Prospect Info: All-Purpose 2024 Draft Thread & Celebrini discussion (also the 14th pick and whatever else is draft related)

[Lebanezer]

I feel like the logic works the other way... If your cupboard is as bare as the sharks, you want as many picks as you can get. If you think you're a contender, you're looking for the 1-2 pieces you're missing and want to get the guy you really like.

A contender would be looking to offload picks for established pieces. The Sharks are trying to maximize potential. Ideally I'd like to come out of the draft with Celebrini, Buium/other top D and Hutson. As crazy as that may sound.

 

[Hodge]

I feel like the logic works the other way... If your cupboard is as bare as the sharks, you want as many picks as you can get. If you think you're a contender, you're looking for the 1-2 pieces you're missing and want to get the guy you really like.

How exactly does piling up more Halttunen and Lund caliber prospects help us over drafting a surefire top half of the lineup player at #7?

 

[Lebanezer]

How exactly does piling up more Halttunen and Lund caliber prospects help us over drafting a surefire top half of the lineup player at #7?

At this point, I would be shocked if Lund works out. He's sliding into the Coe, Robins territory.

 

[Hodge]

At this point, I would be shocked if Lund works out. He's sliding into the Coe, Robins territory.

He's a fine prospect and so is Halttunen - probably a cut above Coe and Robins at the same age - but I would still bet heavily against either guy playing a significant role on the next good Sharks team. That's just the reality of picking in the 30s.

 

[Barrie22]

I mean, you hit the nail on the head. Typically you want to see a prospect grow between his D-1 and draft year.

I mean he kind of did take a step up, going 20 games at a goal a game is possible, staying at that level for 50 games is unheard of.

And when it comes to that league scoring 50 is a very rare occurrence, 8 times in the past 10 years.

Mathews, Caulfield x2, Smith, Leonard, Perrault, Eiserman x2.

Half of those came in 1 year and 3 of them 1 line. Which some here have gone as far as calling it the best line in NTDP/NCAA history.

Every single complaint about Eiserman i have read here, was said about a Russian kid 20 years ago.

 

[Cas]

Half of those came in 1 year and 3 of them 1 line. Which some here have gone as far as calling it the best line in NTDP/NCAA history.

That implies to me that it's not as impressive as its rarity might indicate.

 

[Hodge]

I mean he kind of did take a step up, going 20 games at a goal a game is possible, staying at that level for 50 games is unheard of.

And when it comes to that league scoring 50 is a very rare occurrence, 8 times in the past 10 years.

Mathews, Caulfield x2, Smith, Leonard, Perrault, Eiserman x2.

Half of those came in 1 year and 3 of them 1 line. Which some here have gone as far as calling it the best line in NTDP/NCAA history.

Every single complaint about Eiserman i have read here, was said about a Russian kid 20 years ago.

Ovechkin was a physical unicorn. Eiserman is small and soft.

Sure maybe he's Caufield or Gabe Perreault. In which case it should be pretty obvious why he's no longer considered top 5 pick material.

 

[coooldude]

How exactly does piling up more Halttunen and Lund caliber prospects help us over drafting a surefire top half of the lineup player at #7?

Because none of the guys at 6-10 are "surefire," even if they have top of lineup upside. And there is a long flat tier this year in particular, and top 4 defensemen (as recently analyzed on these boards) tend to come from not only the first round -- a wider spread can make it to the lineup and contribute beneficially. Three shots at three of the top 20 defensemen very well might be better than one shot at Yakemchuk.

And anyway let's take your position. If you're right, then who in their right mind would trade down if they think they're a contender? Trade away a surefire top half of the lineup player at #7 for a bunch of Halttunens? What good does that do? Therefore, everyone should stop fantasizing about trading up.

 

[Hodge]

Because none of the guys at 6-10 are "surefire," even if they have top of lineup upside. And there is a long flat tier this year in particular, and top 4 defensemen (as recently analyzed on these boards) tend to come from not only the first round -- a wider spread can make it to the lineup and contribute beneficially. Three shots at three of the top 20 defensemen very well might be better than one shot at Yakemchuk.

And anyway let's take your position. If you're right, then who in their right mind would trade down if they think they're a contender? Trade away a surefire top half of the lineup player at #7 for a bunch of Halttunens? What good does that do? Therefore, everyone should stop fantasizing about trading up.

