Draft 2020 Draft & Undrafted Free Agent Thread: Part V

[Oscar Lindberg]

Let you have it? There's a lot to like here.

Khusnutdinov a lot of us like, Eamon Powell is my favorite mid round target. Zac Jones-esque. He really plays such a grown up style of hockey. Blomqvist is a great goalie to add to our pipeline and Biondi is a nice boom or bust player. Similar to Kovacs, Gropp, Duclair and Buchnevich. A player who dropped but was once projected as a 1st round pick. Lastly, Wilsby is great value in the 7th

Thank you senpai

 

[mas0764]

50 points gets you to top line production. We have showed that multiple times.

Who is we? I'd be interested in seeing this data.

If Holloway developed that way, providing he is around when the Rangers draft, great. And I would be quite happy with Kirk Maltby production from the 3rd line.

45 points? Yeah, that's what I said, I'd be hoping for a 45 point second liner. But if he's a Kirk Maltby third liner I think I'd be underwhelmed.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

Thank you senpai

It was a surprisingly good mock draft. And isn't the tool fun?!

 

[True Blue]

Who is we? I'd be interested in seeing this data.

You really want to go through this again?

2018-2019 Kreider's 52 points placed him 90th of ALL forwards. How many top line forwards are there? For reference, the 55 points that Buch was trending to last year, would have put him at 55th. Also, top line production. Then you can stratify be getting rid of the 50 of so centers and you have an even smaller group of wings. Among left wings, Kreider was 20th . Buch's 55 would have had him at 18.

Let's go to last year, among all forwards (including centers) Kreider was 86th and Buch was 77th. Again, top line production. Take out the centers, and again, their numbers look even better. We can debate where on the top line spectrum it is, but 50 points gets you top line production.

45 points? Yeah, that's what I said, I'd be hoping for a 45 point second liner. But if he's a Kirk Maltby third liner I think I'd be underwhelmed.

Then do not draft Holloway. As he is probably not going to be a 45 point players. And the Kirk Matlbys of the world is what the Rangers need.

 

[Edge]

Agreed, but, I’m more intrigued by the possibility of adding someone like Gunler or Perrault, especially after getting Lafreniere.

And that's where it depends on who is there. Someone like Gunler could be long gone. Or that could be the difference between picking 22nd and picking 24th.

I would probably throw a few caution flags out there though:

1. With re: to Peterson, he's a guy who plays a slightly different style than the other guys we mentioned. But he's also a kid who doesn't quite have a clear direction yet. We don't really know what type of player he's shaping up to be, it's more based off who we hope he might be. He's still trying to figure out his identity.

2. I don't know if as a board we truly have a great handle on roles/results for kids playing in college before we draft them. It's a little bit of a different world from those coming starting college a little older and/or after they've been drafted. And that developmental difference is more prounounced when looking at guys who are still figuring out more of a potential power game.

For example, Brady Tkachuk was a better prospect than Holloway, and he went fourth overall after an 8 goal/31 point season. Chris Kreider posted 15 goals and 23 points as a slightly older player than Holloway, and then actually dropped to 11 goals when he was more than a year older than Holloway is now.

Holloway is coming off an 8 goal/ 17 point season and is being slated as a later pick.

I'm not saying Holloway's upside is on the Tkachuk or Kreider level, but I do think it's worth noting that Holloway's freshman numbers might not be the best gauge of his full offensive potential.

 

[Ola]

I think it depends on the player though and context.

Holloway and Grieg for example are considered first round talents, or at least close. So while grit is a big part of the package, there’s also skill there. But we don’t really hear much about Cuylle being there.

Likewise, if we go that route in the first, it probably reduces the odds we go a similar route in the second and third.

It depends a lot on how you project guys. If you want to swing for the guys with the highest grit/skill combo, it’s going to require a higher pick.

If you don’t see those guys, and you’re thinking a guy who leans heavier on the grit side of things, you probably look for that in more of the mid rounds.

I agree for sure, and don’t get me wrong, I in no shape or form think we should stay away from gritty players in the draft.

But to put it like this, I for example think drafting really good skaters like Henriksson and Aaltonen is a result of a strategy acknowledging that it’s a type of player that reasonably has a good shot at success, it’s a player type that we are starting to see all over lineup in both bigger roles but especially more often lately also in depth roles. And I think it’s a reflections of what we have seen other teams do and have much success with (like Tampa with Gourde, Cirelli, Point and co).

