2024 NHL draft - A New Hope

[travel_dude]

38 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

 

NJD retained salary to facilitate the Tanev trade so I would imagine the working relationship is solid.  Fitzgerald may have sounded frustrated he couldn't land Markstrom but that's also part of the poker/4d chess he's playing.  He wants the price to come down obviously but maybe we're not too far apart.

 

Also I believe it was Friedman who reported towards the final hours of the TDL, that NJD still has interest in Markstrom.

 

27 minutes ago, sak22 said:

Yeah he has to justify not landing the big fish to his fanbase and media to try and get them off his back, don't think anything was too personal or malicious there and far from a Burke/Lowe situation.

 

I'm not sure what he is expectation to catch with a day-old worm and a spool of thread.  

Hard bargaining with Connie?  What else can you afford?

[Thebrewcrew]

I've seen Eiserman compared to Wahlstrom. Both played for the NTDP, pure goal scorers and offer little else.

 

Interesting comp, probably a bit of a concern.

[420since1974]

Looking ahead to the 2024 Entry Draft.
Calgary is currently situated for the #12 pick.
I believe that it is highly unlikely that the Flames go on a winning streak to pick worse than 18th.
That said, I can't see them dropping any lower than 8th unless they win one of the lotteries.
Calgary has their own pick and Vancouver's in the first round.
As is normal for every team, they will likely pick the consensus BPAs, but they definitely need more potential Top 6 Centers and Top 4 Defensemen.
Of course, right hand shot players will be always be preferred.
So, I envision the Flames targeting Yakemchuk (RHD), Iginla (C/LW), Jiricek (RHD), Boisvert (C), Hage (C) or Kiviharju (LHD) with their first pick.
They will probably look at Mews (RHD), Emery (RHD), Howe (C/LW), Hutson (LHD), and Wallenius (LHD) with Vancouver's pick.
 

[conundrumed]

2 hours ago, 420since1974 said:

Looking ahead to the 2024 Entry Draft.
Calgary is currently situated for the #12 pick.
I believe that it is highly unlikely that the Flames go on a winning streak to pick worse than 18th.
That said, I can't see them dropping any lower than 8th unless they win one of the lotteries.
Calgary has their own pick and Vancouver's in the first round.
As is normal for every team, they will likely pick the consensus BPAs, but they definitely need more potential Top 6 Centers and Top 4 Defensemen.
Of course, right hand shot players will be always be preferred.
So, I envision the Flames targeting Yakemchuk (RHD), Iginla (C/LW), Jiricek (RHD), Boisvert (C), Hage (C) or Kiviharju (LHD) with their first pick.
They will probably look at Mews (RHD), Emery (RHD), Howe (C/LW), Hutson (LHD), and Wallenius (LHD) with Vancouver's pick.
 

Just to frame it a bit differently, we'll have 3 picks in the top 50 and another at least 2, maybe 3, with as many as 4 in the 50 to 100 range. A good player always gets pushed down a bit. A good forward if teams start panicking into a D push. I can see that happening. Just a question of when the 2nd dman goes after Levshunov. I could see a run on Dmen 4 to 6 deep. Likely before our pick.

[travel_dude]

4 hours ago, conundrumed said:

Just to frame it a bit differently, we'll have 3 picks in the top 50 and another at least 2, maybe 3, with as many as 4 in the 50 to 100 range. A good player always gets pushed down a bit. A good forward if teams start panicking into a D push. I can see that happening. Just a question of when the 2nd dman goes after Levshunov. I could see a run on Dmen 4 to 6 deep. Likely before our pick.

 

We haven't had much luck in the 2nd round lately (2016 onwards), with the exception of Morin.  I'm still a bit hesitant on Kuznetsov.  To be fair, we haven't had a lot of 2nd round picks.  We have found some gems in the later rounds.  Crossed fingers on the ones we still have rights to.

