Draft 2020 Draft & Undrafted Free Agent Thread: Part VII

[Doctyl]

Who would take Georgiev's place if he was traded?

His place at 3rd goalie?

 

[Edge]

Who would take Georgiev's place if he was traded?

Assuming Lundqvist isn't back, I would thing they look for a good deal on an UFA backup this summer.

 

[GoAwayPanarin]

4 weeks

 

[Oscar Lindberg]

The Rangers can find a competent goalie in the trash heap, I can't imagine why anyone would sweat over losing Georgiev

Allaire and the scouts probably have multiple guys on their radar they'd like to add if Georgeiv goes

 

[Matt Rentfree]

For the sake of conversation, let's assume the cost to move up is 22 and Georgiev for Chicago's pick at 17, and something along the lines of 22, a third round pick and Lemieux for Montreal's pick at 16.

(This is ONLY for moving Georgiev + 22, since I think he's a goner no matter what unless Hank retires. I don't think we should trade Lemieux to move up a few spots.)

Yay or Nay:

1. Guhle - Nay
2. Mercer - Nay
3. Jarvis - Yea
4. Holloway - Nay
5. Lundell - Yea
6. Gunler - Nay
7. Amirov - Nay
8. Askarov - Yea

 

[TheBloodyNine]

For the sake of conversation, let's assume the cost to move up is 22 and Georgiev for Chicago's pick at 17, and something along the lines of 22, a third round pick and Lemieux for Montreal's pick at 16.

Yay or Nay:

1. Guhle
2. Mercer
3. Jarvis
4. Holloway
5. Lundell
6. Gunler
7. Amirov
8. Askarov

1. Guhle - Huge Yay
2. Mercer - Nay
3. Jarvis - Big Yay
4. Holloway - Yay
5. Lundell - Gigantic Yay
6. Gunler - Nay
7. Amirov - Yay
8. Askarov - haha

 

[TheBloodyNine]

This sucks. Draft should be on Friday night/Saturday.

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

This sucks. Draft should be on Friday night/Saturday.

Nah, the sooner the better in COVID times.

 

[NYblades]

His place at 3rd goalie?

When does a decision on Lundqvist have to be made.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

Ask a random person to guess which league will have produced players named Texier, Knazko, Lambert, Slafkovsky, Blomqvist and Erholtz over the years.

Nobody would guess it's the Finnish Liiga

 

[nsvoyageurs]

I'd almost say two guys from the CHL would be pretty noteworthy as well.

I'd say there's a very good chance the Rangers go European with the 22nd pick.

What is Amirov's long term upside? Middle six forward? Top 6? Does his offensive game have room to grow?

 

[aufheben]

My gut is telling me it will be some like Marat Khusnutdinov. It checks all the boxes. Value at #22 is right about there. Center. Euro. Riser. Russian-so-maybe-slightly-devalued-by-other-teams-so-he-falls-a-bit-but-would-be-a-15th-overall-if-his-name-was-Guy-Ontario.

My ideal draft this year is Laf at #1 and a center at #22. A center and winger with our two 3rds, and then look for hidden gem D and G in all the rest of the picks.

Guy Ontario.

 

[Harbour Dog]

For the sake of conversation, let's assume the cost to move up is 22 and Georgiev for Chicago's pick at 17, and something along the lines of 22, a third round pick and Lemieux for Montreal's pick at 16.

Yay or Nay:

1. Guhle
2. Mercer
3. Jarvis
4. Holloway
5. Lundell
6. Gunler
7. Amirov
8. Askarov

1. No
2. Yes
3. Yes
4. Yes
5. Yes
6. Yes
7. Yes
8. No

 

[Edge]

What is Amirov's long term upside? Middle six forward? Top 6? Does his offensive game have room to grow?

Two-way winger, who can play either side, is responsible defensively and can chip in some points. I think he's a guy you can plug into a variety of situations and play up and down the lineup. Good speed that is complimented by his ability to anticipate the play and position himself accordingly. He's assertive on the ice and keeps his game fairly straight forward. He goes from point A to point B and get shots on goal. Plays a pro-style game that includes keeping his feet moving and making high-probability decisions and plays.

The knock on him is that he might not necessarily be the high-end scorer you gun for at the top of the draft, and a lot of people see him more comfortable as a support player rather than a line-driver. But, there's nothing wrong with that if you're a team like the Rangers.

I think his offensive game is underrated in the sense that I think he's the type of player who over-achieves offensively when you put him with someone creative and who is more a risk-taker. I could see him scoring 20 goals and 5o+ points in the right situation in the NHL.

 

[GoAwayPanarin]

What is Amirov's long term upside? Middle six forward? Top 6? Does his offensive game have room to grow?

Upside? Top 6 2 way winger.

I've warmed up to him a ton recently. I fell victim to comparing him against the top guys in this draft and his skill set definitely lags behind those guys, but I made the mistake of focusing on the things he doesn't do rather than the list of things that he does really well and are translatable, and its a pretty long list.

He has a ton of physical growth ahead of him which is good because thats one of the bigger factors holding him back at the moment.