In that context, I don’t buy implementing the same type of strategy for physical forwards.

But grit is of course a big plus and part of the overall package. I liked Grewe and especially Rees a lot last season taking that into account.

I love Daniel Torgesson in this years draft due to partly his grit and intensity.

 

[mas0764]

You really want to go through this again?

What's again? I think this is the first time I've been through it.

2018-2019 Kreider's 52 points placed him 90th of ALL forwards. How many top line forwards are there?

Fair enough, so Kreider's 52 points means he was one of the worst producing top line forwards, but a top line forward nonetheless.

Think this kinda makes the argument that a good team would want this type of player on the second line, but sure. Of course that's production alone, I think there are other advanced stats that say Kreider performs like a mid level first liner.

Then do not draft Holloway. As he is probably not going to be a 45 point players. And the Kirk Matlbys of the world is what the Rangers need.

Fine by me... I'll pass on Holloway. But the Rangers need second liners and Kirk Maltbys eventually, since Buch and Strome are probably not long for the roster.

 

[JESSEWENEEDTOCOOK]

Getting Laf makes Holloway a much more palpable target for me.

picking him at 24, would be decent imo.

 

[broadwayblue]

What's again? I think this is the first time I've been through it.

Fair enough, so Kreider's 52 points means he was one of the worst producing top line forwards, but a top line forward nonetheless.

Think this kinda makes the argument that a good team would want this type of player on the second line, but sure. Of course that's production alone, I think there are other advanced stats that say Kreider performs like a mid level first liner.

The good news is that in a year or two we can have him play on the 3rd line where he should more than meet expectations.

 

[Edge]

This sim came out heavy on forwards, but holy shit is that first round nice. And the first four picks in general give us amazing value. Niederbach and Sourdif? Yeah, even if they don't stick at center, I'm GREAT with that.

Lots of very attractive options through this fantasy draft.

 

[mas0764]

The good news is that in a year or two we can have him play on the 3rd line where he should more than meet expectations.

Kreider is a great player to have but we've seen what having a guy like him on your first line or as a primary scoring option means. We went through a decade of teams being led by goaltending and 50 point scorers.

Pass. Not interested in that again.

The Chris Kreider 52 point scorers of the world need to be our second liners for the next generation. But having the Lafrenieres and Kakkos of the world also mean you may not be able to afford 6m a year third liners. Decisions, decisions.

 

[TheBloodyNine]

Getting Laf makes Holloway a much more palpable target for me.

picking him at 24, would be decent imo.

Was thinking the same thing today watching a draft video on him. We don't have a guy like that in our system.

 

[Fitzy]

This sim came out heavy on forwards, but holy shit is that first round nice. And the first four picks in general give us amazing value. Niederbach and Sourdif? Yeah, even if they don't stick at center, I'm GREAT with that.

Lots of very attractive options through this fantasy draft.

View attachment 362052
View attachment 362053

Picking only one blueliner in the draft with a late pick would be extremely controversial.

 

[Edge]

Picking only one blueliner in the draft with a late pick would be extremely controversial.

It would be.

There are defenseman I would've taken with some of those picks, but they weren't on the board.

 

[NYblades]

It would be.

There are defenseman I would've taken with some of those picks, but they weren't on the board.

Maybe as you indicated earlier today, they Rangers have someone they like above 23 and can package another pick or player with the Carolina pick to move up in the 1st rd.

 

[eco's bones]

The criteria of who might be called a first liner seems bizarre to me at times. IMO the Rangers really have two first lines if you have Mika on one line and Panarin on another. They're going to carry their linemates along with them.

Kreider's always been a little bit (not a lot) underwhelming on his scoring production. When he's on his size and speed can drive opposition defenses backwards and he's very good at screening goalies and the Rangers score a lot of power play goals because of those screens even if he doesn't pick up points. But I'm not worried about one person calling him a first liner and another a second liner--they're both kind of correct if you want them to be.

 

[mas0764]

The criteria of who might be called a first liner seems bizarre to me at times. IMO the Rangers really have two first lines if you have Mika on one line and Panarin on another. They're going to carry their linemates along with them.

Kreider's always been a little bit (not a lot) underwhelming on his scoring production. When he's on his size and speed can drive opposition defenses backwards and he's very good at screening goalies and the Rangers score a lot of power play goals because of those screens even if he doesn't pick up points. But I'm not worried about one person calling him a first liner and another a second liner--they're both kind of correct if you want them to be.