But they're not just getting a bunch of Halttunens, they would also be getting the 14th pick.

Like I said before I would only do it for a chance at Lindstrom (or Silayev/Levshunov but that won't happen) as long as the back injury isn't serious. 5th OA is the pick to target.

 

[Gecklund]

You in the night before? Where you staying?

I get in Friday morning and leave Saturday morning. I’m staying at the embassy suites near by.

 

[CaptainShark]

Mini-rant ahead, couldn’t take it anymore, sorry:

While I really enjoy reading about all of your ideas about what to do with the Pens pick, how and why you value certain prospects, etc., what really irks me is that people constantly refer to Doms value chart, when arguing we should trade up.

There is two big flaws with it:

For one finding a trade partner is way more complex than looking at a chart and adding numbers, it’s a situational thing as it takes two to dance. So if you’re approaching another GM and ask about trading up, it’s not like he will look at that dumb chart and say OK the value is fair, deal. It’s more about organizational need preference in prospects, the structure of the draft-class, etc.

The second thing that irks me about the usage of the chart is, that people seem to think that the deal is fair if the numbers are even. Like if the two picks you give up add up to the same GSVA as the one you get, that’s even value. But it isn’t as quality beats quantity. Think about it that way: would you trade a forward with a 12 GSVA for 12 players with a GSVA of 1?

 

[coooldude]

But they're not just getting a bunch of Halttunens, they would also be getting the 14th pick.

Like I said before I would only do it for a chance at Lindstrom (or Silayev/Levshunov but that won't happen) as long as the back injury isn't serious. 5th OA is the pick to target.

And we wouldn't be getting a bunch of Halttunens, as we already have the 14, plus 33 and 42.

It seems to me from chatter around the boards that the 5th pick is the first one that might be in play, but only if a) CBJ or ANA take Lindstrom, and b) Montreal thinks they can trade back and still get their next F target, which is likely Iginla/Sennecke. I think MTL takes Lindstrom if he's healthy, and if he's not, we don't want to trade up for him as you said.

If he's drafted or unhealthy, I still doubt they'd trade all the way back to 14, so their trade partner would be more likely a team in front of us that really likes someone at 5 (maybe Buium).

Beyond that, I'm not sure UTA would trade back, OTT seems like they'll pick a D, SEA could go with one of the forwards Iggy/Sennecke/Helenius still available, or they could also go D (Buium). Not sure why they'd want to trade back for some combo of 14/33/42 unless it comes with a roster player. The most likely is that maybe BUF or PHI trades back if they don't want Yakemchuk or feel like they can get one of the fwds they like at 14, but Yakemchuk actually seems like a potential fit at both of those spots.

The likely outcome is like last year -- a bunch of noise, a bunch of rumors, even some trade conversations, and then nobody trades back in the top 10. Let's hope our medical staff is good at evaluating knee injuries and then we'll see if anything surprising happens in the first 13 picks.

I get in Friday morning and leave Saturday morning. I’m staying at the embassy suites near by.

Should we make a thread?

 

[Hodge]

Mini-rant ahead, couldn’t take it anymore, sorry:

While I really enjoy reading about all of your ideas about what to do with the Pens pick, how and why you value certain prospects, etc., what really irks me is that people constantly refer to Doms value chart, when arguing we should trade up.

There is two big flaws with it:

For one finding a trade partner is way more complex than looking at a chart and adding numbers, it’s a situational thing as it takes two to dance. So if you’re approaching another GM and ask about trading up, it’s not like he will look at that dumb chart and say OK the value is fair, deal. It’s more about organizational need preference in prospects, etc.

The second thing that irks me about the usage of the chart is, that people seem to think that the deal is fair if the numbers are even. Like if the two picks you give up add up to the same GSVA as the one you get, that’s even value. But it isn’t as quality beats quantity. Think about it that way: would you trade a forward with a 12 GSVA for 12 players with a GSVA of 1?

Teams absolutely consult their own version of Dom's chart at the draft table when evaluating trade up/down offers. These charts have leaked before. It's not the only consideration since they're primarily concerned with which specific prospect(s) they think will be available at each pick but they're certainly not just eyeballing offers and going "that seems fair."

