NHL Entry Draft Thread - 2021

[Crisis]

Which pick does Seattle come in with?

[DevsMan84]

1 hour ago, Crisis said:

Which pick does Seattle come in with?

Depends, but the worst they can have is the 6th overall.

[pumpkin cutter]

right now we are picking 3rd. after we lose the lotto and win outduring the stretch i see us picking around 8-12. so I'm focusing on those kids. need some defense and goal scorers. got way too many fancy passers. 

[nessus]

The Devils are now 4th-to-last in the league in points percentage at 0.405, with the Ducks just slightly behind them at 0.398. If the Ducks end up passing the Devils, the Devils will enter the draft lottery set to pick 4th overall (after Seattle at 3). In this situation, they could not pick any later than 6th.

That would mean one of Power, Beniers, Hughes, Clarke, Johnson, or Eklund (or Wallstedt) is guaranteed to be drafted by the Devils if they want one of them. At this point, I have a hard time deciding which of those players I would want to draft. Maybe the draft position makes that decision easier.

Next on the list is Ottawa. The Devils have 2 games at hand, and have 2 more points. They will be tough to catch, but certainly not impossible.

[Chimaira_Devil_#9]

 

Short piece on Brandt Clarke. 

 

 

 

[nessus]

There's a lot of talk about Eklund in the Holtz ELC thread. I think it's worth mentioning that the Devils aren't really a small team anymore. It looked like it when Nico was a couple of years younger, when Jack was a rookie, Palmieri and Goose were around and looked to be long term top 6 players, and other players were slightly under the average NHLer's height (Vatanen, Butcher, etc.). There still are a few undersized players like Bratt. But I wouldn't say that Jack's size has been much of an issue for him this season. Zacha, Sharagovich, Kuokkanen, Bastian, McLeod, Hischier, and Wood all are not undersized. Most of the forward prospects that have a shot at being NHLers (Foote, Holtz, Mercer, Maltsev, Clarke) have okay size. Tyce Thompson and Boqvist need to fill out still, but they aren't limited by their height.

For the defense, it's really only Smith who is slightly undersized and is likely to remain a long term defenseman on the team. Almost all of the D prospects have some size (Mukha, Okhotiuk, Bahl, Vukojevic, Misyul). 

Years ago, we were frustrated with management for overvaluing size, and missing out on players like Brayden Point. We should really avoid falling into that trap again, especially when size isn't a major problem right now. Eklund looks like a solid pick in the top 6. I've yet to see an argument against it that isn't just "we don't want more small forwards!"

[SterioDesign]

1 hour ago, nessus said:

There's a lot of talk about Eklund in the Holtz ELC thread. I think it's worth mentioning that the Devils aren't really a small team anymore. It looked like it when Nico was a couple of years younger, when Jack was a rookie, Palmieri and Goose were around and looked to be long term top 6 players, and other players were slightly under the average NHLer's height (Vatanen, Butcher, etc.). There still are a few undersized players like Bratt. But I wouldn't say that Jack's size has been much of an issue for him this season. Zacha, Sharagovich, Kuokkanen, Bastian, McLeod, Hischier, and Wood all are not undersized. Most of the forward prospects that have a shot at being NHLers (Foote, Holtz, Mercer, Maltsev, Clarke) have okay size. Tyce Thompson and Boqvist need to fill out still, but they aren't limited by their height.

For the defense, it's really only Smith who is slightly undersized and is likely to remain a long term defenseman on the team. Almost all of the D prospects have some size (Mukha, Okhotiuk, Bahl, Vukojevic, Misyul). 

Years ago, we were frustrated with management for overvaluing size, and missing out on players like Brayden Point. We should really avoid falling into that trap again, especially when size isn't a major problem right now. Eklund looks like a solid pick in the top 6. I've yet to see an argument against it that isn't just "we don't want more small forwards!"

i wouldnt be oppose to draft him but i think i'd rather go with a D. I'm not sur Eklund brings something we can't find in our forward group already. I do think that the Dmen available in the draft are bringing things that we don't have or not enough of right now

[Guadana]

1 hour ago, nessus said:

There's a lot of talk about Eklund in the Holtz ELC thread. I think it's worth mentioning that the Devils aren't really a small team anymore. It looked like it when Nico was a couple of years younger, when Jack was a rookie, Palmieri and Goose were around and looked to be long term top 6 players, and other players were slightly under the average NHLer's height (Vatanen, Butcher, etc.). There still are a few undersized players like Bratt. But I wouldn't say that Jack's size has been much of an issue for him this season. Zacha, Sharagovich, Kuokkanen, Bastian, McLeod, Hischier, and Wood all are not undersized. Most of the forward prospects that have a shot at being NHLers (Foote, Holtz, Mercer, Maltsev, Clarke) have okay size. Tyce Thompson and Boqvist need to fill out still, but they aren't limited by their height.

