2024 NHL DRAFT Talk

[SabresBillsFan]

Eiserman would be a great pick if he falls to 11. In rounds 2-7 I look for players that are gritty.

[SabresBillsFan]

35 minutes ago, CTJoe said:

Great write ups!!  How about Cole Eiserman? Any others ranked in the top 8, or so, that you think could drop?

I like Cole Eiserman as who wouldn’t want a great goal scorer. If he falls to 11, I’m all over him. I stick to the original plan on building through the draft. Try to find some grit through free agency and or in the later rounds of the draft.

Being out here in Vegas I believe Carrier and possibly Stephenson will not be resigned. I would look at both, Stephenson has speed and is a great two way player only bad thing is he over passes but he does a lot of little things very well. 

Edited May 8 by SabresBillsFan

[LETSTUCHINGO]

40 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Let's talk about Berkly Catton, the 5'11" 163lb the 54g, 116pts Assistant Capt. of the Spokane Chiefs. First, I honestly hope he slides simply to watch this place meltdown over the fact he is 160lbs and only 5'11". Please let me have that. He was the best player on his team but sadly his team didn't make it out of the first round of the WHL playoffs. Catton had 8 more points than his linemate Roulette but 45 more points than the 3rd player on his team. He is the offensive engine, the driver of his team. Really, quick a stat that pops up in a couple of place (I didn't find this on my own) is that Catton sits 3rd for PtsPG for draft eligible players in the WHL over the past 25 years. Bedard (2.51) and Reinhart (1.75) are the two players above Catton (1.71) with Jarvis (1.69) and Draisaitl (1.64) coming just after. That is some really good company to be a part of. 

Let's start with the shot because his shot is one of the best in the class and it will only get better as he gets stronger. Quick release that is accurate and already hard, he has that ability to get his stick loaded and fire. He really can fire rockets. You don't get 54 goals if you can't and he can. But if you are just a shot threat, that becomes easier to take away, so maybe we should look at what might be the best passer in this class not named Celebrini or Demidov. Because he has such great hands and a threatening shot, Catton really can manipulate opposing defenders. Once he does that, he has great vision and can make any pass you want. He loves to work pucks inside and find guys on the inside. Watch his reels and you can see him manipulate plays and either speed things or slow them down depending on his feels, which are basically always correct. He reminds me of Jack Quinn in some ways as he can do a bit of everything. 

Now his skating his just fun to watch. He builds speed with crossovers, he has agility, quickness, and overall great skating. His pull away speed is there but should improve with added strength. He really uses his skating to link his other skills together as he keeps his hands high on on his stick and then uses those dekes while moving to really open things up. Every report talks about how good he can be on the rush and I fully agree. Flies up ice, manipulates the defense, can load up a shot, or make a great pass. Love it. 

Alright, he isn't all sunshine and sparkles. His defensive zone coverage is meh. It isn't terrible but I wouldn't call it good either. He sometimes loses his guy and even if Spokane is playing more of a zone, he seems to not understand exactly where to be or how to defend it all that well. He does backcheck and forecheck well but needs to get stronger. I think in the NHL, he might end up a winger over center because of that less developed defensive game. Really quick, he will play defense and I think he does try physically but they are underdeveloped aspects of his game that need work. Not surprising for an 18yr old. Overall I would like to see him stronger on pucks in the D zone and to see that offensive hockey IQ translate to the D side of things. 

I like Catton. He has the skills you want in a first line forward coupled with the IQ to make it all work. His size can be questioned as he physically needs another 15lbs or more of muscle mass to be able to handle some of the rigors he will face as he goes up a level. I think the overall package is nice and when, not if, he develops physically, you could have a nice player that can really break games open offensively while not being a liability defensively. I think Catton slides on draft day if he clocks in at under 6ft and 175lbs because that is the trend in drafts. He shouldn't be available at 11 but could be. 

