2025 DRAFT Discussion | Page 83 | HFBoards - NHL Message Board and Forum for National Hockey League

2025 DRAFT Discussion

Stop this trading down talk. This draft sucks after about 16. I don’t want to trade 13 where we have a good chance of picking a good player, for the 24th and 32nd overall picks, where chances are low.
Most likely after 10 , not 13. I believe will be better player in the second than in mid first, you never know how they will be progressing. I am not for trading down it just option. I am all for good homework from Draper and Yzerman , getting right personality that you cannot see, by watching tapes
 
Well if our 2nd round and later drafting had given us a high end player or two given all the picks we’ve had, maybe we could be more flexible? Are we still banking on Brady Cleveland?

If anything, I’d want to trade up.

Outside of Schaeffer and Misa I don’t see a huge gap between guys from 3 to 13. It’s that kind of year.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JohanFranzenstein
Outside of Schaeffer and Misa I don’t see a huge gap between guys from 3 to 13. It’s that kind of year.
Hagens and Martone would go into a tier with Misa and Schaefer for me.

Then I would maybe consider a 2nd tier of Frondell, Desnoyers, O’Brien, Eklund.

And then it’s a free for all after that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lilidk
BPA is largely a myth, especially the further you get from the very top of the draft. I see talent tiers more than anything. Within a particular tier you can certainly afford to consider organizational balance.

If we walked away with Aitchenson I would be totally happy. He isn't the only one I feel that way about though. Anyways, I agree with your general proposition that this draft does not fill immediate roster holes (really like all drafts). Two things can be true though and there is really no good reason not to consider taking a defensemen at 13OA.
I mostly agree with that take on BPA, although I think of it more as overlapping confidence intervals. If the 'better player' is reasonably clear, definitely get the better player, regardless of position or whatever. If it's just 'well, if I had to bet...', then it doesn't seem unreasonable to choose the option that could address a need.
By the time you get to the lower rounds, the uncertainty becomes large, and the likelihood of missing something good becomes small. At that point, why not focus on specific needs... 🤷‍♂️

Edit: To clarify, regardless of position meaning in regard to what the team needs. Valuing one position over another in terms of defining 'better' is another question entirely. (A+ winger vs A+ defenseman for instance)
 
Last edited:
i would always draft bpa because so few make it . ide have entire staff working like crazy til june then turn in all the list and figure out how many votes each prospect got and go right in order from that list . that way theres never no second guessing , you made your list from all your trusted peeps and thats that . leave the position value ratings for each individual to decide
 
My expectation , we going to get Bear LW/C to play in 3 years in opposite side of Raymond. He is November birthday .
There is other guy from Germany who plays the same team projected in late round , almost point per game in playoffs power forward
 
  • Like
Reactions: OgeeOgelthorpe
BPA is largely a myth, especially the further you get from the very top of the draft. I see talent tiers more than anything. Within a particular tier you can certainly afford to consider organizational balance.

If we walked away with Aitchenson I would be totally happy. He isn't the only one I feel that way about though. Anyways, I agree with your general proposition that this draft does not fill immediate roster holes (really like all drafts). Two things can be true though and there is really no good reason not to consider taking a defensemen at 13OA.
Prob bad wording on my part. Let us look at Bear vs. Aitcheson. I think both have very projectable floors: Bear as a 2LW, Aitcheson as a 5/6. I think Bear's ceiling is higher, as he could be a legit 1st line PF with 35/35 potential. Aitcheson IMO maxes out as a #4, cuz there are parts of his game I just do not see translating. Although his strengths should translate pretty quickly, so I think he could step in the league in 2yrs. In terms of value I see Brad Stuart at best with less puck skills and a little more goal potential. Nothing to sneeze at, but I believe Bear offers more value.
 
if your on a football feild vs bigger players you can use athleticism/quickness to avoid contact with bigger bodies . but on a hockey rink theres all kinds of times contact with bigger players is un avoidable . a running back or receiver has 160' wide 'goal line' to get to . a hockey player has a 6' wide goal line to get using a stick to control a tiny puck , while on slippery skates , to where he most times cant avoid contact with bigger bodies . how many million times have coaches said you have to go to the net front , you know where theres 220lb dmen ! 170lb vs 220lb dont work too good . not to mention when playing pucks along boards hes going to get hit by way bigger bodies into unmovable boards , where as in football you dont get crashed into unmovable boards . those reasons are why im always for bigger players . yes you do need your rat wingers , but you have to have mostly big bodies with some talent . and those are mainly found 1st round
 