[conundrumed]

1 hour ago, travel_dude said:

 

We haven't had much luck in the 2nd round lately (2016 onwards), with the exception of Morin.  I'm still a bit hesitant on Kuznetsov.  To be fair, we haven't had a lot of 2nd round picks.  We have found some gems in the later rounds.  Crossed fingers on the ones we still have rights to.

I just like framing it that way rather than by round. From 1-10 you should get an A+ prospect, but after that there isn't a significant drop off until around 50, usually. Getting a 1st rd pick at 26 is virtually no different from having 45th oa as far as drafting potential goes. Can argue it's 1-15 or whatever, but the back half of the 1st rd is near identlcal to the entire 2nd rd for potential.

So I prefer blocks of about 50 best 18yos in the world after the 1st 10, rather than thinking within blocks of 32.

Can look at Zary as an example. 24th oa. Afterwards you still have Evangelista at 42, Faber at 45, Lohrei at 58, Cuylie at 60. Good players that are good prospects in between them, so really not much of a drop-off talent-wise.

But of course the hockey gurus would have called taking Evangelista at 24, "a real stretch". And that would falsely raise the fans' ire, rather than being realistic. Because clicks.

[robrob74]

2 hours ago, conundrumed said:

I just like framing it that way rather than by round. From 1-10 you should get an A+ prospect, but after that there isn't a significant drop off until around 50, usually. Getting a 1st rd pick at 26 is virtually no different from having 45th oa as far as drafting potential goes. Can argue it's 1-15 or whatever, but the back half of the 1st rd is near identlcal to the entire 2nd rd for potential.

So I prefer blocks of about 50 best 18yos in the world after the 1st 10, rather than thinking within blocks of 32.

Can look at Zary as an example. 24th oa. Afterwards you still have Evangelista at 42, Faber at 45, Lohrei at 58, Cuylie at 60. Good players that are good prospects in between them, so really not much of a drop-off talent-wise.

But of course the hockey gurus would have called taking Evangelista at 24, "a real stretch". And that would falsely raise the fans' ire, rather than being realistic. Because clicks.

could you go:

 

1-5

6-15? 

 

surely the top 1-3 tend to be in their own class then 4-5, then 6-8, then 9-15 really. I talk out of my Hash Rate, But like to think a top 3 pick is better than a 5-10... etc 

 

i get what you're saying though. 

[Thebrewcrew]

My preference would be a D with the Flames first pick.

 

Long-term, defensive depth remains a concern. On the NHL roster, Weegar is the only D under contract, for the long-haul. Andersson has some term too, two years left.

 

 

I believe that at least  one of the D will be available when the Flames pick. Right now, I'm thinking it might be one of Yakemchuk, Buium or Parekh. 

 

At the moment, Catton is probably the only forward that would dissuade me from a defender. The Flames haven't prioritized that position enough the past decade at the draft table and it's a major reason you're seeing a depleted blueline this season. They started the season with a good blueline, but because of the lack of investment, as we've seen there isn't much in the defensive cupboards.  Anxious to see what Poirier can be, but aside from that, the Solovyov/Kuznetsov/Grushnikov's all look like 3rd pair/7th D types.

 

[Thebrewcrew]

 

 

Similar player to Coronato, as a prospect.

[cberg]

3 hours ago, Thebrewcrew said:

My preference would be a D with the Flames first pick.

 

Long-term, defensive depth remains a concern. On the NHL roster, Weegar is the only D under contract, for the long-haul. Andersson has some term too, two years left.

 

 

I believe that at least  one of the D will be available when the Flames pick. Right now, I'm thinking it might be one of Yakemchuk, Buium or Parekh. 

 

At the moment, Catton is probably the only forward that would dissuade me from a defender. The Flames haven't prioritized that position enough the past decade at the draft table and it's a major reason you're seeing a depleted blueline this season. They started the season with a good blueline, but because of the lack of investment, as we've seen there isn't much in the defensive cupboards.  Anxious to see what Poirier can be, but aside from that, the Solovyov/Kuznetsov/Grushnikov's all look like 3rd pair/7th D types.

