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

[Zegs2sendhelp]

https://x.com/i/web/status/1804185573298704445

https://x.com/i/web/status/1804188790820385081

https://x.com/i/web/status/1804190108163162508

8 guys

Levshunov
Demidov
Lindstrom
Sannecke
Silayev
Buium
Yakemchuk
Dickinson

I imagine is that list

 

[Static]

I hope this is part of a longer interview that will be released.

 

[Unholy]

https://x.com/i/web/status/1804191331050566114

https://x.com/i/web/status/1804205608192835872

Been starting to talk myself into this actual possibility of Demidov the last couple days.

They would have to really love a defenseman to take one at 3OA though, and they know how to pick em

 

[Dostwall]

Man, I really wish the Ducks could somehow snag another top 10 pick.

The only avenue is probably Zegras though, which isn’t ideal.

 

[Boo Boo]

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

 

[Static]

https://x.com/i/web/status/1804211055952040374

AKA, drafting for need?

 

[gilfaizon]

https://x.com/i/web/status/1804211055952040374

AKA, drafting for need?

We need everything

 

[Beckett]

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

 

[Dr Johnny Fever]

https://x.com/i/web/status/1804211055952040374

AKA, drafting for need?

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.

 

[JAHV]

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.

 

[Vipers31]

https://x.com/i/web/status/1804211055952040374

AKA, drafting for need?

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.

 

[ADHB]

https://x.com/i/web/status/1804226458136777089

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.

 

[Dr Johnny Fever]

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.

 

[All Mighty]

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.

 

[Static]

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?

 

[Zegs2sendhelp]

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 like Ritchie was a want not a need

 

[ADHB]

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.

 

[91Fedorov]

I feel like Ritchie was a want not a need

Endlessly trying to fill that LW spot next to Getz and Perry. I could say that was drafting for need.

But want or need, it's still different than BPA.

 

[Dr Johnny Fever]

I feel like Ritchie was a want not a need

But maybe Bob saw it as a need? He was supposed to be the next Lucic (Boston Lucic) wasn't he?

 

[The Mighty Duck Man]

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.

 

[ShadowDuck]

Ritchie was the BPA according to most of the media big boards. Obviously the Ducks board could’ve been different, but he wouldn’t be the first one I’d think of.

 

[Dostwall]

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.

 

[Vipers31]

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.

 

[Static]

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.

 

[Dostwall]

https://x.com/i/web/status/1804226458136777089

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.