2024 NHL draft - A New Hope

[The_People1]

9 hours ago, jjgallow said:

 

Often the 6'4 type D in the first round don't live up to the hype and never jump to the next level.  Not always of course.

 

I think a better strategy is to draft a guy who got his ranking on skill.    With a cutoff of course.    They shouldn't be diminutive in the 1st round either .

 

To me, if I were to pick a D who got his ranking solely on skill, Parakh comes out on top.    He's  not big, he does have warts.

 

Imho you take the warts and you live with the average size and you gamble on the skill.  Talent is the one thing that can't be taught.   The rest can, and you hope that it will be

 

 

 

Size can't be taught either.  Yakemchuk plays with an edge... Could be the next Gudbranson or could be the next Shea Weber.  I think he's a for sure NHLer with a 2nd pairing floor.  And you go from there.

 

Parekh gets a 6/10 for defending from what i've seen and read.  Zero physicality and only stick checks.  And if you compare the points between Parekh and Yakemchuk, Yakemchuk only has 3-goals less than Parekh so it's not like Yakemchuk can't score.  Parekh feels like the next DeAngelo to me.  He's going to score at the NHL level but you play him 3rd pairing most of the time.

 

Bruium is the best of the 3 though.  He is a better defender than Parekh with some Quinn Hughes qualities.  There is #1 D potential.  But he's LHS LD which is easier to come by than RHS RD like Parekh and Yakemchuk.

 

At 8/9/10th overall, the Flames have a chance at all 3 D.  I think i would rank them Bruium, Yakemchuk, and then Parekh.

[The_People1]

6 hours ago, conundrumed said:

I've seen a fair bit of him via the Big Ten Channel (BTC). He still has work to do defensively, but I'd say it's currently adequate when you take into account the rest of his game. Dude is a boss on the ice. Excellent skater in all facets, stunning O-qualities. Literally drives the offence. Good shot, though he is always finding lanes to attack the net or making a good set-up. You definitely wouldn't think, "freshman" watching MSU. He's their best player.

Consider this: He waltzed into the USHL at 17 (late birthday) from Belarus, threw up 42pts in 62 games as a new arrival to NA. Pretty much, "Blockchain this league" considering his circumstances. Waltzes into NCAA Div 1 at 18, 34 pts in 36 games and counting, "Blockchain this league" AGAinnn...even against the top teams he's one of the best players on the ice.

There is zero chance he goes beyond 3. Pretty much nobody, but nobody, comes to adjust to NA ice and wipes his feet on the top leagues. Dude is going places, he's already too good for the US' top "amateur" league.

He has literally made his 2 seasons of highly competitive hockey in NA look like child's play.

You draft him and try to convince his agent that there is zero reason to go back to MSU, hockey development-wise. We have no idea what his ceiling is, because the leagues he's visited so far don't seem to be challenging enough. He's already yelling at his teammates. lol Seriously need to consider that this cat needs more challenging leagues...already being the shocker.

With already possessing solid IQ, skating/edgework and O-smarts, some solid work on his defensive play, and I'd say that you're getting close to Seider with him. The difference being Seider will be a bit more physical, Levshunov a bit more O-flair.

Seider's a boss, and Levshunov is already bossy. lol

 

 

Thanks.  Bruium also late birthday in the NCAA outscoring Levshunov.  But Levshunov has the 6'-2" frame and RHS RD.  If Levshunov is a RHS Dickinson then he's probably going top 3 overall.

[sak22]

34 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

Not easy agreed.  Very expensive too.  Worst time to acquire draft picks is on the draft floor.  Likewise, worst time to acquire pieces for the playoff run is TDL.  Prices move and change per the weather.

 

That said, best chance to acquire a top 15 pick is to "trade up"... meaning the team giving up a top 15 pick would still have a 1st round pick after all is said and done.  We've seen this happen most often.  Simply trading away a top 15 pick and going home is rare.

