Official 2018 NHL Amateur Entry Draft Discussion Thread

[LeftWinger 4,934]

7 hours ago, Jonas Mahonas said:

A good GM would find a way to get Vancouver's pick and take 2 of the 3 right handed defenseman at 6 and 7. Bouchard + Dobson = good draft. 

Damn! If we could somehow swing that, Wow!

I am sure the price would be astronomical though!

[krsmith17 7,191]

9 hours ago, kliq said:

So what, if he drafts a good player its because he listed to people at the table, but if he drafts a player you dont like he made the decision himself?

Obviously! 

9 hours ago, Jonas Mahonas said:

A good GM would find a way to get Vancouver's pick and take 2 of the 3 right handed defenseman at 6 and 7. Bouchard + Dobson = good draft. 

Realistically, what would you expect that to cost? I'm sure it would be a lot more than I'd be willing to pay, and definitely more than Holland would be willing to pay...

If we did somehow get two top 10 picks (not going to happen), I'd go defense and forward. Ideal scenario for me would be Bouchard and Wahlstrom.

[xtrememachine1 795]

47 minutes ago, krsmith17 said:

If we did somehow get two top 10 picks (not going to happen), I'd go defense and forward. Ideal scenario for me would be Bouchard and Wahlstrom.

Those two are on the top of my list as well.  Wahlstrom has been a goal scoring machine and it'd be really nice to have a good right handed shooter on the left circle for the PP.  The trick, obviously, is who, in the top 10, would trade their pick.  If I were Chicago, I'd look to trade that pick for something that can help the team now before Kane and Toews window closes.  By the time that pick makes it to the NHL, those two will be on their way out or close to.

[krsmith17 7,191]

27 minutes ago, xtrememachine1 said:

Those two are on the top of my list as well.  Wahlstrom has been a goal scoring machine and it'd be really nice to have a good right handed shooter on the left circle for the PP.  The trick, obviously, is who, in the top 10, would trade their pick.  If I were Chicago, I'd look to trade that pick for something that can help the team now before Kane and Toews window closes.  By the time that pick makes it to the NHL, those two will be on their way out or close to.

Yeah, we desperately need some right-handed shooters in our top 6.

I agree on Chicago making the most sense as well. No way Vancouver, a team in a similar position as us, would have any interest in moving their 7th overall pick, unless it were a massive overpayment. Maybe the Rangers would listen to offers on their 9th overall, since they have two other 1st and two 2nd rounds picks. I don't think they have much interest in a long rebuild and are looking to make a quick turnaround. 

I still highly doubt any team has much interest in moving a top 10 pick, but Holland should definitely be making some phone calls to see what could be available...

[LeftWinger 4,934]

We desperately need RH'd shooters in our top 6? 

Not gonna say it....its over and done.

But ya those two would rock! Too bad we'll probably never realize that situation. Maybe Bouchard and Dobson will be gone and Holland deems Wahlstrom BPA. 

[Neomaxizoomdweebie 3,083]

3 hours ago, krsmith17 said:

Obviously! 

Realistically, what would you expect that to cost? I'm sure it would be a lot more than I'd be willing to pay, and definitely more than Holland would be willing to pay...

If we did somehow get two top 10 picks (not going to happen), I'd go defense and forward. Ideal scenario for me would be Bouchard and Wahlstrom.

If it was the Hawks pick, it would take Vegas' pick this year, our first next year and Nyquist. If it was Vancouver replace Nyquist with Cholowski and add another pick. Vancouver's asking price would be too high, and although I would consider Chicagos, all of the F I would be interested on would be gone.

[BringBack19 110]

3 hours ago, Neomaxizoomdweebie said:

If it was the Hawks pick, it would take Vegas' pick this year, our first next year and Nyquist. If it was Vancouver replace Nyquist with Cholowski and add another pick. Vancouver's asking price would be too high, and although I would consider Chicagos, all of the F I would be interested on would be gone.

That is more than I would be willing to pay. No way should we trade a potential 2019 lottery pick. If the price was Vegas’s 1st, two 2nds, and Nyquist I would do it. However the hawks probably wouldn’t. Bouchard/Boqvist/Dobson/Hughes and Wahlstrom would be an amazing haul. 

[LeftWinger 4,934]

Kenny in April:

      We can't have a team full of 5'10 defensemen.  We need some RH'd shots back there.

Kenny at Draft:

     With the #6 pick in the draft Detroit Chooses Quinton Hughes.