 

Disagree, think with previous picks and recent additions, our D is looking very promising, albeit many still to be proven.  There is a desperate need for C/top offensive players.

[The_People1]

5 minutes ago, cberg said:

Disagree, think with previous picks and recent additions, our D is looking very promising, albeit many still to be proven.  There is a desperate need for C/top offensive players.

 

We have quantity but I agree with Brewcrew that the quality is lacking.  We have many future 5/6/7 D in the prospect pool but we lack the elite ones.  I hope we use a high pick to take a D.

[conundrumed]

17 hours ago, robrob74 said:

could you go:

 

1-5

6-15? 

 

surely the top 1-3 tend to be in their own class then 4-5, then 6-8, then 9-15 really. I talk out of my Hash Rate, But like to think a top 3 pick is better than a 5-10... etc 

 

i get what you're saying though. 

I have a big enough problem just separating even #1 from 20. lol

Let's look at the 2020 draft.

1. Lafreniere

2. Byfield

3. Stutzle

So moving along,

4. Raymond

6. Drysdale

9. Rossi

10. Perfetti

18. Mercer

42. Evangelista

58. Lohrei

So only Stutzle currently shows a greater impact on your roster. The rest are very nearly interchangeable to your needs, adding 1 skater to 17 others.

The only value of looking at re-drafts, for me, is seeing that position isn't all that important. Getting lucky with developing 18yos is really just luck. All and any could go sideways. So if I were offered 4th oa for 3 picks in the top 50, I'd laugh at you. 1 big bullet can still miss its target. 3 smaller bullets, miss the target, you've got 2 bullets in the chamber. To use an analogy, of course. 

Would you trade Perfetti, Evangelista and Lohrei for Byfield? Another way to look at it. Drafts consistently prove this, so why get hung up on pick #? Just get as many as you can. People get sour on trading down, but it gets you another bullet, and those rankings that you're following are NEVER correct in hindsight, so why give them authority in the present?

[conundrumed]

9 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

We have quantity but I agree with Brewcrew that the quality is lacking.  We have many future 5/6/7 D in the prospect pool but we lack the elite ones.  I hope we use a high pick to take a D.

You may want to stream some Kitchener Rangers games. I wasn't too high on Brzustewicz last year, but he's really worked on his D game - the O was always evident. This D+1 year I can really see that he has worked on his D game, and it hasn't affected how he drives offence by much.

Further, media is nasty. He says: "I think Calgary will be a great opportunity".

They twist it into: "He wanted out of Van because he knows that he'll never get a chance with our awesome D depth".

It's laughable. I can make a solid argument that he's ahead of Willander. Any idiot can see that the difference between the NCAA and OHL only favours the NCAA by a little. 40 games there, or 70+ in the O more than makes up for that at 18-19. Both are on pretty loaded teams. Willander is about .8ppg, Bruce is about 1.25.

Willander is a +24, Brzustewicz is +32. The difference is seriously negligible.

I seriously doubt Conroy had an easy time including Brzustewicz. The potential that Van made a mistake is real. Currently, their media is throwing everything at downplaying Brzustewicz. Don't let the 100 pt OHL dman thing get in the way. lol

Especially when his D game has really picked up.

[The_People1]

55 minutes ago, conundrumed said:

You may want to stream some Kitchener Rangers games. I wasn't too high on Brzustewicz last year, but he's really worked on his D game - the O was always evident. This D+1 year I can really see that he has worked on his D game, and it hasn't affected how he drives offence by much.

Further, media is nasty. He says: "I think Calgary will be a great opportunity".

They twist it into: "He wanted out of Van because he knows that he'll never get a chance with our awesome D depth".

It's laughable. I can make a solid argument that he's ahead of Willander. Any idiot can see that the difference between the NCAA and OHL only favours the NCAA by a little. 40 games there, or 70+ in the O more than makes up for that at 18-19. Both are on pretty loaded teams. Willander is about .8ppg, Bruce is about 1.25.

Willander is a +24, Brzustewicz is +32. The difference is seriously negligible.