Yeah, its all very fungible in terms of role and minutes. My overall point is that 52 points is not what you want one of your top 3 scorers to have in today's league, and you probably can't really afford to be paying a 52 point scorer big money if he's gonna be more like your 5th or 6th best point producer.

Which at this point you'd have to think during the life of that Kreider contract he is gonna be scoring less, even if he was to remain at a 52 point pace or so, than guys like Kakko, Lafreniere, Panarin, Zibanejad, and quite possibly even Kravtsov and other young guys to join the team (like a legit 2nd line center, or Strome, if he was to stay).

You can only pay those guys so much. Now that he's here, you have to be very judicious paying Buch or Strome because you can't afford to have those guys making $5+ on long term deals, and then get pushed to the third line as well.

 

[JESSEWENEEDTOCOOK]

The criteria of who might be called a first liner seems bizarre to me at times. IMO the Rangers really have two first lines if you have Mika on one line and Panarin on another. They're going to carry their linemates along with them.

Kreider's always been a little bit (not a lot) underwhelming on his scoring production. When he's on his size and speed can drive opposition defenses backwards and he's very good at screening goalies and the Rangers score a lot of power play goals because of those screens even if he doesn't pick up points. But I'm not worried about one person calling him a first liner and another a second liner--they're both kind of correct if you want them to be.

The criteria is whatever best fits a person’s narrative.

 

[bobbop]

Wasn’t Holloway seen as a top 10 pick going into the season? He’s definitely shown high offensive potential in the past.

Look closer at Holloway. It took him half of the season to adjust to college. His second half of the season was excellent.

He will never last until our second pick unless we trade up.

 

[Rangerfan4life90]

Obviously, the Rangers didn't know COVID would hit the world and then in bizarre circumstances, have a 12.5% chance at the #1 pick and actually getting it - but you have to think they probably do regret the Kreider contract now. At least a little bit.

 

[Edge]

Look closer at Holloway. It took him half of the season to adjust to college. His second half of the season was excellent.

He will never last until our second pick unless we trade up.

I think if people look at other, somewhat comparable forwards who went the college route, Holloway's season, while lacking eye-popping numbers, is pretty good.

Tkachuk was a better prospect and had as many goals for a far more organized team. Kreider only posted 11 goals as a sophomore - when he was nearly a year and a half older.

Holloway played his entire season as an 18 year old - and just barely at that. He was 17 during their preseason.

I think we're really selling this kid short.

 

[Polar Bear]

Obviously, the Rangers didn't know COVID would hit the world and then in bizarre circumstances, have a 12.5% chance at the #1 pick and actually getting it - but you have to think they probably do regret the Kreider contract now. At least a little bit.

I mean in hindsight they probably would not have signed him if they knew this would happen. But it’s not the end of the world. There’s plenty of use for Kreider still on this team and we can be flexible with his role on the team.

 

[Edge]

Obviously, the Rangers didn't know COVID would hit the world and then in bizarre circumstances, have a 12.5% chance at the #1 pick and actually getting it - but you have to think they probably do regret the Kreider contract now. At least a little bit.

If they knew this outcome would they do it again?

Eh, probably not.

Do they regret signing him based on what they knew at the time?

Highly doubtful.

I think Kreider will still play a very important role for this team, and that the Rangers will not be limited in their ability to adjust their roster moving forward.

 

[Ghost of jas]

I think if people look at other, somewhat comparable forwards who went the college route, Holloway's season, while lacking eye-popping numbers, is pretty good.

Tkachuk was a better prospect and had as many goals for a far more organized team. Kreider only posted 11 goals as a sophomore - when he was nearly a year and a half older.

Holloway played his entire season as an 18 year old - and just barely at that. He was 17 during their preseason.

I think we're really selling this kid short.

We know @GoAwayStaal is.

 

[JESSEWENEEDTOCOOK]

If they knew this outcome would they do it again?

Eh, probably not.

Do they regret signing him based on what they knew at the time?

Highly doubtful.

I think Kreider will still play a very important role for this team, and that the Rangers will not be limited in their ability to adjust their roster moving forward.

Kreider being our 4th or 5th best forward is a lot more ideal than him being our 3rd best forward by a huge margin. That’s championship level depth