I generally airing on the side of caution with injury, but honestly give me McQueen all day at #13. If he flames out due to injury, so be it. At this point, I think a huge kid with a high ceiling is a great pick for where we are - not to mention he wears #13 and also played 1.5 seasons in Brandon with Danielson previously :nod:
 
Prob bad wording on my part. Let us look at Bear vs. Aitcheson. I think both have very projectable floors: Bear as a 2LW, Aitcheson as a 5/6. I think Bear's ceiling is higher, as he could be a legit 1st line PF with 35/35 potential. Aitcheson IMO maxes out as a #4, cuz there are parts of his game I just do not see translating. Although his strengths should translate pretty quickly, so I think he could step in the league in 2yrs. In terms of value I see Brad Stuart at best with less puck skills and a little more goal potential. Nothing to sneeze at, but I believe Bear offers more value.
I think this speaks to the subjective nature of the draft process more than anything. I am a huge Bear fan and would consider him my top option in terms of who I expect to be available at 13OA. I don't, however, think his floor is as high as a second-line winger. It is more realistically a 3LW with 2LW as a ceiling. I think Aitcheson's floor is probably somewhere between 4-5 with a ceiling in the 3-4 range. He has enough going for him offensively that I could easily see him on a second pair, even if he isn't the best player on it. I think he would need to out-develop expectations and find the right partner to successfully play on a top pair on a regular basis.

To me they squarely fall in the same tier. While I have a slight preference for Bear, I think you are walking away with players who will have a similar overall impact. I am not about to proclaim that Bear will be a significantly better NHL player than Aitcheson.
 
Last edited:
I think this speaks to the subjective nature of the draft process more than anything. I am a huge Bear fan and would consider him my top option in terms of who I expect to be available at 13OA. I don't, however, think his floor is as high as a second-line winger. It is more realistically a 3LW with 2LW as a ceiling. I think Aitcheson's floor is probably somewhere between 4-5 with a ceiling in the 3-4 range. He has enough going for him offensively that I could easily see him on a second pair, even if he isn't the best player on it. I think he would need to out-develop expectations and find the right partner to successfully play on a top pair on a regular basis.

To me they squarely fall in the same tier. While I have a slight preference for Bear, I think you are walking away with players who will have a similar overall impact. I am not about to proclaim that Bear will be a significantly better NHL player than Aitcheson.
How do you differentiate between a #2, #3 and a #4? Is it their overall ability, their ice time, where they play in the lineup? A good definition would help. Cuz I can see a world, in which he is a #4 and plays alongside Mo. Like a McNabb. With Ed and ASP being better than Aitcheson.
 
How do you differentiate between a #2, #3 and a #4? Is it their overall ability, their ice time, where they play in the lineup? A good definition would help. Cuz I can see a world, in which he is a #4 and plays alongside Mo. Like a McNabb. With Ed and ASP being better than Aitcheson.
I think it is probably a combination of the caliber of player they can individually defend on a consistent basis and the types of positive contributions they can make with the puck. The longer you are expected to be on the ice, the more you need to be able to do with the puck on a consistent basis (transition, offense, etc.) #2 vs. #3 is the hardest for me to distinguish. Nine times out of ten I think your second best individual defensemen lands as your #3.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Winger98
If they draft Aitcheson, how long you think until he’s a regular in Detroit?
D+2 or +3 season. I think Detroit makes the playoffs next season and the window officially opens 2026-27. I could see some similarities with Brad Stuart where people view him as an offensive defenseman, but he develops in the NHL as a highly mobile defensive defenseman with some bite.

 
  • Like
Reactions: Winger98
D+2 or +3 season. I think Detroit makes the playoffs next season and the window officially opens 2026-27. I could see some similarities with Brad Stuart where people view him as an offensive defenseman, but he develops in the NHL as a highly mobile defensive defenseman with some bite.



I agree with some of your comparisons too much to keep trusting my own opinions at times. :laugh:
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Run the Jewels
I feel like with this draft class it might not be a bad idea to draft an overage player who is doing well in a men’s league. Could be like adding another Kiiskinen to our system.

Some options:
 
I feel like with this draft class it might not be a bad idea to draft an overage player who is doing well in a men’s league. Could be like adding another Kiiskinen to our system.

Some options:
Tony Ferrari has Hynninen ranked pretty highly, it will be interesting to see where he gets drafted.
 
I feel like with this draft class it might not be a bad idea to draft an overage player who is doing well in a men’s league. Could be like adding another Kiiskinen to our system.

Some options:

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest posts

Ad

Ad