Draft 2020 Draft & Undrafted Free Agent Thread: Part VI

[Edge]

That's what I am hoping for. You're getting Lafreniere. This draft is just about guaranteed already to be a success. You have another eight picks to fill in the depth of the organization. There is grit and edge littered throughout this draft. If you can add a potential 1B center at 22, that is the move to make IMO.

It's a fair argument, and I can't really argue against it.

There's four main approaches they can take with the pick, assuming they keep it.

The first approach is to take the biggest swing they can and go for the biggest possible return. In that scenario, Lapierre is right up there with anyone they could take at 22.

The second approach is to trade up in the draft if someone they really like is on the board and both teams have a mutual interest in a deal. Lapierre probably isn't a fit for this scenario.

The third approach is to trade down in the draft because there are multiple people they like in the same range. In this scenario maybe you can add a second round pick to play with. Lapierre could be a fit for this scenario. I don't think he'll last into the second round, but that pick could be used to go a little safer and offset the risk of taking someone like Lapierre with a later first round pick. So its possible to envision a scenario where the Rangers droped from 22 to 25 (or whatever), grab Lapierre anyway and then take an interesting prospect in the second as well.

The fourth approach is to go more conservative and go with a guy you think is going to contribute for a long time and strikes a balance between upside and risk. Like the trade up scenario, Lapierre probably isn't a fit for this scenario either.

 

[Ghost of jas]

It's a fair argument, and I can't really argue against it.

There's four main approaches they can take with the pick, assuming they keep it.

The first approach is to take the biggest swing they can and go for the biggest possible return. In that scenario, Lapierre is right up there with anyone they could take at 22.

The second approach is to trade up in the draft if someone they really like is on the board and both teams have a mutual interest in a deal. Lapierre probably isn't a fit for this scenario.

The third approach is to trade down in the draft because there are multiple people they like in the same range. In this scenario maybe you can add a second round pick to play with. Lapierre could be a fit for this scenario. I don't think he'll last into the second round, but that pick could be used to go a little safer and offset the risk of taking someone like Lapierre with a later first round pick. So its possible to envision a scenario where the Rangers droped from 22 to 25 (or whatever), grab Lapierre anyway and then take an interesting prospect in the second as well.

The fourth approach is to go more conservative and go with a guy you think is going to contribute for a long time and strikes a balance between upside and risk. Like the trade up scenario, Lapierre probably isn't a fit for this scenario either.

I like all scenarios except #4.

 

[GAGLine]

Mouse or lion? Safe is death!

 

[eco's bones]

It's interesting because I don't think he's ever slid to the Rangers on my simulations. (Not that the simulator is the judge of where the kid is going.)

The appeal for someone like the Rangers is multi-faceted.

There's the consideration of where they are in the rebuild (leaving the accumulation phase), and there's number of picks they've had in recent years.

But beyond that, there's also the consideration that Lapierre is arguably a top 10 talent. And when you're already getting the top talent, and the best kind of "safe pick" in the process, there could be that desire there to try and land another top 10 calibre talent.

You have to think this is a team that tried very hard to add a young center at last year's draft, and there's certianly a desire to add organizational depth to the position. If your medical consultants ease your concerns, Lapierre makes for a very tempting target.

Last year the Rangers were interested in quality over quantity, even if it meant having less picks. As it turned out, they didn't have to worry about that in the first. Kakko was the easy selection with the second pick in the draft, and the Jets pick was traded.

Will that mindset carry over to the 2020 draft? It could.

A couple other things that may play in to who they pick with the Carolina pick--as much as Gordie Clark may be the Head Scout I've had the feeling for the last couple years that Nikolai Bobrov is ascending--not sure exactly how exactly it works between the Rangers North American and European scouts but since we've started having first round picks again they've been Lias Andersson, Filip Chytil, Vitali Kravtsov, K'Andre Miller, Nils Lundkvist and Kaapo Kakko. The second rounders have been Olof Lindbom, Matthew Robertson and Karl Henriksson. We've been leaning strongly European. This year no doubt Alexis Lafreniere though.

The second thing I'd bring up and I've brought this up before----is the 'where are they going to play?' thing. There's probably a decent chance that the CHL is going to give it a go and that most if not all European teams are going to too. But it's a consideration when you draft somebody. I think in the United States it's not going to happen. So if for instance you did draft Holloway--it's mostly likely he'll go to the WHL or whatever. In Lapierre's case if he needs to rehabilitate more it probably won't hurt so much but the Q has no USA teams though the CHL might need some financial help to make it a go.

 

[Savant]

That's what I am hoping for. You're getting Lafreniere. This draft is just about guaranteed already to be a success. You have another eight picks to fill in the depth of the organization. There is grit and edge littered throughout this draft. If you can add a potential 1B center at 22, that is the move to make IMO.

