NHL Entry Draft 2024 NHL Draft Talk

[Hale The Villain]

Not me. We need "quality" draft picks, not "quantity".

If we could get the #8 to #10 plus another 1st round pick, I might agree to it but it would depend on which players would be available at #7, #8 and #9.

I think we need both quality and quantity at this point after having traded away so many picks in recent years.

Question is how much of a difference in quality there is between the prospect we can select at 7 and at 14.

Personally I think the most likely picks for us at 7 are Dickinson and Iginla. Maybe even Sennecke or Yakemchuk.

I'd gladly move down to 14 and pick a guy like Brandsegg-Nygard if it also meant getting two quality prospects at picks 33 and 42, as I don't see a massive difference between MBN and Iginla/Sennecke, for example.

 

[Icelevel]

No way. No trading back. Get your guy. If you don’t have a guy at that spot you didn’t do your work.

 

[Hale The Villain]

No way. No trading back. Get your guy. If you don’t have a guy at that spot you didn’t do your work.

The "get your guy" argument is dumb.

You should only pass up the offer if the guy you can get at 7 is significantly better than the guy you can get at 14.

If that's not the case, which IMO it isn't this year, you should take deal.

 

[bicboi64]

Would anyone be willing to entertain a trade down with San Jose to 14?

One guy on the trade board proposed 14 + 33 + 42 to move up to our spot so the Sharks can draft one of the top D.

I think 14 would be the lowest I would be willing to trade back to, but I don't see a massive difference in quality between the players I expect would be available at that spot and the players expected to be there at 7.

The 14th seems too low. If Buffalo or NJD offers us their pick and then a couple of 2nds, I'd be a bit more willing.

 

[Hale The Villain]

The 14th seems too low. If Buffalo or NJD offers us their pick and then a couple of 2nds, I'd be a bit more willing.

It seems low and in most years there's a fairly decent gap in the kind of prospects available at 7 and at 14, but this year's crop is pretty deep up until about pick 14-15. That's where the dropoff occurs IMO.

 

[Burrowsaurus]

The "get your guy" argument is dumb.

You should only pass up the offer if the guy you can get at 7 is significantly better than the guy you can get at 14.

If that's not the case, which IMO it isn't this year, you should take deal.

Trade back 7 spots for some additional lottery tickets?

 

[bicboi64]

It seems low and in most years there's a fairly decent gap in the kind of prospects available at 7 and at 14, but this year's crop is pretty deep up until about pick 14-15. That's where the dropoff occurs IMO.

I'd swap with the Flames, but only if they add in the Canucks pick and either theirs or the Stars' 2nd.

They might be desperate to swap if they want mini Iggy and he's still on the board.

 

[Hale The Villain]

Trade back 7 spots for some additional lottery tickets?

2nd round picks are valuable. We couldn't even get one for Tarasenko, remember.

They aren't guaranteed NHLers but a pick at the start of the 2nd round is how we got Pinto.

Let's not pretend they are just lottery tickets. That's Dorion-esque thinking right there.

I'd swap with the Flames, but only if they add in the Canucks pick and either theirs or the Stars' 2nd.

They might be desperate to swap if they want mini Iggy and he's still on the board.

No team is giving up a late 1st and another 2nd to move up 2 spots from 9 to 7.

And certainly it's not happening in this year's draft where the difference between 7 and 9 is rather negligble.

 

[Senator Stanley]

Would anyone be willing to entertain a trade down with San Jose to 14?

One guy on the trade board proposed 14 + 33 + 42 to move up to our spot so the Sharks can draft one of the top D.

I think 14 would be the lowest I would be willing to trade back to, but I don't see a massive difference in quality between the players I expect would be available at that spot and the players expected to be there at 7.

Definitely wouldn't do it for that return. I could see the argument for going from 7 to say 10, depending on who drops to 7 on draft day and who the scouts see making it to 10, but 14 is too much of a drop and too much of a step down.

At 7, we could realistically get the 5th or 6th prospect on our list, and obviously will do no worse than 7th. At 14, we're probably getting our 13th/14th guy, and I am sure our scouts see a meaningful difference between those two spots and players. I know I do.

 

[Burrowsaurus]

2nd round picks are valuable. We couldn't even get one for Tarasenko, remember.

They aren't guaranteed NHLers but a pick at the start of the 2nd round is how we got Pinto.

Let's not pretend they are just lottery tickets. That's Dorion-esque thinking right there.



No team is giving up a late 1st and another 2nd to move up 2 spots from 9 to 7.

And certainly it's not happening in this year's draft where the difference between 7 and 9 is rather negligble.

History tells us not to bank on second round picks.

And I’ll take second round picks for free and I wouldn’t give them for free. Ask me to give away my lottery tickets away for free lol. No. But I won’t trade back 7 spots to get an extra one.

