2024 NHL draft - A New Hope

[The_People1]

17 hours ago, Thebrewcrew said:

 

 

Hopefully Weegar -> OTT top 10 pick

[robrob74]

13 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

Hopefully Weegar -> OTT top 10 pick

 

I'd send them Weegar and Mangiapane with 50% retained on Mange for one of those. But that's just me. That might be too much! Maybe Weegar alone gets that. But that's how much I haven't really liked Mange. He can score, but is a player that needs Backs. 

[jjgallow]

29 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

 

I'd send them Weegar and Mangiapane with 50% retained on Mange for one of those. But that's just me. That might be too much! Maybe Weegar alone gets that. But that's how much I haven't really liked Mange. He can score, but is a player that needs Backs. 

 

It's exciting drafting those smaller players and watching them defy odds.

 

But you can't like... keep all of them lol.    On the same team.  On the same line.  No sir.

[robrob74]

What would Weegar be worth? 

 

I like him, and think we should keep him. 

 

But hypothetically, as we are all hypothetically, theoretically making suggestions. I'd like to think he's worth more than or around a pick that is in the 6-12 range of a draft? 

[travel_dude]

1 hour ago, robrob74 said:

What would Weegar be worth? 

 

I like him, and think we should keep him. 

 

But hypothetically, as we are all hypothetically, theoretically making suggestions. I'd like to think he's worth more than or around a pick that is in the 6-12 range of a draft? 

 

I think you will always have an issue with a top 10 pick's value.  When we drafted Monahan, the cost to go to a 1st overall was through the roof.  And that wasn't Matthews or McDavid, but it was MacKinnon  

 

Kessel was traded for a 1st in 2010 (2nd overall), a 2nd (32nd overall) in 2010 and  1st in 2011 (9th).

That was a high price and it wasn't lotto protected.  I think that changed how teams viewed their pics.

 

So, I have no idea how a GM values their picks. A RHS RD that is a top pairing guy on most teams.

Seth Jones went to Chicago along with Columbus' final first-round pick of Friday's draft (pick No. 32, originally belonging to Tampa Bay) and a 2022 sixth-round pick. CBJ received defenceman Adam Boqvist, Chicago's 12th overall draft pick in Friday's draft, a 2021 second-round pick (44th overall), and Chicago's 2022 first-rounder.

 

That's a haul, but you might argue Weegar is nowhere near that player.

[jjgallow]

2 hours ago, robrob74 said:

What would Weegar be worth? 

 

I like him, and think we should keep him. 

 

But hypothetically, as we are all hypothetically, theoretically making suggestions. I'd like to think he's worth more than or around a pick that is in the 6-12 range of a draft? 

 

 

I just hope the trade has less then 30 If/Then/Or statements in it

[Thebrewcrew]

8 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

Hopefully Weegar -> OTT top 10 pick

I think the Flames can get him with their own pick

[The_People1]

21 hours ago, Thebrewcrew said:

I think the Flames can get him with their own pick

 

But the Flames pick is reserved for Tij.

[jjgallow]

Well we got a 2nd rounder on the list now, plus an if/then/or 3rd rounder next year.

 

For a 34 year old injured D in decline, I think we take it and be happy.

 

Grushnikov does not seem like a big part of the deal?  But maybe I'm wrong.   Always good to have defensive D.

 

 

Very good year to have extra 2nd rounders.    I'd be cool with another 1st though if they managed to trade up.

[zima]

We will never see the 3rd Dallas would have to make it to the SC final I highly doubt it

[travel_dude]

34 minutes ago, zima said:

We will never see the 3rd Dallas would have to make it to the SC final I highly doubt it

 

Similar in chance to the VAN pick with them making it to the West conference final, right?

[robrob74]

Interesting, 

 

the PWHL has adopted a system where once a team is mathematically eliminated from Playoff contention, the points they accrue determine the draft order. 
 

say the Worst team is eliminated in a week or two, they can start earning points toward their draft. 
 

I dunno if that would work for the NHL as some of those that are bad teams would end up losing more anyway and end up with worse picks? 

[CheersMan]

1 hour ago, robrob74 said:

Interesting, 

 

the PWHL has adopted a system where once a team is mathematically eliminated from Playoff contention, the points they accrue determine the draft order. 
 

say the Worst team is eliminated in a week or two, they can start earning points toward their draft. 
 

I dunno if that would work for the NHL as some of those that are bad teams would end up losing more anyway and end up with worse picks? 

Promoting losing is not healthy for any league... except maybe the Beer Cap League. The good old days.

[Thebrewcrew]

10 hours ago, jjgallow said:

Well we got a 2nd rounder on the list now, plus an if/then/or 3rd rounder next year.

 

For a 34 year old injured D in decline, I think we take it and be happy.

 

Grushnikov does not seem like a big part of the deal?  But maybe I'm wrong.   Always good to have defensive D.

 

 

Very good year to have extra 2nd rounders.    I'd be cool with another 1st though if they managed to trade up.