For the defense, it's really only Smith who is slightly undersized and is likely to remain a long term defenseman on the team. Almost all of the D prospects have some size (Mukha, Okhotiuk, Bahl, Vukojevic, Misyul). 

Years ago, we were frustrated with management for overvaluing size, and missing out on players like Brayden Point. We should really avoid falling into that trap again, especially when size isn't a major problem right now. Eklund looks like a solid pick in the top 6. I've yet to see an argument against it that isn't just "we don't want more small forwards!"

I want to agree with you, I see a lot of Eklund this season. He is explosion talent. But if we talk about our potential top-6 we have guys like Hughes, Bratt and Holtz. Even if only two will play top-6 role - three potential small players is a lot on my taste. Holtz isn`t small but for now he play pretty soft. Hughes play well, I think Sharkannes help him and make a lot of dirty work. If devils could draft Sanderson or Drysdale year ago and didnt draft Holtz - I would have been in Eklund`s camp. Or in Guenther`s camp (because he is a good shooter). Only Smith had some time in NHL, and no one knows who will and who will not translate their game on NHL level. That is allways a lottery for d-men, especcially for stay at home defensemen. There are never too many defensemen. Especially RD where we have a lack of depth.

[nessus]

2 hours ago, SterioDesign said:

i wouldnt be oppose to draft him but i think i'd rather go with a D. I'm not sur Eklund brings something we can't find in our forward group already. I do think that the Dmen available in the draft are bringing things that we don't have or not enough of right now

 

2 hours ago, Guadana said:

I want to agree with you, I see a lot of Eklund this season. He is explosion talent. But if we talk about our potential top-6 we have guys like Hughes, Bratt and Holtz. Even if only two will play top-6 role - three potential small players is a lot on my taste. Holtz isn`t small but for now he play pretty soft. Hughes play well, I think Sharkannes help him and make a lot of dirty work. If devils could draft Sanderson or Drysdale year ago and didnt draft Holtz - I would have been in Eklund`s camp. Or in Guenther`s camp (because he is a good shooter). Only Smith had some time in NHL, and no one knows who will and who will not translate their game on NHL level. That is allways a lottery for d-men, especcially for stay at home defensemen. There are never too many defensemen. Especially RD where we have a lack of depth.

Fair points here, and I will reiterate that Brandt Clarke still is my first choice at the moment (even if the Devils win the lottery). It is true that Eklund doesn't quite fit a Devils need right now. At the same time, I think the things that Eklund was able to overcome this season really speak volumes about what kind of player he can be. I think if the Devils end up picking at around 5, and Hughes and Clarke are off the board, you've got to give Eklund a good look. Admittedly, Power, Clarke, and Hughes being off the board by 5 isn't so likely though.

Interesting that you mention Guenther - he is another player I have yet to look into extensively, but he seems to be climbing up the draft rankings lately. With his strong positioning in before he gets the puck, he could potentially be a good winger for Hughes. 

[Guadana]

5 hours ago, nessus said:

 

Fair points here, and I will reiterate that Brandt Clarke still is my first choice at the moment (even if the Devils win the lottery). It is true that Eklund doesn't quite fit a Devils need right now. At the same time, I think the things that Eklund was able to overcome this season really speak volumes about what kind of player he can be. I think if the Devils end up picking at around 5, and Hughes and Clarke are off the board, you've got to give Eklund a good look. Admittedly, Power, Clarke, and Hughes being off the board by 5 isn't so likely though.

Interesting that you mention Guenther - he is another player I have yet to look into extensively, but he seems to be climbing up the draft rankings lately. With his strong positioning in before he gets the puck, he could potentially be a good winger for Hughes. 

I think devils will pick in top-3/4 where karakakens are one of them if they will. I think Ottawa will pick beniers, and this means one of the top three d-man will be available for choice. 

[mfitz804]

4 hours ago, Guadana said:

I think devils will pick in top-3/4 where karakakens are one of them if they will. I think Ottawa will pick beniers, and this means one of the top three d-man will be available for choice. 

Seattle Kuokkanen?

[Guadana]

1 hour ago, mfitz804 said:

Seattle Kuokkanen?

Nope. Seatlle Johnssons. Or Seattle Butchers.

