GDT: 2024 NHL Draft Thread

[GoJackets1]

What is this business about our 2nd rounder? I’m totally blanking.

 

[Aaaarrgghh]

What is this business about our 2nd rounder? I’m totally blanking.

It was part of the Provorov deal. The 2nd rounder in 2024 or 2025 goes to the Flyers. The Blue Jackets choose which one.

 

[Xoggz22]

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.

I can appreciate your approach. I don't agree with you but can appreciate where you are coming from. I'm a BPA guy and by that I mean you pick the player you think will best serve the organization long term regardless of position. They are all assets so you accumulate the highest value of assets that you can and then you move them as needed to fill holes. Where I think you appear to be frustrated is thinking that there is a difference between Basha and Letourneau. If they are ranked 28 and 29 on your list, to me, there is no difference. Then you take the position that best fills out your prospect pool.

Maybe I'm wrong with how I'm reading you? If you have a list compiled before the draft, that's how your organization values each player based on a myriad of factors. I have listened to retired GMs that have noted those that fail are those that stray from their list. You've committed resources all year (multiple years) to scouting so why would you deviate from your list? That's the BPA philosophy. As the rounds go later, the risk of success is much higher so the list isn't going to be the choice between 130 and 133. At that point I have heard GMs indicate that's when they take the high risk high reward players rather than those that are low ceiling but more likely to hit it.

I guess what I'm saying (probably not well) is you don't take Lindstrom (for example) at #4 if you have him rated as your 9th best player, over Demidov (again, for example), if you have him as your #2 player just because Lindstrom is a Center and Demidov is most likely a wing. Trade Marchenko if that's what it means. To me it's all about asset usage and if you're downgrading your asset pool at the start you're going to pay for it later. Now having a GM willing to move those assets.... I think Jarmo may have struggled with that a bit.

 

[Xoggz22]

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.

As a follow up... I don't know that I've heard GMs that work BPA through the draft. There comes a point where the risk/reward shifts and the needs do take place. When I think or opine for BPA, I'm ONLY thinking first round. I have no issue with a shift in the 2nd or third round. That said, if we have a guy rated in OUR top 15 that is available at pick 36 and they choose to take the player ranked 35th because he's a specific positional player or skill set... I would question that decision. Mostly because I would think all of those "needs" would go into the overall act of making the list.

The "list" isn't one dimensional - not just skill, not just smarts, not just size, etc. you factor that all into the organization fit and player skill sets. once you get outside the top 10-15 picks the ability to really get a feel for how these 18 year olds will perform at 23 is a guessing game (it still is to some degree with the top 5 pick we're going to pull this year).

I also disagree with you that we'll be picking 3-6 next year unless that's after the draft lottery. It's not one you will convince me on or that I can convince you to change your position. I just don't see a team that is that devoid of talent on the NHL roster and with the expectation of changes and growth. Just my eternal optimism I guess.

 

[cbjthrowaway]

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.

it's inconvenient to an extent, but not necessarily stupid because you there can be subsequent moves either involving those players or intended to free up space for those players when they're ready.

organizational need should be used purely as a tiebreaker, but being fixated on getting a specific position out of a high-value draft pick leads to some bad outcomes.

just look at montreal – last year was a great year to draft a forward, but they were laser-focused on a defenseman, so they walked away with reinbacher instead of michkov/leonard. this year the draft is defense-heavy at the top, but they're (reportedly) laser focused on a forward.

if that holds, they'll likely go back-to-back years picking in the top five and walking away with a forward from '24 who is inferior to the one they should've taken in '23, and a defenseman in '23 who is inferior to the one they should've taken in '24.

the result of that "draft for need" thinking could be montreal winding up with reinbacher and iginla instead of michkov and dickinson/silayev. which… yikes, imo.

organizational needs change faster than 18-year-old players develop, and there are faster mechanisms for addressing those needs.

 

[Xoggz22]

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.

There are three teams in the Metro I will concede to... NYR, CAR and NJD. Beyond that I don't put anyone as a lock ahead of the CBJ. Not saying we'll pass them but Washington way outperformed their roster this year, they are aging and have a bottom 1/3 prospect pool with little help on the way. Pittsburgh... sure they have Crosby and the rest are building serious rust and their prospect system is brutal. NYI? Aging and a bottom 5 prospect pool with no help on the way. They play a hard game and have some skill but if they fell it wouldn't surprise me. Philly? I don't know what to think. Torts is so good and gets more our of less than just about any coach I have seen and they do have a decent prospect pool so maybe they push upwards. That's just the Metro. Columbus gets to play all those teams the most and certainly could flip the script on the other bottom half.