The difference between pick 25-55 is often times debatable.

 

I think you have to look at the last time Calgary traded a rental D to Dallas. There was a condition that it could have turned into a 1st, but it want met.

 

Obviously ignoring the horrible allegations, but the Flames got Dube with the 2nd rounder and the Stars got Riley Tufte in the 1st. Calgary at least got some mileage out of the Russell trade. Dallas is a smart team and they whiffed on that 1st

[robrob74]

56 minutes ago, CheersMan said:

Promoting losing is not healthy for any league... except maybe the Beer Cap League. The good old days.

I think it would be neat if they had a tournament for the bottom 4-8 teams to determine the top pick 

[travel_dude]

12 hours ago, jjgallow said:

Well we got a 2nd rounder on the list now, plus an if/then/or 3rd rounder next year.

 

For a 34 year old injured D in decline, I think we take it and be happy.

 

Grushnikov does not seem like a big part of the deal?  But maybe I'm wrong.   Always good to have defensive D.

 

 

Very good year to have extra 2nd rounders.    I'd be cool with another 1st though if they managed to trade up.

 

There was some talk that Grush was the target they had in mind.

And that Dallas didn't want to include him.

Could be collective smoke being blown up our butts.

I find it odd that we target a defensive D when trading a defensive D.

I thought we got that in the Lindholm trade, but that guy isn't here.

 

[jjgallow]

1 hour ago, travel_dude said:

 

There was some talk that Grush was the target they had in mind.

And that Dallas didn't want to include him.

Could be collective smoke being blown up our butts.

I find it odd that we target a defensive D when trading a defensive D.

I thought we got that in the Lindholm trade, but that guy isn't here.

 

 

You can't have enough defensive D prospects, I'm okay on that end, if it's not smoke.

 

I don't think we should kid ourselves into thinking he's a Tanev replacement, especially considering Tanev is RHD.

 

I do like that he's Russian because I feel that Russians generally (not always) are under-rated.   For several reasons.

 

IMHO, some of the best defensive D "became" defensive D despite being high scorers in junior because they were able to transition  and that was their ticket to the show.    Even Tanev, he put up points as a kid.

 

Come draft time I'm all about those goals and assists.   It's not because I think they truly tell you a lot.   It's like...a minimum bar they have to pass over.   A player with the skills to transition to the NHL Should, in most cases, be able to put up points in junior.

 

I remember people joking about Tim Hunter being the most talentless player in the NHL (yeah I'm that old), and all the things about that and how he never could have transitioned to the "new NHL" etc etc etc.

 

I doubt it.   Hunter, in junior, actually put up big points, and skill-wise he was miles and miles ahead of all his peers.  Is the truth.   He realized at some point that it wasn't enough at the NHL level, and he specialized.  I suspect a guy like that would actually specialize in any NHL, new or old, just differently.   He Did have skills, he had drive, and he had the ability to adapt.

 

When kids can't score in junior, I question their skills, and ability to adapt.   I avoid getting excited.   Although I do love the reports on his defense.

 

I personally feel like I should view this trade for the picks.  And I'm okay with the return  pick-wise, with Tanev's age and condition.     

 

If Grush proves me wrong, great.   Once again, we cannot have enough elite defensive defencemen.

[travel_dude]

9 hours ago, jjgallow said:

IMHO, some of the best defensive D "became" defensive D despite being high scorers in junior because they were able to transition  and that was their ticket to the show.    Even Tanev, he put up points as a kid.

 

I'm not going to argue the general sentiment.  When you talk about him as a kid, do you mean his 20 year old season in the Ontario Junior Hockey league?  Not the OHL.  He's probably not the right player to use to support your argument.

 

With regard to Grush, I think you need to at least watch a game or two at the AHL level before you say he's a bust and hope to be proven wrong.  No doubt you may end up being right, but you are starting on the guilty until proven innocent front.

[jjgallow]

11 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

I'm not going to argue the general sentiment.  When you talk about him as a kid, do you mean his 20 year old season in the Ontario Junior Hockey league?  Not the OHL.  He's probably not the right player to use to support your argument.

 

With regard to Grush, I think you need to at least watch a game or two at the AHL level before you say he's a bust and hope to be proven wrong.  No doubt you may end up being right, but you are starting on the guilty until proven innocent front.

 

I would only mean to say "let's not get our hopes up".   I've no interest in going on a warpath against a defensive prospect lol

[The_People1]

10 hours ago, jjgallow said:

 

You can't have enough defensive D prospects, I'm okay on that end, if it's not smoke.

 

I don't think we should kid ourselves into thinking he's a Tanev replacement, especially considering Tanev is RHD.

 

I do like that he's Russian because I feel that Russians generally (not always) are under-rated.   For several reasons.

 

IMHO, some of the best defensive D "became" defensive D despite being high scorers in junior because they were able to transition  and that was their ticket to the show.    Even Tanev, he put up points as a kid.

