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

[bert]

There were 12 guys for 10 slots. We'll of course never know for sure, but I think Yakemchuk definitely could have fallen outside the top 10 if the board fell a different way. It happened to Noah Dobson, another big, PPG RHD, after all.

RHD are valued more now and Yakemchuk has a physical aspect to his game and scored more goals. I dont think it happens under any circumstance. There was a top 12 but his skillset is so unique he wouldnt have been on the bottom. He didnt have a russian factor etc.

 

[albator71]

What I don't understand is why anyone that actually watched the player. Saw the stat line, looked at his position and physical appearance then didn't like the prospect or thought he wouldnt be a top 10 pick. Didn't make any sense. Was such a strange phenomenon to me. I told everyone pre draft he was going top 10. Was told I was wrong by many posters on this board. Then voila, here we are. His physical package is so unique to have his level of skill. Not many 6'3 18 year Olds are physically mature. It takes time, he is gonna get there though. When he does oh man.

I agree with you, Bert; snagging Yak at 7 could be a great move for the Sens. While some fans believe they know better than the scouts, I tend to trust the professionals. After all, it's their job to evaluate and rank prospects, aiming to make the optimal selection for the franchise. Who are we to question their decisions? What insights do we have that they lack? Sure, they might occasionally miss the mark—drafting 18-year-old kids is inherently risky and far from an exact science.

 

[bert]

I agree with you, Bert; snagging Yak at 7 could be a great move for the Sens. While some fans believe they know better than the scouts, I tend to trust the professionals. After all, it's their job to evaluate and rank prospects, aiming to make the optimal selection for the franchise. Who are we to question their decisions? What insights do we have that they lack? Sure, they might occasionally miss the mark—drafting 18-year-old kids is inherently risky and far from an exact science.

Which they took alot of the risk out of it when you look at the player overall. Plays the most valuable position, has tremendous size, had amazing production, plays a physical game. Those basis points are why he was never going to slide too far when other guys have risks. He checks all the boxes.

 

[JD1]

Sanderson was playing full time in year 3. Never played a game in the minors. Was arguably our best D man by Christmas in his rookie year

Development is unique. I don't see this kid taking a long time to be ready. He'll be 20 prior to the start of next year and I won't be surprised to see him in the opening lineup next season.

 

[coladin]

I think Catton is the only undersized forward that might have gone ahead of him, Heleinious at 5'11 190 might be a bit below average, but not so much that there's any serious concerns about his size. It's the 4 Dmen that went after him who all could have just as easily been ahead of him though. Silayev slid much further than I expected, as did Buium, and I could easily see a team preferring Parekh over Yakemchuk as evidenced by more scouts in Bob's list having Parekh in their top ten than Yakemchuk.

I'm happy with who we got, I just think there were a lot of viable options,

My initial choice was Yakemchuk, then I wavered to a forward, Catton, who I think will be a superstar. I also liked Parekh alot because I wanted someone creative like Karlsson out there. But I was always intrigues by the frame of Yakemchuk and his shot, which we are lacking as well.

 

[R We A Team]

There are a few posters saying he will be 20 next year while others are stating that he is 18 now.

Which is it? Is he 18 now turning 19 shortly? or is he 19 now turning 20 shortly?

Trying to clear up the confusion going on in my brain so thanks!!

 

[Golden_Jet]

There are a few posters saying he will be 20 next year while others are stating that he is 18 now.

Which is it? Is he 18 now turning 19 shortly? or is he 19 now turning 20 shortly?

Trying to clear up the confusion going on in my brain so thanks!!

The first one, Sportsnet screwed it up.
18 now. 19 in a week.

 

[R We A Team]

Great thanks!! So he has plenty of time yet before he should be expected to be a full time NHL player.

If he exceeds expectations and makes the team before his 20th birthday then thats fantastic!!

 

[SpezDispenser]

Sanderson was playing full time in year 3. Never played a game in the minors. Was arguably our best D man by Christmas in his rookie year

Development is unique. I don't see this kid taking a long time to be ready. He'll be 20 prior to the start of next year and I won't be surprised to see him in the opening lineup next season.