The other division is where I think they have work to do. Buffalo certainly should be a playoff caliber team as I think Detroit has that ability but Ottawa? MESS! Florida will continue to be very good and I don't think Boston knows they have aged. Tampa always finds a way and Toronto has the fire power but brings a knife to a gun fight in the playoffs - maybe they look dramatically different? The Atlantic has some players for sure.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. If CBJ is 14th in the East next year I will gladly support whatever charity you want me to donate $100 (?) to in your name. I don't ask for anything in return if they are not 14th. I just don't see this team as bottom 5 overall unless they are yet again decimated by injuries.

 

[CBJx614]

As a follow up... I don't know that I've heard GMs that work BPA through the draft. There comes a point where the risk/reward shifts and the needs do take place. When I think or opine for BPA, I'm ONLY thinking first round. I have no issue with a shift in the 2nd or third round. That said, if we have a guy rated in OUR top 15 that is available at pick 36 and they choose to take the player ranked 35th because he's a specific positional player or skill set... I would question that decision. Mostly because I would think all of those "needs" would go into the overall act of making the list.

The "list" isn't one dimensional - not just skill, not just smarts, not just size, etc. you factor that all into the organization fit and player skill sets. once you get outside the top 10-15 picks the ability to really get a feel for how these 18 year olds will perform at 23 is a guessing game (it still is to some degree with the top 5 pick we're going to pull this year).

I also disagree with you that we'll be picking 3-6 next year unless that's after the draft lottery. It's not one you will convince me on or that I can convince you to change your position. I just don't see a team that is that devoid of talent on the NHL roster and with the expectation of changes and growth. Just my eternal optimism I guess.

I think you did a good job with your explanations and would agree.

You always go BPA in the first round as you dont know what your roster will look like by the time said prospect is ready, ESPECIALLY if you have a top 5 pick. Like you said, you've put all that time and effort into working as a collective to sniff out who you think the absolute best of the bunch is, picking from a spot that you might not see again for awhile. Trust in your scouts and the team around you to take the best absolute player there is.

 

[Double-Shift Lasse]

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.

I agree that BPA is influenced by context - both in the draft pool itself and in your organization. But positional need, especially this high, is only a tiebreaker I think.

 

[tunnelvision]

 

[Aaaarrgghh]

As a follow up... I don't know that I've heard GMs that work BPA through the draft. There comes a point where the risk/reward shifts and the needs do take place. When I think or opine for BPA, I'm ONLY thinking first round. I have no issue with a shift in the 2nd or third round. That said, if we have a guy rated in OUR top 15 that is available at pick 36 and they choose to take the player ranked 35th because he's a specific positional player or skill set... I would question that decision. Mostly because I would think all of those "needs" would go into the overall act of making the list.

The "list" isn't one dimensional - not just skill, not just smarts, not just size, etc. you factor that all into the organization fit and player skill sets. once you get outside the top 10-15 picks the ability to really get a feel for how these 18 year olds will perform at 23 is a guessing game (it still is to some degree with the top 5 pick we're going to pull this year).

I also disagree with you that we'll be picking 3-6 next year unless that's after the draft lottery. It's not one you will convince me on or that I can convince you to change your position. I just don't see a team that is that devoid of talent on the NHL roster and with the expectation of changes and growth. Just my eternal optimism I guess.

You can also see it as that after the first rounds the difference between the prospects become smaller, so then you're probably going to put some more weight on position.

it's inconvenient to an extent, but not necessarily stupid because you there can be subsequent moves either involving those players or intended to free up space for those players when they're ready.

organizational need should be used purely as a tiebreaker, but being fixated on getting a specific position out of a high-value draft pick leads to some bad outcomes.

just look at montreal – last year was a great year to draft a forward, but they were laser-focused on a defenseman, so they walked away with reinbacher instead of michkov/leonard. this year the draft is defense-heavy at the top, but they're (reportedly) laser focused on a forward.

if that holds, they'll likely go back-to-back years picking in the top five and walking away with a forward from '24 who is inferior to the one they should've taken in '23, and a defenseman in '23 who is inferior to the one they should've taken in '24.

the result of that "draft for need" thinking could be montreal winding up with reinbacher and iginla instead of michkov and dickinson/silayev. which… yikes, imo.

organizational needs change faster than 18-year-old players develop, and there are faster mechanisms for addressing those needs.

