Draft 2020 Draft & Undrafted Free Agent Thread: Part VI

[eco's bones]

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 combinations.

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.

One thing with Holloway though if there's no college season and the WHL does play--if we drafted him I'd want him to go to the WHL. I wouldn't want him sitting for an entire year.

 

[Edge]

One thing with Holloway though if there's no college season and the WHL does play--if we drafted him I'd want him to go to the WHL. I wouldn't want him sitting for an entire year.

I think he goes to the WHL, especially after the NCAA ruled that players will not lose eligibility if they go the CHL route this next season.

 

[eco's bones]

I think he goes to the WHL, especially after the NCAA ruled that players will not lose eligibility if they go the CHL route this next season.

I was wondering if that was just leagues like the OJHL, AJHL and BCHL---it's the CHL leagues too then?

 

[broadwayblue]

Mike Richter (35) days to go until we are on the clock with the 1st pick in the draft!!!

Still hard to believe this is happened.

 

[Edge]

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

Just doing a quick glance:

Maybe Robertson was a "safe" choice in 2019, though he was also a faller.

Andersson in 2017? That's not looking too safe right now.

Maybe Ethan Werek in 2009, and he busted.

Derek Stepan in 2008? This board blasted that pick as being another Darin Olver.

Marc Staal 2005? That was a hell of a pick.

The whole "safe" concept is interesting to me because it's one of those topics that I struggle to find evidence to support when we actually try to evaluate it's meaning.

That and the "shitty drafting" narrative just keeps coming up, and then we struggle to define it.

 

[Edge]

I was wondering if that was just leagues like the OJHL, AJHL and BCHL---it's the CHL leagues too then?

I believe so.

But, let's even assume it doesn't include them, I still think a lot of your top kids are going to do what they need to. I don't think they're going to hang out in the unknown.

 

[Edge]

Putting this here because I can't stop watching it

Bourque is an incredibly talented offensive player.

When he's on, his natural talent level is right up there with most of the top players in this draft.

Consistency is an issue for him, and there are questions as to whether he sticks at center. For example, he'll need to do a lot of work on faceoffs to remain a center moving forward.

 

[cwede]

I think he goes to the WHL, especially after the NCAA ruled that players will not lose eligibility if they go the CHL route this next season.

I was wondering if that was just leagues like the OJHL, AJHL and BCHL---it's the CHL leagues too then?

be careful here, Eco'sBones seems to be on the right track here -
there is no evidence that the NCAA announcement includes CHL (OHL, WHL, QMJHL)
player compensation for CHL players is not transparent, and an ongoing obstacle for CHL players joining NCAA teams

the release cites (I paraphrase) that players can play in Junior leagues without un-enrolling from schools
- that seems to imply those leagues which, all along, players have been free to join, IF they un-enroll, withOUT losing their NCAA Eligibility

see example below, player left his original school, played US Junior, then joined a different NCAA school

Trevor Mingoia Hockey Stats and Profile at hockeydb.com
J.D. Greenway Hockey Stats and Profile at hockeydb.com

EDIT _ MORE
here is article - NOTE the highlighted word AMATEUR
concerns about compensation i believe lead NCAA to consider CHL 'semi pro'

https://www.uscho.com/2020/08/29/nc...y-enrolled-in-college-and-play-junior-hockey/
NCAA announces rule changes due to COVID-19, including allowing players to stay enrolled in college and play junior hockey
[this section pasted below, touches on Junior Hockey]
Outside Competition
Current student-athletes whose institutions will not be playing hockey during the fall semester will be permitted to participate in non-collegiate, amateur competition i.e. junior hockey on an outside team during the fall 2020 term (subject to school and conference approval). These student-athletes may compete on an outside team while remaining enrolled in their NCAA institution, which typically would not be allowed."
An institution or conference may not provide expenses for such competition and the student-athlete must be in good academic standing. A student-athlete who remains enrolled at the institution may not miss class to participate in outside competition. All competition should adhere to federal, state, local and other applicable guidelines related to COVID-19."