Thank you for that right up, very thorough, and I agree with everything you said. With respect to having more of the same, I'm not worried about it. We NEED established NHL talent (2nd or 3rd center, 4th line with grit and more scoring, etc) and trading some of our prospects is one way to obtain that. Meaning, the cupboards won't be as full with the "same" (smaller, skilled, less physical playmakers) type of player if a trade happens! If they keep the pick (I hope they trade it) you draft the best player available regardless of what your prospect pool is made up of!

[dudacek]

29 minutes ago, LETSTUCHINGO said:

Thank you for that right up, very thorough, and I agree with everything you said. With respect to having more of the same, I'm not worried about it. We NEED established NHL talent (2nd or 3rd center, 4th line with grit and more scoring, etc) and trading some of our prospects is one way to obtain that. Meaning, the cupboards won't be as full with the "same" (smaller, skilled, less physical playmakers) type of player if a trade happens! If they keep the pick (I hope they trade it) you draft the best player available regardless of what your prospect pool is made up of!

Couldn’t agree more.

Draft the player you think will be the best. Trade for need.

 

[LGR4GM]

4 hours ago, CTJoe said:

Great write ups!!  How about Cole Eiserman? Any others ranked in the top 8, or so, that you think could drop?

Tomorrow. I've watched a lot of Eiserman. I have some thoughts. Then I'm done for a bit. Also, I encourage everyone to watch video and read yourself. Form your own opinion. 

[Thorner]

this is the type of pick that would have me quite convinced we are hooked up to a simulation designed to torment 

- - - 

For the record, BPA doesn’t strictly apply anymore. You can’t just apply a generalization across all cases indiscriminately: the sabres are *clearly* an outsider case at this time, deserving of a nuanced approach. We already NEED to move prospects, you can’t just go up there and take the exact same guy in the mold of your 2 best assets and the guy you just traded your best C for 

Edited May 8 by Thorny

[Thorner]

3 hours ago, dudacek said:

Couldn’t agree more.

Draft the player you think will be the best. Trade for need.

 

Only works well in theory. Don’t know how anyone could think otherwise when you can read the trade threads detailing how JJ Peterka is off limits for us and Kaako is off limits for the Rangers etc etc. ALL we hear about is how difficult trades for ACTUAL good players are due to the mechanics of deals and the fact that players don’t want to come to Buffalo. 
 

“Collect what you can and use the trade market to balance it all out” *is* an online GM simulator thing. It only works in theory. It works in practice to an *extent* - but we aren’t the team that can go up there and take an offensively obsessed puck moving D. It’s just an added degree of difficulty and asset imbalance that it would be incredibly hubristic to saddle our GM with, when he clearly has enough to deal with already 

“BPA full-stop” and “it takes 2 to tango” are used one over the other on this board and clearly represent a team building issue 

- - - 

If we refuse to trade the pick outright and refuse to budge on our list, complete the trade at the draft when it’s easiest and feasible and move down a few spots: you can take the best player on your list there, with better positional fitting, for what amounts to a likely small talent analysis difference (when you are basically hoping and praying, anyways - no one really knows if you’ll get a better player at 11 or 13) and pick up an asset in the process: granting you full value  

Edited May 8 by Thorny

[Flashsabre]

Frankly BPA is a myth. Unless you are talking about the first pick in the draft than BPA is just who each individual team deems is the BPA in their view. It is based on team’s individual preferences.

If  Cayden Lindstrom and Berkley Catton are both available I guarantee NHL teams will have different assessment of who the better player is.  Sam Dickinson and Zane Parekth, different teams will have them ranked differently as well.

It’s just a pet peeve but I know it will be the BPA that the Sabres scouts have ranked on their board.

[dudacek]

I think this is just a case of degrees.

In practical terms, no matter which one I’d pick first in a vacuum, I’d take prime Mike Peca over prime Rene Robert at this time for this particular Buffalo Sabres team. They’re a similar level of player, so the fit matters more.

However, I’m not taking prime Richard Smehlik over prime Rene Robert, no matter how many top 6 wingers I have with the defensive D cupboard entirely empty.

The Peca scenario is likely true for the 2 players you are weighing at 11, so the discussion is mostly moot.