Definitely, but Sanderson could have been a top 2-3 pick, which is a ways away from a 7th OV. This kid looks GOOD though. Full of confidence, big, talented. If things go right with him....boy oh boy, him and Sanderson on the same team is a salivating thought.

 

[Korpse]

There are a few posters saying he will be 20 next year while others are stating that he is 18 now.

Which is it? Is he 18 now turning 19 shortly? or is he 19 now turning 20 shortly?

Trying to clear up the confusion going on in my brain so thanks!!

A confusing way to think about is that he was just drafted top 10. For him to be turning 20 during training camp he would have to have been passed over as an 18 year old in his draft eligible year and then drafted top 10 as a 19 year old in his second year of eligibility.

 

[bashbros32]

A confusing way to think about is that he was just drafted top 10. For him to be turning 20 during training camp he would have to have been passed over as an 18 year old in his draft eligible year and then drafted top 10 as a 19 year old in his second year of eligibility.

has this ever happened in modern times?

 

[Korpse]

has this ever happened in modern times?

Chinakov is the highest that I can remember he was 21st in 2020. Some other first rounders include Pearson and Perron.

 

[Nac Mac Feegle]

The best thing for him is to monitor where he's at and have him progress based on merit, not artificial timelines

He's an older prospect relative to his draft class, you look at a guy like Luke Hughes, who is on the opposite side of the age spectrum and he was full time by his 20th birthday, Yakemchuk will be 20 to start next season. Similarly, Sieder was full time in Detroit as a 20 yr old. Byram joined a contender in Colorado and played one yr of junior after being drafted before cracking the NHL club though injuries limited his games played

There's no hard and fast rule for what's best for a player. His play will dictate what's best for him.

I'm saying that it will likely take a good 3 seasons until he's ready to be a full time NHLer...and ready to earn a spot over guys on the roster. That's not a crazy timeline.

 

[Bjornar Moxnes]

I agree with you, Bert; snagging Yak at 7 could be a great move for the Sens. While some fans believe they know better than the scouts, I tend to trust the professionals. After all, it's their job to evaluate and rank prospects, aiming to make the optimal selection for the franchise. Who are we to question their decisions? What insights do we have that they lack? Sure, they might occasionally miss the mark—drafting 18-year-old kids is inherently risky and far from an exact science.

the same scouts that picked Jarventie over Peterka, Boucher 10th overall, Roger when Stankoven was available, and also Eliasson that high? I do like the Yakemchuk pick of course. There's also Pinto and Halliday that are looking like good later round picks, but still our scouting sucks.

 

[Senator Stanley]

the same scouts that picked Jarventie over Peterka, Boucher 10th overall, Roger when Stankoven was available, and also Eliasson that high? I do like the Yakemchuk pick of course. There's also Pinto and Halliday that are looking like good later round picks, but still our scouting sucks.

It's worth remembering that our scouting at the top of the draft has been excellent. It's easy to lose sight of the fact that we have a young core of Tkachuk, Stutzle and Sanderson because we hit on those three picks. Yes, it's easier to hit when there are great prospects staring at you on the board, but they still had to do it. Lots of team have blown it in similar spots.

It's later on - basically once they've gotten outside of the very top of the draft class - that they've made too many big mistakes. (And yeah, Boucher went 10th overall, but he went 10th in a nine player draft).

 

[Masked]

It's worth remembering that our scouting at the top of the draft has been excellent. It's easy to lose sight of the fact that we have a young core of Tkachuk, Stutzle and Sanderson because we hit on those three picks. Yes, it's easier to hit when there are great prospects staring at you on the board, but they still had to do it. Lots of team have blown it in similar spots.

Keep in mind that only Stutzle was the consensus pick. We could have had Zadina and Drysdale instead.

 

[BankStreetParade]

It's worth remembering that our scouting at the top of the draft has been excellent. It's easy to lose sight of the fact that we have a young core of Tkachuk, Stutzle and Sanderson because we hit on those three picks. Yes, it's easier to hit when there are great prospects staring at you on the board, but they still had to do it. Lots of team have blown it in similar spots.

