Speculation: With the third pick in the 2024 NHL draft the Anaheim Ducks select...(Draft is June 28th @ 4pm PT. ESPN. ESPN+)

Who do the Ducks take at pick 3?

  • Ivan Demidov

    Votes: 37 18.3%
  • Anton Silayev

    Votes: 36 17.8%
  • Artyom Levshunov

    Votes: 81 40.1%
  • Cayden Lindstrom

    Votes: 21 10.4%
  • Sam Dickinson

    Votes: 11 5.4%
  • Zayne Parekh

    Votes: 1 0.5%
  • Zeev Buium

    Votes: 6 3.0%
  • Carter Yakemchuk

    Votes: 5 2.5%
  • Cole Eiserman

    Votes: 3 1.5%
  • Beckett Sennecke

    Votes: 1 0.5%

  • Total voters
    202
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.

Boo Boo

Registered User
Jan 31, 2013
2,237
2,404
If we gave 8 players under consideration at 3 it feels very conceivable that one of the 8 winds up falling into a range where we could reasonably trade up for them using picks
 
  • Like
Reactions: lwvs84

KickHisAssZegrass

Registered User
Sponsor
Nov 18, 2005
2,394
1,268
Portland, OR
That's the second time we've heard Buium smoke. Might seem like a stretch at 3 but he's my fav of the d-men this draft and I'd be pumped if they got him.

IMO the highest IQ of the bunch and even though he lacks separation speed for breakouts, I still think he's in discussion with the best skaters in the draft. Just needs a boost to his acceleration and he'll be an ideal #2.

That being said, I do see Silayev as a better roster fit
 
  • Like
Reactions: Trojans86

Dr Johnny Fever

Eggplant and Teal
Apr 11, 2012
21,765
6,335
Lower Left Coast
Sure sounds like it. Maybe even some misdirection for trade possibilities? I mean, if a week out from the draft they still have 8 guys they can't separate how can you really care where in the top 10 you pick? Now I think it would take a very good offer to move down and I don't expect that to happen, but they sure aren't sounding like they care who they get.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zegs2sendhelp

JAHV

Registered User
Sponsor
Oct 3, 2023
935
1,392
Anaheim, CA
Sure sounds like it. Maybe even some misdirection for trade possibilities? I mean, if a week out from the draft they still have 8 guys they can't separate how can you really care where in the top 10 you pick? Now I think it would take a very good offer to move down and I don't expect that to happen, but they sure aren't sounding like they care who they get.
I don't think that having 8 guys they're seriously talking about is the same thing as having 8 guys they can't separate. But maybe there are a few they can't separate and, if so, they'll use organizational need as a tie-breaker. I think it's likely they stay at 3 and take the guy who is in their mix who they feel best fits the organization.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HanSolo and lwvs84

Vipers31

Advanced Stagnostic
Aug 29, 2008
20,377
2,164
Cologne, Germany
I think it’s less a change in the approach of drafting for need over picking the best player available, it’s the difficulty in projecting who the best player is going to be at the NHL level out of kids that seem relatively close and play vastly different styles (and in incredibly different situations in Silayev‘s case). If you don’t have a clear idea of who project as the best (most positively impactful) player, the fit among the future core becomes more of a key consideration.
 

Dr Johnny Fever

Eggplant and Teal
Apr 11, 2012
21,765
6,335
Lower Left Coast
I don't think that having 8 guys they're seriously talking about is the same thing as having 8 guys they can't separate. But maybe there are a few they can't separate and, if so, they'll use organizational need as a tie-breaker. I think it's likely they stay at 3 and take the guy who is in their mix who they feel best fits the organization.
I agree that I expect them to keep the pick. And I'm sure that in all drafts when it's a toss up on any pick, that organizational needs will come into play. But it seems a little odd to me that his comments sound more as if we only had the Oiler pick rather than the 3OA. Drafting that high should make a decision easier to narrow down. Especially when you know who #1 already will be.
 

duxfan1101

Registered User
Sep 20, 2014
11,867
18,515
California
Based on this interview, appears “drafting for need” is not something they’re looking at, from what I can interpret. Sounds like they tried that approach a couple times in the past and it was a bust.
My pure guess as to who we drafted based on need is Perreault. Would also make sense that he’s comfortable mentioning it now that Perreault is gone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kalv and Static

ADHB

Registered User
Sponsor
Apr 9, 2012
3,989
4,749
I feel like Ritchie was a want not a need
True, but could still fit the bill, in that maybe he wasn’t at he top of their list but the front office dictated that they take a player with his style rather than the best player overall.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Static
Jul 29, 2003
31,750
5,528
Saskatoon
Visit site
Super interesting that Madden says they drafted for need twice in the last 10 years and got burned. I wonder who those guys are? Nick and Jamie?
Ritchie stands out just because there was so much open chatter about needing left shooting left wings around that time, so that’s probably the best guess. My other best guess is 2016, where they came off of like four years of defense-heavy drafts and went the other way.

The funny thing is despite being the biggest bust it’s almost certainly not Jacob Larsson he’s talking about. Probably the first guy you’d think about when he says it didn’t work out but that pick doesn’t fit the description at all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Static

Dostwall

Registered User
Jun 17, 2024
58
107
Super interesting that Madden says they drafted for need twice in the last 10 years and got burned. I wonder who those guys are? Nick and Jamie?
Yeah, I found that interesting as well.

I was thinking maybe Ritchie, Jones, Lundestrom, or Drysdale.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Static

Vipers31

Advanced Stagnostic
Aug 29, 2008
20,377
2,164
Cologne, Germany
Super interesting that Madden says they drafted for need twice in the last 10 years and got burned. I wonder who those guys are? Nick and Jamie?
I feel it has to be a while back, because Madden has been rather outspoken about picking BPA or „maximizing value“ as he often put it for quite some time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Static

Static

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Feb 28, 2006
47,921
34,594
SoCal
Ritchie stands out just because there was so much open chatter about needing left shooting left wings around that time, so that’s probably the best guess. My other best guess is 2016, where they came off of like four years of defense-heavy drafts and went the other way.

The funny thing is despite being the biggest bust it’s almost certainly not Jacob Larsson he’s talking about. Probably the first guy you’d think about when he says it didn’t work out but that pick doesn’t fit the description at all.
The late firsts don't make much sense to me because those are all dart throws anyway. Jamie only stands out because they publicly said they were going dman no matter what in that draft.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lwvs84

Dostwall

Registered User
Jun 17, 2024
58
107
Based on this interview, appears “drafting for need” is not something they’re looking at, from what I can interpret. Sounds like they tried that approach a couple times in the past and it was a bust.
Agreed. It sounds to me like they are going to be drafting for upside.

So the question is, who would they deem to have the most upside?

I would think it takes Dickinson off the board.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Static
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad