Decent goaltending is easy to acquire, but where Askarov is interesting is that he has legit star potential.I am also reluctant to trade for Askarov because established goalies are always available via and trade and rarely cost as much as they were expected to. This year alone Ullmark was traded for a late first and the Bruins took on the Korpisalo contract while Markstrom was traded for a depth defensemen and what is expected to be a late 2025 first round pick. We should hold onto our prospects unless a star young RHD is available and continue to accumulate assets and build up the team. Once our top prospects (hopefully) establish themselves we should go and acquire a good established goalie like Ullmark and Markstrom in exchange for our depth pieces like NJ did.
I think it would be a bad idea to put Askarov behind this Sharks team purely because he's an emotional guy and does let that affect his game. Frankly, it's something I kinda like about him. You want a guy who is fiery and passionate and gets up for big occasions. But playing behind the Sharks D this season... that could break anyone.I do think it's a year too early to go after Askarov, as we've got a terrible situation for a goalie. This year's draft looks strong in goal, but
However, he's pretty unique. 24/25 is usually when goalies start to come into the league, Askarov just turned 22. He's gotten coaching from probably the top goalie coach in the world in Mitch Korn. 6'3, pretty consistently good stats. If he has the mental game to handle playing behind a shit team, it could be a great pickup. I wonder if SJ interviewed him in the 2020 draft (or perhaps more importantly if Grier or Morehouse did). Again, I'd prefer for him to develop one more year, let us grab some top 4 d-men, but if he plays 35 games behind a more structured, deeper NHL defense, it may not be too bad. Also, give Nabby a shot with an actually talented guy, and a Russian too boot?
On Kegan and Sheng's SJhockeyNow podcast, Joe Will's comments about 'wanting a #3 goalie who is young' made me think, they're definitely going to be in on Askarov.
I have no proof for this, but I do think Askarov would report to the Cuda. It doesn't seem to me that it's so much about Askarov not wanting to spend any time in the AHL as much as it is that he wants to be somewhere with a clear path to being the #1G. Nashville with Saros locked in until the end of time is one of the few teams without one.
What about a Bords & one of Bystedt/Edstrom?
Highly touted first round goaltenders rarely come around. I see what Dallas got from Jake and Tampa from Vasi. I remember Montreal getting hammered for drafting price at 5. How often do first round goaltenders not become Vezina candidates?
ThisHighly touted first round goaltenders rarely come around. I see what Dallas got from Jake and Tampa from Vasi. I remember Montreal getting hammered for drafting price at 5. How often do first round goaltenders not become Vezina candidates?
So basically the rate of a first round goalie being at least a serviceable NHLer is higher than any other position.There isn't a big enough sample size to answer your question but in recent (2010 or later) memory, Malcolm Subban and Ilya Samsonov come to mind as 1st round goalies who are not studs.
And Jack Campbell and Mark Visentin. Visentin might be the only complete bust, but Campbell isn't good either.
So basically the rate of a first round goalie being at least a serviceable NHLer is higher than any other position.
This was a good question so I did a quick scan since 2000.How often do first round goaltenders not become Vezina candidates?
Why no "woof" by Visentin? Dude only has one NHL game to his name.This was a good question so I did a quick scan since 2000.
2000 - DiPietro 1 (woof)
2001 - Pascal Leclaire 8, Dan Blackburn 10, Jason Bacashihua 26, Adam Munro 29 (woof)
2002 - Kari Lehtonen 2 (never higher than 8th Vezina), Cam Ward 25 (7th in Vezina but Conn Smythe), Hannu Toivonen 29
2003 - Flower 1
2004 - Al Montoya 6, Dubnyk 14, Marek Schwarz 17, Cory Schneider 26,
2005 - Price 5, Rask 21,
2006 - Jonathan Bernier 11, Riku Helenius 15, Varlamov 23, Leland Irving 26,
2007 -
2008 - Chet Pickard 18, Tom McCollum 30
2009 -
2010 - Jack Campbell 11, Mark Visentin 27
2011 -
2012 - Vaselivskiy 19, Malcolm Subban 24,
2013 -
2014 -
2015 - Ilya Samsonov 22,
2016 -
2017 - Oettinger 26
2018 -
2019 - Spencer Knight 13,
2020 - Askarov 11,
2021 - Cossa 15, Wallstedt 20,
2022 -
2023 -
2024 -
So the rough count is something like 7 who were solidly top 5 (maybe you argue Varlamov, Samsonov, Bernier, Schneider had good spikes). Out of 31 drafted.
So yeah not great, kind of like general hockey drafting.