It is VERY rare to get a “1B” center in the 20s

 

[Edge]

A couple other things that may play in to who they pick with the Carolina pick--as much as Gordie Clark may be the Head Scout I've had the feeling for the last couple years that Nikolai Bobrov is ascending--not sure exactly how exactly it works between the Rangers North American and European scouts but since we've started having first round picks again they've been Lias Andersson, Filip Chytil, Vitali Kravtsov, K'Andre Miller, Nils Lundkvist and Kaapo Kakko. The second rounders have been Olof Lindbom, Matthew Robertson and Karl Henriksson. We've been leaning strongly European. This year no doubt Alexis Lafreniere though.

The second thing I'd bring up and I've brought this up before----is the 'where are they going to play?' thing. There's probably a decent chance that the CHL is going to give it a go and that most if not all European teams are going to too. But it's a consideration when you draft somebody. I think in the United States it's not going to happen. So if for instance you did draft Holloway--it's mostly likely he'll go to the WHL or whatever. In Lapierre's case if he needs to rehabilitate more it probably won't hurt so much but the Q has no USA teams though the CHL might need some financial help to make it a go.

From what I've gathered over the years, it's more about player than league. Though, there are leagues they are more comfortable with. Last year Zegras was a target, we know Keller was a target. They've loved the US program over the years, though sometimes its a matter of just loving one guy more (2018).

I'm going to curious to see how they react to the Q in the coming years. That's a league that has really worked to re-invent itself and develop NHL-bound prospects. Like the US program, I could see the Rangers looking at the league as an emerging pipeline to see if there are players who give them excellent value.

 

[eco's bones]

From what I've gathered over the years, it's more about player than league. Though, there are leagues they are more comfortable with. Last year Zegras was a target, we know Keller was a target. They've loved the US program over the years, though sometimes its a matter of just loving one guy more (2018).

I'm going to curious to see how they react to the Q in the coming years. That's a league that has really worked to re-invent itself and develop NHL-bound prospects. Like the US program, I could see the Rangers looking at the league as an emerging pipeline to see if there are players who give them excellent value.

I was watching video of Mercer yesterday and that's the other guy out of the Q that I really want. Barring some kind of career ending injury I can't see him not making it. He just never gives up on a play. He reminds me a bit of Brad Marchand minus all the whacky shit.

 

[GoAwayPanarin]

I was watching video of Mercer yesterday and that's the other guy out of the Q that I really want. Barring some kind of career ending injury I can't see him not making it. He just never gives up on a play. He reminds me a bit of Brad Marchand minus all the whacky shit.

Mark Stone comp has been dropped on him.

If they keep the pick, I want to move up and grab him.

 

[Edge]

I was watching video of Mercer yesterday and that's the other guy out of the Q that I really want. Barring some kind of career ending injury I can't see him not making it. He just never gives up on a play. He reminds me a bit of Brad Marchand minus all the whacky shit.

If the Rangers pick at 22, he’s one of three guys I’d be okay moving up to get - along with Jarvis and Lundell.

 

[Trxjw]

If the Rangers pick at 22, he’s one of three guys I’d be okay moving up to get - along with Jarvis and Lundell.

Obviously the Rangers are at a different point when it comes to moving bodies for picks and prospects, but for the sake of conversation. What do you think the level of interest is with Lundell as compared to last year with Zegras? Would he be someone that they'd move a body to get? Say Buffalo calls up with renewed interest in Buchnevich and Lundell sitting there at 8? Or is he not quite on that tier?

 

[Edge]

Obviously the Rangers are at a different point when it comes to moving bodies for picks and prospects, but for the sake of conversation. What do you think the level of interest is with Lundell as compared to last year with Zegras? Would he be someone that they'd move a body to get? Say Buffalo calls up with renewed interest in Buchnevich and Lundell sitting there at 8? Or is he not quite on that tier?

So, I’ll approach that question two ways and arrive at a similar answer.

Right now, I really don’t think they’d move Buch for a pick unless they had to. So if Buffalo called, my guess would be they’d decline and prefer to wait to see if they can shore up another position or buy time to see what they have in Kravtsov.

Taking an alternative approach, and saying they would move Buch for a pick, I don’t quite get the feeling that they’ve as targeted Lundell like they did Zegras. Of course I could be wrong, but I’ve just never quite received that strong of vibe from them.

Last year, I knew there was someone they really liked at that 6 spot. I wasn’t sure of the name at the time, but I strongly suspected Zegras as we got closer to the draft. Afterwards, I was able to confirm that Zegras was indeed their target.

Just not feeling that same sense of energy this year.

 

[GeorgeKaplan]

So, I’ll approach that question two ways and arrive at a similar answer.

Right now, I really don’t think they’d move Buch for a pick unless they had to. So if Buffalo called, my guess would be they’d decline and prefer to wait to see if they can shore up another position or buy time to see what they have in Kravtsov.

