Draft 2020 Draft & Undrafted Free Agent Thread: Part VII

[UnSandvich]

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.

Not to stereotype based off country of origin, but that almost sounds like Buch (who is very quietly a key catalyst for his line)

 

[bobbop]

There are going to be a lot of goaltender options for teams this summer. The difference between Georgiev (24) and to a lesser degree Matt Murray (26, 2 rings) and the rest of the candidates is that almost everyone else is 4-5 years older. If you are rebuilding a team, you are not bringing in Khoudobin or Fleury and expecting them to take you on a 3-4 year ride. Age and runway matters.

Georgiev, at best, plays two more years in New York. Like Talbot before him, he would be traded one year before UFA. He is unlikely to be more valuable two years from now than he is today.

I’ll gladly bet the upside of monetizing him right now and replacing him with a veteran backup over holding and hoping.

 

[Leetch3]

I think Askarov is the one guy we can cross off the list as a potential target. I can't see any chance of us trading up for a goalie especially considering we have no 2nds...And even if you think that he is so good that you should ignore the 'never draft a goalie in the 1st round' rule at 22 there is pretty much no chance he makes it to 22 as there are teams that need a goalie.

IMO we should be rooting for him to get picked as early as possible...he pushes down the skaters we are hoping to fall and keeps him away from the teams in the teens that might need a goalie which potentially makes Georgiev more attractive to those teams if we are looking to trade up.

 

[nsvoyageurs]

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.

Thanks; a top 6 winger with speed and skill is never a bad thing. A viable option at 22 (if they keep the pick, if available, depending on who's still on the board), though may not be at the top of my preference list. I would not hate the pick though if that's who they select.

 

[Shesterkybomb]

I think Georgiev is at an age where he's either being groomed and looked at as number one goalie, or he's being labled a backup.

If there's no Shesterkin, I think it's much easier to expect opportunities for him to seize the number one job. But at 24, going on 25 next season, with arguably an elite level goalie prospect playing in front of him, I can't help but feel like holding onto Georgiev is not going to produce a long-term ROI for the Rangers. Developing one young goalie is difficult enough, doing it with two, especially when one has accomplished what Shesterkin has, is really an uphill battle.

As for Lundqvist, he's likely already gone if for no other reason than his salary next year. It's just a matter of whether he retires, or whether he is bought out. But he's almost certainly not coming back regardless of what happens with Georgiev.

I find it hard to believe the Rangers wanna buy Hank out. I also find it hard to believe he wants to retire as well. I really think this ends in a trade with retained salary and possibly a contract coming back thats easier to buyout. I have no insider info its just all gut feeling and brainstorming. Could a team like Colorado that just watched their newly signed 30 year old goalie fall apart in the playoffs in Francouz be interested if the Rangers retained half and took Francouz back? Instead of paying Francouz they get Hank for 2.25 more for one year and are rid of Francouz the following year. We save a couple mill next year and could buyout Francouz for more savings if needed.

 

[nsvoyageurs]

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.

Thanks. I could go either way with drafting him or not (if available; they keep the pick at 22, or even move down a few spots). Somewhat intriguing, but would need to see who else is still on the board. I take Jarvis/Holloway ahead of him, but may not be a bad secondary option.

 

[Edge]

I find it hard to believe the Rangers wanna buy Hank out. I also find it hard to believe he wants to retire as well. I really think this ends in a trade with retained salary and possibly a contract coming back thats easier to buyout. I have no insider info its just all gut feeling and brainstorming. Could a team like Colorado that just watched their newly signed 30 year old goalie fall apart in the playoffs in Francouz be interested if the Rangers retained half and took Francouz back? Instead of paying Francouz they get Hank for 2.25 more for one year and are rid of Francouz the following year. We save a couple mill next year and could buyout Francouz for more savings if needed.

Kind of like Shattenkirk a few years back, "ain't nobody want him at that price."

 

[True Blue]

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.

While all this is accurate, Amirov also has the motor and the will to play a game that is more befitting of someone that is larger in stature. He might well be able to carve a very nice middle 6 support type of player, career for himself.