Montréal is often used as a example of a team not following the BPA approach and it turning out badly. But they can be used as an example of team following the BPA approach and it turning out well. In 2005, they famously "reached" for Carey Price when they had lots of good goaltenders on the team and a good centre (which they "needed" more) in Gilbert Brulé was on the table. The issue with drafting for positional need can also be that the rest of your team can look completely different a few years down the road.

 

[LJ7]

Considering Yakemchuk's skillset I find it funny that there is so little hype about him. He's one of the most high upside players in the draft and we go weeks without mentioning him. He's probably about the fifteenth most talked about draft prospect on HF right now.

I can see him being a nightmare for opposing forecheckers. Defensemen that can get the puck up the ice through pressure are extremely valuable. I would not mind picking Yakemchuk at 4 one bit. Big, physical, athletic, incredibly comfortable with the puck on his stick.

 

[squashmaple]

I can see him being a nightmare for opposing forecheckers. Defensemen that can get the puck up the ice through pressure are extremely valuable. I would not mind picking Yakemchuk at 4 one bit. Big, physical, athletic, incredibly comfortable with the puck on his stick.

You have just described Damon Severson.

 

[LJ7]

You have just described Damon Severson.

That prompted me to look at both of their WHL statistical resumes and left me encouraged. Sign me up for a (theoretically) better version of Severson!

 

[tunnelvision]

Newest Yakemchuk shift-by-shift upload on youtube.

 

[majormajor]

You have just described Damon Severson.

I assume you glossed over the "nightmare for forecheckers" and "physical" part, because Severson ain't that.

 

[squashmaple]

I assume you glossed over the "nightmare for forecheckers" and "physical" part, because Severson ain't that.

Fall in love with prospects much? Sorry if I’d take the actual NHLer with the same skillset over the child.

 

[LJ7]

Newest Yakemchuk shift-by-shift upload on youtube.

I'm trying to determine whether he's right or left handed off ice. His stickhandling says he's actually a lefty with the dominant top hand (a la Panarin) but the wrist shot tells me the opposite. His pokechecks look inconclusive.

 

[CBJx614]

https://x.com/i/web/status/1796961219485515830

 

[majormajor]

Fall in love with prospects much? Sorry if I’d take the actual NHLer with the same skillset over the child.

Don't waste your time moving those goalposts. It's just a poor stylistic comparison of player attributes, I'm not saying anything about who is better right now or in the future.

 

[squashmaple]

Don't waste your time moving those goalposts. It's just a poor stylistic comparison of player attributes, I'm not saying anything about who is better right now or in the future.

I am absolutely baffled that a roundly criticized by everyone outside this sub-board mock draft pick by a known hack has resulted in the hfcbj hivemind going YES YAKEMCHUK THATS WHO WE WANT AND NEED MORE THAN ANYTHING. I am pointing out that we already have a player who very precisely fits the same profile this kid does: a right-handed, goes-in-the-corners, high-possession, takes-stupid-penalties, puck-moving defenseman who profiled similarly and produced similarly in the same league. We quite literally already have that at home.

I don't even care if he is in fact the pick. But not at fourth overall. If Yakemchuk is who they've fallen in love with, then trade down and get another asset to make up for the fact we now have two Damon Seversons. A top five pick is for swinging for the fences, not settling for a low-danger seeing-eye single.

 

[majormajor]

Newest Yakemchuk shift-by-shift upload on youtube.

Thanks for sharing this, I needed to see more of him.

I'd say this is a good representation of what I've seen from Yakemchuk before, maybe a little bit better in the skating. Some scouts say he's made progress there, I haven't done a rigorous comparison.

I'd probably still have Yakemchuk around #5 on my final list. He's just a much better talent than a lot of these other D that are supposed to go ahead of him. He's got more #1 upside in my opinion.

