Draft 2020 Draft & Undrafted Free Agent Thread: Part VI

[Ghost of jas]

Foerster would be a guy who would worry me a lot to draft because I don't like the way he skates. The draft dynasty guy was pointing out among other things how his stick is off the ice and swinging from one side to the other way too much as he's powering up the ice. It's kind of reminiscent of the stick balancing thing that players go through when they first start to play--kind of the stick is used to keep them from falling. He (the draft dynasty guy) was pointing out the same thing kind of with Roni Hirvonen who is agile in small spaces but is another with his stick swinging back and forth as he skates up the ice and it almost looks like when he's moving forward he's stepping on burning coals with bare feet. Kind of waddle skating. It's weird and it's not going to work. Don't draft him either.

I like guys who can skate well--forwards, backwards, laterally with agility--use their edges etc. Foerster has a great shot and good offensive instincts but he's going to be too one dimensional and too much of an issue to develop and if I were to guess IMO he's going to bust.

I would like to think the Rangers would look to avoid players with skating issues.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

Zary I understand, but the Holloway hate mystifies me given a) his profile, b) how highly he was regarded going into this year, and c) what an utter clusterf*** Wisconsin was for EVERYONE on that team including a slew of other top prospects and recent draftees. (Especially since one of those underperformers was our own K’Andre Miller, who then went on to impress everyone who saw him the moment he left the program to join the Rangers.)

It's not so much hate, but more that I feel there are high upside players we should go for. With a sure-fire player in Lafreniere, we should shoot for the stars with the Carolina pick. Holloway is a good prospect, but a bit of a safe pick IMO

 

[Ghost of jas]

It's not so much hate, but more that I feel there are high upside players we should go for. With a sure-fire player in Lafreniere, we should shoot for the stars with the Carolina pick. Holloway is a good prospect, but a bit of a safe pick IMO

Perrault or Lapierre it is!

 

[RagFinMet]

Doesn't Holloway project more as a LW in the NHL?
We certainly wouldn't need 2 LWs from the first round.

 

[eco's bones]

I would like to think the Rangers would look to avoid players with skating issues.

Skating is one of those things that seems most subject to opinion and a lot of time I think players are critiqued on technicalities that can at least be most of the time improved to a degree. Foerster I think is going to be a lumbering presence no matter what. The black book thinks it has to do with Foerster's genetics as they call it ankle pronation--a condition that doesn't allow him to have enough traction to skate smoothly and with enough balance. I don't know---I've gone through why I wouldn't want to draft Lapierre because of his concussion issues but I'd rather roll the dice on Lapierre's concussion and spinal issues than Foerster's chance of improving his skating enough.

 

[eco's bones]

I don't think I'd have any issue drafting Holloway. I don't mind safe. He skates well, he's big and he has an edge and it's not like we have a whole lot of dependable bottom 6'ers if that's what he eventually becomes. The team will have to deepen throughout the lineup for us to become a real force IMO. That said it could be a Gunler or a Reichel and I'm not against that either. I rather this pick have some kind of floor though if he isn't able to reach his ceiling. I want him to play for us.

 

[Leetch3]

It's not so much hate, but more that I feel there are high upside players we should go for. With a sure-fire player in Lafreniere, we should shoot for the stars with the Carolina pick. Holloway is a good prospect, but a bit of a safe pick IMO

although the potential catch-22 there is that if Holloway is still available at the carolina pick there is a good chance that its because some of those swing for the fences players were already taken

 

[Leetch3]

I also think that 'safe' has become a dirty word when it comes to drafting but we shouldn't confuse 'safe' with bad. IMO Kakko and Lafreniere are 'safe' picks cause the likelihood of them become star players is extremely high. being a safe pick and being a pick that lacks upside aren't the same....to me 'safe' is the lack of downside

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

I also think that 'safe' has become a dirty word when it comes to drafting but we shouldn't confuse 'safe' with bad. IMO Kakko and Lafreniere are 'safe' picks cause the likelihood of them become star players is extremely high. being a safe pick and being a pick that lacks upside aren't the same....to me 'safe' is the lack of downside

I feel that way about the word reach and steal.

Somehow a steal is always considered a positive because that player was ranked higher than where he was picked. But why did teams pass on him if he's "such a steal"? And a reach is seen as a negative, but Mark Scheifele was a reach. Filip Chytil was a huge reach. Robin Kovacs was considered a steal, same with Sean Day.

 

[NYR Viper]

I think, from what I have read, I would be okay taking Holloway IF the team had a 2nd rounder where they could add maybe a higher end skilled player there. But in saying that, if you were to ask pretty much any GM and tell him you would almost guarantee they get a first line player and 3rd line player from a single draft they would be ecstatic. That assumes no other picks hit. So that may unto itself be an attractive proposition for a team like the Rangers.

