Prospect Info: All-Purpose 2024 Draft Thread & Celebrini discussion (also the 14th pick and whatever else is draft related)

[Hodge]

Probably just me wanting to be happy, but I suppose I could talk myself into Eiserman if I had to. Would go in line with noting that Celebrini and Eklund are supposed to be the complete players which allows you to have some one trick ponies in your forward group (provided that one trick is elite and directly leads to goals like Eiserman's shot could). He's also not just a pure perimeter player either like you see with some of the "elite shot" types of draft prospects.

Would prefer that we look elsewhere, but also can see how Eiserman would fit into the whole team building exercise that Grier is trying to do with complimentary skillsets as opposed to just acquiring as many of the same type of player as possible. At the very least, could be a really fun powerplay piece in the future (and could make a really fun heavy OZ start line with Smith's playmaking and offensive game while Macklin does more heavy lifting in an all situations role).

Or you just say f*** it and build around an Eiserman-Celebrini-Smith top line. Find a younger version of Granlund to center Eklund and Zetterlund on line two.

 

[Celly4Celebrini]

also Celebrini and Eiserman are good friends i believe. wouldnt be the worst thing for him to ride shotgun with Mac

 

[Jargon]

I’ve always been a little fascinated by Eiserman. Maybe it’s the draft pedigree but it sounds like he may have had a rough year outside of hockey and he’s a kid still, who knows how that affected him. Also, it will surely be motivating for him to be drafted by the team that drafted his bff and hopefully that means he’ll put in the work to evolve his game. I guess I’m a sucker for big swings when we’re still building up the pool.

That said, at this point, I’m almost open to anything.

also Celebrini and Eiserman are good friends i believe. wouldnt be the worst thing for him to ride shotgun with Mac

Best friends in fact, they talk daily one of them said in an interview. I can see Celebrini pushing very hard for him.

 

[LadyStanley]

https://x.com/i/web/status/1804144354128466210

https://x.com/i/web/status/1804153549011447945

 

[STL Shark]

Or you just say f*** it and build around an Eiserman-Celebrini-Smith top line. Find a younger version of Granlund to center Eklund and Zetterlund on line two.

Would seemingly mitigate some of the bump from Celebrini's all around play and defensive prowess.

Similar to how Chicago rarely played Kane with Toews outside of select times it was needed in a particular playoff series when a particular matchup/injury required it (also helped that they had Sharp and Hossa that they could just play with Toews and Kane could make even Michal Handzus look like a passable center just because he could win a faceoff and allow Kane to do the rest).

Still like looking at lines in pairs that work and then figure out a third piece. In this exercise, it would be Eklund-Celebrini and Eiserman-Smith as the pairs that fit well together. One group of skilled two way players and one group of just offensive juggernauts. Let both do their best thing instead of trying to blend them and create a couple of good not great balanced lines.

 

[coooldude]

If we draft Eiserman, we need to see him have an effective season at BU before we even dream of projecting him into a lineup. I see Eiserman as a far higher ceiling Halttunen with no plan B if the scoring doesn't translate and a possible attitude/ coachability problem, and neither I nor many of you are writing Halttunen into the lineup in the top 6 at this point.

Reasons to believe he can build out his game: he's very young, he's going to get great coaching next year, he had a tough year off ice. But the evidence about attitude and coachability is pretty concerning to this point, both in on ice results and in off ice interviews.

I'll be the most worried about an Eiserman pick of ANY of the Helenius/Catton/MBN/Hage/Chernyshov/Solberg/Jiricek possibilities. But I guess at least the ceiling is very high and the guy is as young as Macklin.

 

[gaucholoco3]

Or you just say f*** it and build around an Eiserman-Celebrini-Smith top line. Find a younger version of Granlund to center Eklund and Zetterlund on line two.

Maybe Eklund could center Musty and Zetterlund or they could get lucky next year and have Hagens in that spot.

Eiserman - Celebrini - Smith
Musty - Eklund - Zetterlund

That’s not a bad top 6.

 

[Gecklund]

I think an interesting question is would you trade William Eklund for #4. He’s the only roster player we have that might be worth that pick.

I’m #1 Ekky fan around here but I think I’d do it.