[mfitz804]

7 minutes ago, Guadana said:

Nope. Seatlle Johnssons. Or Seattle Butchers.

If they take Johnsson I will be thrilled. But aI think Butcher is more likely. 

[Guadana]

9 minutes ago, mfitz804 said:

If they take Johnsson I will be thrilled. But aI think Butcher is more likely. 

They are both like two beautiful diamonds, which I am ready to present by my generous hand.

[mfitz804]

14 minutes ago, Guadana said:

They are both like two beautiful diamonds, which I am ready to present by my generous hand.

Well stated. 

[Chuck the Duck]

8 hours ago, Guadana said:

I think devils will pick in top-3/4 where karakakens are one of them if they will. I think Ottawa will pick beniers, and this means one of the top three d-man will be available for choice. 

This is a D heavy draft with some good top prospects.  Hopefully the Devils pick in the 4-5 range, and can grab one of the top 3.  I don't know much about prospects other than what I read and see in some YouTube highlights, but my top choices are Hughes or Clarke, with a slight edge to Clarke because he's puck moving a RHD (which we lack in our system) with a ton of offensive upside.  With him on 1 D pairing, Smith on the other, that's a pretty solid start to a top 4. 

[SterioDesign]

I mean... following this sh!t year i'm fully expecting a sort of awkward situation where...

we're picking like.... 4th... vancouver picking 5th...

And when we're up... BOTH Hughes and Clarke are on the board. I think i'd personally prefer Clarke and want to draft him... i know it's a business and that it would likely bum out Jack but it is what it is... But then knowing Vancouver will likely pick luke then that whole black cloud of Jack wanting to join his brothers will always be hovering over us for years.

[MadDog2020]

1 hour ago, MB3 said:

This seems unlikely; Vancouver is closer to the playoffs than they are to finishing in the top-5 of the draft. If they win just one of their next 5 games they’d already be picking outside the top-10. 

I hope the Devils draft Luke wherever they are. It’s such a crapshoot of a draft, and he fits a need. I guess if you’re drafting number 1 overall you consider trading down a few spots?  

If there was ever a year to trade down from #1, this is the year. There really isn’t a clear-cut, no doubt #1 overall this year. 

[mfitz804]

2 minutes ago, MadDog2020 said:

If there was ever a year to trade down from #1, this is the year. There really isn’t a clear-cut, no doubt #1 overall this year. 

The concept makes me very uncomfortable. The idea of having your choice of whoever your guy is and then giving that chance to another team is troubling. 

[SterioDesign]

i mean, this likely means we'll land first overall and would have basically landed on all the wrong years lol 

Give us a different timing and getting McDavid and Matthews instead and it's a different story

[MadDog2020]

1 hour ago, mfitz804 said:

The concept makes me very uncomfortable. The idea of having your choice of whoever your guy is and then giving that chance to another team is troubling. 

Obviously, it would depend on the return. But if someone makes a stupid offer, you always listen.

[mfitz804]

5 minutes ago, MadDog2020 said:

Obviously, it would depend on the return. But if someone makes a stupid offer, you always listen.

I understand. It’s probably only safe if you haven’t picked your guy. If you have, say, #1 and you trade for #4 because you think #2 and #3 won’t pick your guy, and they do, that’s bad. 

[MadDog2020]

11 minutes ago, mfitz804 said:

I understand. It’s probably only safe if you haven’t picked your guy. If you have, say, #1 and you trade for #4 because you think #2 and #3 won’t pick your guy, and they do, that’s bad. 

Yeah no doubt. That’s why you only do it for a ridiculous Godfather type of offer, or if you absolutely KNOW the guy you want will be available where you trade down to. 

[mfitz804]

7 minutes ago, MadDog2020 said:

Yeah no doubt. That’s why you only do it for a ridiculous Godfather type of offer, or if you absolutely KNOW the guy you want will be available where you trade down to. 

I know some fans also don’t want the first pick in case they “choose wrong”, so I guess everyone has different tolerance for risk. 

[SterioDesign]

54 minutes ago, mfitz804 said:

I understand. It’s probably only safe if you haven’t picked your guy. If you have, say, #1 and you trade for #4 because you think #2 and #3 won’t pick your guy, and they do, that’s bad. 

its true but then... who fvcking knows haha

What's scary is looking at past mock drafts from like... mid-season and see what scouts are thinking when they havent been able to see all the prospects as much

https://www.nhl.com/news/adam-kimelman-2017-nhl-mock-draft/c-285904700

checkout this mock draft. Knowing what we know now. It's insane.

I think we'll look back at this draft the same way in a few years