 

[True Blue]

The whole "safe" concept is interesting to me because it's one of those topics that I struggle to find evidence to support when we actually try to evaluate it's meaning.

Whenever people hear "high motor, 200 foot game" the conversation always becomes about making the "safe" pick. And the reason it is a so-called safe pick is because the person is not talented enough to be a top line forward or top pairing defensemen. Or so is the rationale for those calling it "safe".

Let's remember, that until his recent love fest, people were loosing their minds over Lundell way back when.

 

[Edge]

be careful here, Eco'sBones seems to be on the right track here -
there is no evidence that the NCAA announcement includes CHL (OHL, WHL, QMJHL)
player compensation for CHL players is not transparent, and an ongoing obstacle for CHL players joining NCAA teams

the release cites (I paraphrase) that players can play in Junior leagues without un-enrolling from schools
- that seems to imply those leagues which, all along, players have been free to join, IF they un-enroll, withOUT losing their NCAA Eligibility

see example below, player left his original school, played US Junior, then joined a different NCAA school

Trevor Mingoia Hockey Stats and Profile at hockeydb.com

Point being, even if it isn't, I don't think the college thing is going to be a concern one way or the other.

 

[cwede]

Point being, even if it isn't, I don't think the college thing is going to be a concern one way or the other.

re Holloway going WHL, sure
but the chatter surrounding the NCAA release has featured lots of assumptions and speculation, just wanted to add some color to that

 

[Edge]

Whenever people hear "high motor, 200 foot game" the conversation always becomes about making the "safe" pick. And the reason it is a so-called safe pick is because the person is not talented enough to be a top line forward or top pairing defensemen. Or so is the rationale for those calling it "safe".

Let's remember, that until his recent love fest, people were loosing their minds over Lundell way back when.

In Holloway's case I think the numbers don't pop out as much, and I think you can make the argument that the results didn't match the initial hype, and you can argue there are some impressive talents that will be on the board around the same time as him.

Holloway is probably not the kid who has the highest offensive upside in the draft. But the question is, do you necessarily need the absolute highest offensive upside, or are you looking for a dangerous player who may be more of a hybrid and bring other things?

Especially in the first round, a lot of people have this image of these giant homerun swings. But sometimes hitting .300 with 20 homeruns and 20 stolen bases is more productive than hitting .260 with 30 homeruns and 5 stolen bases.

That's what guys like Lundell and Mercer bring, and maybe even guys like Jarvis, Holloway, and a few others.

And the great irony is that all of them are likely to be off the board before the Rangers pick, and the guys we might love as a board might not quite be as loved elsewhere.

 

[eco's bones]

Point being, even if it isn't, I don't think the college thing is going to be a concern one way or the other.

That said I think if we drafted Holloway I'd prefer rather than return to the AJHL he'd go to the WHL.

 

[Edge]

That said I think if we drafted Holloway I'd prefer rather than return to the AJHL he'd go to the WHL.

I would assume most teams would as well. There's nothing left for him to prove or learn at that level.

 

[Leetch3]

Its great that college kids will have options but another factor I think will be whether or not the school is doing remote learning or if they have actual classes...players would basically have to leave school to go play somewhere else. not a big deal if they have remote learning and can do classes from anywhere. but if you essentially aren't attending classes for the year that likely weighs into the decision for what players do....and for some players that option might be to leave college completely and look at major juniors or europe.

 

[Synergy27]

Just doing a quick glance:

Maybe Robertson was a "safe" choice in 2019, though he was also a faller.

Andersson in 2017? That's not looking too safe right now.

Maybe Ethan Werek in 2009, and he busted.

Derek Stepan in 2008? This board blasted that pick as being another Darin Olver.

Marc Staal 2005? That was a hell of a pick.

The whole "safe" concept is interesting to me because it's one of those topics that I struggle to find evidence to support when we actually try to evaluate it's meaning.