Taking an alternative approach, and saying they would move Buch for a pick, I don’t quite get the feeling that they’ve as targeted Lundell like they did Zegras. Of course I could be wrong, but I’ve just never quite received that strong of vibe from them.

Last year, I knew there was someone they really liked at that 6 spot. I wasn’t sure of the name at the time, but I strongly suspected Zegras as we got closer to the draft. Afterwards, I was able to confirm that Zegras was indeed their target.

Just not feeling that same sense of energy this year.

Just to clarify, you haven't gotten that same sense of energy even before they won the lottery?

 

[Edge]

Just to clarify, you haven't gotten that same sense of energy even before they won the lottery?

In terms of moving a roster player for a pick, correct. I don’t think they were gonna move Buch or a roster player straight up for the chance to draft Lundell or someone else.

Would they have moved the 12th pick and Canes pick to move up 4 slots and take Lundell or someone? Yes, quite possibly they would’ve. Likewise, would they have used a young player to move up from their pick? Possibly.

I think the latter approach is still potentially in play wth the Canes pick - depending on who is on the board and the other team involved.

But the whole established/productive NHL player for pick concept was not a vibe I was getting at all.

 

[GeorgeKaplan]

In terms of moving a roster player for a pick, correct. I don’t think they were gonna move Buch or a roster player straight up for the chance to draft Lundell or someone else.

Would they have moved the 12th pick and Canes pick to move up 4 slots and take Lundell or someone? Yes, quite possibly they would’ve. Likewise, would they have used a young player to move up from their pick? Possibly.

I think the latter approach is still potentially in play wth the Canes pick - depending on who is on the board and the other team involved.

But the whole established/productive NHL player for pick concept was not a vibe I was getting at all.

Now that you've made 2 categories of player, which one does Georgiev fall into?

 

[Edge]

Now that you've made 2 categories of player, which one does Georgiev fall into?

I think Georgiev is in play, though I doubt the Rangers would use him as a replacement for a second.

Let’s say Mercer is on the board at 17, Chicago is willing to move the pick for 22, and they ask for Georgiev as part of a deal. I think the Rangers want more from Chicago’s end - maybe another pick.

 

[GeorgeKaplan]

I think Georgiev is in play, though I doubt the Rangers would use him as a replacement for a second.

Let’s say Mercer is on the board at 17, Chicago is willing to move the pick for 22, and they ask for Georgiev as part of a deal. I think the Rangers want more from Chicago’s end - maybe another pick.

That makes sense, IIRC they wanted a bunch for him at the deadline. I personally feel they kind of overvalue Georgiev, but I guess why not overvalue him if you can afford to (for now at least)

 

[Trxjw]

So, I’ll approach that question two ways and arrive at a similar answer.

Right now, I really don’t think they’d move Buch for a pick unless they had to. So if Buffalo called, my guess would be they’d decline and prefer to wait to see if they can shore up another position or buy time to see what they have in Kravtsov.

Taking an alternative approach, and saying they would move Buch for a pick, I don’t quite get the feeling that they’ve as targeted Lundell like they did Zegras. Of course I could be wrong, but I’ve just never quite received that strong of vibe from them.

Last year, I knew there was someone they really liked at that 6 spot. I wasn’t sure of the name at the time, but I strongly suspected Zegras as we got closer to the draft. Afterwards, I was able to confirm that Zegras was indeed their target.

Just not feeling that same sense of energy this year.

Makes sense. I can certainly understand why the landscape has changed in terms of moving a roster player for picks but wasn't sure if there was a sense that there might've been that exception as there was last year.

 

[mas0764]

I know forwards are more fun because they score goals, but we desperately need a 1LD. All things being equal, I'd draft an LD with high upside with Carolina's draft pick.

I think a 2C is easier to acquire by trade or UFA than a 1LD. I also have lots of hope for Chytil. The odds of pulling a first pair D in the 20s aren't great, but it's worth a shot.

Don’t agree that it’s inherently smarter or easier to find LD than C, but it certainly could be the smarter move in this particular instance if a high caliber D is there vs reaching for a center.

 

[bl02]

I think Georgiev is in play, though I doubt the Rangers would use him as a replacement for a second.

Let’s say Mercer is on the board at 17, Chicago is willing to move the pick for 22, and they ask for Georgiev as part of a deal. I think the Rangers want more from Chicago’s end - maybe another pick.

If the Rangers were offered basically Mercer for #22 and Georgie and didn't do that they would be dumb because at #18 and I believe #20 the Devils would scoop up Mercer. LOSE LOSE for us. I mean what else could Chicago throw in? a 4th rounder in 2022?