It's later on - basically once they've gotten outside of the very top of the draft class - that they've made too many big mistakes. (And yeah, Boucher went 10th overall, but he went 10th in a nine player draft).

I'd say what they've accomplished in the top 2 rounds has been pretty damn good. Unfortunately, some people seem to only focus on the misses rather than the overall quality of the drafting.

Even in 2020, they hit on Stutzle and Sanderson (who might go 1 and 2 in a redraft) but also get Greig at 28 and Kleven at 44. Yet more attention is paid to missing on Peterka to draft Jarventie. They're going to go 4/6 in their 1st and 2nd round picks of 2020 (while ending up with 2 superstars and 2 above average role players) and some people can't help but focus on the ones they got wrong.

In 2019, Thomson at 19, Pinto at 32 and Sogaard at 37. Pinto is a first rounder in a redraft and Sogaard is still trending very positively considering the position he plays. And yet we focus on Thomson being a miss despite not much quality coming immediately after him.

2021 gets ragged on a lot for the Boucher pick and it's certainly justified, in a sense. But who was the obvious pick after him? And what is the overall quality of the draft looking like 3+ years after? Sillinger's been a 0.33pt/g player so far in 200+ games and I don't think there's really any way to justify drafting Wyatt Johnston at 10, at the time. Who knows, maybe with some health Boucher trends to become a player? I'm not holding my breath for it, lol, but it's as much a possibility as almost any of the players drafted after him becoming meaningful contributors. At 39 we get Ostapchuk who will almost certainly be a player for this team at some point in the next 12-18 months. The Ben Roger pick didn't work out but the theory wasn't bad. A 6'4" RHD? You gotta buy a lottery ticket sometimes to win the jackpot.

 

[Micklebot]

Keep in mind that only Stutzle was the consensus pick. We could have had Zadina and Drysdale instead.

Tkachuk was third on Bob's list ahead of Zadina, but there were lots of internet services that preferred Zadina.

Consensus is a bit of a misnomer if you ask me, since generally it's lots of people having very different opinions and taking the average rather than a true consensus where most generally agree on a ranking, but at least in the case of Sanderson vs Drysdale, there was much closer to an actual consensus.

 

[Norris4Norris]

I didn't watch the first preseason game, but saw Yakemchuk's goal.

People are saying his skating isn't great and I'll take their word on that. But the highlight goal showed that he was quick enough on his feet to use his filthy hands.

I do remember people saying that Tkachuk wouldn't be able to keep up with the pace of the NHL. I then watched him undressing goalies for a minute straight and I gave him the benefit of the doubt.

We drafted Mark Stone and he became our greatest player. Dude had funny skating but it didn't matter because his stick and his mind were quicker than the puck.

 

[Micklebot]

I'd say what they've accomplished in the top 2 rounds has been pretty damn good. Unfortunately, some people seem to only focus on the misses rather than the overall quality of the drafting.

Even in 2020, they hit on Stutzle and Sanderson (who might go 1 and 2 in a redraft) but also get Greig at 28 and Kleven at 44. Yet more attention is paid to missing on Peterka to draft Jarventie. They're going to go 4/6 in their 1st and 2nd round picks of 2020 (while ending up with 2 superstars and 2 above average role players) and some people can't help but focus on the ones they got wrong.

In 2019, Thomson at 19, Pinto at 32 and Sogaard at 37. Pinto is a first rounder in a redraft and Sogaard is still trending very positively considering the position he plays. And yet we focus on Thomson being a miss despite not much quality coming immediately after him.