That and the "shitty drafting" narrative just keeps coming up, and then we struggle to define it.

I'll take a stab at defining "shitty drafting".

How about finding players in the draft that are considered to be amongst the very best at their position and that there is absolutely zero controversy over whether or not they should be re-signed or traded when they reach their late RFA years? Yes, hard to do when you're not perennially picking in the top 10 (or I guess top 5 is where the bar is set now because even 7OA picks are apparently statistical coin flips) but even with our successful draft picks (Stepan, JT, Skjei, Kreider probably should have been traded), we seem to find ourselves favoring trading them vice signing them long-term because they are always good, not great players.

 

[Leetch3]

I'll take a stab at defining "shitty drafting".

How about finding players in the draft that are considered to be amongst the very best at their position and that there is absolutely zero controversy over whether or not they should be re-signed or traded when they reach their late RFA years? Yes, hard to do when you're not perennially picking in the top 10 (or I guess top 5 is where the bar is set now because even 7OA picks are apparently statistical coin flips) but even with our successful draft picks (Stepan, JT, Skjei, Kreider probably should have been traded), we seem to find ourselves favoring trading them vice signing them long-term because they are always good, not great players.

not great and shitty aren't even comparable. such an unrealistic and unfair standard for judging drafting

 

[Edge]

I'll take a stab at defining "shitty drafting".

How about finding players in the draft that are considered to be amongst the very best at their position and that there is absolutely zero controversy over whether or not they should be re-signed or traded when they reach their late RFA years? Yes, hard to do when you're not perennially picking in the top 10 (or I guess top 5 is where the bar is set now because even 7OA picks are apparently statistical coin flips) but even with our successful draft picks (Stepan, JT, Skjei, Kreider probably should have been traded), we seem to find ourselves favoring trading them vice signing them long-term because they are always good, not great players.

Eh, with the exception of franchise players, most guys get moved at some point --- especially as 30 has become a magical cut-off age in the NHL again.

I think it also depends on the timing. Some guys got moved in recent years for timing purposes, but before that we signed guys like Staal, Girardi, Lundqvist, etc. to long-term deals.

I think even if you have those top guys, today's NHL somewhat breeds debate as to whether or not you're going to stick with them into the latter stages of their career. With the exception of top-level talent, in most cases you can't.

And even then sometimes you find yourself wishing you hadn't.

 

[Synergy27]

Eh, with the exception of franchise players, most guys get moved at some point --- especially as 30 has become a magical cut-off age in the NHL again.

I think it also depends on the timing. Some guys got moved in recent years for timing purposes, but before that we signed guys like Staal, Girardi, Lundqvist, etc. to long-term deals.

I think even if you have those top guys, today's NHL somewhat breeds debate as to whether or not you're going to stick with them into the latter stages of their career. With the exception of top-level talent, in most cases you can't.

And even then sometimes you find yourself wishing you hadn't.

Who has this team drafted other than Henrik that we would have been happy to have for the entirety of their career? I am willing to admit that this may be a strict standard, but i don’t know. Feels like every team, or every good team, has core players that were not top picks. When we trade guys like Stepan, JT, and argue to the end of the earth about Kreider, it’s clear that we hadn’t drafted a core. Maybe we have now with back to back top 2 picks.

 

[Edge]

Who has this team drafted other than Henrik that we would have been happy to have for the entirety of their career? I am willing to admit that this may be a strict standard, but i don’t know. Feels like every team, or every good team, has core players that were not top picks. When we trade guys like Stepan, JT, and argue to the end of the earth about Kreider, it’s clear that we hadn’t drafted a core. Maybe we have now with back to back top 2 picks.

I kind of feel like we're talking about two different things though. Core players vs. Franchise defining players who are never traded.

We had core players who were not top picks. But that doesn't necessarily always jive with having a guy who is never traded, or that we'd be happy to have their entire career. Sometimes there's overlap, but I'd say that's fairly rare.

The list of guys in the NHL who are never traded, regardless of whether we define them as core, franchise or generational, is fairly short.

