2020 Draft & Undrafted Free Agent Thread: Part II

[bobbop]

No ticket sales, MSG network owns 1st round, I mean the division 1/2 round(and prior rounds) broadcasts so the big consideration is how much MSG network paying the Rangers as an arm’s length transaction.

This raises an interesting point. Typically, the NHL owns the broadcast product for all playoff games but if there is a “1/2 round” those right may be assigned to local broadcasters. That would help fulfill a lot of local broadcast contracts and generate a lot of revenue given the major markets involved. Probably part of the negotiation.

 

[TheWhiskeyThief]

It’s not about preparation for the scouts, it’s about an insistence on closely tying the draft order to the playoff finish.

Because when you look at power laws, that concept is largely worthless after 10, even less from 16-24, even less after that.

Meanwhile, I propose a solution for that.

One week of a prospect is not going to destroy his path and the things the need(workout & nutrition plans) are rather consistent.

 

[eco's bones]

I know we were playing really well down the stretch but we had a really tough schedule the last 10 games or so. Don't know every opponent off the top of my head but no doubt it was one of the tougher schedules compared to some of the other teams surrounding us in the standings. Realistically we probably just miss out and pick between 12-15.
Having said that if we qualify for the playoffs in the 24 team format what would be worst case scenario? we get booted early and pick around 13 anyway? or even win a "round" and still pick around the 13th spot?

most beneficial would obviously to get the 7th draft pick overall but be given the 13th overall and no playoffs would be the worst outcome.

It wasn't going to be easy. I know we had three games with the Penguins left. That said the Rangers had a really good record against their own division. The NHL in any case as far as draft order in recent years has always given first crack at the draft to the teams that did not make the playoffs. When they proposed doing the draft first and then the playoffs that's when all the wondering over this popped up. It looks to me the GM's kind of squashed all of that.

 

[SA16]

Because when you look at power laws, that concept is largely worthless after 10, even less from 16-24, even less after that.

Meanwhile, I propose a solution for that.

One week of a prospect is not going to destroy his path and the things the need(workout & nutrition plans) are rather consistent.

Not how the GMs consider it. Take a look at the post of all draft trades to move up in the first round that @Amazing Kreiderman posted several times. Even if the value curve in actuality is relatively flat between 16 and 24 teams perceive it as a huge difference and it costs a lot to move up. Therefore the true value of pick 16 is much greater than 24 because of what you can acquire if you trade down.

 

[TheWhiskeyThief]

Not how the GMs consider it. Take a look at the post of all draft trades to move up in the first round that @Amazing Kreiderman posted several times. Even if the value curve in actuality is relatively flat between 16 and 24 teams perceive it as a huge difference and it costs a lot to move up. Therefore the true value of pick 16 is much greater than 24 because of what you can acquire if you trade down.

And that’s why most GMs are idiots.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

And that’s why most GMs are idiots.

GMs are slowly catching on actually. The emphasis on draft picks and prospects, and how they value them, changed the way we see deadline deals happening. General managers are figuring out that building through the draft is the way to go, even for 4th line players. It took them 15 years but they finally get it. I would say general managers are smarter now than they were 5-10 years ago although the "old boys club" is still a thing in some organisations

 

[SA16]

And that’s why most GMs are idiots.

I don't disagree but it doesn't change the fact that pick 16 is significantly more valuable than pick 24 because GMs perceive it that way.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

I don't disagree but it doesn't change the fact that pick 16 is significantly more valuable than pick 24 because GMs perceive it that way.

It is, because every team has their own list. The so-called "TSN rankings" aren't the consensus despite what a lot of people think. Top-3? Sure. Top-5? Doubtful. 5-10 range? No consensus at all. A team thinking they have to trade up to get their guy (Rangers with Miller in 2018) will generate value for the pick. Rangers wanted to trade up, so the team we negotiated with capitalized on it and got their value. A few minutes later, Toronto wanted to trade down, and they didn't get the same value. It depends on whether a team is the buyer or the seller. But value is assigned based on what GMs think they can get.