J/K! This would be the old Kenny, is there a new Kenny? WE'LL SEE!!!!!

 

[krsmith17 7,191]

5 hours ago, Neomaxizoomdweebie said:

If it was the Hawks pick, it would take Vegas' pick this year, our first next year and Nyquist. If it was Vancouver replace Nyquist with Cholowski and add another pick. Vancouver's asking price would be too high, and although I would consider Chicagos, all of the F I would be interested on would be gone.

I don't think it would take near that much for either the Canucks or Hawks pick. No way would we include next year's 1st round pick. Even if next year's pick were lottery protected, you'd have to think, our team will be pretty much the exact same next year, minus Tatar, *Nyquist*, and potentially Green. We'll likely be a much worse team with those three subtraction. Maybe even bottom 2-3 bad. So even if we don't win the lottery, and drop back to 4th or 5th, is a 29th(ish) pick this year, plus a top 5 pick next year and a top 6 winger / potential top 3 defenseman worth a 7th / 8th overall pick this year? Nope. If that were the price, Vancouver / Chicago would make out like bandits...

I think the Vegas pick, plus the Ottawa pick, plus one of Nyquist / Athanasiou / Svechnikov, and maybe a 2019 2nd, would be enough to get it done. I'd consider that. I'm not so sure Holland would though. Holland would much rather more picks (quantity over quality). Has he ever traded up in the draft? I don't think he has...

[Neomaxizoomdweebie 3,083]

1 hour ago, krsmith17 said:

I don't think it would take near that much for either the Canucks or Hawks pick. No way would we include next year's 1st round pick. Even if next year's pick were lottery protected, you'd have to think, our team will be pretty much the exact same next year, minus Tatar, *Nyquist*, and potentially Green. We'll likely be a much worse team with those three subtraction. Maybe even bottom 2-3 bad. So even if we don't win the lottery, and drop back to 4th or 5th, is a 29th(ish) pick this year, plus a top 5 pick next year and a top 6 winger / potential top 3 defenseman worth a 7th / 8th overall pick this year? Nope. If that were the price, Vancouver / Chicago would make out like bandits...

I think the Vegas pick, plus the Ottawa pick, plus one of Nyquist / Athanasiou / Svechnikov, and maybe a 2019 2nd, would be enough to get it done. I'd consider that. I'm not so sure Holland would though. Holland would much rather more picks (quantity over quality). Has he ever traded up in the draft? I don't think he has...

If the Canucks are rebuilding and they have the 7th pick (especially they'll want Wahlstrom, Tkachuk, or Zadina with the Twins retiring) they wouldn't want to give up that pick without a serious return. It would take an overpayment.

The Wings pick next year is an unknown. They could have picked 8th this year. I don't think they'll be worse next year. Larkin, Mantha, Svech, Bert, and Rass (if he's on the team) will all be better next year. Assuming Holland continues to roster 4 legit top 4 D, I don't think the D will be any worse. Same goaltending.

The Hawks are picking 8th this year. Chances are they will finish higher next year and a lottery pick will be out of reach. They will want a good return for their pick this year. You would be giving up an unknown 1st round pick next year to move up and draft a player who would probably go top 4 or 5 in any other draft. You are basically just drafting next years pick this year and gambling that next years wouldn't be better. You are throwing in a 20 something pick for the cost of moving up, and a pending UFA roster player (who I think the Hawks would be interested in) as the "collateral" so to speak. It may be a steep price to pay, but I do think it would take that much.

Edited May 3, 2018 by Neomaxizoomdweebie

[Neomaxizoomdweebie 3,083]

On 4/15/2018 at 6:42 PM, Dabura said:

Nice mock draft:

https://www.diebytheblade.com/2018/4/8/17213402/end-of-season-1st-round-mock

The author brings up an interesting fact (assuming it's true): the Senators haven't drafted a Russian in over a decade and the Hurricanes haven't drafted a Russian since 2001. If that's true, and if it's because they have a rule about not drafting Russians, maybe neither of them would take Svechnikov at #2 or #3. Also, Peter Chiarelli is a moron.

 

[krsmith17 7,191]

11 hours ago, Neomaxizoomdweebie said:

If the Canucks are rebuilding and they have the 7th pick (especially they'll want Wahlstrom, Tkachuk, or Zadina with the Twins retiring) they wouldn't want to give up that pick without a serious return. It would take an overpayment.

