Prospect Info: 2024 NHL Entry Draft (Ducks pick #3, They didn’t drop! OMG It’s a Miracle!)

[LeBrun is a Clown]

I think Murray would take Yakemchuk too if Yakemchuk was available in the 6th round, where Manson was drafted. Yakemchuk is an physical OFD who doesn't put much effort in defense and loves to take too many penalties for a projected top-4D. Can't be a top-4D if you're usually in the sin bin.

View attachment 868467

You can see his offense improve year after year. Yet, with his size and physicality, that +/- is abysmal after three years in the WHL.

Calgary Team high in +/-

2021-22: +11​

2022-23: +19​

2023-24: +29​

It's doubtful that Murray would take Yakemchuk at #3 or in the top-10. We picked defensive-minded Pettersson ahead of offensive-minded Montour in the 2nd round of the 2014 draft.

lmao, yes, let’s fixate on plus minus opposed to actually watching the player. Yak is through and through a Verbeek player.

Ducks can work with Yaks defense and has the same tools, if not better, than Lev with better offense/

It’s easier to tame a physical player than teach a soft player to play physical. He will mature over time.

 

[LeBrun is a Clown]

He gives off Seider/Lindholm/Reinbacher vibes however may be the biggest steal out of all of them. He has way more physical-Seider potential.

 

[DavidBL]

I'm surprised a fan of team that has trotted out Mr Muffin shot for last 14 yrs on the PP has to ask this question ... (and motherforking shirtballs, yes i had to look that up to make sure i wasn't counting wrong, its been 14 yrs)

And yet in those 14 years Muffin shot has been a top producing D man in the league pretty consistently. A good shot is a great asset. A booming shot just doesn't seem to be a sought after skill these days. I feel like I'd it was then there would be more development in it. Just my opinion. I've never felt it was necessary for a good PP.

 

[Static]

Could be on our radar as we have targeted re-entries quite a bit the last few years.

 

[FiveTacos]

I'm surprised a fan of team that has trotted out Mr Muffin shot for last 14 yrs on the PP has to ask this question ... (and motherforking shirtballs, yes i had to look that up to make sure i wasn't counting wrong, its been 14 yrs)

It's not his weak shot that's the hindrance ... It's the lack of high end instincts and overall offensive aggressiveness. Brian Leetch never had a big shot, but he kept pucks in like crazy, made passes that actually set up teammates in dangerous areas, moved around to create lanes, and snuck down between the dots to zip dangerous wristers on net knowing he had the skating ability to get back.

If Cam had Zellweger's brain he'd have been a superstar.

 

[WhatTheDuck]

Wheeler's mailbag: Sennecke's rise, Iginla vs. Eiserman, Parekh's rankings, and more

With the draft order in shape, OHL and USHL championship series starting and the combine coming up, Wheeler answers your prospect questions.

theathletic.com

 

[Ducks DVM]

I'm surprised a fan of team that has trotted out Mr Muffin shot for last 14 yrs on the PP has to ask this question ... (and motherforking shirtballs, yes i had to look that up to make sure i wasn't counting wrong, its been 14 yrs)

He’s 15th in goals and 16th in points for defensemen on the PP over that span. Still impressive.

 

[AngelDuck]

My biggest problem with Fowler definitely isn’t his performance on the power play - it’s the fact that he doesn’t fit moving forward on a team with Mintyukov/Zellweger/Luneau/LaCombe

If the Ducks had a bunch of Josh Manson type defensive prospects right now I’d be in favor of keeping Fowler the next 3 seasons. But they don’t

 

[JAHV]

I was listening to the 32 Thoughts podcast today, and Friedman said something interesting. They were discussing the draft lottery - specifically Chicago "winning" the 2nd overall lottery in this last draft. Friedman then quoted this, which I assume was from the rules themselves:

"You can only win the lottery twice in any five-year period. However, it does not affect a team's ability to retain its presumptive draft position in any draft lottery."

Friedman then went on to explain what that meant, and his explanation matched how we have generally interpreted it: that because Chicago was the second worst team in the NHL, "winning" the lottery for the 2OA pick this year doesn't count as a win and they are eligible to win the lottery in future years.