For the Jackets I will have other players I'm more interested in at #4. An issue is that he's very similar to David Jiricek. We don't have to worry about him filling out, he's further along than Jiricek in his strength. A uniquely strong player. But he has similar concerns to Jiricek in his back skating on the rush. He's much more comfortable getting on his toes and breaking up plays but isn't comfortable backing up on his heels.

Jiricek was actually more pro polished in his game sense in his draft year, Yakemchuk still has to learn to pick his spots. You can see in that video he's still trying to dangle guys with a two goal lead in the third period. That's usually something prospects figure out quickly in the pros though, it's really just the back skating that I'm nervous about. We don't need two RD with that same issue.

I won't complain about taking him at #4 though, if you think he's the best available then just take him and figure out the fit later, a lot of things will change and you want the most talented player. There might even the possibility that we bring Yakemchuk into the league as a power forward similar to how Buff and Burns started.

 

[majormajor]

I am absolutely baffled that a roundly criticized by everyone outside this sub-board mock draft pick by a known hack has resulted in the hfcbj hivemind going YES YAKEMCHUK THATS WHO WE WANT AND NEED MORE THAN ANYTHING.

I think you're being rude and making poor assumptions about people's process here. Many of us have been Yakemchuk fans for a while. Three or four months ago I started talking about maybe taking Yakemchuk high. Pronman's affinity for a player doesn't do much.

I am pointing out that we already have a player who very precisely fits the same profile this kid does: a right-handed, goes-in-the-corners, high-possession, takes-stupid-penalties, puck-moving defenseman who profiled similarly and produced similarly in the same league. We quite literally already have that at home.

I don't even care if he is in fact the pick. But not at fourth overall. If Yakemchuk is who they've fallen in love with, then trade down and get another asset to make up for the fact we now have two Damon Seversons. A top five pick is for swinging for the fences, not settling for a low-danger seeing-eye single.

No it really is a bad comparison. They do not play similarly. I think you've just completely misunderstood who these players are. It's like someone mixed up Kucherov with Lindros. I'm not going to sugarcoat how confused that is. Damon Severson is a smooth skating player that can skate pucks out of trouble or make a good pass, but he's very soft and not particularly strong for his height. There's already three points there that don't apply to Yakemchuk, who isn't smooth but has high end strength and is very mean and punishing with it. There's a lot of differences in their puck skills as well - Severson's never had a high end shot for one, but we don't need to get into that.

 

[koteka]

I am absolutely baffled that a roundly criticized by everyone outside this sub-board mock draft pick by a known hack has resulted in the hfcbj hivemind going YES YAKEMCHUK THATS WHO WE WANT AND NEED MORE THAN ANYTHING.

If I am said hack, I have probably watched more 15-18 year old hockey in person than anyone on this board over the last 5 years because I have kids that are in that range. Yakemchuk is someone who has skills and size and a bit of a nasty streak to him. I actually want to pick Lindstrom or Demidov or trade down because there are a bunch of D that are similar value to me. Buium will be a good NHL player who has a chance to be really good, but more likely he’ll end up as a 3D. Dickinson looks like a guy you can pencil in as a 2/3, but I don’t think he’ll be “the guy”. Yakemchuk could grow into a tremendous #1 right D, but he could also be Gudbranson who is the much better current CBJ comp to Yakemchuk than Severson. I’d love to take any of the three at 8 or 9.

@majormajor and I may go after each other sometimes, but we often agree on prospects and other aspects of hockey. I think we both turned on Jarmo at a similar point in time. I believe we often disagree because I am older and more jaded than he is and believe there is much more incompetence, alcoholism, and dysfunction in the real world (including hockey management) than he does. Life teaches you that.

 

[koteka]

the hfcbj hivemind

If there is anything the HFCBJ hive mind is doing, I would say it is discounting Levshunov. Nobody on this board is talking about him at 4 but a lot of national people have him between 2 and 5. I have seen people wanting Buium, Dickinson, and Silayev at 4, and I have seen people say they are cool taking Yakemchuk at 4, but I don’t recall Levshunov getting any love.

Personally I think he might have gotten too much hype too early and believed his own press which hurt him down the stretch, but I am surprised nobody here has thrown his name out there.

 

[stevo61]

I assume you glossed over the "nightmare for forecheckers" and "physical" part, because Severson ain't that.

He gets to pucks and makes great 1st passes, not his fault Vincents system sucks and doesnt use the strengths of some of the defensemen. Id say that skill is tough for forecheckers