That's why we will need to overpay. 14+33+42 = 9.7 GSVA and 5 = 8.2 GSVA. Maybe that isn't enough of an overpayment but Montreal would be getting the better end of the deal by a decent amount.

 

[Hodge]

And we wouldn't be getting a bunch of Halttunens, as we already have the 14, plus 33 and 42.

It seems to me from chatter around the boards that the 5th pick is the first one that might be in play, but only if a) CBJ or ANA take Lindstrom, and b) Montreal thinks they can trade back and still get their next F target, which is likely Iginla/Sennecke. I think MTL takes Lindstrom if he's healthy, and if he's not, we don't want to trade up for him as you said.

If he's drafted or unhealthy, I still doubt they'd trade all the way back to 14, so their trade partner would be more likely a team in front of us that really likes someone at 5 (maybe Buium).

Beyond that, I'm not sure UTA would trade back, OTT seems like they'll pick a D, SEA could go with one of the forwards Iggy/Sennecke/Helenius still available, or they could also go D (Buium). Not sure why they'd want to trade back for some combo of 14/33/42 unless it comes with a roster player. The most likely is that maybe BUF or PHI trades back if they don't want Yakemchuk or feel like they can get one of the fwds they like at 14, but Yakemchuk actually seems like a potential fit at both of those spots.

The likely outcome is like last year -- a bunch of noise, a bunch of rumors, even some trade conversations, and then nobody trades back in the top 10. Let's hope our medical staff is good at evaluating knee injuries and then we'll see if anything surprising happens in the first 13 picks.

Should we make a thread?

I wouldn't bother trading up for Buium, Parekh or Yakemchuk.

My hope would be that the Hughes/Gorton Boston connection has them zeroed in on Eiserman who they probably can get at 14. They've already traded their own 2nd so it makes sense to pick up some extra lotto tickets and still get their guy.

 

[sharks_dynasty]

And we wouldn't be getting a bunch of Halttunens, as we already have the 14, plus 33 and 42.

It seems to me from chatter around the boards that the 5th pick is the first one that might be in play, but only if a) CBJ or ANA take Lindstrom, and b) Montreal thinks they can trade back and still get their next F target, which is likely Iginla/Sennecke. I think MTL takes Lindstrom if he's healthy, and if he's not, we don't want to trade up for him as you said.

If he's drafted or unhealthy, I still doubt they'd trade all the way back to 14, so their trade partner would be more likely a team in front of us that really likes someone at 5 (maybe Buium).

Beyond that, I'm not sure UTA would trade back, OTT seems like they'll pick a D, SEA could go with one of the forwards Iggy/Sennecke/Helenius still available, or they could also go D (Buium). Not sure why they'd want to trade back for some combo of 14/33/42 unless it comes with a roster player. The most likely is that maybe BUF or PHI trades back if they don't want Yakemchuk or feel like they can get one of the fwds they like at 14, but Yakemchuk actually seems like a potential fit at both of those spots.

The likely outcome is like last year -- a bunch of noise, a bunch of rumors, even some trade conversations, and then nobody trades back in the top 10. Let's hope our medical staff is good at evaluating knee injuries and then we'll see if anything surprising happens in the first 13 picks.

Should we make a thread?

We should make a thread for the in person draft party!

 

[CaptainShark]

Teams absolutely consult their own version of Dom's chart at the draft table when evaluating trade up/down offers. These charts have leaked before. It's not the only consideration since they're primarily concerned with which specific prospect(s) they think will be available at each pick but they're certainly not just eyeballing offers and going "that seems fair."

That's why we will need to overpay. 14+33+42 = 9.7 GSVA and 5 = 8.2 GSVA. Maybe that isn't enough of an overpayment but Montreal would be getting the better end of the deal by a decent amount.

But those charts aren’t general value charts, that are charts that they create specifically for that draft(class). And even then it only makes sense to use that chart for predraft trades, cause as soon as the draft gets going, the evaluation changes Cause certain prospects you like may be off the board earlier than you expected or still be falling.

 

[Hodge]

But those charts aren’t general value charts, that are charts that they create specifically for that draft(class). And even then it only makes sense to use that chart for predraft trades, cause as soon as the draft gets going, the evaluation changes Cause certain prospects you like may be off the board earlier than you expected or still be falling.