Where it is not moot is where a guy you rank significantly higher somehow slips to your spot. That’s where I take the Benson over the Oliver Bonk every time.

Especially because the draft pick isn’t for now, he’s for 5 years from now.

2 years after you overstocked on centres you might discover Mitts traded, Krebs sucking and Cozens playing better on the wing.

Edited May 8 by dudacek

[Thorner]

24 minutes ago, Flashsabre said:

Frankly BPA is a myth. Unless you are talking about the first pick in the draft than BPA is just who each individual team deems is the BPA in their view. It is based on team’s individual preferences.

If  Cayden Lindstrom and Berkley Catton are both available I guarantee NHL teams will have different assessment of who the better player is.  Sam Dickinson and Zane Parekth, different teams will have them ranked differently as well.

It’s just a pet peeve but I know it will be the BPA that the Sabres scouts have ranked on their board.

The idea is that you take the best player on YOUR list, but there should be more awareness of the hubris at play, here: so much of it is guessing. To act like you’ll absolutely get better value with the first choice on your list than your second or third is already dicey.

In the early stages of a rebuild imo it’s all about CEILING CEILING CEILING but at the stage we are now, I am of the opinion it would absolutely make sense to “hedge” your bet by picking up an extra asset, locking/banking in some value right away, and then taking a player who has a non-negligible chance of being as good WITH the position premium

there’s literally a discussion going on in another thread with a strong strong “hold your horses, finding good trades can be hard” narrative yet the prevailing wisdom of BPA still shines over here.

The 2 need to be reconciled  

Edited May 8 by Thorny

[Thorner]

4 hours ago, dudacek said:

I think this is just a case of degrees.

In practical terms, no matter which one I’d pick first in a vacuum, I’d take prime Mike Peca over prime Rene Robert at this time for this particular Buffalo Sabres team. They’re a similar level of player, so the fit matters more.

However, I’m not taking prime Richard Smehlik over prime Rene Robert, no matter how many top 6 wingers I have with the defensive D cupboard entirely empty.

The Peca scenario is likely true for the 2 players you are weighing at 11, so the discussion is mostly moot.

Where it is not moot is where a guy you rank significantly higher somehow slips to your spot. That’s where I take the Benson over the Oliver Bonk every time.

Especially because the draft pick isn’t for now, he’s for 5 years from now.

2 years after you overstocked on centres you might discover Mitts traded, Krebs sucking and Cozens playing better on the wing.

I agree. I’d be skeptical of the strong degree of evaluation certainty that would necessarily follow, say, taking Robert over Peca: ie like you allude to guys at 11 are going to be ballpark in that sense so it would require an extreme case (benson I guess) to trust defaulting to a bPA pick there when positional discrepancy was glaring  

- - - 

reminds me of your comments on Byram “not normally being available” for what we paid. Cause what, Avs had a surplus?

If we go ahead and take a redundant talent and we end up trading, doesn’t it likely end up a similar “normally we wouldn’t even MOVE the asset for this!” Situation 

I don’t like that 

Edited May 9 by Thorny

[LGR4GM]

This has us taking Eiserman ftr. 

 

[Flashsabre]

2 hours ago, Thorny said:

The idea is that you take the best player on YOUR list, but there should be more awareness of the hubris at play, here: so much of it is guessing. To act like you’ll absolutely get better value with the first choice on your list than your second or third is already dicey.

In the early stages of a rebuild imo it’s all about CEILING CEILING CEILING but at the stage we are now, I am of the opinion it would absolutely make sense to “hedge” your bet by picking up an extra asset, locking/banking in some value right away, and then taking a player who has a non-negligible chance of being as good WITH the position premium

there’s literally a discussion going on in another thread with a strong strong “hold your horses, finding good trades can be hard” narrative yet the prevailing wisdom of BPA still shines over here.

The 2 need to be reconciled  

Yes, everyone can say we took the BPA but if your scouts stink than it really doesn’t matter.

[Buffalonill]

If we're keeping the pick draft Iginla he will be special 

[Flashsabre]

If they keep the pick and if Catton falls man that would be a nice get. Electric offensive player.