 

And so, the Canucks 1st round pick comes into play here.  If they choke first round, then we could be looking at 25-27th overall pick.   Let's say NJD has the 15th overall pick.  Moving down 10 spots to 25 but gaining Markstrom... seems like a win/win (assuming the Flames have a target at 15th).

It only makes sense if you feel it is a deep draft with little separation from 10-60, from most accounts there is a significant drop off, but I still don't see how a 34 year old goalie who in a bounce back year is still only .909 is going to get a greater return than any goalie traded over the last 10 years (excluding Raanta because of the Stepan factor).

 

I'm pessimistic about the trade market because I look and see what else is happening, I've also challenged many times to the scorched earth crowd how many teams have added significant parts to their teams eventual championship through trades.  Rebuild crowd wants pain, part of that pain is watching the good players go for minimal returns.

[The_People1]

8 minutes ago, sak22 said:

It only makes sense if you feel it is a deep draft with little separation from 10-60, from most accounts there is a significant drop off, but I still don't see how a 34 year old goalie who in a bounce back year is still only .909 is going to get a greater return than any goalie traded over the last 10 years (excluding Raanta because of the Stepan factor).

 

I'm pessimistic about the trade market because I look and see what else is happening, I've also challenged many times to the scorched earth crowd how many teams have added significant parts to their teams eventual championship through trades.  Rebuild crowd wants pain, part of that pain is watching the good players go for minimal returns.

 

If I had to guess, then I think it was Markstrom (at 50% retained for the remainder of his contract) for Holtz + 1st.  Markstrom at 50% changes things a lot to compensate for being 34.  It increases Markstrom's trade value significantly.

 

Ya like some of us suspected, perhaps the Flames overplayed their hands at the TDL and missed the best opportunity to trade Markstrom for good returns.  We will have to expect less moving forward, including no way to acquire a top 15 pick with Markstrom + Canucks's 1st.

[sak22]

5 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

If I had to guess, then I think it was Markstrom (at 50% retained for the remainder of his contract) for Holtz + 1st.  Markstrom at 50% changes things a lot to compensate for being 34.  It increases Markstrom's trade value significantly.

 

Ya like some of us suspected, perhaps the Flames overplayed their hands at the TDL and missed the best opportunity to trade Markstrom for good returns.  We will have to expect less moving forward, including no way to acquire a top 15 pick with Markstrom + Canucks's 1st.

Well I think Dreger hinted the 1st wasn't on the table and if it was it could've got the Flames to sign off.  Hard to say what is what as a lot of different versions out there, but I'm led to believe Holtz was the only enticing part of the offer.  8 months ago the guy was unmovable, trade values don't alter that fast for older guys.

 

[travel_dude]

14 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

If I had to guess, then I think it was Markstrom (at 50% retained for the remainder of his contract) for Holtz + 1st.  Markstrom at 50% changes things a lot to compensate for being 34.  It increases Markstrom's trade value significantly.

 

Ya like some of us suspected, perhaps the Flames overplayed their hands at the TDL and missed the best opportunity to trade Markstrom for good returns.  We will have to expect less moving forward, including no way to acquire a top 15 pick with Markstrom + Canucks's 1st.

 

There is a better chance banking on a team willing to give up a 2025 1st than NJ.

There 2025 1st will likely be free and clear once the dust settles this season.

And that's assuming we bother asking for the 1st and not players and prospects.

[The_People1]

34 minutes ago, sak22 said:

Well I think Dreger hinted the 1st wasn't on the table and if it was it could've got the Flames to sign off.  Hard to say what is what as a lot of different versions out there, but I'm led to believe Holtz was the only enticing part of the offer.  8 months ago the guy was unmovable, trade values don't alter that fast for older guys.

 

 

No kidding though. 8 months ago, we were wondering when the best time to buyout Markstrom would be.  We almost "stole" Holtz from NJD 8 months later.

