Aaaarrgghh
Registered User
- Jul 17, 2022
- 631
- 667
They can choose to send their 2nd round pick this year or next year to Philadelphia (probably next year). They have LA's 3rd and no 7th. The rest are their own.
GDT: 2024 NHL Draft Thread
- Thread starter tunnelvision
- Start date
A mock draft doesn't have to be a prediction of what you think a team will actually do. It can be what you think a team should do if you were in charge. The latter is actually more interesting because it puts you on the record for who you think would be the best choice.
First time seeing him and I'm already a fan. I don't think I've ever seen a 6'3'' Dman who plays like this. I imagine most players with his skillset just become forwards before they hit the high level junior leagues. Unicorn of a player and I want him just for the entertainment value alone
Xoggz22
Registered User
Easiest place to go is Cap Friendly. If you want trade info I usually go to Hockey Draft Pick Transactions which has done a good job for what I look for. can look at many years and deal configurations.
CBJ has picks in all rounds (in addition to Kings in 3rd) except 7th. They may or may not use their 2nd, which would go to the Flyers this year or next. CBJ needs to decide what year after round 1.
Come to think of it I think Yakemchuk might make a great power forward.
It's funny, I've compared him to two players more than any others, Brent Burns and Dustin Byfuglien. It hadn't occurred to me but those are two guys that switched between D and F several times early in their careers before settling in on D.
That highlight reel didn't cover much of his physical strength but he can bulldoze guys. Yakemchuk was the one guy who I saw manhandled Cayden Lindstrom. Which adds to the entertainment point you brought up.
KJ Dangler
Registered User
I know you follow scouching .. I was watching last night .. he said Pronmam has been very accurate and when he puts a mock out , people should pay attention because it’s based on what he’s hearing, not what various scouting services that put out list .. I’m going to go back and look at his previous mocks
Kinda the reverse Big Buff in the sense that Buffs main weapons were strength and slapshots, while Yakemchuk does the same kind of things on the O-zone with dangles and wristers.
Wristers definitely were Matthews inspired. Dangles actually kinda reminded me of Patty. Same kind of giraffe dangling.
What a strange combination of players that I saw there.. Will probably have to watch the dev camp of whatever team he goes to
Last edited:
Yes Pronman's been very good at that in the last few years. But in this particular mock he's saying "I don't expect Yakemchuk to go that high", it clearly is just a personal preference and not something he's hearing. At least not at #4.
Well in Yakemchuk's case he really can do it all. He'll go bowl guys over like Buff and he has an incredible slapshot too.
Didnt really mean hits in this case. More like the way they generate scoring chances when they have the puck in ozone.
I dont recall Buff doing much dangles, but the strength he had on the puck was special. I remember in WPG when he skated around Ozone twice holding off checking with one hand because no one could move him
Last edited:
koteka
Registered User
I think it is because the D class this year is deep but nobody is an obvious sure fire pick. You have had different guys hyped at different parts of the season - Dickinson, Levshunov, Silayev, Buium - that you don’t hear as much about Yakemchuk and Parekh as you might in a normal season. It is such a weird year because we could have 6 defensemen go top 9 or we could have 3 defensemen go top 9. 3 to about 12 is really up in the air.
If Yakemchuk goes 3 to Anaheim I wouldn’t be surprised. If Yakemchuk goes 12 to Philadelphia, I wouldn’t be surprised. I suspect a 6’3” right D with his skills appeals to a few teams.
I want Demidov or Lindstrom, but next year looks like a better draft for forwards. Teams that expect to be in the bottom of the draft again next year might grab a D this year.
If we draft Yakemchuk at 4 and a good left D with our next pick (Emery, Stolberg) I’d be happy. If we draft Dickinson at 4 and get a good right D with our next pick (Elick) I’d be happy. We’ll probably be near the bottom next year and can grab a forward.
This is the kind of paint by numbers drafting that you shouldn't do.
