Prospect Info: 2024 7th OA : Carter Yakemchuk (RHD)

[Nac Mac Feegle]

I disagree. Ottawa is in the exact position where they should be considering positional needs with a 7th overall pick. That's a guy who will be able to play in about 2 years, and with a young core with many positions already filled looking to take the next step, it would be very shortsighted to not consider who is ahead of these prospects in the depth chart. It doesn't make much sense to take a guy like Dickinson or Buium because how is he ever going to play on this team? We have Chabot and Sanderson signed long term, and you're not trading either of those guys away to make room for an unproven rookie taken at #7.

The goal is to build a team, not just a random collection of talent. You'd have a point if they went and grabbed some RHD projected to go 28th or something because they wanted to fill that position, but Yak was always considered a top pick among the rest of the dmen in this draft, so positional need should be considered when determining which of the guys you're going to end up taking.

That's horrible. That's like Dorion throwing in 2nd rounders in trades for the hell of it. Eventually you run out of assets.

It doesn't matter if the BPA is our deepest position. Positional needs can change over time, and if the kid does hit his ceiling, you have the ability to make a trade with a highly valuable asset.

 

[PierresGabriels]

While my preference would be to get lucky and walk away with a Celebrini, Levshunov, or Buium; I am really warming up to the idea of Yakemchuk and wouldn't be disappointed if we landed him.

Right shot D who are rangy, nasty, and skilled are so rare in this league. Having one that pays off would be amazing down the road in the playoffs.

Just sayin' ....

 

[NyQuil]

Regardless of whether Yakemchuk ends up as the best defenceman of the draft, the idea that we are slotting him into our existing team is not how you draft players.

Sure, LD looks good now, but in two years, Chabot may well be gone and all of a sudden we are looking for a top 4 LD again.

If the LD guys go on to compete for Norris trophies, we will feel pretty silly for drafting for positional need when the general consensus was that the LD guys were the better prospects.

Brian Lee was drafted for positional need as the closest thing to Redden in the draft.

 

[Micklebot]

Regardless of whether Yakemchuk ends up as the best defenceman of the draft, the idea that we are slotting him into our existing team is not how you draft players.

Sure, LD looks good now, but in two years, Chabot may well be gone and all of a sudden we are looking for a top 4 LD again.

If the LD guys go on to compete for Norris trophies, we will feel pretty silly for drafting for positional need when the general consensus was that the LD guys were the better prospects.

Brian Lee was drafted for positional need as the closest thing to Redden in the draft.

I don't think we drafted for positional need, I also don't really think any of the LHD are more likely to compete for the Norris down the road than the RHD options.

Also, Chabot is on the books longer than Zub, so if we're worried about "down the road" depth, I'd suggest that RD is just as if not more vulnerable than LD, which is why you never draft for need this high up the draft, by the time these guys are ready, everything can change.

I think this team really values gritty players, Yakumchuk was among the grittiest of the guys in our range.

 

[NyQuil]

I don't think we drafted for positional need, I also don't really think any of the LHD are more likely to compete for the Norris down the road than the RHD options.

Not sure if I agree but we won’t know either way for awhile.

I think this team really values gritty players, Yakumchuk was among the grittiest of the guys in our range.

This has become apparent.

@aragorn must be excited.

 

[bicboi64]

We definitely drafted for positional need and "player archetype". There was a more talented RD available on the board, and we took the more high risk one who happens to fit the frame of someone who is aggressive and physical. It's like they're looking for someone to have Brady's edge on our blueline.

I just hope he can earn himself a spot on our 3rd pairing when Jensen's deal is up

 

[CallSaul]

It's interesting to see how different the narratives were/are between Yakemchuk and Parekh.

Both guys seem pretty similar, in terms of strengths and concerns, to me.

High-end offensive ability, great hands, but questions about how they play in their own end.

For all the people who dismiss players if they're small, they're are just as many people who see a player who's bigger and right away assume "no skill just size".

And from what I've seen, while Parekh is an okay skater, his skating is not Karlsson or Makar-esque.

 

[Mark Stones Spleen]

The main issue with Chychrun is his defensive IQ.

Quite honestly, you need to have Nik Lidstrom level IQ to look like an average Joe with DJ Smith coaching. Chych will be much better after a year somewhere else.

 

[Erik Alfredsson]

That's horrible. That's like Dorion throwing in 2nd rounders in trades for the hell of it. Eventually you run out of assets.

It doesn't matter if the BPA is our deepest position. Positional needs can change over time, and if the kid does hit his ceiling, you have the ability to make a trade with a highly valuable asset.

