GDT: 2020 NHL Entry Draft

[One Winged Angel]

From what Edge has said I think it’s more than speculation. Anyway it seems pretty obvious they’re likely going to trade DeAngelo.

I don’t see it as “obvious” at all. I think it’s an ongoing situation that there’s no clear cut or obvious outcome for.

Also from Edge:

I’ve read that and I will go back to the question that I asked edge. Where is he playing if he’s THAT close to being NHL ready?

Ok and when they’re available you still need to pay them at least $4M x 4. That’s not pocket change.

I’d rather pay 4x4 for a Dillon type than 7x7 for a a Hayes type.

That’s why I stress getting someone like Lapierre on an ELC.

 

[Mikos87]

Brent Wallace

@tsn_wally
#sens Dorion on @TSN1200 this am "I don’t think we will be making every pick in the 2nd round.” 2nd Rnd: 33-52-59-61 3rd Rnd: 64-71 5th Rnd: 155 6th Rnd: 158-181 Day 2 of the Draft begins at 11:30am et



Strome to Ottawa?

More curious as to what Geo and Lemeuix can bring if they get moved.

 

[JimmyG89]

I don't believe Larry about Lundkvist. There is nothing to suggest he wants to pick his spot. @Amazing Kreiderman has told us multiple times if not for COVID, Nils would have signed and would have been playing in Hartford right now

He's farming for clicks

Something with Larry Brooks and writing negative things about RHD for this team. Maybe Nils will refuse to talk to him and bitch him out in the lockerroom too.

 

[True Blue]

My issue is I think he is a one dimensional player in that regard. I really don’t think offense is coming. I don’t see upside there at all. Don’t think he has a great shot. He can pass it, but seems like he needs time to set himself up. Don’t think he has a great processor when it comes to offense.

I think that it has come to a point that when people consider what "offense" constitutes, the idea is that it is some sort of facilitator a la Fox. That is a one sided argument. Offense can also be simply getting the puck to the net. Hard. And that is what Schneider can do. He has a rocket of a shot that he can get to the net quickly. That is a pretty valuable commodity. Again, not comparing the two, but the Bruins built up a pretty good power play having Chara boom a shot and then have the down low players search out the rebounds.

Yes, Schnieder is considered to be a "defensive" defenseman. But, he moves well and can join the play, can make a good outlet pass and his ability to boom a shot from the point is being very underrated.

 

[Edge]

Maybe not in their 20’s, but give me the 30 year old stay-at-home #4 at 4-5m a year and a young 2-way top-6C on an ELC over the high floor, low upside stay at home defender on an ELC and someone like Kevin Hayes at 7m a year.

Hopefully he ends being a poor man’s Shea Weber like some think and he’s a legitimate #3, but I have my concerns.



I never said to remove the health concerns from the discussion. That’s why I specifically said that I give the Rangers the free pass in this aspect, being that their doctors couldn’t evaluate him.

I just think at 22, with your 2nd pick in the first round and a glaring need at C, you could afford to take a swing on Lapierre there, especially when next year’s draft is going to be incredibly weak.



Would I have been disappointed? Sure, a little, but at least Zary would have been a higher upside pick there and I’d understand not only passing on Lapierre for the medical concerns, but trading up to get a potential 2C.



Fair, but at the same time I keep seeing people talking about him helping sooner than later. If that’s the case, then I think my question is a more than valid question and something that needs addressing sooner than later.



As for the first part, maybe, maybe not.

As for the last part, I agree. That’s valid.



Completely agree with all of this. It’s definitely something that will be discussed heavily on here over the next however many months.

Don't get me wrong, who wouldn't want a 2C on an entry level contract. But we also have to make sure we don't force that issue. That's a real risk for teams and fans alike. We want a certain player bad enough that maybe we over-project the reality of them hitting that level.

But I think at some point you also have to go for the bitrd in hand versus the two in the bush. Maybe you can find your entry level second line center and maybe that 30 year old defenseman hits free agency. But that's two pretty decent sized maybes and not necessarily a clear cut path to solving either.

As for him being ready sooner, I'm personally okay with that. Hopefully it means we have more than one NHL-ready prospect to dangle for help elsewhere. That's a solid "Win" for me.

I've always felt that value, even if it's from an over-abundance in one area, will yield a high return. If Schneider works out, I'm perfectly fine trying to figure out which RD's we keep.That's an awesome problem to have.

 

[LaffyTaffy]

@Edge i know you mentioned dead silence on the Strome situation. Do you get the feeling that Ottawa knows our fear of arb with him and doesnt want to give up assets because of that? They can sign him as a UFA if we let him walk.

 

[Kovalev27]

This isn’t based on anything I heard last night just speculating as I’ve said for 2 weeks now I see Strome for a 2nd at some point today. Ottawa obviously makes the most sense but I have no clue. I just think we get back into the round here and take a center while offloading him

 

[True Blue]

I've always felt that value, even if it's from an over-abundance in one area, will yield a high return. If Schneider works out, I'm perfectly find trying to figure out which RD's we keep.That's an awesome problem to have.