Iginla rising might drop Catton.

[dudacek]

3 hours ago, Thorny said:

I agree. I’d be skeptical of the strong degree of evaluation certainly that would necessarily follow, say, taking Robert over Peca: ie like you allude to guys at 11 are going to be ballpark in that sense so it would require an extreme case (benson I guess) to trust defaulting to a bPA pick there when positional discrepancy was glaring  

- - - 

reminds me of your comments on Byram “not normally being available” for what we paid. Cause what, Avs had a surplus?

If we go ahead and take a redundant talent and we end up trading, doesn’t it likely end up a similar “normally we wouldn’t even MOVE the asset for this!” Situation 

I don’t like that 

I don’t remember the Byram comment you reference, but it may have been a reference to the fact that you don’t usually find the first defenceman taken in any draft available in a trade less than 5 years after he was picked. Or a defenceman picked in the top 10 even.

But to your point, I don’t think you typically are forced to sell at a discount if you’ve got a logjam of a particular player type. The value is going to be determined partly by demand and mostly by how well your pick develops.

 

[GoPuckYourself]

Is there a matthew Tkachuk type in this draft class? If so that's the guy I'm targeting. 

[Thorner]

1 hour ago, dudacek said:

I don’t remember the Byram comment you reference, but it may have been a reference to the fact that you don’t usually find the first defenceman taken in any draft available in a trade less than 5 years after he was picked. Or a defenceman picked in the top 10 even.

But to your point, I don’t think you typically are forced to sell at a discount if you’ve got a logjam of a particular player type. The value is going to be determined partly by demand and mostly by how well your pick develops.

 

Ya you could have been referring to availability in general, but I recall there being something specific about cost. My recollection is that my inference at the time was your comment was because of Byram’s performance this year. I do think some of that performance and output can come down to usage and over abundance of a type of player can affect that.

I’ll see if I can find the post 

On 4/27/2024 at 10:53 PM, dudacek said:

You get a guy who you known can play 14 minutes of NHL + hockey a night and you tell Krebs there’s your target; be better than him and those minutes are yours.

If I squint hard I can see someone who only watched Byram play in Buffalo say that.

Im reminded of last year and what everyone was saying about Greenway.

Im not going to say we bought low because we paid a pretty big price. But I will say you weren’t getting him at that price any time before this year.

He’s shown he can be better and I expect he will be.

Think it was this one 

Edited May 9 by Thorny

[dudacek]

56 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Ya you could have been referring to availability in general, but I recall there being something specific about cost. My recollection is that my inference at the time was your comment was because of Byram’s performance this year. I do think some of that performance and output can come down to usage and over abundance of a type of player can affect that.

I’ll see if I can find the post 

Think it was this one 

Ah OK.

That was simply a reference to Byram’s value dipping this year because it was both his first full season, and his worst season.

Prior to this year he had 41 points in 72 games sandwiched around a scintillating Stanley Cup win. Add his draft pedigree to what most defencemen are doing at that age and it fed the narrative of “imagine what he’ll be when he’s healthy and fills out.”

His regression this year took some of the shine off that, enough for the Avalanche to conclude either “he ain’t gonna be all that,” or “we can’t afford to wait to find out.”

Edited May 9 by dudacek

[dudacek]

1 hour ago, Thorny said:

I do think some of that performance and output can come down to usage and over abundance of a type of player can affect that.
 

I do think there’s truth in this, it least in terms of production.

We’ve seen it on our team already, with people underrating Power compared to players like Seider because Seider has significantly more PP opportunities and therefore more points.

Ive seen Avs fans who say that Byram’s production was hurt because he never got to play with Makar and McKinnon at all, never mind on the PP. Instead it was all Ross Colton and Jack Johnson.

But the flip side of that is that if Byram was a better player, he wouldn’t have been taking a seat for Sam Girard, and that he didn’t have to play against the other team’s best either. So there’s a chicken and an egg thing there.

