a Rossi who projects to be a truly high scoring center, but he could easily be Stepan+. Defensively responsible and 60+ points.

I think that's worth trading up for. That kind of player can be a #1 center with the type of wing depth the Rangers will end up sporting (Panarin, Kakko, Kravtsov, Chytil, Kreider).

 

[mas0764]

they have been aggressive trying to move up to get their guy for several years now (going back to Keller in 2016), unfortunately unsuccessfully each time....but the 2 things that I've liked most about this approach is that 1) they have not tried to move up just for the sake of moving up. they have a guy they are targeting and if they can't move into a spot to get that guy they don't bother. and 2) each of those guys has turned out to be a good player and they were right to identify him....obviously sucks that we haven't landed them, but its a positive that our staff is identifying the right guy.

I wish we knew what the offers were, because I'm inclined to say, they should add to it this time.

This is like their last chance to land an elite talent in the draft.

Next year they are most likely making the playoffs.

 

[mas0764]

Georgiev, Buch, 13 and 23 to Ottawa for #3 overall.

Dare them to say no.

They still pick #2 overall, got a goalie of the future, and a couple extra assets to restock their depleted team.

 

[Oscar Lindberg]

13 and 23 is a no brainer to move up for Lundell, if they have him that high, or Rossi, even.

But I expect it would take more than that to get up in range for those guys. More likely they have to move into the top 7 or 8 to get one.

Should you toss in Buch? Georgiev? A defensive prospect like Miller, Lundkvist, or Robertson? Two of those names?

Nah man that's significantly too much for Lundell haha

 

[mas0764]

Nah man that's significantly too much for Lundell haha

Lundell wouldn't be my top choice to do that for.

Rossi, Holtz, Stutzle.... yes.

Don't love Perfetti.

 

[bigdog16]

Yeah, exactly. Get the Zegras type, now. This is your last shot with high draft picks of your own, frankly. Strike now. Overpay if you have to.

13 and 23 is a no brainer to move up for Lundell, if they have him that high, or Rossi, even.

But I expect it would take more than that to get up in range for those guys. More likely they have to move into the top 7 or 8 to get one.

Should you toss in Buch? Georgiev? A defensive prospect like Miller, Lundkvist, or Robertson? Two of those names?

I kinda say yes. You don't start with that offer but landing a player like Stutzle, Rossi or Lundell, if they think he's that good, is vital to the Rangers, NOW. They need that long term center option that Andersson was supposed to be. That center who can be a #2 replacing Strome relatively soon, and long term, might be an adequate or even elite #1 center like Zibanejad.

Ew no. Lundell is severely overrated. Theres always that one player who plays a mature 2 way game but lacks the offensive flair and they get compared to Patrice Bergeron every year. I would definitely not move up to take Lundell, and I wouldn't be surprised if he is available at 13

 

[LaffyTaffy]

If there is even the slightest chance that we can move up using our firsts to get Holtz I would be ecstatic, please let it happen. Or better yet give me that 24 team playoff that hands us a top7 pick so we could get Holtz or Rossi without any trades. Allows us to take a swing at 23 on a guy like Foerster.

 

[Trxjw]

Agreed, but with signing Panarin and extending Kreider, they have established their window and seem to be focused on doing things in support of that window, so I get the thinking. Within the next 5 years or so we will see if they were right.

Yeah I can certainly understand the thinking behind it, I just don't necessarily agree with it. Of course my job isn't on the line in these decisions, so it's easy for me to sit on a prospect for 3 or 4 years post-draft via the comfort of my couch. The same can't be said for Gorton & Co.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

Ew no. Lundell is severely overrated. Theres always that one player who plays a mature 2 way game but lacks the offensive flair and they get compared to Patrice Bergeron every year. I would definitely not move up to take Lundell, and I wouldn't be surprised if he is available at 13

What are you basing this on?

 

[UnSandvich]

The absolute best case scenario for us long-term is that there's a 24 team playoff meaning we pick at 7, and one of Rossi or Stutzle falls to us imo

 

[Leetch3]

I wish we knew what the offers were, because I'm inclined to say, they should add to it this time.

This is like their last chance to land an elite talent in the draft.

Next year they are most likely making the playoffs.

I think it was more about the other teams knew how good the player was and had no interest in moving down...the idea that if a deal doesn't happen its cause JG didn't try hard enough isn't always true. sometimes the other team doesn't want to make the deal.

the other day someone posted a video of the canucks at the 2017 draft and they specifically said they wouldn't move down below the rangers cause they knew who we wanted to take...which left us needing to try to jump ahead of them.

 

[Oscar Lindberg]

I could see Lundell going at 9 to the Blackhawks. Especially if they’re serious about moving Strome, and Lundell is as NHL ready as some say

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

I could see Lundell going at 9 to the Blackhawks. Especially if they’re serious about moving Strome, and Lundell is as NHL ready as some say

I really don't see Lundell falling outside the top-10 as some say. He's been rankde top-5 for a while and only dropped recently due to his injury in December. He's one of the best draft-eligible players in Liiga together with Kakko, Granlund and Barkov the last 10 years. If the Rangers are serious about him, and trade up to get him, they add a mature player who can add some much needed skill to our center depth. Just because he doesn't score 30 goals, doesn't mean he is not skilled

 

[mas0764]

The absolute best case scenario for us long-term is that there's a 24 team playoff meaning we pick at 7, and one of Rossi or Stutzle falls to us imo

Can you explain the logistics of that to me? Why would a 24 team playoff mean we pick at 7? I haven't been keeping up enough clearly.

 

[bigdog16]

What are you basing this on?

Basing what on? Its my opinion, same way you base all of your statements. Your turning into a real Adam Herman on here. He's ranked anywhere from 6-13 on the major scouting outlet lists. I see him as one of those players that falls come draft time. Its really not out of the realm at all to think he is available at 13

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

Basing what on? Its my opinion, same way you base all of your statements. Your turning into a real Adam Herman on here. He's ranked anywhere from 6-13 on the major scouting outlet lists. I see him as one of those players that falls come draft time. Its really not out of the realm at all to think he is available at 13

You're better at deflecting than Chris Kreider. I just asked you a question.

 

[bigdog16]

You're better at deflecting than Chris Kreider. I just asked you a question.

You are asking me what I based it on, I said its my opinion. I supported my opinion by telling you that the professionals would agree that its not an astronomical prediction. I just don't think he is great at any one thing, which is why I would stay away from him. The Rangers tried that with your ex BFF and missed completely

 

[UnSandvich]

Can you explain the logistics of that to me? Why would a 24 team playoff mean we pick at 7? I haven't been keeping up enough clearly.

24 team playoff per most reports would have 6 teams from each division making it. We're 7th (barely) in the division, so we'd miss that cutoff. Assuming any degree of fairness by the NHL, the teams missing the playoffs would pick before those making it. As we'd have the best record of any team missing the playoffs, we'd pick last of those 7 teams.

Of course, knowing the NHL, they'll go out of their way to f*** the Rangers, leaving us picking at 13 or something while multiple teams pick higher than us while making the playoffs

 

[mas0764]

24 team playoff per most reports would have 6 teams from each division making it. We're 7th (barely) in the division, so we'd miss that cutoff. Assuming any degree of fairness by the NHL, the teams missing the playoffs would pick before those making it. As we'd have the best record of any team missing the playoffs, we'd pick last of those 7 teams.

Of course, knowing the NHL, they'll go out of their way to f*** the Rangers, leaving us picking at 13 or something while multiple teams pick higher than us while making the playoffs

That would kind of be ideal in my book.