A pick value chart for a specific draft class would be completely redundant and worthless considering the team already has a full ranking of prospects they're interested in. The chart has to be rooted in actual historical data - either average career outcomes at each selection or actual draft day pick trades from the past - to have any purpose.

 

[Lebanezer]

Mini-rant ahead, couldn’t take it anymore, sorry:

While I really enjoy reading about all of your ideas about what to do with the Pens pick, how and why you value certain prospects, etc., what really irks me is that people constantly refer to Doms value chart, when arguing we should trade up.

There is two big flaws with it:

For one finding a trade partner is way more complex than looking at a chart and adding numbers, it’s a situational thing as it takes two to dance. So if you’re approaching another GM and ask about trading up, it’s not like he will look at that dumb chart and say OK the value is fair, deal. It’s more about organizational need preference in prospects, the structure of the draft-class, etc.

The second thing that irks me about the usage of the chart is, that people seem to think that the deal is fair if the numbers are even. Like if the two picks you give up add up to the same GSVA as the one you get, that’s even value. But it isn’t as quality beats quantity. Think about it that way: would you trade a forward with a 12 GSVA for 12 players with a GSVA of 1?

It’s just a reference point, it’s not gospel. And 14, 33 and 42 isn’t remotely close to 12 crappy players for one great player. Everything about this situation is nuanced, so of course they need to find a trade partner, agree on the terms, and make the deal. There’s no reason to be up in arms about the idea that the Sharks are in a position to move up in the draft because you don’t like what’s being used as a value reference.

 

[cheechoo]

Feels like every day a new exciting talent pops up.

Pronman released his mock earlier today, excuse me if it's been posted already. He's one of the more intriguing evaluators work to consume because he's typically keyed in on late risers and he isn't just rehashing that same Tankathon template.

The top 10 was pretty expected but there were some interesting picks in the range of our second 1st.

New Jersey took Beckett Sennecke at 10. He's the shot clock buzzer beater riser this season, no real shocker that teams have fallen in love with his blend around size, skill, compete and speed package.

Buffalo took Berkly Catton at 11. I was really pounding the table for Catton earlier in the year. His production and raw skill is otherworldly. Naturally though with his frame and lack of physicality he'll be overlooked for the more 'diverse' packages. I'm falling victim to tilting my scale closer towards need rather than BPA. With Celebrini/Smith/Eklund in the pipeline, Catton is a luxury pick. I still think you give him consideration if he falls to 14 though.

Minnesota steals Tij Iginla at 13. I fell in love with his game down the stretch of the season. He was unreal in the playoffs for Kelowna as a 17 year old and carried that momentum in a gold medal at the U18 worlds. He's just hockey smarts personified. He's the type of winger that you partner up with your franchise C and they showcase instant synergy. Iginla processes the game at an extremely high level. He's strong on the puck. High level passer and finisher. Constantly finding the quiet spots on the ice. He'd rack up a lot of points flanking our centers. I'd be slightly devastated if we missed out on him by a single draft slot.

We took Adam Jiříček at 14 (boring).

Detroit heists Michael Brandsegg-Nygård at 15. I value him in a similar bracket to Tij Iginla. Elite complimentary winger, he goes about his business in a very different way though. He gets his plaudits for his hard work, physical game, puck retrievals and forechecking ability but don't let that shadow over how skilled he is. He just scored four goals in a game the other day and he set a record for points by a draft-eligible in the Allsvenskan playoffs. His underlying metrics for a DY player in the same league blow Dalibor Dvorsky (10th overall 2023) out of the water. I'm very receptive to him at #14.

And maybe most interestingly, Stian Solberg was mocked 16 to the Blues. Big, fast, physical, minute munching Norwegian defenseman. People were tuning in to watch MBN and he's been there behind the scenes stealing the show. I prefer him to Jiříček personally. His upside is the moon. Very physical, great skater, his hands are amazing, he likes to jump up into play. He's this years Willander and I expect him to be someone that outperforms his draft slot.

Super lazy claim that this draft is weak, it isn't 2023 level but we're rather fortunate to be selecting at 14 in that clear second tier of talents.

Other interesting notes. EJ Emery went 30th. My comp for him is Nik Hjalmarsson. Don't expect too much offense, but elite shutdown defenseman that you task against the opposing teams superstars.