 

[bert]

@bert you want a big d corps but you also want buium. How do you recconcile those two things? I don’t know if buium is going to be clearing the front of the net exactly

Buium wasnt scored on for 8 straight elimination/playoff games. He can defend with his stick, mind and feet. I want a Vancouver lite D core. Two elite puck movers that can also defend, then big guys the rest of the way. Offensive D men are a dime a dozen right now the ones that can do both are the unicorns. I want a D core that is elite at defending, there are certain roles you just cant have too many small players. If a D man is undersized they have to be very special.

Would anyone be willing to entertain a trade down with San Jose to 14?

One guy on the trade board proposed 14 + 33 + 42 to move up to our spot so the Sharks can draft one of the top D.

I think 14 would be the lowest I would be willing to trade back to, but I don't see a massive difference in quality between the players I expect would be available at that spot and the players expected to be there at 7.

The sens D core is the weakest part of the roster. Why arent the sens drafting an elite D man?... An Elite D man is literally the hardest asset to acquire. There is a massive difference the sens are guaranteed to get a top 4 d man picking 7th. They are likely going to get a middle 6 winger at 14.

 

[Hale The Villain]

Definitely wouldn't do it for that return. I could see the argument for going from 7 to say 10, depending on who drops to 7 on draft day and who the scouts see making it to 10, but 14 is too much of a drop and too much of a step down.

At 7, we could realistically get the 5th or 6th prospect on our list, and obviously will do no worse than 7th. At 14, we're probably getting our 13th/14th guy, and I am sure our scouts see a meaningful difference between those two spots and players. I know I do.

You have to give to get and you're asking for too much to move down only a few spots.

We don't get two high 2nd round picks in exchange for moving down from 7 to 10, especially in a draft like this.

 

[Hale The Villain]

The sens D core is the weakest part of the roster. Why arent the sens drafting an elite D man?... An Elite D man is literally the hardest asset to acquire. There is a massive difference the sens are guaranteed to get a top 4 d man picking 7th. They are likely going to get a middle 6 winger at 14.

Because you don't draft for need, as that's stupid.

Also I don't think there's an elite D to be had in this draft besides Parekh (boom/bust guy) and maybe Buium, but I don't see the Sens taking either guy.

Brandsegg-Nygard is my 14th ranked player right now and would be the worst case scenario for me if we ended up with him at 14, but watching him play at the World Championships I think he's got a good chance to be a solid top 6 winger.

It's a pretty deep top 15 this year.

 

[Senator Stanley]

You have to give to get and you're asking for too much to move down only a few spots.

We don't get two high 2nd round picks in exchange for moving down from 7 to 10, especially in a draft like this.

First of all, I didn't ask to move down a few spots. I don't want to.

Second, I wasn't saying that I'd take that same offer to go from seven to ten, just that seven to ten is a move down that I would theoretically, depending on the circumstances and the offer, be open to. I'm really not interested in 7 to 14 unless it's a gross overpay.

 

[BondraTime]

The scouts are going to have a guy ranked at the top of their list available at 7, they aren’t going to be trading back, they aren’t going to risk losing him. They aren’t going to view it in tiers like we do, they will have their guy.

The only way we trade back is if we have a guy who is generally ranked 16+ atop our board at 7, which would be very bad for us. Something like the Janakowski situation, or the JBD situation. We like a guy ranked much lower much higher than the rest.

If we move back, we should be ready for a guy like Greentree.

 

[GCK]

The "get your guy" argument is dumb.

You should only pass up the offer if the guy you can get at 7 is significantly better than the guy you can get at 14.

If that's not the case, which IMO it isn't this year, you should take deal.

7 to 14 is too steep a fall. If at 7 we have 2-3 guys ranked the same then dropping back to 9 or 10 makes sense but we already have 3 picks in the top 40. Now if Murray Edwards is desperate to get Iginla and we can pry Vancouver ‘s 1st out of them to move to 9 I’m on board.

 

[Hale The Villain]

7 to 14 is too steep a fall. If at 7 we have 2-3 guys ranked the same then dropping back to 9 or 10 makes sense but we already have 3 picks in the top 40. Now if Murray Edwards is desperate to get Iginla and we can pry Vancouver ‘s 1st out of them to move to 9 I’m on board.

Like I have said it depends on your outlook on this draft.

I think we'll be taking a guy at 7 that is fairly comparable to someone that will be drafted in the 10-14 range.

Hypothetically given the choice between a guy like Dickinson/Iginla at 7 and Yakemchuk/MBN at 14 + two high 2nds, I prefer the latter.

Now if this were a draft like last year and we could choose between Michkov and Leonard at 7, I'd be singing a different tune.

 

[bert]

Because you don't draft for need, as that's stupid.

Also I don't think there's an elite D to be had in this draft besides Parekh (boom/bust guy) and maybe Buium, but I don't see the Sens taking either guy.