[The_People1]

37 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

There is a better chance banking on a team willing to give up a 2025 1st than NJ.

There 2025 1st will likely be free and clear once the dust settles this season.

And that's assuming we bother asking for the 1st and not players and prospects.

 

This summer, there's Ullmark and maybe Gibson on the market.  Perhaps even Saros.  Not many buyers other than LAK and NJD.  I doubt the Flames can get even close to what they asked for at the TDL.  Best bet is to use Markstrom to trade up from the Canucks pick.

[jjgallow]

1 hour ago, The_People1 said:

 

Size can't be taught either.  Yakemchuk plays with an edge... Could be the next Gudbranson or could be the next Shea Weber.  I think he's a for sure NHLer with a 2nd pairing floor.  And you go from there.

 

Parekh gets a 6/10 for defending from what i've seen and read.  Zero physicality and only stick checks.  And if you compare the points between Parekh and Yakemchuk, Yakemchuk only has 3-goals less than Parekh so it's not like Yakemchuk can't score.  Parekh feels like the next DeAngelo to me.  He's going to score at the NHL level but you play him 3rd pairing most of the time.

 

Bruium is the best of the 3 though.  He is a better defender than Parekh with some Quinn Hughes qualities.  There is #1 D potential.  But he's LHS LD which is easier to come by than RHS RD like Parekh and Yakemchuk.

 

At 8/9/10th overall, the Flames have a chance at all 3 D.  I think i would rank them Bruium, Yakemchuk, and then Parekh.

 

Pretty compelling arguements.     Actually.

 

However.

 

Don't you mean all 4?   What about Jiricek?   When he plays in his own age category he blows everyone out with his offense.  Like, blowout.  Pretty offensively dominant against kids 2 years old than him too.    He has the size, the WHS, the offense, the defence, that maturity.

 

Ain't there 4?

[cross16]

2 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

That's a very pessimistic hypothetical.  Of course putting all eggs in one basket is a high risk/reward thing.  The Flames don't have those high end players without tanking hardcore mofo so the alternative is to take risks like this.  Strategically speaking, I think we gotta do it.

 

Because what if it works?  It would be a franchise altering trade, potentially.

 

Not really. It's just assessing a full risk spectrum rather than just only focusing on the positives. 

 

I don't think you get franchise altering player late in the top 10 so again your only throwing out this scenario as "what if the best case scenario" happens.  Did Trading Jeff Carter for Jacob Voraceck alter the Flyers history? 

[travel_dude]

1 hour ago, The_People1 said:

 

This summer, there's Ullmark and maybe Gibson on the market.  Perhaps even Saros.  Not many buyers other than LAK and NJD.  I doubt the Flames can get even close to what they asked for at the TDL.  Best bet is to use Markstrom to trade up from the Canucks pick.

 

I don't know that Ullmark would be available, since he is already signed and they don't quite have another guy ready to replace him. They are at the top of the league for a reason and Ullmark was the superior goalie last season.  Saros?  No way.  Gibson?  Maybe, but he has enough runway in him to outlast any rebuild they have.

 

Every year the Playoffs expose goalie weaknesses, so teams in the hunt will look at options.  Does COL ever seem happy?  They have a nice backup, but the starter is the usual headcase.  Francouz is likely retiring, or so goes the rumour.

[jjgallow]

3 hours ago, cross16 said:

The ease of which people think you can acquire top 10 picks is pretty misguided IMO. The most common way that happens is to get future 1st round picks and hope things go in your favor. Boston trading Phil Kessel, Matt Duschence, Erik Karlson etc etc. Once teams know their in the top 10 then maybe in some softer draft years, team will deal a known pick but I think for the same reasons everyone here wants the Flames to acquire more top 10 picks is exactly why teams don't trade them. They fall in love with the potential and as much as some try and argue "well those teams don't want to wait" that's not what history has shown us. 