 

[True Blue]

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 don't think that trading up for him is the answer, but there will be worse choices to make at 22 than him. I would take him ahead of other prospects with injury worries, for example.
Edit: Whoops. You were talking about Askarov. For some reason, I read as Amirov.

At 22, Askarov would be the both the BPA and the most talented prospect on the board. With the 1OA in the bag, I would not hesitate to take him at that slot.

 

[Edge]

While all this is accurate, Amirov also has the motor and the will to play a game that is more befitting of someone that is larger in stature. He might well be able to carve a very nice middle 6 support type of player, career for himself.

He does have a very good motor and plays a complete game.

I'd put him in the category of someone who is likely to play in the NHL, but whose ultimate offensive output might be a little unclear.

To your point, he's going to fall into the category some people don't like --- aka a guy who isn't as big of a swing and isn't likely to emerge as one of the draft's premiere offensive talents.

As a board, at least based on comments, I think we're somewhat divided on that.

With Lafreniere on board, some people are okay finding the support player who spends 10 solid, if unspectacular years in the NHL. Others view Lafreniere as a safety net to take that big homerun swing and see if you can find someone who is an upper-tier NHL talent.

And that difference could be of the Amirov vs. Khusnutdinov; Perrault vs. Greig variety.

 

[Ghost of jas]

He does have a very good motor and plays a complete game.

I'd put him in the category of someone who is likely to play in the NHL, but whose ultimate offensive output might be a little unclear.

To your point, he's going to fall into the category some people don't like --- aka a guy who isn't as big of a swing and isn't likely to emerge as one of the draft's premiere offensive talents.

As a board, at least based on comments, I think we're somewhat divided on that.

With Lafreniere on board, some people are okay finding the support player who spends 10 solid, if unspectacular years in the NHL. Others view Lafreniere as a safety net to take that big homerun swing and see if you can find someone who is an upper-tier NHL talent.

And that difference could be of the Amirov vs. Khusnutdinov; Perrault vs. Greig variety.

Exactly

 

[True Blue]

And that difference could be of the Amirov vs. Khusnutdinov; Perrault vs. Greig variety.

Agreed.

With Lafreniere on board, put me into the "we need to start to build a supporting cast" person. While I get that there is always a need for high end talent, I actually think that the franchise has a good amount both with the big club and in the wings. Time to start to bring in the players that can make up the new-age Grind line. Which are the Holloways, Amirovs, Greigs of the draft as opposed to the Lapperieres and the Perraults.

 

[Chytilmania]

Agreed.

With Lafreniere on board, put me into the "we need to start to build a supporting cast" person. While I get that there is always a need for high end talent, I actually think that the franchise has a good amount both with the big club and in the wings. Time to start to bring in the players that can make up the new-age Grind line. Which are the Holloways, Amirovs, Greigs of the draft as opposed to the Lapperieres and the Perraults.

Yes and one of the biggest complaints about the team is the bottom 6. We hit a home run with the combo of signing Panarin then winning the lottery two years in a row. Time to build up the rest of the roster and depth. We still have Kravtsov who can be a top end talent and Chytil has a chance to get there.

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

He does have a very good motor and plays a complete game.

I'd put him in the category of someone who is likely to play in the NHL, but whose ultimate offensive output might be a little unclear.

To your point, he's going to fall into the category some people don't like --- aka a guy who isn't as big of a swing and isn't likely to emerge as one of the draft's premiere offensive talents.

As a board, at least based on comments, I think we're somewhat divided on that.

With Lafreniere on board, some people are okay finding the support player who spends 10 solid, if unspectacular years in the NHL. Others view Lafreniere as a safety net to take that big homerun swing and see if you can find someone who is an upper-tier NHL talent.

And that difference could be of the Amirov vs. Khusnutdinov; Perrault vs. Greig variety.

This is why I've warmed so much to the idea of Holloway. Depending on your perspective, he's the one player that can fit into both categories.