Brandsegg-Nygard is my 14th ranked player right now and would be the worst case scenario for me if we ended up with him at 14, but watching him play at the World Championships I think he's got a good chance to be a solid top 6 winger.

It's a pretty deep top 15 this year.

You know what you do draft for positional value. To not understand that is downright dumb. Top 6 wingers are the easiest asset to acquire literally a dime a dozen player that become available in free agency every year. Top 4 D men are few and far between, there are several with top pairing potential in this draft. Its a heavy d man draft. Thats why you draft BPA and all the D men are the BPA.

Like I have said it depends on your outlook on this draft.

I think we'll be taking a guy at 7 that is fairly comparable to someone that will be drafted in the 10-14 range.

Hypothetically given the choice between a guy like Dickinson/Iginla at 7 and Yakemchuk/MBN at 14 + two high 2nds, I prefer the latter.

Now if this were a draft like last year and we could choose between Michkov and Leonard at 7, I'd be singing a different tune.

There is absolutely no chance Yakemchuk is going to be available at 14. In comparison to last years draft there's literally 6 D men better in this draft than anyone last year.

 

[Hale The Villain]

You know what you do draft for positional value. To not understand that is downright dumb. Top 6 wingers are the easiest asset to acquire literally a dime a dozen player that become available in free agency every year. Top 4 D men are few and far between, there are several with top pairing potential in this draft. Its a heavy d man draft. Thats why you draft BPA and all the D men are the BPA.

I do take it into consideration, I'm just not as high on some of the D this year as you are.

There is absolutely no chance Yakemchuk is going to be available at 14. In comparison to last years draft there's literally 6 D men better in this draft than anyone last year.

Yakemchuk was just ranked 12th on MacKenzie's list. There is a chance he'll be available at 14.

But for the record I used Yakemchuk and Brandsegg-Nygard in that post because they are my 13th/14th ranked players, meaning if we traded down to 14 they would be the worst case scenario for me in that case.

 

[bert]

I do take it into consideration, I'm just not as high on some of the D this year as you are.



Yakemchuk was just ranked 12th on MacKenzie's list. There is a chance he'll be available at 14.

But for the record I used Yakemchuk and Brandsegg-Nygard in that post because they are my 13th/14th ranked players, meaning if we traded down to 14 they would be the worst case scenario for me in that case.

RD that score 30 goals 70 points that play physical dont go 14th in any draft let along an average one. Feel free to bookmark this post. Its not happening.

 

[Hale The Villain]

RD that score 30 goals 70 points that play physical dont go 14th in any draft let along an average one. Feel free to bookmark this post. Its not happening.

I don't think it will happen but that doesn't mean it's not a possibility.

Hell it wouldn't surprise me if we're one of the teams who ranked Yakemchuk top 5 and end up taking him at 7.

 

[Sens of Anarchy]

Would anyone be willing to entertain a trade down with San Jose to 14?

One guy on the trade board proposed 14 + 33 + 42 to move up to our spot so the Sharks can draft one of the top D.

I think 14 would be the lowest I would be willing to trade back to, but I don't see a massive difference in quality between the players I expect would be available at that spot and the players expected to be there at 7.

Worth considering

 

[Tuna99]

Another Mock.

Scott Wheeler's 2024 NHL Mock Draft 1.0: The first 23 picks

With the NHL Draft lottery now complete, Scott Wheeler makes the first 23 picks in his first mock draft of the season.

theathletic.com

3. Levshunov
4. Silayev
6. Buium
7. Parekh
8. Dickinson
11. Yakemchuk

I am a fan of Parekh. He's fun to watch. but I would be surprised if Ottawa took him at 7 over Dickinson or Yakemchuk. For sure there are some teams that really are missing that element would. After watching the mostly one dimensional Chabot and Chychrun through the year i think they go in another direction. If Ottawa plans to revamp a lot of their D ..they could.

I think there’s also an element of culture that goes into this draft pick. You can’t be preaching 2 way play and being big and discipline and go out and draft a 165 pound Dman that doesn’t play D.

Ottawa will draft a guy who’s good 2 way to set the culture example with this group. so I’d eliminate Pareksh from our #7 draft list. Just not the right player at the right time for this team. don’t think Paresksh fits our timeline or team needs - we need RD but 2 way guys and don’t need to work in a small Dman who will hold back your 5 on 5 play his first few years in the NHL - Ottawa won’t go there

 

[bert]

I don't think it will happen but that doesn't mean it's not a possibility.

Hell it wouldn't surprise me if we're one of the teams who ranked Yakemchuk top 5 and end up taking him at 7.

Exactly thats way more likely. Which is why he is more valuable and why they aren't trading down to 14.

 

[Gil Gunderson]

Does Parekh even have conversations about being in the top 10 if was left-handed? Buium seems better than him in every way except for handedness.

Again, I'm wary of picking a such a high-risk/high-reward player when we haven't had a 1st rounder in ages (and will lose one in the next two years).