 

From a Flames angle I also question the thought process of the all the eggs in the basket approach. A player like Andersson should net you multiple pieces, or potential 1 more known piece, so I don't think the smart approach is to limit yourself to 1 piece. If you try and trade him for a top 10 pick I don't think your getting anything else in return so what if that player doesn't work out? You've just dealt one of your best trade pieces for nothing. 

 

Not a smart team building approach IMO. I think if your retooling, or even rebuilding, you need to build up an asset base. Acquiring future first if you want to try and get in the top 10 but don't put all your eggs in 1 basket I don't see that as smart. 

 

I agree with you that the best way to acquire top 10 picks is trading for 2+ years in future.   It's a time premium discount.  willing to wait = better trades.   But, my conclusion there is more like 'let's get started with that'.

 

I also agree that it's risky to expect to just build a team off of that.  You need those later round wins.  You really do.  or off-seasons signings, or great development, etc etc.

 

But I don't agree that it's an either-or thing.       I think you need it all.  High picks, low picks. scouting, development.     "prefer lots of low picks to high picks" doesn't get you anywhere, statistically that strategy is doomed.

 

"we only want high picks"  ---  also very likely doomed unless you go into a deep, deep, deep fail like Edmonton (and then you can still get it wrong, as they've shown.).

 

you look at the cup winners....they had it all.   High pick successes.  Low pick successes.  All of it.

 

we can't do either, or.    We have to get lots of low picks, we have to get those high picks, we need to use them all well.     So instead of deciding between the two, maybe....  we consider that we are sellers at the next Few trade deadlines.  and maybe we sign some players this offseason only to have them for sale at trade deadline.

Maybe we make some smart trades.

Because yeah, we need those high picks, and we will need to spend low picks to get some of them.

So.. have Lots of low picks.     do the things you need to do to have that flexibility.

[cberg]

4 hours ago, rocketdoctor said:

 

 

Still don't think Markstrom gets you a 1st rounder or it would have been done.

 

34 year old coming off a good year, after a poor one, after a good one, after a poor one....... If he was with another team would you be happy the Flames taking him on?

 

I think we are biased and overvalue our assets.  Great if Conroy gets a 1st but unlikley unless they offer significant retention.

As for the NJD failed deal, we will never know.  I don't mind retention, and, to answer your question, if the Flames in Fall 2027 are sitting with a fully loaded and functioning retool, sans a high level goalie you are darn tootin I'd pay up for a Top5 goalie.  We'll have to disagree as to whether Markstrom fits that bill or not.  

[cross16]

6 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

 

I agree with you that the best way to acquire top 10 picks is trading for 2+ years in future.   It's a time premium discount.  willing to wait = better trades.   But, my conclusion there is more like 'let's get started with that'.

 

I also agree that it's risky to expect to just build a team off of that.  You need those later round wins.  You really do.  or off-seasons signings, or great development, etc etc.

 

But I don't agree that it's an either-or thing.       I think you need it all.  High picks, low picks. scouting, development.     "prefer lots of low picks to high picks" doesn't get you anywhere, statistically that strategy is doomed.

 

"we only want high picks"  ---  also very likely doomed unless you go into a deep, deep, deep fail like Edmonton (and then you can still get it wrong, as they've shown.).

 

you look at the cup winners....they had it all.   High pick successes.  Low pick successes.  All of it.

 

we can't do either, or.    We have to get lots of low picks, we have to get those high picks, we need to use them all well.     So instead of deciding between the two, maybe....  we consider that we are sellers at the next Few trade deadlines.  and maybe we sign some players this offseason only to have them for sale at trade deadline.

Maybe we make some smart trades.

Because yeah, we need those high picks, and we will need to spend low picks to get some of them.

So.. have Lots of low picks.     do the things you need to do to have that flexibility.