 

[bl02]

I know it would suck to lose a competent backup goalie to Shesty but Mercer to me is close to a top 10 player in this draft and from what i've seen and read would fit perfectly on this team 1-2 years down the line. If we had a chance to grab him and didn't and then the devils did ugh

 

[Edge]

If the Rangers were offered basically Mercer for #22 and Georgie and didn't do that they would be dumb because at #18 and I believe #20 the Devils would scoop up Mercer. LOSE LOSE for us. I mean what else could Chicago throw in? a 4th rounder in 2022?

I think that's probably what you're looking at --- a mid-round pick.

And that doesn't sound like a big deal until you think the Rangers love to find value prospects there. Skinner, Shesterkin, Reunanen, Graves, Weise, Pyatt, and Callahan going back to 2004.

So yeah, I think that'd be the ask, or something along those lines.

 

[eco's bones]

That makes sense, IIRC they wanted a bunch for him at the deadline. I personally feel they kind of overvalue Georgiev, but I guess why not overvalue him if you can afford to (for now at least)

My own take is people tend to undervalue good backup goalies. Chicago has an older declining goalie Crawford and whoever is their backup is going to be important for them to have a shot to make the playoffs. He's going to play 30 games or more and he'll need to win more than he loses.

I think the league in general is moving more towards the starter getting 5o games or so and the backup getting the rest. Part of it is about keeping your better goalie fresh for more meaningful games. To be good most teams are going to need two good goalies. 65 games + playoffs season after season is going to be too much to lay on one guy. I think we're going to be doing that too even 2, 3, 4 years from now when there's no Henrik and pretty likely no Alex either. It will be Igor and somebody else but that somebody else is going to need to be at least pretty good.

 

[GeorgeKaplan]

My own take is people tend to undervalue good backup goalies. Chicago has an older declining goalie Crawford and whoever is their backup is going to be important for them to have a shot to make the playoffs. He's going to play 30 games or more and he'll need to win more than he loses.

I think the league in general is moving more towards the starter getting 5o games or so and the backup getting the rest. Part of it is about keeping your better goalie fresh for more meaningful games. To be good most teams are going to need two good goalies. 65 games + playoffs season after season is going to be too much to lay on one guy. I think we're going to be doing that too even 2, 3, 4 years from now when there's no Henrik and pretty likely no Alex either. It will be Igor and somebody else but that somebody else is going to need to be at least pretty good.

I'm not saying we don't need a good back up goalie. I'm not as down on Hank's ability to do that next season as you are, but even then you can pick up good backups in FA for pretty cheap, and right now there seems to be a new goalie added to the market every few days

 

[eco's bones]

I'm not saying we don't need a good back up goalie. I'm not as down on Hank's ability to do that next season as you are, but even then you can pick up good backups in FA for pretty cheap, and right now there seems to be a new goalie added to the market every few days

If what you mean by free agency as from college or Europe but the NHL UFA market isn't all that good. I don't think this year's is--older expensive guys or more AHL level than NHL level. We have a Euro scout who was a former goalie and I think he's the one that found Alex---so get him beating the bushes.

 

[Edge]

My own take is people tend to undervalue good backup goalies. Chicago has an older declining goalie Crawford and whoever is their backup is going to be important for them to have a shot to make the playoffs. He's going to play 30 games or more and he'll need to win more than he loses.

I think the league in general is moving more towards the starter getting 5o games or so and the backup getting the rest. Part of it is about keeping your better goalie fresh for more meaningful games. To be good most teams are going to need two good goalies. 65 games + playoffs season after season is going to be too much to lay on one guy. I think we're going to be doing that too even 2, 3, 4 years from now when there's no Henrik and pretty likely no Alex either. It will be Igor and somebody else but that somebody else is going to need to be at least pretty good.

I agree with all that, the question is whther or not Georgiev, at 24, is that guy 2, 3, or 4 years from now. Maybe even more important, is whether Georgiev wants to be.

If you're the Rangers, it could be a matter of balancing diminishing returns on a player like Georgiev. In that case, a team like Chicago could be a fit.

Georgiev, in theory, could challenge for the spot of taking over for Crawford. That's probably not something he's going to get an opportunity to do in NY.

Likewise, for that opportunuty, Chicago might be inclined to let the Rangers get first dibs on a player in the draft, without trading out of the round completely.

I like Georgiev and I think he could potentially be an NHL starter. I just don't know if it's going to come here, behind Shesterkin. And in that same vein, I don't know if I see the value increasing if he remains.

So all things be equal, if Mercer, Lundell or Jarvis are on the board, and the cost to go from 22 to 17 is Georgiev and the Canes pick, I probably pull the trigger.

I feel comfortable finding a guy in free agency, and I feel pretty good about Wall's chances of being able to play in the NHL in a couple of years. If he busts, then we trade for a good backup.

But I think I take that gamble if it means one of those 3 guys.