2021 gets ragged on a lot for the Boucher pick and it's certainly justified, in a sense. But who was the obvious pick after him? And what is the overall quality of the draft looking like 3+ years after? Sillinger's been a 0.33pt/g player so far in 200+ games and I don't think there's really any way to justify drafting Wyatt Johnston at 10, at the time. Who knows, maybe with some health Boucher trends to become a player? I'm not holding my breath for it, lol, but it's as much a possibility as almost any of the players drafted after him becoming meaningful contributors. At 39 we get Ostapchuk who will almost certainly be a player for this team at some point in the next 12-18 months. The Ben Roger pick didn't work out but the theory wasn't bad. A 6'4" RHD? You gotta buy a lottery ticket sometimes to win the jackpot.

People have a hard time comparing Drafts to what should be expected, and instead compare a teams draft to either a specific player they wanted, or a team that happened to knock it out of the park.

When you look at our drafts from a expected return perspective, we are probably a little below average lately (2020 aside). It happens, you're dealing with low probability events.

I did a quick look at historical drafts, from 2000-2010, and called a F with 100+ gp and >.35 pts/gp, a D with 300+gp and G with 200+gp a successful/impactful pick. Using those parameters, a top 15 pick has a 70% hit rate, 16-32 is 38%, 2nd rd 11%, 3rd 6.4%, 4th 6.5%, 5th 4.5%, 6th 5.7% and 7th rd 4%.

Based on that our drafts from 2021 to 2024 should 3 successful picks. That's it.

Extend it back all the way to Dorion's first draft and the expected return is 9.4, which I think we have a good chance of hitting, Stutzle, Tkachuk, Batherson, Pinto, Greig, Formenton (he just barely hit but certainly would have, then guys like Kleven, JBD, Ostapchuk, Yakemchuk, Sogaard, Merrilainen, Donovan, Andonovski, Eliasson, Guenette ect who all have the potential to hit, not to mention .

 

[Bjornar Moxnes]

I will say compared to Buffalo, we've actually managed to do well with our picks.

 

[BankStreetParade]

People have a hard time comparing Drafts to what should be expected, and instead compare a teams draft to either a specific player they wanted, or a team that happened to knock it out of the park.

Under this reasoning, there's no reason to nitpick the Peterka/Jarventie pick because it's pretty evident that the totality of the 2020 draft is well above expectations. And yet so many times that name is brought up because it seems like nothing is ever enough for some people. You get 2 superstars and 2 above-average role players (who could potentially be even more) and it's still not enough.

When you look at our drafts from a expected return perspective, we are probably a little below average lately (2020 aside). It happens, you're dealing with low probability events.

I did a quick look at historical drafts, from 2000-2010, and called a F with 100+ gp and >.35 pts/gp, a D with 300+gp and G with 200+gp a successful/impactful pick. Using those parameters, a top 15 pick has a 70% hit rate, 16-32 is 38%, 2nd rd 11%, 3rd 6.4%, 4th 6.5%, 5th 4.5%, 6th 5.7% and 7th rd 4%.

I'm having trouble understanding how a F only needs 100 games to be considered impactful while a D needs 300 and a G needs 200? Especially with the sentence that follows.

Based on that our drafts from 2021 to 2024 should 3 successful picks. That's it.

This doesn't make a ton of sense to me relative to the stats you posted in the paragraph above this. From the 2021 draft, there's only 4 forwards who are considered successful/impactful picks, according to your rubric, and no defensemen or goaltenders yet. So how could we be expected to have 3 successful picks at this point from that draft?

 

[Micklebot]

Under this reasoning, there's no reason to nitpick the Peterka/Jarventie pick because it's pretty evident that the totality of the 2020 draft is well above expectations. And yet so many times that name is brought up because it seems like nothing is ever enough for some people. You get 2 superstars and 2 above-average role players (who could potentially be even more) and it's still not enough.

I'm having trouble understanding how a F only needs 100 games to be considered impactful while a D needs 300 and a G needs 200? Especially with the sentence that follows.

This doesn't make a ton of sense to me relative to the stats you posted in the paragraph above this. From the 2021 draft, there's only 4 forwards who are considered successful/impactful picks, according to your rubric, and no defensemen or goaltenders yet. So how could we be expected to have 3 successful picks at this point from that draft?

the .35 pts per game threshold is the big thing for forwards, changing the game limit to a higher number really doesn't shave off many if any guys, if you hit .35 pts per game, and hit 100 gp, you are almost certainly going to hit 200 and 300 games too, unless you are Formenton and get yourself exiled. Basically you're getting top 9 forwards, or very good 4th liners.