It absolutely does, what's going to happen in 2 years when he's ready to play in the NHL? How is a prospect supposed to hit their ceiling without developing in the NHL? Is he supposed to just magically become a top 4 dman without actually ever playing in an NHL top 4? How is that going to work? He's all of a sudden going to become a Norris level dman without developing in the top 4? Is he Cale Makar?

If there are a bunch of prospects available that are a similar level to each other, you take the one that you think you can develop into the best player for your team. You don't draft "who is the best prospect at the time of the draft", you take the guy that you think will develop into the best player, and a part of that developing is making sure they have opportunity to develop at the NHL level.

As for "you get a highly valuable asset to trade", prospects lose their value quickly, and if they struggle to crack their projected role due to a log jam in front of them, then their value pretty much tanks. Go ask New Jersey if they think Holtz was a "highly valuable asset" when they traded him a few days ago.

 

[CallSaul]

It absolutely does, what's going to happen in 2 years when he's ready to play in the NHL? How is a prospect supposed to hit their ceiling without developing in the NHL? Is he supposed to just magically become a top 4 dman without actually ever playing in an NHL top 4? How is that going to work? He's all of a sudden going to become a Norris level dman without developing in the top 4? Is he Cale Makar?

If there are a bunch of prospects available that are a similar level to each other, you take the one that you think you can develop into the best player for your team. You don't draft "who is the best prospect at the time of the draft", you take the guy that you think will develop into the best player, and a part of that developing is making sure they have opportunity to develop at the NHL level.

As for "you get a highly valuable asset to trade", prospects lose their value quickly, and if they struggle to crack their projected role due to a log jam in front of them, then their value pretty much tanks. Go ask New Jersey if they think Holtz was a "highly valuable asset" when they traded him a few days ago.

It's also incredible rare for there to be a clear cut "BPA" at a specific draft spot. Sometimes it happens at #1 or 2 with guys like McDavid and Matthews, but once you get into picks later in the top 10, or especially in later rounds, "BPA" is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[PlayOn]

https://x.com/i/web/status/1808230143724605661

On a side note, Ullmark mentioned these two reached out to him too - Brady has always done this but nice to see Batherson stepping up as a leader too. He seems to have been receptive all around to the org’s message last year.

 

[Blotto71]

Regardless of whether Yakemchuk ends up as the best defenceman of the draft, the idea that we are slotting him into our existing team is not how you draft players.

Sure, LD looks good now, but in two years, Chabot may well be gone and all of a sudden we are looking for a top 4 LD again.

If the LD guys go on to compete for Norris trophies, we will feel pretty silly for drafting for positional need when the general consensus was that the LD guys were the better prospects.

Brian Lee was drafted for positional need as the closest thing to Redden in the draft.

Pffft. Top 4 LD are easy to find! Washington just got a 26yr old top 4 LD for an aging defensive RD and a 3rd.

 

[aragorn]

That's horrible. That's like Dorion throwing in 2nd rounders in trades for the hell of it. Eventually you run out of assets.

It doesn't matter if the BPA is our deepest position. Positional needs can change over time, and if the kid does hit his ceiling, you have the ability to make a trade with a highly valuable asset.

Ottawa has a very valuable asset in Yakemchuk RD, he is going to be very valuable as he matures & his game grows.

 

[Nac Mac Feegle]

It absolutely does, what's going to happen in 2 years when he's ready to play in the NHL? How is a prospect supposed to hit their ceiling without developing in the NHL? Is he supposed to just magically become a top 4 dman without actually ever playing in an NHL top 4? How is that going to work? He's all of a sudden going to become a Norris level dman without developing in the top 4? Is he Cale Makar?

If there are a bunch of prospects available that are a similar level to each other, you take the one that you think you can develop into the best player for your team. You don't draft "who is the best prospect at the time of the draft", you take the guy that you think will develop into the best player, and a part of that developing is making sure they have opportunity to develop at the NHL level.

As for "you get a highly valuable asset to trade", prospects lose their value quickly, and if they struggle to crack their projected role due to a log jam in front of them, then their value pretty much tanks. Go ask New Jersey if they think Holtz was a "highly valuable asset" when they traded him a few days ago.

It gives you options. Making a trade from a position of strength means you can be like Colorado and wait for the perfect trade to fall into your lap when moving a Duchene. Every player you draft and have on the roster are assets.

You don't step over a $20 bill to pick up a $10 and a $5 because you want smaller bills in your wallet.

 

[DJB]

https://x.com/i/web/status/1808195380531843455