Just draft the best players. LD and RD and so on will probably balance out naturally over a few years, and if they don't, that's fine, you don't need to draft every member of your organization.
I wouldn't be so sure about that, we shouldn't have been there this year. At least not if Waddell has his way, he thinks he can knock off 30-40 goals against over the course of the season. That's puts us squarely in the middle of the playoffs race.
We had 237 GF and 300 against.
40 less goals puts us at 260.
GF GA
NYI-246 - 263
PHI-235 - 261
WSH-220 - 257
PIT - 255 - 251
koteka
Registered User
We’ll be bottom 6 next year. We also might finish with more points but be in the bottom 3 if Chicago and/or Anaheim gets it act together.
I just can’t see any way we’re not still fourteenth in the East next season. I’d be much less surprised by finishing second worst in the league than by being in the playoff conversation. We are measurably worse than the field in every dimension. Pittsburgh, Washington, Philly, Carolina and the Islanders aren’t going anywhere and all of them are either better in the NHL with plenty of space to improve (Pitt, Carolina, NYI) or have farm systems with top ends that are just as good as ours (Phil, Wash), or both. The developing teams in Detroit, Ottawa, New Jersey, and Buffalo are all at least an order of magnitude better. And I’m not even going to get into the actual contenders in the East: Boston, Rangers, Leafs, Panthers, Lightning.
koteka
Registered User
You have two high first and one high second round picks in the next two drafts. If you come away with three more wings because of some weird BPA concept that is stupid.
Have you ever done any hiring in your life? Have you ever been on a committee that had to rank job candidates? It is not like there is a clear 1, 2, 3, … that everyone agrees on. Your 4th ranked guy might be someone else’s 2nd rated guys and on another person’s absolutely do not hire list. So the group comes up with a ranking but nobody really sees much of a difference between two closely ranked people after about the 1st or 2nd choice.
When we get to the 36th pick this year we might get lucky and maybe we have a guy that we as a consensus rate really highly (like 17th) available. But it is more likely that we are choosing between a couple of guys we as a consensus rate in the late 20s (again scored by a committee) that really have no difference in their value. So if we draft Demidov let’s say at 4 and then we are choosing between our 28 (Basha) and 29 (Letourneau) committee-ranked guys and we choose yet another wing over a big center, we are not using our resources well.
BPA is such a joke of a concept. As a thought exercise take your ranking and combine it with Pronman and Mckenzie in some manner and then have someone you respect analyze the difference between the 26th ranked guy and the 27th ranked guy and the 28th ranked guy and see if he sees much difference in value there. Heck, I am having a hard time seeing much difference between 5 and 9 in this draft. Do you want a higher floor, higher ceiling, etc.? Maybe if we go for a high floor guy at 4OA like Dickinson we decide to take a riskier pick at 36. Picks don’t exist in a vacuum.
Last edited:
Aaaarrgghh
Registered User
- Jul 17, 2022
- 631
- 667
Teams do set up a draft list where they decide their order of preference. That's exactly what the pre-draft meetings are for. Deciding an order of preference based on the input of the group. For split decisions, that's exactly what you have people like the Head of Amateur Scouting or the GM for.
If there are several players that are of basically identical value, yes, then they probably take the one that complements the rest of their prospect pool best. But the general principle is BPA. If you think Demidov is going to be a 100+ point superstar winger, and Lindstrom is going to be a 50 point 2nd line centre, who cares that you already have Johnson, Marchenko or Chinakhov on the wing? Forgoing that is what leads to decisions like Montréal drafting Kotkaniemi ahead of Tkachuk because they "needed" a C.
You don't have to spend a 1st round pick on every single position. You get quite a few picks in a draft. Beyond that, there are trades and free agent signings to construct your roster with.
EspenK
Registered User
- Sep 25, 2011
- 15,836
- 4,441
This is a great post.
I guess it all depends on how you define BPA. To me the best BPA needs to take into account organizational needs. The exception to this is if a Bedard type is available. This years variety in rankings makes it easier to satisfy a need rather than deciding who the highest point guy is going to be.