Thing is, I don’t think Byram has to be a 60-point PP QB to be effective, he just has to be better than his opponent when he’s out there. Byram (and Power) don’t have to be the limited one-way guys some people on here seem to typecast them as. They have the tools to develop into complete defencemen the way Dahlin has. The way Pietrangelo, Theodore and Hanifin are for Vegas, To get there, they just need to get their reps.

I checked even strength points for defencemen: Power had 26, Theodore 27 Pietrangelo 23, Seider 24.

Ahead of them all, in 34th in the NHL with 28 was Bo Byram.

Edited May 9 by dudacek

[SabresBillsFan]

3 hours ago, Buffalonill said:

If we're keeping the pick draft Iginla he will be special 

He will be gone before Buffalo picks unless they try to move up.  Calgary will pick him up before we pick

[Thorner]

16 minutes ago, dudacek said:

I do think there’s truth in this, it least in terms of production.

We’ve seen it on our team already, with people underrating Power compared to players like Seider because Seider has significantly more PP opportunities and therefore more points.

Ive seen Avs fans who say that Byram’s production was hurt because he never got to play with Makar and McKinnon at all, never mind on the PP. Instead it was all Ross Colton and Jack Johnson.

But the flip side of that is that if Byram was a better player, he wouldn’t have been taking a seat for Sam Girard, and that he didn’t have to play against the other team’s best either. So there’s a chicken and an egg thing there.

Thing is, I don’t think Byram has to be a 60-point PP QB to be effective, he just has to be better than his opponent when he’s out there. Byram (and Power) don’t have to be the limited one-way guys some people on here seem to typecast them as. They have the tools to develop into complete defencemen the way Dahlin has. The way Pietrangelo, Theodore and Hanifin are for Vegas, To get there, they just need to get their reps.

I checked even strength points for defencemen: Power had 26, Theodore 27 Pietrangelo 23, Seider 24.

Ahead of them all, in 34th in the NHL with 28 was Bo Byram.

I agree it’s still potentially a great asset to have. If Adams is right on Byram it’ll be a big boon for us not a small one. But originally in speaking asset management, I think Colorado did run the risk of underselling on one. Not in the moment in making the deal, but in it getting to the point where a deal was necessary and beneficial, that somewhat detrimental roster imbalance they had to address.

It might not be a big thing but it might be a little thing in terms of maximizing value. And Byram trades are how common exactly?

My main thought is there definitely should at least be caution before implementing a “draft the better player to the 4th decimal point and sort the rest out through trades” line of thought 

[dudacek]

10 minutes ago, Thorny said:

I agree it’s still potentially a great asset to have. If Adams is right on Byram it’ll be a big boon for us not a small one. But originally in speaking asset management, I think Colorado did run the risk of underselling on one. Not in the moment in making the deal, but in it getting to the point where a deal was necessary and beneficial, that somewhat detrimental roster imbalance they had to address.

It might not be a big thing but it might be a little thing in terms of maximizing value. And Byram trades are how common exactly?

My main thought is there definitely should at least be caution before implementing a “draft the better player to the 4th decimal point and sort the rest out through trades” line of thought 

The Avs did say they figured at the time they signed him to his 2nd contract, they’d be trading him before he signed his 3rd.

Would they have been better off bypassing him for the next best player on their list back in 2019?

Maybe not if you think his presence was important to their cup in 2022

Certainly not if that player was Alex Turcotte.

If that player was Dylan Cozens?

[PerreaultForever]

When your prospect pool is small or empty you draft BPA all the way.

When you have a full prospect pool you project your needs both now and future and you tweak your draft in the direction of need(s). 

That doesn't mean you go way off book and draft the first D man ranked 20 when you pick 10th or anything (as a hypothetical example) but you lean to need. If players you like fall you do what must be done and take them regardless (eg. Benson).

and you ALWAYS pick a goalie in a low round every year. 

[Thorner]

If there’s a team that would prove BPA the rule it’s buffalo by taking an offensively focused D-man when we already have two #1 overalls on the roster and a #3 overall on the roster in the same mold.

I wouldn’t do it but it would be gutsy