I seriously doubt Conroy had an easy time including Brzustewicz. The potential that Van made a mistake is real. Currently, their media is throwing everything at downplaying Brzustewicz. Don't let the 100 pt OHL dman thing get in the way. lol

Especially when his D game has really picked up.

 

I hope so.

 

I'd like to trade Rasmus Andersson to ARZ or OTT to get their 5/6th overall and then draft Sam Dickinson.  If Brz is trending top pair RD then we're set.  All that "in the meantime" stuff like who plays RD? just tankasaurus rekts and get top picks until the next generation of the Flames graduates to the NHL.

[cberg]

13 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

We have quantity but I agree with Brewcrew that the quality is lacking.  We have many future 5/6/7 D in the prospect pool but we lack the elite ones.  I hope we use a high pick to take a D.

Let’s see, we have Anderson, Weegar and (likely) Kylington, 3 top 4 proven D.  Also Pachal, Miromanov as 5/6 D at a minimum.  Also have at least 6x prospects, half offensive, half defensive each with pretty good to exceptional results to date.  I don’t mind another high level D pick, and I like Yakemchuk, but I think C is a much greater need, especially considering our two top C, Kadri and Backlund aren’t exactly young.

[The_People1]

2 minutes ago, cberg said:

Let’s see, we have Anderson, Weegar and (likely) Kylington, 3 top 4 proven D.  Also Pachal, Miromanov as 5/6 D at a minimum.  Also have at least 6x prospects, half offensive, half defensive each with pretty good to exceptional results to date.  I don’t mind another high level D pick, and I like Yakemchuk, but I think C is a much greater need, especially considering our two top C, Kadri and Backlund aren’t exactly young.

 

I'm not as high on Andersson and Weegar as many are here.  To me, they are complementary top pair guys but not the true #1 D that championship teams need.  They are kind of like Hanifin.

 

To compete for the Cup, we need a Giordano v2.0 or equivalent.  A 25-minutes a night Norris-level D who plays in all situations.  That's not Andersson and Weegar.  We still missing a #1.  I would trade Andersson and/or Weegar to try to draft one if possible.

 

Yes, we have a need for a #1 Center too but there's only one Celebrini at the top.  Next year's draft might have more selection.  This year's draft is strong for D so we should take a D.

[cberg]

5 hours ago, conundrumed said:

I have a big enough problem just separating even #1 from 20. lol

Let's look at the 2020 draft.

1. Lafreniere

2. Byfield

3. Stutzle

So moving along,

4. Raymond

6. Drysdale

9. Rossi

10. Perfetti

18. Mercer

42. Evangelista

58. Lohrei

So only Stutzle currently shows a greater impact on your roster. The rest are very nearly interchangeable to your needs, adding 1 skater to 17 others.

The only value of looking at re-drafts, for me, is seeing that position isn't all that important. Getting lucky with developing 18yos is really just luck. All and any could go sideways. So if I were offered 4th oa for 3 picks in the top 50, I'd laugh at you. 1 big bullet can still miss its target. 3 smaller bullets, miss the target, you've got 2 bullets in the chamber. To use an analogy, of course. 

Would you trade Perfetti, Evangelista and Lohrei for Byfield? Another way to look at it. Drafts consistently prove this, so why get hung up on pick #? Just get as many as you can. People get sour on trading down, but it gets you another bullet, and those rankings that you're following are NEVER correct in hindsight, so why give them authority in the present?

I agree, the key is making your picks count.  Of course the lower you go the harder that is.  Look at your list, proves the point. In your analogy would you take 7, 19 and 55 for Byfield?

[robrob74]

If building net out, I think D is the way to go. Defending, I think, is just as important as G. If team D sucks, we see how a goalie with good numbers in Elliott goes to a Flames team and the D is different and see the results. While he was ok, he wasn't the same goalie, which

I'd say is due to team D, which the need is in having elite top2D... Elite C is just as important, but if that isn't in this draft, go for what is.