 

[Vitto79]

So most of us thinking a C w the 2nd 1st?

 

[SA16]

There is no such thing as a safe pick after the top few.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

So most of us thinking a C w the 2nd 1st?

I'm okay with anything as long as it's a forward. Wouldn't mind a winger to be honest. If a kid like Seth Jarvis is there, you press that buttom on Zoom to contact Bettman and call in the pick

 

[NYSPORTS]

Zary I understand, but the Holloway hate mystifies me given a) his profile, b) how highly he was regarded going into this year, and c) what an utter clusterf*** Wisconsin was for EVERYONE on that team including a slew of other top prospects and recent draftees. (Especially since one of those underperformers was our own K’Andre Miller, who then went on to impress everyone who saw him the moment he left the program to join the Rangers.)

These playoffs are demonstrating how important the Holloway type player is.

Were Holloway’s numbers the result of the Wisconsin mess? That’s a good question. No doubt he’s physical.

As far as the hate in his direction, it’s no different than the praise for other players. A wandering few ducks follow a bias perception and believe it’s reality. None of them know.

 

[NYSPORTS]

There is no such thing as a safe pick after the top few.

the Rangers have proved that

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

It's not so much hate, but more that I feel there are high upside players we should go for. With a sure-fire player in Lafreniere, we should shoot for the stars with the Carolina pick. Holloway is a good prospect, but a bit of a safe pick IMO

I don't think I'd have any issue drafting Holloway. I don't mind safe. He skates well, he's big and he has an edge and it's not like we have a whole lot of dependable bottom 6'ers if that's what he eventually becomes. The team will have to deepen throughout the lineup for us to become a real force IMO. That said it could be a Gunler or a Reichel and I'm not against that either. I rather this pick have some kind of floor though if he isn't able to reach his ceiling. I want him to play for us.

I understand both POVs – but I think they both mischaracterize what Holloway is/was supposed to be. Sure, his floor is meant to be a bottom-6er with edge, but projections going into last year was that his ceiling was a top-6er with edge (i.e. more Brady Tkachuk than Brendan Lemieux), which is a very compelling upside IMO. It's just that because of his down year, folks are more focused on that floor than the ceiling that made him so intriguing before he hit the ice at Wisco.

Again, don't get me wrong, I won't complain if the Rangers grade another guy like Gunler or Reichel higher and go in a different direction – but by the same token, if they are still confident in Holloway's upside and wind up taking him over some of the other "sexier" names batted about as potential picks in the 20s, I'll be excited that they still saw that original potential.

 

[Oscar Lindberg]

Anyone that is interested in this draft should go throw @Steve Kournianos 5 bones for his draft report. A lot of great information for very little money

His mock has us taking Lafreniere (obv) and Khusnutdinov

 

[eco's bones]

I understand both POVs – but I think they both mischaracterize what Holloway is/was supposed to be. Sure, his floor is meant to be a bottom-6er with edge, but projections going into last year was that his ceiling was a top-6er with edge (i.e. more Brady Tkachuk than Brendan Lemieux), which is a very compelling upside IMO. It's just that because of his down year, folks are more focused on that floor than the ceiling that made him so intriguing before he hit the ice at Wisco.

Again, don't get me wrong, I won't complain if the Rangers grade another guy like Gunler or Reichel higher and go in a different direction – but by the same token, if they are still confident in Holloway's upside and wind up taking him over some of the other "sexier" names batted about as potential picks in the 20s, I'll be excited that they still saw that original potential.

From what I've seen of Holloway he is stronger on his skates and more graceful on his skates than Lemieux. If you're only seeing Holloway as a 3C he is still going to be a guy that can play center without a problem because he can cover a lot of ice. Really to me it's whether or not you think he can produce numbers that will justify him being a top 6 forward--whether wing or center. But he absolutely has the wheels to be a center. Just that is kind of valuable IMO.

A lot depends really on who is available but the Rangers aren't a team that is going to be short on skill in the future. I think the Rangers are going to have to upgrade their depth and their grit. Looking at the playoff teams left---they all depend on getting good play from their bottom lines and they have players who fit the roles they are put in. If you look at the Islanders Cizikas, Clutterbuck and Martin or Pageau, Brassard, Komarov lines and compare it to McKegg, DiGiuseppe and Gauthier it's night and day. You can go to war in the playoffs with the Islanders two bottom lines and throw in Ross Johnston even--you're not getting very far with the Rangers 4th line.

 

[Edge]

It's not so much hate, but more that I feel there are high upside players we should go for. With a sure-fire player in Lafreniere, we should shoot for the stars with the Carolina pick. Holloway is a good prospect, but a bit of a safe pick IMO

I think as a board we also tend to fall into the trap that "skills" equals "upside". Or that skills is tied to one's ability to do something that looks pretty on the ice. In the process I think we often overlook the most important trait --- can a kid's style translate to the higher levels.