I’ll be honest I don’t think Eklund is worth 4th overall for CBJ. I love Eklund (hence the username) but I think CBJ is looking for a more established option.

 

[Juxtaposer]

I’ll be honest I don’t think Eklund is worth 4th overall for CBJ. I love Eklund (hence the username) but I think CBJ is looking for a more established option.

I agree, I think we’d have to add something.

 

[gaucholoco3]

I agree, I think we’d have to add something.

I would think 14 + Eklund might be enough. I don’t know if I like it because there should be a good player at 14 but the prospect of getting one of Levshunov, Silayev, Buium is hard to pass up.

I would rather try and trade 14+33+42 to move up and grab one of those players.

 

[Gecklund]

I agree, I think we’d have to add something.

And I think as soon as we did it wouldn’t make sense for us.

I think the 4th overall pick is too high for us to get unless we somehow move up to the 6-8 range while still keeping 14 (or at least 33).

 

[Juxtaposer]

I would think 14 + Eklund might be enough. I don’t know if I like it because there should be a good player at 14 but the prospect of getting one of Levshunov, Silayev, Buium is hard to pass up.

I would rather try and trade 14+33+42 to move up and grab one of those players.

I wouldn’t do 14 + Eklund personally, there’s no way the difference in player between 14 and 4 is Eklund.

 

[gaucholoco3]

I wouldn’t do 14 + Eklund personally, there’s no way the difference in player between 14 and 4 is Eklund.

I agree with that but we could replace what Eklund provides in other ways but can’t find a replacement #1 D as easily.

A example would be to trade Ferraro for a late first and then package that pick with the 2nd to move up to 15-18 and grab one of the forwards that slide.

I would rather trade Eklund and Vegas 1st top 2 protected but CLB might prefer to still have a pick this draft.

 

[Cas]

I agree with that but we could replace what Eklund provides in other ways but can’t find a replacement #1 D as easily.

A example would be to trade Ferraro for a late first and then package that pick with the 2nd to move up to 15-18 and grab one of the forwards that slide.

I would rather trade Eklund and Vegas 1st top 2 protected but CLB might prefer to still have a pick this draft.

We are a very, very long way away from having the depth from which to draw to replace Eklund.

 

[Hodge]

We are a very, very long way away from having the depth from which to draw to replace Eklund.

Why would we need to replace Eklund right away? Do you think we're trying to make the playoffs or something?

I would trade Eklund plus our entire 2024 draft class minus 1st overall for the 4th pick. It gives us the chance to draft an actual franchise cornerstone which Eklund and whoever we take 14th never will be.

 

[one2gamble]

on the flip side you honestly just cant keep shedding good players. You end up like Buf/Bus/Utah if thats how you behave.

 

[Jargon]

Why would we need to replace Eklund right away? Do you think we're trying to make the playoffs or something?

I would trade Eklund plus our entire 2024 draft class minus 1st overall for the 4th pick. It gives us the chance to draft an actual franchise cornerstone which Eklund and whoever we take 14th never will be.

Who is the cornerstone? My fear is that every one of the guys at 4 has a “but could end up a #4 defenseman/may not translate to the NHL” attached to them. I don’t see a surefire hit there. Just not sure this is the draft I’d do this in.

I also think the point is moot — Grier does want to compete sooner than later (his job is likely on the line now if there’s no improvement) so I doubt he’s going to trade one of his actual NHL-ready fan favorite young guys for someone who won’t be ready for a bit.

 

[Hodge]

Who is the cornerstone? My fear is that every one of the guys at 4 has a “but could end up a #4 defenseman/may not translate to the NHL” attached to them. I don’t see a surefire hit there. Just not sure this is the draft I’d do this in.

I also think the point is moot — Grier does want to compete sooner than later (his job is likely on the line now if there’s no improvement) so I doubt he’s going to trade one of his actual NHL-ready fan favorite young guys for someone who won’t be ready for a bit.

Guaranteed shot at one of Levshunov, Silayev or Lindstrom. Huge skilled players at premium positions. If they reach their full potential they'll be impossible to acquire on the open market. Of course there's risk involved, just like there's also risk Eklund never develops into more than a good 2nd line winger.

 

[Jargon]

Guaranteed shot at one of Levshunov, Silayev or Lindstrom. Huge skilled players at premium positions. If they reach their full potential they'll be impossible to acquire on the open market. Of course there's risk involved, just like there's also risk Eklund never develops into more than a good 2nd line winger.