There's a "value chart" floating around which is straight up BS. Because according to that sheet you can acquire a 1st round pick for a bunch of 7th rounders. GMs don't work that way.

 

[SA16]

It is, because every team has their own list. The so-called "TSN rankings" aren't the consensus despite what a lot of people think. Top-3? Sure. Top-5? Doubtful. 5-10 range? No consensus at all. A team thinking they have to trade up to get their guy (Rangers with Miller in 2018) will generate value for the pick. Rangers wanted to trade up, so the team we negotiated with capitalized on it and got their value. A few minutes later, Toronto wanted to trade down, and they didn't get the same value. It depends on whether a team is the buyer or the seller. But value is assigned based on what GMs think they can get.

There's a "value chart" floating around which is straight up BS. Because according to that sheet you can acquire a 1st round pick for a bunch of 7th rounders. GMs don't work that way.

Well the reason this works is because teams falsely believe their lists are better than other despite their being no reason to think so. If 30 teams think Player X is worth pick 30 and one team think he's worth trading up to pick 15 for the question that team should be asking themselves is why are there so far off the consensus and why should they believe their scouting department has it right and thirty other teams have it wrong? Of course they don't actually know this information at the time but it's the same point. And yea, those picks charts are all bad and based on very faulty math. The proper way to do it is assume your scouting department is not significantly better than anyone else's and just try to accumulate as many assets as you can and see what sticks. The bust rate outside of the top few picks is huge (and I'm considering guys who play "100 games" as people like to use a baseline as busts if they're not any good and I can just sign a veteran FA for league min to play this same 4th line role). This is especially the case in the NHL moreso than any other sport as you can basically have an infinite amount of assets whereas in the NFL/NBA the picks go right to your roster and in the MLB you can't trade picks so it's not comparable.

 

[Joey Bones]

@Amazing Kreiderman and @SA16

You guys are further pointing out that the draft is completely a crap shoot. Anything can happen and players are everywhere one different rankings, lolol.

 

[Joey Bones]

This kid is going to be insane!!

 

[Edge]

The Rangers, for better or worse, will go into this draft confident with their own rankings. If they like a guy enough to trade multiple picks to move up, I have little doubt they will. Likewise, moving picks for NHL-level talent is also on the table.

What I don’t think you’ll see much chatter about is moving NHL talent for picks and prospects at this point. In other words, I don’t see them being hot to move Buch for another first, or trading ADA for guys who are strictly prospects.

 

[TheWhiskeyThief]

The Rangers, for better or worse, will go into this draft confident with their own rankings. If they like a guy enough to trade multiple picks to move up, I have little doubt they will. Likewise, moving picks for NHL-level talent is also on the table.

What I don’t think you’ll see much chatter about is moving NHL talent for picks and prospects at this point. In other words, I don’t see them being hot to move Buch for another first, or trading ADA for guys who are strictly prospects.

Trading a current asset for picks or prospects brings up a thing that has bothered me, but really has bothered me of late: how do teams value picks going out beyond a year or two? Can they?

 

[eco's bones]

The Rangers, for better or worse, will go into this draft confident with their own rankings. If they like a guy enough to trade multiple picks to move up, I have little doubt they will. Likewise, moving picks for NHL-level talent is also on the table.

What I don’t think you’ll see much chatter about is moving NHL talent for picks and prospects at this point. In other words, I don’t see them being hot to move Buch for another first, or trading ADA for guys who are strictly prospects.

It doesn't make a whole lot of sense IMO to trade a young player hitting his stride for a guy you might not see for two or three years and needs more development. It's one of the issues I have with moving Georgiev. Georgiev's draft year would have been 2014--ironically the same year that the Rangers took Igor. Run down the list of players taken in that draft and do a re-draft and IMO Georgiev comes in towards the tail end of the first round--anywhere from 25 on. That said you take a #25 in this draft--wait three years or so and maybe you'll have a player as good and maybe you won't.