I think there are kids in this class who can do some highlight reel stuff --- against other kids.

The problem, or challenge, is determining how that translates against men. And sometimes, despite the gifts players are given, it doesn't translate very well.

I would also argue that as a whole, this board really struggles to gauge power forwards, and has for a long time. I'm not terribly surprised by some of the opinions of Holloway, because frankly similar opinions were expressed about guys like Kreider or Tkachuk in their draft years and shortly thereafter.

As a board, we like seeing gaudy numbers. But the challenge is that unless you're grabbing a guy in the first few picks, a lot of power forwards don't have the gaudy numbers in their draft year. This is especially true when looking at kids coming from the NCAA.

So people make a quick visit to HockeyDB.com, look at stat lines, and then pull up a highlight video, and they're typically underwhelmed. It's not their fault; what they're seeing just doesn't jump off the screen --- especially when you have finesse kids lighting up their opponents on a regular basis.

Every year, especially around the playoffs, everyone covets the guys who can play a heavier game, or who serve as a "change-up" pitch that throws the opposition off-balance. And then summer roles around, and we fall in love with the finesse kids who we convince ourselves are the true homerun swings because they can dance around a kid who is barely old enough to see an R-rated movie. Sometimes they really do have that potential. And often times it's a bit of a mirage.

But the reality is that if you want the kind of guys that everyone loves during springtime hockey, you have to take the chance in June (or in this case October). Then, after you take the chance, you usually have to wait a while for the oven timer to go off.

That's why those guys don't come around too often, and teams are always looking to get them before the wear and tear catches us in their late 20s. It's an investment to be sure.

Holloway's low end projection is a maybe someone who fits a Maltby/Draper/Malhotra kind of role on a team's third line. In other words, exactly the type of guy teams end up flipping those high skill, one-time homerun swings for when they want to make some noise in the playoffs. And frankly, I think Holloway has the tool set to potentially even more than a third line player with time.

At 21-24, he'd be an excellent pick.

 

[Edge]

He was 15th or so on McKenzie's list so NHL scouts seem to like him a ton.

If he stays healthy for the next month, I expect him to be gone before the Car pick.

Lapierre is someone who has the most to gain or lose from the month prior to the draft.

If he lights it up, and shows exactly why he is viewed as having top 10 talent, he's probably getting picking in the teens.

If he does good, but not great, he could slide right into the second round.

And if heaven forbid he got hurt, he's pretty much toast as a pick in the first several rounds and may be lucky to be a pick in the mid-rounds.

 

[True Blue]

I have decided that Holloway and Zary and the guys that I will hope falls to us, have a glimmer of hope, and then won't be there because they got picked shortly before. Similar to Pettersson/Glass.

Can see Zary falling, but not Holloway.

 

[Edge]

Can see Zary falling, but not Holloway.

I don't think Holloway falls. He plays a very projectible game in the NHL. At the very least, he gives you a potentially dangerous third line player who has speed, can play up and down the lineup, in several different positions, in a variety of different roles. At worst, his upside projects as a Swiss Army Knife.

At best, an intriguing support player who capitalizes on playing with linemates who complete his puzzle and for whom he does the same. You pair him with a a high IQ, playmaking center who maybe doesn't have the most dynamic phyiscal tool box, and you potentially have a dangerous combination.

I get the hesitation taking Holloway with with a pick in the range the Rangers originally had. But I do not agree with the mindset that there are all these amazing players in the 20s that are clearly better prospects than him. I really don't.

I think if Holloway goes to the WHL and plays against a younger crowd, he nets 25 goals and 70 points this past season. In that case, I don't think he's getting nearly the pushback he is right now.

 

[True Blue]

It's not so much hate, but more that I feel there are high upside players we should go for. With a sure-fire player in Lafreniere, we should shoot for the stars with the Carolina pick. Holloway is a good prospect, but a bit of a safe pick IMO

But the does represent something the franchise currently lacks.

 

[Edge]

But the does represent something the franchise currently lacks.

Yeah, I'm not entirely sure where we've gone safe the last few drafts.

Kakko and Lafreniere are safe only in the sense that they were givens.

But Kravtsov, Chytil, Miller, Lundkvist, Jones, etc. etc. were far from the "safe" choices.

Hell, the one guy the Rangers blasted for being safe (Andersson) might just be the one guy who proves to be the least safe.

I just don't think we give this FO enough credit for the big swings they've taken the last few years.

 

[True Blue]

I just don't think we give this FO enough credit for the big swings they've taken the last few years.

Completely agree. They are only safe when they are busts around here.