That is what one would call problems of the first world.

 

[Thirty One]

I get all of it. It's still hard for me to get past the fact that we traded up to grab a guy who plays a position that is already such an organizational strength. Especially when there was such talent at Center still on the board. The move, in a vacuum makes zero sense. Now, if we go out and land a 2C for a package that includes some of our RD depth? Then this all starts to make a bit more sense.

If you think Schneider will be a better player than the centers on the board, it makes sense even if you don't have a move lined up.

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

 

[Savant]

I think that it has come to a point that when people consider what "offense" constitutes, the idea is that it is some sort of facilitator a la Fox. That is a one sided argument. Offense can also be simply getting the puck to the net. Hard. And that is what Schneider can do. He has a rocket of a shot that he can get to the net quickly. That is a pretty valuable commodity. Again, not comparing the two, but the Bruins built up a pretty good power play having Chara boom a shot and then have the down low players search out the rebounds.

Yes, Schnieder is considered to be a "defensive" defenseman. But, he moves well and can join the play, can make a good outlet pass and his ability to boom a shot from the point is being very underrated.

I did not see a rocket of a shot, certainly not consistently.

 

[Bacon Artemi Bravo]

If you think Schneider will be a better player than the centers on the board, it makes sense even if you don't have a move lined up.

Does it though? There has got to be a point of diminishing returns at stacking a single position. The number of NHL ready RD is getting silly. You also don't want to stuff the channel and not get guys who are ready for the NHL, into the NHL. You don't always get fair value in a trade either. There were a ton of centers out there, they didnt need to trade up, in fact they could have traded back and still gotten a decent center + a later pick in they didn't love the centers available. Instead they trade a 3rd to move up to grab a player that while they obviously like him, he fills zero need for us and actually causes a problem that requires a future solution.

I get BPA, but eventually there is a point of diminishing returns. This kid isnt 3 years away from being NHL ready, sounds like he's ready right now or at least close to it.

 

[Edge]

I get all of it. It's still hard for me to get past the fact that we traded up to grab a guy who plays a position that is already such an organizational strength. Especially when there was such talent at Center still on the board. The move, in a vacuum makes zero sense. Now, if we go out and land a 2C for a package that includes some of our RD depth? Then this all starts to make a bit more sense.

It all comes down to whether one thing the talent is equal to or greater than the guy your scouts identified.

The challenge is that these things aren't a constant. If the medical reports don't look great for Lapierre, and if your guys think Zary is more of a third line type, or that the future lies at a different position for certain players, it might not be as close as some think.

I really think we have to careful about wanting to will solutions into existance. I think that approach is far riskier than having too much talent in one position.

If we're looking at center talent, it's pretty much three guys that we can debate at 22 - Lapierre, Zary and Bourque. Everyone else, based on results, is going to be available today.

Lapierre has the health issues. They didn't feel comfortable.

Zary might project as no better than the centers we currently have in the system right now.

Bourque's consistency and effort were a turn-off, his interview didn't go great, and there are questions about him remaining at center.

That's the hard part. You could ignore what you're seeing in a medical file, you could over-project Zary and hope he's a second line center, and you could hope that Bourque decides to put forth a more consitent effort and that the interview was just him having a bad day, but there's risk in all of those areas.

I just think it's not as much of a constant as we sometimes have it in our minds.

 

[True Blue]

I did not see a rocket of a shot, certainly not consistently.

It's there. Does it need to be further developed? Sure. But it's there.

 

[Edge]

@Edge i know you mentioned dead silence on the Strome situation. Do you get the feeling that Ottawa knows our fear of arb with him and doesnt want to give up assets because of that? They can sign him as a UFA if we let him walk.

I think a lot of teams are waiting to see who they can get in Free Agency without giving up assets. That's a big focus right now.

In Strome's case, I'd like to believe the Rangers can still get a second round pick. But teams aren't necessarily going to do the Rangers any favors. It also might be situation where the Rangers were hoping not to have come down from their demands.

If they were hoping for a Zucc-like return, that ask might be shifting right about now.

 

[Oscar Lindberg]

Today’s the day Gorton and co take this draft to an A+++

Lotta good names on the board in the second, I’d like for them to get one for a forward.

Khusnutdinov, Bordeleau, Similiac, Torgersson, Ponomaryov, Peterka, Colangelo, Niederbach, Biondi, Hirvonen, Farrell, Peterson, Mysak all guys I would love

I believe either Strome or Georgiev will be moved to get into the second round

 

[LiveLongandProspal]

Today’s the day Gorton and co take this draft to an A+++

Lotta good names on the board in the second, I’d like for them to get one for a forward.

Khusnutdinov, Bordeleau, Similiac, Torgersson, Ponomaryov, Peterka, Colangelo, Niederbach, Biondi, Hirvonen, Farrell, Peterson all guys I would love

I believe either Strome or Georgiev will be moved to get into the second round

Mysak!!!