But anyway I don't think teams are inclined to show other teams their lists. The Rangers have been secretive about that--what is common knowledge are the lists made by draft sites and analysts and some teams do seem to draft with the TSN or the Hockey News draft lists in mind more than others. The Rangers are not really one of them. They develop their own list.

 

[UnSandvich]

This kid is going to be insane!!

Dudes got thighs like Marty St Louis

 

[mas0764]

The Rangers, for better or worse, will go into this draft confident with their own rankings. If they like a guy enough to trade multiple picks to move up, I have little doubt they will. Likewise, moving picks for NHL-level talent is also on the table.

What I don’t think you’ll see much chatter about is moving NHL talent for picks and prospects at this point. In other words, I don’t see them being hot to move Buch for another first, or trading ADA for guys who are strictly prospects.

I feel like that's short sighted, I don't really think Buch has a long term place on the team, especially if they were to add another top 8-ish talent at forward in this draft, but I'll hope for the best that they can be aggressive with the picks they do have (and maybe prospects as well from the D-side) to move up and get a falling center like Rossi or Lundell.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

This kid is going to be insane!!

I would trip over some brances before I even get to the wire

 

[mas0764]

It doesn't make a whole lot of sense IMO to trade a young player hitting his stride for a guy you might not see for two or three years and needs more development. It's one of the issues I have with moving Georgiev. Georgiev's draft year would have been 2014--ironically the same year that the Rangers took Igor. Run down the list of players taken in that draft and do a re-draft and IMO Georgiev comes in towards the tail end of the first round--anywhere from 25 on. That said you take a #25 in this draft--wait three years or so and maybe you'll have a player as good and maybe you won't.

But anyway I don't think teams are inclined to show other teams their lists. The Rangers have been secretive about that--what is common knowledge are the lists made by draft sites and analysts and some teams do seem to draft with the TSN or the Hockey News draft lists in mind more than others. The Rangers are not really one of them. They develop their own list.

Remember that all draft prospects are not created equally. The time they take to develop and the likelihood that they pan out into a top-6 player or at least an NHL caliber forward, for example, varies by year to year. In some years (like 2017 with Andersson) a 7th overall pick is just after the talent cut off and you are in "a roll of the dice" territory; in other years (like last year), you can get a prospect that people are relatively confident can be a top-6 or even top line center at 9 or 16 in Zegras or Newhook.

This year is probably more like 2019.... if we can crack into the top 10 we have a decent shot at a guy like Lundell who is a pretty good bet, as draft bets go, to be a top 6 center someday, even if he's not a scoring powerhouse. And maybe you get lucky and a Holtz or Rossi falls.

I would certainly deal our own #13th pick and, say, Georgiev, for that. 13 is easy because you would have used it on a lesser player anyway, so the actual "loss" here is Georgiev, and, well, we have Shesterkin, Lundqvist, and a bunch of goalie prospects also in the pipeline. I would even deal both picks, 13 and 23 or whatever. I don't want two more Chris Kreiders, I want one more Vladimir Tarasenko.

 

[mas0764]

I would rather be competitive for a decade, than to throw it away for a shot at a cinderella story. And if this was any other draft, I would gladly pick play offs over a high pick but in this draft, if we can get a top 10 pick by missing a 24-team play off scenario, I do that every day and twice on Sunday.

"lose today" to have a chance at winning tomorrow, the day after tomorrow and beyond

Yeah, I've been arguing this for months.

It's why I felt we should have not been playing Shesterkin, maybe should have considered trading Kreider, etc.

 

[LiveLongandProspal]

Do we even have an idea of what the Draft order will be or even when the Draft will be? I mean talking about taking consensus top-10 picks only have to have us picking the 20's...

 

[Thirty One]

Do we even have an idea of what the Draft order will be or even when the Draft will be? I mean talking about taking consensus top-10 picks only have to have us picking the 20's...

Not really. Assuming the 24 team format that they are working out eventually is adopted, I think it would be pretty safe to say that the teams not in it would be draft lottery slots 1-7. Now I personally believe that the eight teams eliminated in the play-in that don't participate in the 16-team playoffs, will be slots 8-15, and the playoff teams will be 16-31 with the final four 28-31. They could consider all 24 the playoff teams, and just have them slotted in according to their Pts%. No one has really mentioned how that might work.