The Wings pick next year is an unknown. They could have picked 8th this year. I don't think they'll be worse next year. Larkin, Mantha, Svech, Bert, and Rass (if he's on the team) will all be better next year. Assuming Holland continues to roster 4 legit top 4 D, I don't think the D will be any worse. Same goaltending.

The Hawks are picking 8th this year. Chances are they will finish higher next year and a lottery pick will be out of reach. They will want a good return for their pick this year. You would be giving up an unknown 1st round pick next year to move up and draft a player who would probably go top 4 or 5 in any other draft. You are basically just drafting next years pick this year and gambling that next years wouldn't be better. You are throwing in a 20 something pick for the cost of moving up, and a pending UFA roster player (who I think the Hawks would be interested in) as the "collateral" so to speak. It may be a steep price to pay, but I do think it would take that much.

I'm aware it would take an overpayment, which is why I suggested it would take a late 1st, two early 2nd's (that's three picks in the late 20's - mid 30's range), as well as a top / middle 6 winger. That is overpayment, but an overpayment I'd be willing to make. I disagree that we'd have to give up two 1st round picks, especially one that will likely be as high as top 5 next year. I guess that's where we disagree though. You think we'll be as good or better next season. I don't see it. I don't think the growth of the kids will offset the loss of Nyquist, Tatar and Green.

By the way, draft analysts are saying that next year's draft is supposed to be as good or better than this year's. So that "top 4 or 5 in any other draft", goes out the window. If we could get a top 10 pick this year for the Vegas pick, plus a 2020 1st round pick, plus player / prospect, I'd do it in a heartbeat. I think we'll be a bottom feeder again next season, but I could see us making the playoffs the following season.

This debate is moot though. Holland isn't trading up. If anything he'll probably trade back again...

[krsmith17 7,191]

1 hour ago, Jonas Mahonas said:

To Vancouver: Vegas 1st Rounder, 2nd Round pick, Cholowski, Svechnikov

This is probably in the neighborhood of what Vancouver would be looking for, but I don't think I'd do it...

[Dabura 12,206]

8 hours ago, krsmith17 said:

By the way, draft analysts are saying that next year's draft is supposed to be as good or better than this year's.

And from my (admitedly limited) knowledge of the projected top players, they're right.

Seems like the top 10-15 could be very short on top defensemen, for what it's worth. Sort of an inverse of this year's top 10-15.

[krsmith17 7,191]

11 minutes ago, Dabura said:

And from my (admitedly limited) knowledge of the projected top players, they're right.

Seems like the top 10-15 could be very short on top defensemen, for what it's worth. Sort of an inverse of this year's top 10-15.

Which could be a good thing, assuming we get our defenseman in this year's draft. Next year, we'll probably want another high end center, or even winger. I'm hoping we'll have two 1st's again next draft as well. Maybe another high 1st and mid to late 1st.

[Dabura 12,206]

24 minutes ago, krsmith17 said:

Which could be a good thing, assuming we get our defenseman in this year's draft. Next year, we'll probably want another high end center, or even winger. I'm hoping we'll have two 1st's again next draft as well. Maybe another high 1st and mid to late 1st.

Yup!

It's looking like the Wings might've picked a damn good time to bottom out. We missed Dahlin this year and I'm guessing we'll miss out on Jack Hughes next year, but, even so, there are a lot of really good defensemen at the top of this draft class and there'll probably be a lot of really good centermen at the top of next year's draft class.

I don't want to get my hopes up, but it's possible that these two drafts could, ultimately, be all we need to fill our holes and get back on track. (I suspect this is a big reason why Holland was given that two-year extension.)

[chaps80 1,591]

10 hours ago, krsmith17 said:

This is probably in the neighborhood of what Vancouver would be looking for, but I don't think I'd do it...

f*** no. Just roll with the 6th overall. And whatever Vegas gives us. Hopefully the Sharks can take them out.

[Buppy 1,720]

While it's maybe not common enough to draw a definite conclusion (and there will always be exceptions in any case), typically if a team is trading a top-10 pick they're going to want proven talent in return, not a pile of lower picks and prospects.

Next year's 1st is probably more realistic, since it should be similar level just a year later. Though I wouldn't add even the Vegas pick or Nyquist alone, much less both. Nor any top prospects. Frk and a 3rd, and put some conditions on the 1st next year. 