 

[Vitto79]

They also said they don’t expect to make all the 2nd round picks

 

[Bacon Artemi Bravo]

It all comes down to whether one thing the talent is equal to or greater than the guy your scouts identified.

The challenge is that these things aren't a constant. If the medical reports don't look great for Lapierre, and if your guys think Zary is more of a third line type, or that the future lies at a different position for certain players, it might not be as close as some think.

I really think we have to careful about wanting to will solutions into existance. I think that approach is far riskier than having too much talent in one position.

If we're looking at center talent, it's pretty much three guys that we can debate at 22 - Lapierre, Zary and Bourque. Everyone else, based on results, is going to be available today.

Lapierre has the health issues. They didn't feel comfortable.

Zary might project as no better than the centers we currently have in the system right now.

Bourque's consistency and effort were a turn-off, his interview didn't go great, and there are questions about him remaining at center.

That's the hard part. You could ignore what you're seeing in a medical file, you could over-project Zary and hope he's a second line center, and you could hope that Bourque decides to put forth a more consitent effort and that the interview was just him having a bad day, but there's risk in all of those areas.

I just think it's not as much of a constant as we sometimes have it in our minds.

I get it and I agree, if you dont think any center left is your guy, definitely don't force it. I guess my issue is, why are you trading up to draft a guy who basically causes a roster issue that is going to need a solution in the near future? There is a point of diminishing returns when you are stacking a single position. Would have much prefered to actually trade back if we weren't in love with the centers at 22. At least then we would have more picks in this draft and maybe a center instead of further stacking an organizational strength and causing a roster problem that requires a solution, and actually losing another pick in the process.

 

[Oscar Lindberg]

Mysak!!!

I forgot about him but he's on the list as well

 

[cheech70]

Strome + Georgiev to Sens for 33 +52 call it a day

 

[One Winged Angel]

Don't get me wrong, who wouldn't want a 2C on an entry level contract. But we also have to make sure we don't force that issue. That's a real risk for teams and fans alike. We want a certain player bad enough that maybe we over-project the reality of them hitting that level.

In most cases, I’d agree with you, but Lapierre isn’t like that.

But I think at some point you also have to go for the bitrd in hand versus the two in the bush. Maybe you can find your entry level second line center and maybe that 30 year old defenseman hits free agency. But that's two pretty decent sized maybes and not necessarily a clear cut path to solving either.

But that logic also works the other way. Neither is a low upside 4D on an ELC and a 2C at 7-8m when you have a ton of wingers that will need high priced deals sooner than later. There’s a possibility that they’ll have 3 wingers in the future that will require double digit salaries, Panarin and then Lafreniere and Kakko. 3 franchise building blocks. This is part of the reason why I’d rather take a chance in UFA on that slightly expensive 4D as opposed to a very expensive 2C. You’re going to save a few million against the cap that way.

As for him being ready sooner, I'm personally okay with that. Hopefully it means we have more than one NHL-ready prospect to dangle for help elsewhere. That's a solid "Win" for me.

I've always felt that value, even if it's from an over-abundance in one area, will yield a high return. If Schneider works out, I'm perfectly find trying to figure out which RD's we keep.That's an awesome problem to have.

I do agree with all of this. It means there’s more options to move, flexibility to work with. I understand that they won’t be able to keep everyone.

My concerns are more along the line of thought of what would I rather pay less as in relation to how their cap situation will be in the future. Maybe I’m thinking too far ahead, but these are things that constantly go through my head with these moves. Maybe that’s why I was drawn the way I was to Wayne Gretzky.

 

[Rangers in 7]

i dont know why @Edge responds to some of you clowns haha you do realize that other teams passed on lapierre as well...ill fully admit i wanted the kid for the upside but also understand that he might never play an nhl game

 

[ecemleafs]

did stutzle video conf in from germany last night? if so he would have been drafted at like 2am local time lol.

 

[Edge]

I guess my issue is, why are you trading up to draft a guy who basically causes a roster issue that is going to need a solution in the near future? There is a point of diminishing returns when you are stacking a single position.

If Schneider is good enough to cause a roster issue on a RD that features three or four of Trouba, ADA, Fox and Lundkvist, that is a very good thing for the Rangers. Because that means either Schneider is doing damn well and making that an issue, or someone is having a really difficult season and might not be the long-term lock we'd hoped they'd be.

Either way, that's value for the Rangers.

When it comes to young, talented, right defensemen on reasonable contracts, I don't think we're looking at diminishing returns. I think diminishing returns is when you have too many goalies, or a tweener who might be over-acheving and coming up on a new contract.

But if the Rangers get to a point where they have to move one or two of ADA, Trouba, Lundkvist, Fox or Schneider because they're all NHL-calibre players, they will get have a nice portfolio of opportunities to use that to their advantage.

Because just like we're looking for those nice ELC or second contract players via trade to fill holes, other teams will be doing the exact same thingto fill their own holes.