 

Come draft time I'm all about those goals and assists.   It's not because I think they truly tell you a lot.   It's like...a minimum bar they have to pass over.   A player with the skills to transition to the NHL Should, in most cases, be able to put up points in junior.

 

I remember people joking about Tim Hunter being the most talentless player in the NHL (yeah I'm that old), and all the things about that and how he never could have transitioned to the "new NHL" etc etc etc.

 

I doubt it.   Hunter, in junior, actually put up big points, and skill-wise he was miles and miles ahead of all his peers.  Is the truth.   He realized at some point that it wasn't enough at the NHL level, and he specialized.  I suspect a guy like that would actually specialize in any NHL, new or old, just differently.   He Did have skills, he had drive, and he had the ability to adapt.

 

When kids can't score in junior, I question their skills, and ability to adapt.   I avoid getting excited.   Although I do love the reports on his defense.

 

I personally feel like I should view this trade for the picks.  And I'm okay with the return  pick-wise, with Tanev's age and condition.     

 

If Grush proves me wrong, great.   Once again, we cannot have enough elite defensive defencemen.

 

Fair enough.

 

Especially if a 19 year old is going back to Juniors, you want to see domination statistically.  At 19, the team should be giving you all the big minutes, PP/PK, leadership roles, etc.  The player should be bigger, stronger, faster, etc than 16 and 17 year olds.  We want to see stats balloon in the final year of Junior even for a defensive player.

 

Offense comes from defense.  Being able to put up stats in Junior as a defensive player suggests high IQ, awareness, reading the play, good first pass, smart passes, good zone exits, etc all leads to secondary assists and points.  All are good attributes to have as a defensive player at the NHL level.

[travel_dude]

2 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

Fair enough.

 

Especially if a 19 year old is going back to Juniors, you want to see domination statistically.  At 19, the team should be giving you all the big minutes, PP/PK, leadership roles, etc.  The player should be bigger, stronger, faster, etc than 16 and 17 year olds.  We want to see stats balloon in the final year of Junior even for a defensive player.

 

Offense comes from defense.  Being able to put up stats in Junior as a defensive player suggests high IQ, awareness, reading the play, good first pass, smart passes, good zone exits, etc all leads to secondary assists and points.  All are good attributes to have as a defensive player at the NHL level.

 

So, he had 8 goals and as many assists in his last junior year.

Is 8 goals and low assists (+7) better or worse than 3 goals and 25 assists (-7) ?

We are talking about a team whose top scorer had 56 points in 66 games.

 

I'm not going to pump up the guy without seeing his rookie season in the NHL.

[cross16]

I don't think it's fair to look at it as a stats vs stats, or from an lens of deficiency. I look at it, that players have different skill sets and some more narrow than others.  That's how I view Grushnikov. it's not that he's bad or has questionable IQ etc, it's just a more narrow skill set. He does some things very well, but ideally you want to see a wider variety of skills because as you go up the chain the more specialized you are the harder it gets to be in the NHL and amongst the best of the best. 

 

Lack of points IMO doesn't mean Grushnikov, or any player, can't make it just makes their path harder and the odds less likely because they only have that specific skillset and role to play in.  The upside and opportunity is just more limited the more narrow your skill set it. 

 

If they were drafting Grushnikov i'd be upset because you draft for upside IMO, but he's a great skill set to acquire in trade because even if the odds may be more against him you want that type of player. Getting him via trade is the way to go and keeping banking on upside with other dman in the draft. 

[CheersMan]

16 hours ago, robrob74 said:

I think it would be neat if they had a tournament for the bottom 4-8 teams to determine the top pick 

Why not just give the 1st pick to the 17th placed team which does not make the playoffs, 2nd pick to the 18th placed team, 3rd pick to the 19th placed team, etc. Peeps mentioned this a few years ago which I argued against, but it makes sense, rewards the teams that don't make the playoffs but are still trying to win. Tanking would be eliminated. Don't really want to debate this as its been beat to death.

[The_People1]

7 minutes ago, CheersMan said:

Why not just give the 1st pick to the 17th placed team which does not make the playoffs, 2nd pick to the 18th placed team, 3rd pick to the 19th placed team, etc. Peeps mentioned this a few years ago which I argued against, but it makes sense, rewards the teams that don't make the playoffs but are still trying to win. Tanking would be eliminated. Don't really want to debate this as its been beat to death.

 

1000% man.  I support any end to tanking.

 

Imagine Chicago Blackhawks trading away a 1st round pick to get Hanifin so they can win up the draft order?  That's what it's all about.  Winning games.  But no, we have a "sell and tank" option that GMs can deploy.  Losing to get rewarded shouldn't be an option in pro sports.

[cross16]

7 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

1000% man.  I support any end to tanking.

 

Imagine Chicago Blackhawks trading away a 1st round pick to get Hanifin so they can win up the draft order?  That's what it's all about.  Winning games.  But no, we have a "sell and tank" option that GMs can deploy.  Losing to get rewarded shouldn't be an option in pro sports.

 

Why would the Flames trade Hanifin if it keeps them towards the top of the draft order though?