I think your percentage is skewered by the fact 3 of those players haven’t played (or barely played) in the NHL, Knight was on his way and still may be. Dipietro was turning into a real solid 1 but the back issues plagued him.This was a good question so I did a quick scan since 2000.
2000 - DiPietro 1 (woof)
2001 - Pascal Leclaire 8, Dan Blackburn 10, Jason Bacashihua 26, Adam Munro 29 (woof)
2002 - Kari Lehtonen 2 (never higher than 8th Vezina), Cam Ward 25 (7th in Vezina but Conn Smythe), Hannu Toivonen 29
2003 - Flower 1
2004 - Al Montoya 6, Dubnyk 14, Marek Schwarz 17, Cory Schneider 26,
2005 - Price 5, Rask 21,
2006 - Jonathan Bernier 11, Riku Helenius 15, Varlamov 23, Leland Irving 26,
2007 -
2008 - Chet Pickard 18, Tom McCollum 30
2009 -
2010 - Jack Campbell 11, Mark Visentin 27
2011 -
2012 - Vaselivskiy 19, Malcolm Subban 24,
2013 -
2014 -
2015 - Ilya Samsonov 22,
2016 -
2017 - Oettinger 26
2018 -
2019 - Spencer Knight 13,
2020 - Askarov 11,
2021 - Cossa 15, Wallstedt 20,
2022 -
2023 -
2024 -
So the rough count is something like 7 who were solidly top 5 (maybe you argue Varlamov, Samsonov, Bernier, Schneider had good spikes). Out of 31 drafted.
So yeah not great, kind of like general hockey drafting.
There might be other "woofs" in there, I just "woof"'d DiPietro and the next class who had 4 names I've never heard of or barely remember.Why no "woof" by Visentin? Dude only has one NHL game to his name.
I mean, I didn't do any very precise numbers. My point is that whether it's 7 or 10 or 15, out of 31, you're not getting a guarantee in Askarov.I think your percentage is skewered by the fact 3 of those players haven’t played (or barely played) in the NHL, Knight was on his way and still may be. Dipietro was turning into a real solid 1 but the back issues plagued him.
You’re not getting a guarantee out of any player, but it’s rare a player like Askarov becomes available for reasons other than he’s not progressing.There might be other "woofs" in there, I just "woof"'d DiPietro and the next class who had 4 names I've never heard of or barely remember.
I mean, I didn't do any very precise numbers. My point is that whether it's 7 or 10 or 15, out of 31, you're not getting a guarantee in Askarov.
For every shesterkin there’s a thousand Melnichucks and Korenars.I am not sure if this is backed up by any actual numbers but it seems like a lot of the top goalies tend to be mid to late round picks who develop overseas and then teams get lucky and they turn into stars. The most clear example of this in my mind is Shesterkin.
For sure, it's exciting. But also -- why didn't Nashville foresee this? It's not like Trotz is an idiot, and they've been excellent at developing goalies. As someone on the main boards thread said, "what does Trotz know that we don't?"You’re not getting a guarantee out of any player, but it’s rare a player like Askarov becomes available for reasons other than he’s not progressing.
Very true about the thousands of Korenars and Melnichucks. I just prefer the strategy of selecting lots of late round goalie lottery picks to selecting a goalie earlier in the draft. But considering the state of the Sharks goaltending system they should probably adopt a different strategy.You’re not getting a guarantee out of any player, but it’s rare a player like Askarov becomes available for reasons other than he’s not progressing.
For every shesterkin there’s a thousand Melnichucks and Korenars.
I think for trotz it was a win-now case of not wanting to wait for Askarov to develop into Saros when he already had a Saros. He wasn’t making those big free agent splashes for 2-3 years down the road.For sure, it's exciting. But also -- why didn't Nashville foresee this? It's not like Trotz is an idiot, and they've been excellent at developing goalies. As someone on the main boards thread said, "what does Trotz know that we don't?"
I'm only saying that there is risk enough with this player, and a long enough runway until we're competitive, that I'm not sure it's worth a lot of assets.
Goalies take longer to develop. Nothing news-breaking there. Why go that route when you can bring in a high-pedigree guy already developed by a pretty good goalie-friendly system in Nashville? The team desperately needs goalie prospects and Joe Will coming out claiming the goalie he picked up in the mid 7th was their second ranked goalie in the entire draft doesn’t exactly inspire me.Very true about the thousands of Korenars and Melnichucks. I just prefer the strategy of selecting lots of late round goalie lottery picks to selecting a goalie earlier in the draft. But considering the state of the Sharks goaltending system they should probably adopt a different strategy.