Charlie Elick went 24th. I'm interested in seeing how he transitions to the next level. He looks clunky and awkward to me. I'm a Harrison Brunicke truther over Elick.

Anyways, you guys can check it out for yourselves. I can't wait until the draft. It's fun to read all of the optimism and rejuvenation in the fanbase following the draft lotto. We've been gifted a second shot at life.

Cheers.

 

[jMoneyBrah]

It’s just a reference point, it’s not gospel. And 14, 33 and 42 isn’t remotely close to 12 crappy players for one great player. Everything about this situation is nuanced, so of course they need to find a trade partner, agree on the terms, and make the deal. There’s no reason to be up in arms about the idea that the Sharks are in a position to move up in the draft because you don’t like what’s being used as a value reference.

In the context of conversations here I view charts like Dom’s as a data point to keep things in the general bounds of reality; even then it’s far from gospel. I’m sure no one here would think trading the #1OA for 3 + 6 in this draft is the fair value the chart would have us believe. But as a way to frame a discussion it’s a good data point to start a discussion, like for example what on top of 3+6 would be needed to move you off of Celebrini and open to trading the #1OA.

Like you and others have said, it takes a willing partner to actually execute one of these trades; and even if the numbers make sense it may not make sense for where an organization is at; like, there probably isn’t a realistic offer that is going to move Grier off Celebrini based on where the org is and what Celebrini would do to kick off the upswing of the rebuild.

 

[one2gamble]

Adam Jiříček is someone I would be disappointed in picking at 14

 

[Patty Ice]

At this point, I would be shocked if Lund works out. He's sliding into the Coe, Robins territory.

Agreed. I don't think he has the smarts for the game. It's all natural ability but NHL relative, I don't think he cuts it.

I've soured big time on him this year.

 

[Grinner]

And we wouldn't be getting a bunch of Halttunens, as we already have the 14, plus 33 and 42.

It seems to me from chatter around the boards that the 5th pick is the first one that might be in play, but only if a) CBJ or ANA take Lindstrom, and b) Montreal thinks they can trade back and still get their next F target, which is likely Iginla/Sennecke. I think MTL takes Lindstrom if he's healthy, and if he's not, we don't want to trade up for him as you said.

If he's drafted or unhealthy, I still doubt they'd trade all the way back to 14, so their trade partner would be more likely a team in front of us that really likes someone at 5 (maybe Buium).

Beyond that, I'm not sure UTA would trade back, OTT seems like they'll pick a D, SEA could go with one of the forwards Iggy/Sennecke/Helenius still available, or they could also go D (Buium). Not sure why they'd want to trade back for some combo of 14/33/42 unless it comes with a roster player. The most likely is that maybe BUF or PHI trades back if they don't want Yakemchuk or feel like they can get one of the fwds they like at 14, but Yakemchuk actually seems like a potential fit at both of those spots.

The likely outcome is like last year -- a bunch of noise, a bunch of rumors, even some trade conversations, and then nobody trades back in the top 10. Let's hope our medical staff is good at evaluating knee injuries and then we'll see if anything surprising happens in the first 13 picks.

Should we make a thread?

Please post lots of pics

 

[Great Makohead Shork]

How exactly does piling up more Halttunen and Lund caliber prospects help us over drafting a surefire top half of the lineup player at #7?

If our scouts feel like a franchise defenseman {Buium, Silayev, Dickinson, etc) is there at 7 or 8 Grier should utilize all the picks at his disposal to snag them. Hell, I'd trade our entire draft after 1OA for Buium, but that's just me.

Okay, maybe I'd hang on to our 7th to draft our next Pavs.

 

[Jargon]

If our scouts feel like a franchise defenseman {Buium, Silayev, Dickinson, etc) is there at 7 or 8 Grier should utilize all the picks at his disposal to snag them. Hell, I'd trade our entire draft after 1OA for Buium, but that's just me.

Okay, maybe I'd hang on to our 7th to draft our next Pavs.

I think the issue remains that even the top D in this draft have flaws that can stop them from reaching their potential. There’s no Celebrini version of a defenseman here. So the question is, do you trade your draft for a guy who could end up a #4 defenseman or do you take 3 shots at someone developing into something special?

I REALLY want Buium but I think the price has to be somewhat reasonable.