I think my issue with them is what bugged me about the potential for not winning the lottery: this draft class has too many “buts” to make me comfortable. Injuries, bad hockey IQ, etc.

It’s a matter of preference but I’d rather keep Eklund for now.

 

[cheechoo]

1. Celebrini
2. Levshunov
3. Silayev
4. Lindstrom
5. Demidov
6. Sennecke - because NHL scouts keep saying he's going higher than people think and it's a star player
7. Dickinson
8. Buium - perfect fit, Pronman "he should go earlier"
9. Parekh - controversy!
10. Yakemchuk (NHL record 6 D in top 10) - they need D (and this was even before the Markstrom pick)
11. Iginla - good fit
12. Catton - great fit for Philly
13. Eiserman (??????? Wheeler says Helenius is too bland and like Rossi)
14. Solberg (Jiricek or Solberg, MBN or Helenius, maybe, but we are so thin on D is the evaluation). "There is some Eiserman smoke at SJ, I have heard. I think he's in the conversation if he's available."
15. MBN
16. Helenius even though they picked Dvorsky last year, just can't fall much farther
17. Jiricek.
18. Hage. Need more skill and are building speed.
19. Connelly. Willing to take a risk for high skill.
20. Chernyshov.
21. Luchanko. "As hot as anyone in this class, scouts love this player."
22. Beaudoin. Also high end compete good sense players.
23. Emery to Toronto. Good luck dude.
24. Greentree.
25. Boisvert.
26. Surin.
27. Artamanov.
28. O'Reilly
29. Parascak.
30. Letourneau.
31. Badinka (at the combine, apparently said "I think I'm going in the first)
32. Elick. double D draft for the ducks.

That's an interesting outcome.

Pretty intriguing to watch how much Sennecke has blossomed.

I'm leaning Yakemchuk/Sennecke/Solberg as my personal favorites for 14 assuming someone unforseen like Iginla isn't there.

I don't expect Yakemchuk to be there. I WAS expecting Sennecke to be there prior to the combine. I would be stun locked if Solberg wasn't there, but it could be rationalized. He really impressed at the combine and his upside is frightening.

 

[Juxtaposer]

Listening to the hockeyprospect.com guys rank their 17-32 (they’re the team that does the Black Book) and they rank Chernyshov at 18 but really rave about him. They basically said if he was a better finisher then he would be very close to their top-10. Only downsides are really his finishing skill (not bad but not great, they say 20 goals is realistic but not 30) and the fact that his first step is a little heavy, possibly due to being a little heavier than he should be. Great playmaker/vision, uses his teammates well, good defensively, good forechecker, PKs, physically imposing, plays “the right way”. I wouldn’t be mad at him at 14 and if we were to try and trade down to the 18-20 range he’d be a target for me.

 

[LadyStanley]

https://x.com/i/web/status/1804299721433059668

 

[LadyStanley]

https://x.com/i/web/status/1804275373590577373

 

[StanleyCup2035]

https://x.com/i/web/status/1804299721433059668

Celebrini may end up better than Patty
Yakemchuk may end up better than Scotty

And then Sharks will win 16 games in the post-season in 2035 vs 14 in 2016.

 

[NiWa]

Listening to the hockeyprospect.com guys rank their 17-32 (they’re the team that does the Black Book) and they rank Chernyshov at 18 but really rave about him. They basically said if he was a better finisher then he would be very close to their top-10. Only downsides are really his finishing skill (not bad but not great, they say 20 goals is realistic but not 30) and the fact that his first step is a little heavy, possibly due to being a little heavier than he should be. Great playmaker/vision, uses his teammates well, good defensively, good forechecker, PKs, physically imposing, plays “the right way”. I wouldn’t be mad at him at 14 and if we were to try and trade down to the 18-20 range he’d be a target for me.

I think he'd be a fantastic pickup, Floor is dominating 3rd liner, upside is complimentary first liner. On the Sharks, you'd think he'd play with Smith alongside a trigger man (e.g. Musty or maybe Halttunen).
It's just that the Sharks need D prospects so much more that I feel you'd rather swing for a falling Yakemchuk or Solberg.