 

[RickChartraw]

^ Leetch is the last guy on this roster who I thought should never have been traded.

 

[Synergy27]

I kind of feel like we're talking about two different things though. Core players vs. Franchise defining players who are never traded.

We had core players who were not top picks. But that doesn't necessarily always jive with having a guy who is never traded, or that we'd be happy to have their entire career. Sometimes there's overlap, but I'd say that's fairly rare.

The list of guys in the NHL who are never traded, regardless of whether we define them as core, franchise or generational, is fairly short.

Im not saying never traded by the way. I’m just saying obviously not traded at that pivotal moment when you are deciding whether to sign the guy thru some UFA years. Trading Henrik now, for example, wouldn’t count. He’s obviously an insanely successful draft pick.

This might be recency bias playing a role, but we’ve seen basically the entire drafted and/or developed core of this team traded over the last few years. Stepan, JT, McDonagh (who wasn’t drafted by us but was developed). We are good at drafting good, not great, players that are reasonably easy to replace and typically not worth their paycheck post RFA.

I strongly hope that we don’t find ourselves in that situation with Kakko and Laf. Maybe it takes picking in the top 5 to get there. But we never draft Bergeron, Marchand, Point, etc. level players. I think that’s what frustrates people.

It certainly frustrates me as someone who thinks the financial advantages afforded by the NYC market should yield nothing less than the best scouting in the league.

 

[Edge]

Im not saying never traded by the way. I’m just saying obviously not traded at that pivotal moment when you are deciding whether to sign the guy thru some UFA years. Trading Henrik now, for example, wouldn’t count. He’s obviously an insanely successful draft pick.

This might be recency bias playing a role, but we’ve seen basically the entire drafted and/or developed core of this team traded over the last few years. Stepan, JT, McDonagh (who wasn’t drafted by us but was developed). We are good at drafting good, not great, players that are reasonably easy to replace and typically not worth their paycheck post RFA.

I strongly hope that we don’t find ourselves in that situation with Kakko and Laf. Maybe it takes picking in the top 5 to get there. But we never draft Bergeron, Marchand, Point, etc. level players. I think that’s what frustrates people.

It certainly frustrates me as someone who thinks the financial advantages afforded by the NYC market should yield nothing less than the best scouting in the league.

I hear ya, but I think you kind of stumbled upon your answer. Being in a position to get Lafreniere and Kakko is a completely different ballgame for this organization. I just don't think we can stress that enough.

There's a huge difference that takes place when you can grab those franchise players with a first or second pick in a draft. You go from selecting a guy who "could be" one of the best players in his class, to drafting a guy who is "expected to be" one of, if not the best player in his class. It also allows you to gamble more because you know if you miss with a later pick, you still got a top pick to show for your efforts.

It's kind of like comparing cuts of meat. Not all of them are equal. Yeah, sometimes you can work wonders with a flank steak. But everyone knows they want a tenderloin.

I also think you can't underestimate the kicks at the can this team has taken over the last 4 drafts. Assuming we hold onto the Canes pick, you're looking at 8 first round picks --- and that doesn't include the first rounder we traded for Trouba, or that we at least negotiated the possibility of first rounds picks with Tampa and Dallas. That's a lot of capital with which to work.

Prior to this rebuild, from 2005-2012, I think we got very good overall value from our draft positions. Would it have been nice to land a Bergeron, Marchand or Point? Sure, but I also think that list is short for a reason --- because it's very hard to find those guys. Tampa and Boston stand out because they found those types more than once. But we also can't overlook that those teams also had some significant misses with high picks as well. So even they don't have a spotless record either.

At the end of the day, we're in uncharted waters as a team right now. We've literally never done what we've done the last few years. Ultimately, that's what our reputation should and will be based on. Because for the first time in a long time, we can honestly say we had the picks and pieces to work with in the first place.

 

[cwede]

Thank you Dallas

 

[Polar Bear]

Pick up at least 1 more slot!