Fitzy
Very Stable Genius
- Jan 29, 2009
- 36,357
- 24,157
Stop. Drafting. Goalies. In. The. First. Round.
15 is effectively a second rounder in most other drafts.
Stop. Drafting. Goalies. In. The. First. Round.
That’s not on us (unless I’m reading this incorrectly). The OP asked “Who will the Rangers pick?”, not who we would pick.There's a lot of dumb going on here.
Cool. I wouldn't draft a goalie in the 7th round.15 is effectively a second rounder in most other drafts.
No, not on us. Gunther lasting until eight is a joke. A few other head scratchers.That’s not on us (unless I’m reading this incorrectly). The OP asked “Who will the Rangers pick?”, not who we would pick.
Cool. I wouldn't draft a goalie in the 7th round.
Hellloooooooooooooooooooo! La! La! La!Nobody cares about goalies, Boomer.
There are like 50 good goalies and if you need an especially good one, the team is flawed.One of many reasons I'm glad you aren't the GM
No, not on us. Gunther lasting until eight is a joke. A few other head scratchers.
There are like 50 good goalies and if you need an especially good one, the team is flawed.
Although, if you're drafting Wallstedt to not re-sign Shesty, that's actually based.
Wallstedt, for me. Shesty is turning 26 in December and is already having groin troubles.
Even if he did give us a Hank-esque career, I wouldn't take that if you offered it to me.I'd draft him to have the option.
I see the kid as nearly NHL ready. That's around seven cost controlled seasons including an ELC.
I'm already on team 'one year bridge' for Shesterkin. Then you have him RFA protected, posed to make a trade or a signing. I love his stickhandling and athleticism but I want to see more than 47 NHL games before we give him a long term commitment. There's a number of reasons for this
1) I dont know how his size will hold up in the new NHL, where screens and deflections comprise a huge percentage of goals scored.
2) He's had injury issues
3) Certain posters have overstated this, but he has had a tendency to give up bad goals at extremely inopportune times.
I think the prevailing attitude on the boards is that Shesty will give us another 12-15 year Hank-esque career, but there's no reason to assume that at this juncture. Nor is there any reason to assume that this is the way to build a proper contender.
Worst case scenario you end up like Anaheim with Gibson and Andersen and just keep the one you like more.
Throw in the fact that I think maybe 1 in 5 players picked in the second half of the first round will have lengthy NHL careers.
Askarov and Knight are both looking real good atm
I'd draft him to have the option.
I see the kid as nearly NHL ready. That's around seven cost controlled seasons including an ELC.
I'm already on team 'one year bridge' for Shesterkin. Then you have him RFA protected, posed to make a trade or a signing. I love his stickhandling and athleticism but I want to see more than 47 NHL games before we give him a long term commitment. There's a number of reasons for this
1) I dont know how his size will hold up in the new NHL, where screens and deflections comprise a huge percentage of goals scored.
2) He's had injury issues
3) Certain posters have overstated this, but he has had a tendency to give up bad goals at extremely inopportune times.
I think the prevailing attitude on the boards is that Shesty will give us another 12-15 year Hank-esque career, but there's no reason to assume that at this juncture. Nor is there any reason to assume that this is the way to build a proper contender.
Worst case scenario you end up like Anaheim with Gibson and Andersen and just keep the one you like more.
Throw in the fact that I think maybe 1 in 5 players picked in the second half of the first round will have lengthy NHL careers.
Askarov and Knight are both looking real good atm
And whether Fleury "worked out" is subjective. He's just another random guy that's spent his whole career attached to outstanding teams.The worst case scenario is that he is not an NHL goalie, a bad goalie, or takes very long to become one and it happens for another team (Campbell for example). Vasilevskiy, Price, Fleury are like the only first round pick goalies to have worked out in the last 20 years.
Did I miss a bunch of his groin injuries?
Did I miss a bunch of his groin injuries?
The worst case scenario is that he is not an NHL goalie, a bad goalie, or takes very long to become one and it happens for another team (Campbell for example).
so...Price/Fleury/Vasilevskiy are like the only ones who even did anything long term for the teams that drafted them. Price has a bad contract which provides negative value and we will see how it ends up with Vasilevskiy's.
All of that combined with the fact that goalies have very little trade value (this is not the earlier 2000s where guys like Bernier/Schenider got good returns) make taking someone like a Wallstedt a very bad investment. Even if you take a skater and he isn't looking good you can usually recoup a pick for him with someone who will take a chance (see Lias Andersson).
I'd contest that this is the best time to take Wally because we are approaching a critical juncture with Shesterkin where we either have to commit to him or move on.
The opportunity cost has never been lower considering the kind of draft we are looking at this season.
I wouldn't weep if we took Raty at 15, but most of the rest of these guys are 2nd-3rd round projects at best in a normal year.
I'd contest that this is the best time to take Wally because we are approaching a critical juncture with Shesterkin where we either have to commit to him or move on.
The opportunity cost has never been lower considering the kind of draft we are looking at this season.
I wouldn't weep if we took Raty at 15, but most of the rest of these guys are 2nd-3rd round projects at best in a normal year.
You’re drafting Wallstedt because in 4-5 years Shesty will be 30/31 and looking for a retirement contract and Wallstedt will be 22/23 and ready for action.There are like 50 good goalies and if you need an especially good one, the team is flawed.
Although, if you're drafting Wallstedt to not re-sign Shesty, that's actually based.
We had options besides Girardi and Staal at the time. We signed them because of the whole "it doesn't matter if we give up shots" mentality.You’re drafting Wallstedt because in 4-5 years Shesty will be 30/31 and looking for a retirement contract and Wallstedt will be 22/23 and ready for action.
This team had to re-sign guys like Girardi, Staal, Lundqvist and more recently Kreider because of the lack of depth in our system.
I don’t like drafting goalies in the 1st round but this is an absolute no brainer.
You’re still looking for an impact player with the 15th overall pick. I guess I like Raty and Svechkov - but I don’t see a real difference maker in either of them. Neither player is NHL ready either imo. Wallstedt’s ceiling is massive. If he’s available Drury should sprint to the podium.My thing is, really, some goaltenders save more goals than others, but they all give up stupid ones.
People will point to Fleury the other night and it's like "oh, well that's why you need somebody reliable." Every goaltender gives up horrible goals at horrible times.
Lundqvist got beat clean from the blueline in the 2015 ECF in overtime. Our first SCF home game in 20 years, he gets lit up -- 3 goals on 17 shot *attempts* for LA.
They all do it. Jonathan Quick is regarded as a clutch goalie and half the goals he gives up in the playoffs are from out of the zone. Marty Brodeur has like 13,000 wins and gave up more stupid f***ing goals than any goalie I've ever seen. Tim Thomas had the best run a goalie ever had in 2011 and every goal he gave up in that run, he practically put in his own net.
The team has to be good enough to bail them out when the inevitable happens. The best way to do that is not spend an arm and a leg on the goaltender.
What were our options?We had options besides Girardi and Staal at the time. We signed them because of the whole "it doesn't matter if we give up shots" mentality.
Building around goaltending fosters a toxic mentality towards roster building.
That's why I wouldn't do Hank again if you gave me a time machine.