 

[Edge]

Decided to revisit the draft simulator:

 

[gravey9]

This is why I've warmed so much to the idea of Holloway. Depending on your perspective, he's the one player that can fit into both categories.

I hope Holloway could be a future Brock Nelson or Brandon Dubinsky. We have a lot of taller forwards but it's unclear how physical they will be in the playoffs.

 

[NYR Viper]

Decided to revisit the draft simulator:

View attachment 366671

View attachment 366675

I love that both of those have them taking Greig in the 2nd

 

[True Blue]

Decided to revisit the draft simulator:

I would take both of these outcomes and run

 

[GoAwayPanarin]

Decided to revisit the draft simulator:

View attachment 366671

View attachment 366675

That first draft makes me so hard.

Hunt at that spot is a STEAL.

 

[gravey9]

One of the flaws of the way Toronto has built their team is they lacked both a better D-corps but they didn't find a way to keep or cultivate enough trucculence in their forward group. Zach Hyman is good, but they traded away Kadri. They have a bottom 6 that's been highly skilled but don't nec play a heavy game. I don't want us to fall into that trap. I don't think we will. But we need to make sure we keep drafting bigger/stronger middle 6 forwards because if our core is as good as we think it'll be, all of these midde-six guys become cap casaulties after 5-7 years. We have to create a pipeline of these guys who can develop in HFD slowly.

Look at PGH and CHI same core group, and how far they go depends almost entirely on how good their role players are. Neither became a dynasty in part because of the cap which means supporting cast is a revolving door and some years are better than others.

The Rangers need to transition soon to focusing more on drafting size, speed, grit. Finding highly skilled forwards that fall because of their size or lack of complete game later in the draft likely becomes less of a priority. Instead we may draft a few more size projects or kids that project to only be a role player.

 

[True Blue]

That first draft makes me so hard.

We gotta talk.

 

[NYR Viper]

One of the flaws of the way Toronto has built their team is they lacked both a better D-corps but they didn't find a way to keep or cultivate enough trucculence in their forward group. Zach Hyman is good, but they traded away Kadri. They have a bottom 6 that's been highly skilled but don't nec play a heavy game. I don't want us to fall into that trap. I don't think we will. But we need to make sure we keep drafting bigger/stronger middle 6 forwards because if our core is as good as we think it'll be, all of these midde-six guys become cap casaulties after 5-7 years. We have to create a pipeline of these guys who can develop in HFD slowly.

This exact reason i why I would prefer to trade Georgiev for a collection of picks more than just using him to trade up. Get a 2nd + 3rd + 4th for Georgiev and start selecting some guys who may take 3-4 years to marinate

 

[GoAwayPanarin]

One of the flaws of the way Toronto has built their team is they lacked both a better D-corps but they didn't find a way to keep or cultivate enough trucculence in their forward group. Zach Hyman is good, but they traded away Kadri. They have a bottom 6 that's been highly skilled but don't nec play a heavy game.

It's lacking everywhere in their lineup.

I mean you can attempt to boat race other teams with your top 6, but you need players in there to do some of the heavy lifting.

There aren't too many players in this league who can do that while not nuking the productivity of the top line players. The Kuntiz/Hornqvist/Bickell/Wilson types are hard to find.

Note: I think Craig Smith could be "that guy" in this free agent class. I'd throw my hat in the ring for him if he could be had at reasonable money.

 

[Edge]

This is why I've warmed so much to the idea of Holloway. Depending on your perspective, he's the one player that can fit into both categories.

I like Holloway more than most on here.

But if you were to pin me down on one prospect who might walk that line, I lean toward Mercer.

I think he's the guy who would bring enough skill to put up points for the Rangers, while being able to move around the lineup, maybe take shifts in a couple of different positions, and give the Rangers a player who has a shot to become an upper-tier support player.

Whether or not he slides within range is another question.

 

[Oscar Lindberg]

I like Faber a lot as a mid round target. He's on my list of RD I hope the Rangers can snag in this draft in rounds 3-5