Dmen are hard to categorize using basic stats that I had readily available with draft data but 300 games means his not just a guy that was given a chance based on pedigree and then flamed out. He might only be a 3rd pair guy, but he's likely a legit NHL player. A guy like Cowen, who got every chance, misses here. Same with Brian Lee. Chris Wideman barely misses (would have made it if not for Malkin...), same with Gryba, meanwhile Boro makes the cut easily.

200 games for a goalie means you were a backup at worst. Emery, Lehner, Elliott. Maybe I should have lowered that one, but goalies are a pretty small minority in the draft.

The stat thresholds were only applied to the 2000-2010 seasons to get an expected % hit rate, they were not and should not be used to categorize guys from more recent drafts who are still early in their career. You could project whether you think a 2020 guy will hit those thresholds, for example, I think Greig will easily hit it, but he hasn't yet. That doesn't mean, nor did I use those thresholds to categorize Greig as a miss (or a hit), it was just to illustrate how many guys we need to hit on when it's all said and done to be meeting expectations.

 

[Bjornar Moxnes]

I'd say what they've accomplished in the top 2 rounds has been pretty damn good. Unfortunately, some people seem to only focus on the misses rather than the overall quality of the drafting.

Even in 2020, they hit on Stutzle and Sanderson (who might go 1 and 2 in a redraft) but also get Greig at 28 and Kleven at 44. Yet more attention is paid to missing on Peterka to draft Jarventie. They're going to go 4/6 in their 1st and 2nd round picks of 2020 (while ending up with 2 superstars and 2 above average role players) and some people can't help but focus on the ones they got wrong.

In 2019, Thomson at 19, Pinto at 32 and Sogaard at 37. Pinto is a first rounder in a redraft and Sogaard is still trending very positively considering the position he plays. And yet we focus on Thomson being a miss despite not much quality coming immediately after him.

2021 gets ragged on a lot for the Boucher pick and it's certainly justified, in a sense. But who was the obvious pick after him? And what is the overall quality of the draft looking like 3+ years after? Sillinger's been a 0.33pt/g player so far in 200+ games and I don't think there's really any way to justify drafting Wyatt Johnston at 10, at the time. Who knows, maybe with some health Boucher trends to become a player? I'm not holding my breath for it, lol, but it's as much a possibility as almost any of the players drafted after him becoming meaningful contributors. At 39 we get Ostapchuk who will almost certainly be a player for this team at some point in the next 12-18 months. The Ben Roger pick didn't work out but the theory wasn't bad. A 6'4" RHD? You gotta buy a lottery ticket sometimes to win the jackpot.

I mean even in 2020, beyond missing on Peterka, Faber was available for Kleven's pick. If we had Faber, one of the following two scenarios would have happened:

1. We get that perfect #1 RHD to play with Sanderson.
2. If Faber made it clear he wasn't going to sign with us, we could have flipped him in the 2022 draft for Fiala, and signed him for a long term contract avoiding the entire Debrincat fiasco.

 

[aragorn]

Which they took alot of the risk out of it when you look at the player overall. Plays the most valuable position, has tremendous size, had amazing production, plays a physical game. Those basis points are why he was never going to slide too far when other guys have risks. He checks all the boxes.

And it was an opportunity to go for need, while my own opinion from the beginning was that he was the best fit for this team & IMO he was as good as any of the other D we were discussing in the early part of the first rd why not go for need since as you say he checked off all the boxes, it was a perfect fit for the team.

Also given his age & birthday he should be able to go to Belleville for next season & be available for a callup if needed. I expect that once Jensen's contract is up in two yrs we could see him on that bottom pairing with Kleven & let him work his way up the roster. It will be up to him to get the coaches trust & that comes from hard work, good positional play & good decsion making & being physical which he can do.