It really sounds like the draft will be after the season now. So where does that put it? September? October? They don't have to worry about a team winning the lottery and going on to win the Cup anymore, so I think they'll scrap the only move up 4 slots thing. How many teams participate in the lottery? 7 or 15? I'd guess 15, but tough to say.

So in summary, it looks like the Rangers will pick somewhere between 8 and 31. Hope that helps.

 

[eco's bones]

Remember that all draft prospects are not created equally. The time they take to develop and the likelihood that they pan out into a top-6 player or at least an NHL caliber forward, for example, varies by year to year. In some years (like 2017 with Andersson) a 7th overall pick is just after the talent cut off and you are in "a roll of the dice" territory; in other years (like last year), you can get a prospect that people are relatively confident can be a top-6 or even top line center at 9 or 16 in Zegras or Newhook.

This year is probably more like 2019.... if we can crack into the top 10 we have a decent shot at a guy like Lundell who is a pretty good bet, as draft bets go, to be a top 6 center someday, even if he's not a scoring powerhouse. And maybe you get lucky and a Holtz or Rossi falls.

I would certainly deal our own #13th pick and, say, Georgiev, for that. 13 is easy because you would have used it on a lesser player anyway, so the actual "loss" here is Georgiev, and, well, we have Shesterkin, Lundqvist, and a bunch of goalie prospects also in the pipeline. I would even deal both picks, 13 and 23 or whatever. I don't want two more Chris Kreiders, I want one more Vladimir Tarasenko.

As far as Alex I ran down the entire 2014 draft which was a good (not great) draft and IMO he's a 1st rounder if that was done over today. But not all drafts are equal but we've really got a pretty good idea about that one. That said if Georgiev and the 13th got us to 6/7/8 it's certainly worth considering---that might be a draft day thing. I saw an article today from a Sharks beat writer who suggested a 2nd for Alex--it's not enough. I'm not interested in that. Other things I'm not interested in is re-signing Lundqvist again at least not as a player--front office though that would be great. The question of whether either Huska or Wall are future NHL backups--I don't think Huska has been all that impressive as a pro so far and Wall will be a rookie pro.

 

[mas0764]

As far as Alex I ran down the entire 2014 draft which was a good (not great) draft and IMO he's a 1st rounder if that was done over today. But not all drafts are equal but we've really got a pretty good idea about that one. That said if Georgiev and the 13th got us to 6/7/8 it's certainly worth considering---that might be a draft day thing. I saw an article today from a Sharks beat writer who suggested a 2nd for Alex--it's not enough. I'm not interested in that. Other things I'm not interested in is re-signing Lundqvist again at least not as a player--front office though that would be great. The question of whether either Huska or Wall are future NHL backups--I don't think Huska has been all that impressive as a pro so far and Wall will be a rookie pro.

Lundqvist is still under contract though so we don't need Huska or Wall to be ready now. They have at least a year and it's possible more. It's also possible even if Lundqvist isn't brought back, you can get kinda any old journeyman backup goalie to ride the pine behind Shesty.

As for the Sharks, they don't have a first, so they are boned. Can't get Georgiev for just a second.

 

[Thirty One]

Lundqvist is still under contract though so we don't need Huska or Wall to be ready now. They have at least a year and it's possible more. It's also possible even if Lundqvist isn't brought back, you can get kinda any old journeyman backup goalie to ride the pine behind Shesty.

As for the Sharks, they don't have a first, so they are boned. Can't get Georgiev for just a second.

I don't think they would trade their first for Georgiev if they had it.

 

[bl02]

Maybe I am being a pessimist on AG's worth but I think you would have to add the 23rd overall plus the 13th to lets say Buffalo's spot plus I would say most teams in that top 7 wouldn't even have a need for AG. If they did they would just draft Askarov (Chicago/NJ). Honestly at this point if San Jose offered their 2nd rounder which would be a very very high second rounder JG would seriously have to consider that.