 

I'm not suggesting an either or approach, i'm suggesting an asset accumulation approach. I think a successful rebuild/retool re defines your core but also builds you up to be an asset rich franchise. Really that should be the end goal. 

 

Could be scenarios where a 1 to 1 trade works, could be scenarios where a many to 1 approach works but the name of the game for me is asset accumulation. So when it comes to Andersson specifically someone who can probably land you multiple good assets, I'd questions the logic of putting it all in 1 basket unless the asset is truly worth it.

 

End of the day if you want franchise altering picks you are going to have to be bad enough to get them, or get lucky. I think if your plan is to trade for them, your plan is flawed to begin with. 

 

 

[sak22]

41 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

Not really. It's just assessing a full risk spectrum rather than just only focusing on the positives. 

 

I don't think you get franchise altering player late in the top 10 so again your only throwing out this scenario as "what if the best case scenario" happens.  Did Trading Jeff Carter for Jacob Voraceck alter the Flyers history? 

Don't forget Couturier.  A good example because the Flyers did as good as any team I can remember in dumping Richards and Carter and getting Schenn, Simmonds, Voracek and Couturier, but those moves led to one series win with that group and rotating between making and missing the playoffs.  They also did well when they moved Schenn, but they continue being mediocre meanwhile Richards, Carter and Schenn all wound up getting rings.

[cberg]

4 hours ago, travel_dude said:

 

We have previously drafted a namebrand LW.  If the D available is franchise level or there is a similar ceiling C, then I'm not looking at the name on the sweater.  I still hold out hope for Celebration for Celebrini.   

Same here, these draft arguments are somewhat moot till after the lottery draw is settled...

[cberg]

3 hours ago, sak22 said:

It only makes sense if you feel it is a deep draft with little separation from 10-60, from most accounts there is a significant drop off, but I still don't see how a 34 year old goalie who in a bounce back year is still only .909 is going to get a greater return than any goalie traded over the last 10 years (excluding Raanta because of the Stepan factor).

 

I'm pessimistic about the trade market because I look and see what else is happening, I've also challenged many times to the scorched earth crowd how many teams have added significant parts to their teams eventual championship through trades.  Rebuild crowd wants pain, part of that pain is watching the good players go for minimal returns.

Supposedly the ledge is around 20-25, I'd be looking for 1sts in the 5-15 range... As for Markstrom he's done great this year and the market will be highly dependant on playoff results.  

[cberg]

3 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

If I had to guess, then I think it was Markstrom (at 50% retained for the remainder of his contract) for Holtz + 1st.  Markstrom at 50% changes things a lot to compensate for being 34.  It increases Markstrom's trade value significantly.

 

Ya like some of us suspected, perhaps the Flames overplayed their hands at the TDL and missed the best opportunity to trade Markstrom for good returns.  We will have to expect less moving forward, including no way to acquire a top 15 pick with Markstrom + Canucks's 1st.

Markstrom's value is debatable, but there are always ways to up the ante by adding other assets.  I think it comes down to will.  Look at Vegas as an example, they traded for two of the best available players in the past 2-3 years (Stone and Eichel) even with health question marks.  They were very aggressive, knew what they wanted, and needed, and went out and got it.  End result?  Stanley Cup.  Flames have excellent opportunities over the next 2-3 years, both with current picks and talented players probably a bit out-of-synch with our best window opening(2026-2027+)... Flames are needing to prove their young goaltending, and build first pair D and top line stars, but do they have the will?  Markstrom is going to add nothing to that goal unless traded, likely the same as several other 30+ vets and upcoming UFAs...

 

Now look at 2 teams with great potential but lack of will, or perhaps they didn't really know what was needed, TML and the Oilers.  They both needed top notch goaltending and a solid top to bottom D.  Both failed to acquire either and they are spitting away the prime of their core's careers, without results.  