[robrob74]

1 minute ago, The_People1 said:

 

I'm not as high on Andersson and Weegar as many are here.  To me, they are complementary top pair guys but not the true #1 D that championship teams need.  They are kind of like Hanifin.

 

To compete for the Cup, we need a Giordano v2.0 or equivalent.  A 25-minutes a night Norris-level D who plays in all situations.  That's not Andersson and Weegar.  We still missing a #1.  I would trade Andersson and/or Weegar to try to draft one if possible.

 

Yes, we have a need for a #1 Center too but there's only one Celebrini at the top.  Next year's draft might have more selection.  This year's draft is strong for D so we should take a D.

We can be high on them and know exactly what they are. We know they're not elite top pair. They're the compliments to the elite a team needs. If you can get that trading them, then you do it.

 

its too bad we couldn't get Byram? I dunno if he was going to be elite, but he would have been a good start.

[cberg]

2 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

I hope so.

 

I'd like to trade Rasmus Andersson to ARZ or OTT to get their 5/6th overall and then draft Sam Dickinson.  If Brz is trending top pair RD then we're set.  All that "in the meantime" stuff like who plays RD? just tankasaurus rekts and get top picks until the next generation of the Flames graduates to the NHL.

Like that trade proposal too.  We’ll see what Conroy can do a few months.

[cberg]

19 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

I'm not as high on Andersson and Weegar as many are here.  To me, they are complementary top pair guys but not the true #1 D that championship teams need.  They are kind of like Hanifin.

 

To compete for the Cup, we need a Giordano v2.0 or equivalent.  A 25-minutes a night Norris-level D who plays in all situations.  That's not Andersson and Weegar.  We still missing a #1.  I would trade Andersson and/or Weegar to try to draft one if possible.

 

Yes, we have a need for a #1 Center too but there's only one Celebrini at the top.  Next year's draft might have more selection.  This year's draft is strong for D so we should take a D.

Reasonable, but discounting prospects, who might develop to 1D but we won’t know for a few years.  I’d love to get Iginla and also a top D via trade.

[The_People1]

10 minutes ago, cberg said:

Like that trade proposal too.  We’ll see what Conroy can do a few months.

 

Andersson was linked to ARZ in rumours at the TDL.  They are interested.  But a top 5/6 pick is going to be expensive.  I hope Conroy can pull it off.

 

OTT also dangling Chabot and Chychrun to anyone interested to trade them a top pair RD.  But there were no takers.  PITTs Eriksson to OTT for Chychrun was a rumour for awhile... but OTT getting Eriksson back is desperation at its finest.  Weegar or Andersson to OTT for their 5/6 overall would help both OTT and the Flames.  Again, it's going to be expensive.

 

In both cases, it might take Andersson + the Flames 12th overall to move into the 5 position.

[sak22]

27 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

Andersson was linked to ARZ in rumours at the TDL.  They are interested.  But a top 5/6 pick is going to be expensive.  I hope Conroy can pull it off.

 

OTT also dangling Chabot and Chychrun to anyone interested to trade them a top pair RD.  But there were no takers.  PITTs Eriksson to OTT for Chychrun was a rumour for awhile... but OTT getting Eriksson back is desperation at its finest.  Weegar or Andersson to OTT for their 5/6 overall would help both OTT and the Flames.  Again, it's going to be expensive.

 

In both cases, it might take Andersson + the Flames 12th overall to move into the 5 position.

I'm a big fan of name mixing but I assume you mean Erik Karlsson, but I put that rumour in the bs pile I don't think Karlsson is waiving his NMC to go back to Canada.

[The_People1]

1 hour ago, sak22 said:

I'm a big fan of name mixing but I assume you mean Erik Karlsson, but I put that rumour in the bs pile I don't think Karlsson is waiving his NMC to go back to Canada.

 

Karl Eriksson

 

LOL

[Thebrewcrew]

Yegor Surin, the troublemaker of the 2024 NHL draft (toutsurlehockey.com)

 

 

A player to consider with the VAN 1st. Skill and snarl. 52ts in 42 games, 11pts in 5 playoff games.