[Neomaxizoomdweebie 3,083]

12 hours ago, krsmith17 said:

I'm aware it would take an overpayment, which is why I suggested it would take a late 1st, two early 2nd's (that's three picks in the late 20's - mid 30's range), as well as a top / middle 6 winger. That is overpayment, but an overpayment I'd be willing to make. I disagree that we'd have to give up two 1st round picks, especially one that will likely be as high as top 5 next year. I guess that's where we disagree though. You think we'll be as good or better next season. I don't see it. I don't think the growth of the kids will offset the loss of Nyquist, Tatar and Green.

By the way, draft analysts are saying that next year's draft is supposed to be as good or better than this year's. So that "top 4 or 5 in any other draft", goes out the window. If we could get a top 10 pick this year for the Vegas pick, plus a 2020 1st round pick, plus player / prospect, I'd do it in a heartbeat. I think we'll be a bottom feeder again next season, but I could see us making the playoffs the following season.

This debate is moot though. Holland isn't trading up. If anything he'll probably trade back again...

Yes. That's where we differ. I think Green will be back next year and Hicketts will replace Ouellet. The D should be the same if not better next season. I think the F group overall improves. The draft next year is predicted to be deep, I agree, but I think the team will be closer to the playoffs and I am not confident they will even be picking in the top 10 next year. It's a gamble assuming they will. If I trade next year's uncertain pick for one I know will be top 7 or 8 this year, that's a safer bet. Could they pick higher next year and get a better player than who they could get this year? Absolutely. But they could also pick later (more likely IMO) and get a much lesser player. I'd rather take the certain "7 or 8" now.

 

But I agree that trading next year's first would be too high of a price IF the team is worse and the pick is essentially a top 5.

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

26 minutes ago, Neomaxizoomdweebie said:

Yes. That's where we differ. I think Green will be back next year and Hicketts will replace Ouellet. The D should be the same if not better next season. I think the F group overall improves. The draft next year is predicted to be deep, I agree, but I think the team will be closer to the playoffs and I am not confident they will even be picking in the top 10 next year. It's a gamble assuming they will. If I trade next year's uncertain pick for one I know will be top 7 or 8 this year, that's a safer bet. Could they pick higher next year and get a better player than who they could get this year? Absolutely. But they could also pick later (more likely IMO) and get a much lesser player. I'd rather take the certain "7 or 8" now.

 

But I agree that trading next year's first would be too high of a price IF the team is worse and the pick is essentially a top 5.

I think the team will be worse next year for a variety of reasons. Still think you trade that pick. Theres 21 picks lower than this. Chances say its more likely gonna be one of those next season. Not gonna gamble a 6th overall on what I think might happen. 

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

Just realized...

Blashill is coaching Quinton Hughes at the WC right now. That's probably going to play a huge factor into whether we draft him or not. Blash is getting a hands on inside look into this kids personality, how he meshes with teammates, and so forth.

[AtlantaHotWings 973]

42 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

Just realized...

Blashill is coaching Quinton Hughes at the WC right now. That's probably going to play a huge factor into whether we draft him or not. Blash is getting a hands on inside look into this kids personality, how he meshes with teammates, and so forth.

could even pair Hughes with Jensen to see how that would work out. 

[Neomaxizoomdweebie 3,083]

10 hours ago, AtlantaHotWings said:

could even pair Hughes with Jensen to see how that would work out. 

Great!......for Jensen.

[LeftWinger 4,934]

Geez Vegas! are we now, 28th or lower with their 1st rounder? If Vegas goes on to the finals, I bet Holland deals that pick for 2 more 2nds! XO and Vegas 1st to Montreal for two of their FOUR 2nds sounds good.

I'll take the #33, #35, #36, #38 then!

Edited May 7, 2018 by LeftWinger

[LeftWinger 4,934]

Not sure Nielsen would waive his NMC to go to Montreal though.

IMO, if both of Serron Noel and Mat Samuelsson are not on the board when we pick at Vegas' spot, I trade back and try to acquire the two more high 2nds. But ONLY for 2nds, none of this 2nd and 3rd crap, we'd be losing out then, we may as well just keep our 3 picks in between 28-36 in stead of just two and a fourth 3rd. The whole idea would be to have 4 picks in between 32-38. If Montreal does not want to be a player, then the Isles have #41 and #43 in the 2nd.

Plus I still use one of my 6th's on Liam Kirk.

Edited May 8, 2018 by LeftWinger