[cberg]

2 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

This summer, there's Ullmark and maybe Gibson on the market.  Perhaps even Saros.  Not many buyers other than LAK and NJD.  I doubt the Flames can get even close to what they asked for at the TDL.  Best bet is to use Markstrom to trade up from the Canucks pick.

I agree there will be more goalies on the market, and that using Markstrom to trade up would also be an option for NJD.  You have to have a high 1st round pick to trade to and doubtful either LAK, CAR, even COL would be there.  NJD works well because they'll have a higher #1 pick, likely, and they also have the other pieces in place just needing goalie help. If Allen keeps playing well they may be out of the market.

[cberg]

1 hour ago, cross16 said:

 

Not really. It's just assessing a full risk spectrum rather than just only focusing on the positives. 

 

I don't think you get franchise altering player late in the top 10 so again your only throwing out this scenario as "what if the best case scenario" happens.  Did Trading Jeff Carter for Jacob Voraceck alter the Flyers history? 

No, but it did for Los Angeles.

[cross16]

1 minute ago, cberg said:

No, but it did for Los Angeles.

right but that didn’t involve a top 10 pick. 
 

point being even if yoj can trade for a top 10 pick it’s almost never been a franchise altering trade. 

[cberg]

38 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

I'm not suggesting an either or approach, i'm suggesting an asset accumulation approach. I think a successful rebuild/retool re defines your core but also builds you up to be an asset rich franchise. Really that should be the end goal. 

 

Could be scenarios where a 1 to 1 trade works, could be scenarios where a many to 1 approach works but the name of the game for me is asset accumulation. So when it comes to Andersson specifically someone who can probably land you multiple good assets, I'd questions the logic of putting it all in 1 basket unless the asset is truly worth it.

 

End of the day if you want franchise altering picks you are going to have to be bad enough to get them, or get lucky. I think if your plan is to trade for them, your plan is flawed to begin with. 

 

 

I generally agree, and that is the usual approach.  I think Vegas defies your logic, however, but perhaps their example is just a late stage of your vision where they had such a huge pile of great assets they WERE able to get a couple franchise-altering trades, Stone and Eichel...

[cberg]

7 minutes ago, cross16 said:

right but that didn’t involve a top 10 pick. 
 

point being even if yoj can trade for a top 10 pick it’s almost never been a franchise altering trade. 

Point taken on trading for a pick and developing that pick to star status.  I guess it comes down to pick evaluation.  Flames traded for both of the picks that turned into Anderson and Kylington.  Pretty darned good, and both were late 2nd rounders... 

 

[Thebrewcrew]

Everett Silvertips won the WHL lottery.

 

https://www.eliteprospects.com/player/701503/landon-dupont
 

His dad is former flame, Micki DuPont. This kid is outstanding.

 

I think the Flames will be struggling in 2027 when he’s eligible.

[jjgallow]

2 hours ago, cross16 said:

 

I'm not suggesting an either or approach, i'm suggesting an asset accumulation approach. I think a successful rebuild/retool re defines your core but also builds you up to be an asset rich franchise. Really that should be the end goal. 

 

Could be scenarios where a 1 to 1 trade works, could be scenarios where a many to 1 approach works but the name of the game for me is asset accumulation. So when it comes to Andersson specifically someone who can probably land you multiple good assets, I'd questions the logic of putting it all in 1 basket unless the asset is truly worth it.

 

End of the day if you want franchise altering picks you are going to have to be bad enough to get them, or get lucky. I think if your plan is to trade for them, your plan is flawed to begin with. 

 

 

 

i think we're saying similar things.  really.  history says you will disagree, but...i dunno.

 

If you think you can win a cup just by acquiring top 10 picks, then your plan is flawed.

 

But, acquiring top 10 picks is very much a part of asset accumulation.

 

For two reasons.   The pick that you get,,,

 

and the picks that you get...after.     

 

Seen many cup winners do that.  Just, there's a lag.   The lag is smaller, though, than if they try and right the ship without an initial top pick acquisition.