To me the top organizational positional need is a top 6 C to pair with Fantilli. Toughness is the most pressing organizational need. As I listen to 32 Thoughts describe the playoffs the thing they keep mentioning is how "little ice is available" in the playoffs due to the increased physicality of playoff hockey. As I think about the current roster makeup I don't see it developing into the kind of team that would "shrink" the ice.
Put me back on the Lindstrom train. Final answer.
koteka
Registered User
I am sure going into the draft we will know who we are picking at 4. There are a limited number of scenarios and we can spend lots of time ranking the next few guys after Celebrini. The argument comes in later picks or picks across seasons. What is the optimal strategy picking 4 this season given a likely pick between 3 and 6 next year? It is a multi round game theoretic problem, especially with a brand new GM. Let’s say we have Lindstrom and Buium neck and neck at 4 but we know there is a better crop of centers next year. That influences the decision. Maybe directly through rankings or maybe the team rankings reflect only scout evaluations. I would want my rankings to be an unbiased ranking by scouts and then I could make choices based on outside factors I know. Heck, inside knowledge of things like Fantilli’s injury or whether Jiricek wants to be in Columbus will have influences outside pure talent of the prospects.
This idea that trades can solve problems is so overblown in hockey. Yes, you can pick up a wing, a left D, a goalie, an overpaid guy, a prospect who is struggling, etc. But you can’t trade for top centers or right D. And you certainly don’t have a whole lot to trade when all your talented players are wings.
koteka
Registered User
People tend to forget that the draft is a crapshoot. No one has all the answers. One team's idea of BPA could easily turn into a bust. Pick the best player but if players are tied or the margin isnt insanely different, go with the organizational need.
Seems like this draft there are a lot of close players. My hope is still Catton but I could see Yakemchuk or Lindstrom relatively easily. Both are needs for this org, if they deem them to be BPA, so be it.
Seems like this draft there are a lot of close players. My hope is still Catton but I could see Yakemchuk or Lindstrom relatively easily. Both are needs for this org, if they deem them to be BPA, so be it.
CBJWerenski8
Rest in Peace Johnny
- Jun 13, 2009
- 43,622
- 26,639
Someone needs to tell Waddell that the team can still have their second round pick. Heard him yesterday say we have a collection of picks this year but not our second. Idk if that’s him being misinformed or if he’s already decided we’re not going to keep the pick (my guess is the former).
Wads literally probably just looked it up on capfriendly and saw the missing pick.
BPA always includes the value of the position the player plays.
I could see some situations where organizational need is dire enough that you should incorporate that into your drafting. We don't have any of those situations. We really only have slight changes to our preferences. Our need to draft a 2C is probably less than most clubs right now.
Again I think this is an evergreen thing. You always prefer centers, you always prefer RD, and you always, always prefer Cayden Lindstrom types who you guess might pop in the playoffs for you.
I don't think there's anything particular to the Jackets about this issue. In the Lars era I would have said we had a dire need there but we've beefed up a lot lately. So we definitely want to get bigger but it's not more of a dire issue than it is for most clubs.
I'll be ready to talk about my final answer after the combine and Lindstrom's results. For now I could also see it being Lindstrom.
EspenK
Registered User
- Sep 25, 2011
- 15,836
- 4,441
I don't see a long term 2c on the horizon. I think it is a big need.
We are one year removed from the Lars era.
Yeah, if his combine indicates long term back problems I don't think we should draft him.
This strikes me as overspecific.
Not that we do or don't have a 2C on the horizon (we have several players who could plausibly become 2C but let's leave that aside), but team needs I think should be expressed more roughly. "We need more centers or we need more RD or we need G" and so on. Not "we need 2C, we need 3RW, 2G, etc..".
There's a lot of uncertainty in general with player development and there are going to be a lot of trades over the years. Probably less than half of our current guys (including young guys) will be around in 5-10 years. Let's be less specific.
