These predictions are getting worse and worse.
I think a lot of people here are forgetting BA doesn’t have to move Chychrun. If he doesn’t get an offer that he is looking for just hold him and try again next year.
I’d rather hold than pull the trigger for Swayman and throw-ins or Knight and throw-ins.
Just hold.
I honestly believe it’s gonna be Chychrun for DeBrusk, Swayman, a 1st, and prospect. I don’t want that. Not at all. But I think that’s what’s gonna happen.
Personally, I wouldn’t even trade our 3rd for DeBrusk. I’d rather have Cole Spicer. Really. A year ago, I liked DeBrusk as a bounce back candidate. I loved the swagger he played with early on. Spunky little dude. Not tough, but cocky and had some moxy. Now he looks like a zombie out there. Dude sleepwalks. I don’t want him at all.
I like Swayman. If I could have any goalie prospect in the world for free, it would be him. That’s right, I have him above Knight, Cossa, Wallstedt, and Askarov. Having said that, there are at least 20 non-goalie prospects in this draft I’d rather have than Swayman. And since I expect at least one of my top 20 to be there at each of CAR and COL picks, I wouldn’t trade either for Swayman right now. It would have to be at the draft table (not suggesting Boston would do this, I’m just stating value).
So if I’m being VERY generous, I’d rate Swayman’s value right at the AZ 2nd and DeBrusk right at the AZ 3rd.
Their top 2 prospects are Lysell and Lohrei. I’d take Lysell, if given the choice. Super high ceiling, super low floor. Complete boom or bust. Could be Mitch Marner, could be Rob Schremp. Big time gamble. Would I trade either the COL or CAR 1st for him sight unseen? Yeah. The LAK pick or ANA pick or CBJ pick? Oh heck no!!!
To me ONLY and from my own Yotes perspective ONLY, I’d say that IMO, for me…
Lysell = pick 25 (+/- 5)
BOS 1st = pick 27 (+/-5)
Swayman = pick 32 (+/- 5)
DeBrusk = pick 80 (+/- 5)
^ so even given my VERY low estimation of that package, it seems to be “fair”-ish when looked at “on-paper”, even by a huge skeptic.