 

[UnSandvich]

For the sake of conversation, let's assume the cost to move up is 22 and Georgiev for Chicago's pick at 17, and something along the lines of 22, a third round pick and Lemieux for Montreal's pick at 16.

Yay or Nay:

1. Guhle
2. Mercer
3. Jarvis
4. Holloway
5. Lundell
6. Gunler
7. Amirov
8. Askarov

1. No
2. Yes
3. Maybe
4. NO
5. YES
6. Yes
7. Maybe
8. Yes

 

[eco's bones]

For the sake of conversation, let's assume the cost to move up is 22 and Georgiev for Chicago's pick at 17, and something along the lines of 22, a third round pick and Lemieux for Montreal's pick at 16.

Yay or Nay:

1. Guhle
2. Mercer
3. Jarvis
4. Holloway
5. Lundell
6. Gunler
7. Amirov
8. Askarov

1. Guhle (think about it)
2. Mercer--yep
3. Jarvis-yep
4. Holloway--nope, think there's some chance he'll drop to us or that we could move up possibly with a smaller deal.
5. Lundell--yep
6. Gunler--nope, he might be around at 22 anyway or a player that I'd value as much.
7. Amirov--probably not, though I might draft him at 22 if he were there.
8. Askarov--yep

 

[Edge]

Upside? Top 6 2 way winger.

I've warmed up to him a ton recently. I fell victim to comparing him against the top guys in this draft and his skill set definitely lags behind those guys, but I made the mistake of focusing on the things he doesn't do rather than the list of things that he does really well and are translatable, and its a pretty long list.

He has a ton of physical growth ahead of him which is good because thats one of the bigger factors holding him back at the moment.

Criticism of Amirov (if we can call it that) usually centers on one of three aspects, or some combination of them:

1. Physical Tools - He's not a physical speciman, or a guy who makes you wonder what he can do with his blazing speed, or world-class hands, or elite shot. He's not bad in any of these areas, there's just not that wow factor.

2. Level of Competition - While he definitely imposed his will on younger talent in the MHL, it's a bit of an unknown as to how his game will fully translate against men --- especially in leagues where the skill level of the competition increases and Amirov isn't inherently the smartest player on the ice.

3. Upside - In a draft where everyone is looking for the wing who might net 30 goals and 70 points in the NHL, Amirov probably doesn't project as "that guy" offensively. His overall game puts him into the conversation, but there's no getting around the belief that other guys are potentially more dangerous offensive talents.

I'd say his IQ and overall ability is superior to prospects like Holloway or Grieg --- aka other players who might fit more of a utility role in the NHL. The difference is that Holloway gets some credit for the physical tools (and what people think he might be able to do with them), and Grieg probably gets credit for being a bit grittier and looking a little closer to the traditional North American middle/bottom six archetype.

 

[Ghost of jas]

I'm sorry, but, I don't care how good Askarov projects to be, I will lose my mind if the Rangers trade up for him. If he drops into the Rangers laps, and he's clearly the best option, so be it. But, I do not give up an asset to move up for him.

 

[GeorgeKaplan]

I'm sorry, but, I don't care how good Askarov projects to be, I will lose my mind if the Rangers trade up for him. If he drops into the Rangers laps, and he's clearly the best option, so be it. But, I do not give up an asset to move up for him.

What if that asset is another goalie?

 

[Edge]

I'm sorry, but, I don't care how good Askarov projects to be, I will lose my mind if the Rangers trade up for him. If he drops into the Rangers laps, and he's clearly the best option, so be it. But, I do not give up an asset to move up for him.

I highly, highly doubt the Rangers would move up for him.

But, his talent level is seen as being elite. I find it an interesting debate as to when the talent is simply too much not to make a play for.

 

[GoAwayPanarin]

If Askarov is there at 22, it'd be stupid not to take him at that point.

It'd be even stupider to trade up for him though, unless you have a crystal ball and you're 100% sure that he is going to be the be all end all of NHL goaltending.

 

[Edge]

What if that asset is another goalie?

You raise a good point in the sense that I think Askarov's draft position could impact interest in someone like Georgiev.

Chicago isn't trading for a goalie with Askarov on the board.

If he's not an option, I could see them being content to get another skater a few picks later and taking a stab at a goalie.

 

[GeorgeKaplan]

You raise a good point in the sense that I think Askarov's draft position could impact interest in someone like Georgiev.

Chicago isn't trading for a goalie with Askarov on the board.

If he's not an option, I could see them being content to get another skater a few picks later and taking a stab at a goalie.

I think part of the math in that equation, probably specifically for Chicago, would be how long do they think it will be before Askarov is ready? And do they think Georgiev is a good starting goaltender next season? Kane and Toews are only getting older and they've got some decent young players, so do they think it would be better to have a starting goalie that would be cheaper than keeping Crawford (especially with the uncertainty that's kind of baked into keeping him around) for the next potentially 3+ years or do they think the wait won't be long or if it is that it will be worth it?

 

[Ghost of jas]

What if that asset is another goalie?

The feeling remains the same.