However, if his quote is directly from the NHL draft rules, that is not how I interpret it. Chicago has won the lottery twice in a row. That is undisputed. The question is whether this second win counts as a win for the purposes of denying them future wins. I would argue, based on the language above, it does, with a caveat.

That language seems unequivocal - if you win the lottery twice, you cannot win again within the five years, with one exception. Chicago has won twice. The only way they can win again is if they finish last or next to last in the next three years and win the lottery for the position where they would have drafted anyway (for example, if they finish 31st in the league again next season, they would be eligible to win the 2OA lottery, but not the 1OA lottery).

Here's the thing: I have not heard anyone else interpret it this way. And I have not read the rules myself (if anyone knows where to find those, I've looked and can't seem to find anything directly from the NHL). Everything on the internet seems to be hockey writers' interpretations. Obviously, Friedman is incredibly plugged in, so I have to think he would know if Chicago is ineligible to move up in future drafts. Perhaps he was not quoting the rule directly, or perhaps there is an official interpretation of the rule that spells it out more clearly. But the way that quote reads makes it sound like a win is a win, and you are limited to two in five years, unless your third win keeps you in the position where you were already going to draft.

I think it's too much to hope that's true because screw Chicago. But I found it interesting.

 

[Hockey Duckie]

I was listening to the 32 Thoughts podcast today, and Friedman said something interesting. They were discussing the draft lottery - specifically Chicago "winning" the 2nd overall lottery in this last draft. Friedman then quoted this, which I assume was from the rules themselves:

"You can only win the lottery twice in any five-year period. However, it does not affect a team's ability to retain its presumptive draft position in any draft lottery."

Friedman then went on to explain what that meant, and his explanation matched how we have generally interpreted it: that because Chicago was the second worst team in the NHL, "winning" the lottery for the 2OA pick this year doesn't count as a win and they are eligible to win the lottery in future years.

However, if his quote is directly from the NHL draft rules, that is not how I interpret it. Chicago has won the lottery twice in a row. That is undisputed. The question is whether this second win counts as a win for the purposes of denying them future wins. I would argue, based on the language above, it does, with a caveat.

That language seems unequivocal - if you win the lottery twice, you cannot win again within the five years, with one exception. Chicago has won twice. The only way they can win again is if they finish last or next to last in the next three years and win the lottery for the position where they would have drafted anyway (for example, if they finish 31st in the league again next season, they would be eligible to win the 2OA lottery, but not the 1OA lottery).

Here's the thing: I have not heard anyone else interpret it this way. And I have not read the rules myself (if anyone knows where to find those, I've looked and can't seem to find anything directly from the NHL). Everything on the internet seems to be hockey writers' interpretations. Obviously, Friedman is incredibly plugged in, so I have to think he would know if Chicago is ineligible to move up in future drafts. Perhaps he was not quoting the rule directly, or perhaps there is an official interpretation of the rule that spells it out more clearly. But the way that quote reads makes it sound like a win is a win, and you are limited to two in five years, unless your third win keeps you in the position where you were already going to draft.

I think it's too much to hope that's true because screw Chicago. But I found it interesting.

From NHL.com:

The 2024 NHL Draft Lottery marked the third year for the implementation of a limit on how many times a team can win a lottery draw. No single team can advance in the draft order by reason of winning a Lottery Draw more than two times in any five-year period. This limitation will not affect a club’s ability to retain its presumptive draft position in any Draft Lottery, nor would it preclude the possibility of the club moving down in draft order to the extent other clubs advance by reason of winning the Lottery Draws. For purposes of clarity, the limitation would attach to the team, not the specific pick.​

A team can "win" their original spot, but that does not equate to "advance" in the draft. Since the Hawks did not "advance" in this year's draft despite winning the lottery for #2, they are still eligible to move up in the draft in the next three drafts.

2023 draft: Hawks "win and advance" for the #1 pick, from the #3 slot pre-lottery.
2024 draft: Hawks "win" the #2 pick, retaining the #2 slot pre-lottery.