The discussion is centering around whether Askarov is a "Celebrini" or "Smith/Musty" level prospect. Relative to his peers and his risk profile I agree with others who put him more in the Smith camp - sky high upside, bottomless downside. But also as others have noted, top of the lineup C prospects, or 1RD/1LD, are probably more important to a rebuild/team than a G prospect with top end upside, or maybe even a top end G who is already established -- see recent trade values.
We should ask the question: would we have been ecstatic with this trade if it were a Smith-Askarov trade straight up (obviously not) -- what about Musty or Dickinson (I think some would still be excited but definitely more tempered and others would be more upset).
He's a top 3 goalie prospect in the world, the narrative is he's top 1-2 (Wallstedt, Cossa, etc), with upside for top 5 G in the whole league, but as the game has evolved that level of G prospect is less impactful than others. That said, we now have an enviable goalie pipeline on a good timeline, where 2 days ago we had a dogshit goalie pipeline. And we still have a strong C pipeline, even league-best at the prospect level. The rationale for the move makes sense, I just balk at all the comments anointing Askarov as "Celebrini level" or only a failed trade if the other pick ends up being a hall of famer. This could be a failed trade with no impact, a failed trade that really hurts, a positive trade with slightly positive impact, or a game changer trade that wins us a cup. This is the definition of "risk" and it is not asymmetric risk to the upside, there's risk both directions.
Ad nauseum -- ballsy move by Grier.