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

[Juxtaposer]

I tried to be respectful of your opinion, but if you want to be disrespectful to mine ignoring all the other exchanges we've had about Yakemchuk and the other prospects (this is the first one we've had about Parekh), then be my guest.

The problem is that you didn’t actually engage in any debate here. You didn’t rebut my argument at all. You just said “I like Yakemchuk because he’s big and physical” and that was it. Apparently, asking you to explain and fight for your opinion is “disrespect”, then?

You didn’t suggest why you don’t think Parekh will translate, you just said “Erik Karlsson bad” and acted like that was an argument on its own. But the thing is, Yakemchuk isn’t Burns and Parekh isn’t Karlsson. I’ve often compared them, because stylistically they’re fairly similar (except Yakemchuk’s skating can’t touch Burns’ and Parekh’s isn’t as good as Karlsson’s either), but that doesn’t predict how they’ll be in the future or how their respective NHL careers will play out.

I don’t think any poster should be expected to keep track of each other’s opinions on Yakemchuk or remember the minute details of exchanges we’ve had weeks or months ago. There’s a lot of us here. But if you want to just make statements like “Yakemchuk good, Parekh bad” and be left alone with no debate, I can do that. I tend to assume that any post here is open to debate, but if you don’t want to be asked to back up your opinion, that’s fine.

 

[hohosaregood]

Are there actually more example of Burns types winning the cup than Karlsson types? Thinking over the last like 8 years, I can't actually think of a big puck rushing shooter like Burns that led his team. I think you're more likely to see someone closer to Karlsson. There's several examples of more average sized but high end playmakers on defense than there are defensive shooters and rushers.

 

[Juxtaposer]

Are there actually more example of Burns types winning the cup than Karlsson types? Thinking over the last like 8 years, I can't actually think of a big puck rushing shooter like Burns that led his team. I think you're more likely to see someone closer to Karlsson. There's several examples of more average sized but high end playmakers on defense than there are defensive shooters and rushers.

I absolutely loathe the term, but Burns was a unicorn of a player. The only other marginally similar player in the league in the last 20 years was Byfuglien, who also never won anything. He might actually be a better comp for Yakemchuk, as he was meaner but a much worse skater than Burns.

Prime Brent Burns is probably my favorite player to watch of all time. He was really unique and special.

 

[Pavelski2112]

I absolutely loathe the term, but Burns was a unicorn of a player. The only other marginally similar player in the league in the last 20 years was Byfuglien, who also never won anything. He might actually be a better comp for Yakemchuk, as he was meaner but a much worse skater than Burns.

Prime Brent Burns is probably my favorite player to watch of all time. He was really unique and special.

Byfuglien won the Cup in 2010 with the Hawks but wasn't a particularly huge part of that team iirc

 

[Juxtaposer]

Byfuglien won the Cup in 2010 with the Hawks but wasn't a particularly huge part of that team iirc

Yeah, as a forward.

 

[hohosaregood]

I guess if Evan Bouchard and the Oilers win, that may be the closest to a Burns type playing a significant role for their team on defense in a while. Otherwise I feel like what we see on winning teams are playmaking offensive defensemen like Theodore, Makar, Letang , Carlson, Keith or big 2 way guys like Petro, Parayko, Doughty, or Hedman.

 

[coooldude]

The problem is that you didn’t actually engage in any debate here. You didn’t rebut my argument at all. You just said “I like Yakemchuk because he’s big and physical” and that was it. Apparently, asking you to explain and fight for your opinion is “disrespect”, then?

You didn’t suggest why you don’t think Parekh will translate, you just said “Erik Karlsson bad” and acted like that was an argument on its own. But the thing is, Yakemchuk isn’t Burns and Parekh isn’t Karlsson. I’ve often compared them, because stylistically they’re fairly similar (except Yakemchuk’s skating can’t touch Burns’ and Parekh’s isn’t as good as Karlsson’s either), but that doesn’t predict how they’ll be in the future or how their respective NHL careers will play out.

I don’t think any poster should be expected to keep track of each other’s opinions on Yakemchuk or remember the minute details of exchanges we’ve had weeks or months ago. There’s a lot of us here. But if you want to just make statements like “Yakemchuk good, Parekh bad” and be left alone with no debate, I can do that. I tend to assume that any post here is open to debate, but if you don’t want to be asked to back up your opinion, that’s fine.

The reason we've gotten into a small handful of these tense exchanges, from my point of view, is that you tend to hold very strong opinions and come back pretty aggressively when people disagree with you. Lots of people on here watch hockey and read about and watch prospects. Your appeal to authority, when you make it, doesn't hold a lot of water to me. Same with a few other posters who have said things like "there's only a top tier of 13 and I know this because I've been watching the prospects, so 14 is a bad pick." Nobody knows that.

We've also had very reasonable and constructive exchanges. This one is not one of them, and you have to take some responsibility by boiling down our entire exchange (multiple posts) into me thinking "big boy good small boy bad." Surely you can see how that's not constructive or respectful.

My previous posts in this very exchange detailed why I like Yakemchuk more than Parekh:
- big boy good. But actually, "he's 6'3" and dominates the slot against children in junior" isn't a good rebuttal to his size because that size will also be big in the NHL and profiles of him think he's not done getting stronger, unlike other fully grown prospects
- he plays mean. This is not just about size, but about attitude. We need "hard to play against" and this is what Grier is looking for whether any of us want that or not
- his mobility is not as bad as advertised, plus he's been in a very big growth spurt over a few years and trainers and coaches think his mobility will improve with flexibility. You can't teach 6'3" but you can teach someone how to be more mobile and flexible from age 18. He's already quite fast at top speed and he's very rangy. After all that, it's a gut feeling I have watching him that his movement will improve. That's obviously not a good argument but it's my opinion.
- his defensive zone decision making has been the knock but a lot of it is trying to do everything, getting caught at the end of shifts, having little help, etc. There's no doubt this is a question or else he would be in the top 4 discussion, but there are many more experienced scouts than me who think his D zone decision making is workable. Also he's playing 25-30min a night on a bad team.
-lots of his goals and points in junior are plays that will never fly in the NHL, but a lot of them are power moves rather than pure dangles, showing that he knows how to use his body for advantage. This will translate to the D zone. His shot is heavy and accurate - this will translate as well. His hands are very good for a big D man, even very good versus F peers. His decision-making in my viewings has been pretty sharp.
- he has been criticized for being old, but he's one month away from Levshunov and nobody argues Levshunov is old. I think both of them need at least 2-3 years before ready to sniff the NHL.

I'm not asking you to remember each and every one of my posts, even though I apparently remember more of our exchanges than you do, but please try to be less dismissive in the middle of an exchange. Many of these points, I mentioned earlier in the exchange, perhaps not to this level of detail. I also detailed my best guess of the draft likelihood of these players falling to 14 and my personal preference of who I'd hope we pick, and multiple times I acknowledged that I am no pro and it doesn't matter what I think. I think all of us on the boards can, will, and do have more fun when we acknowledge that disagreement doesn't matter much and few of us have an answer that someone else can't disagree with reasonably.

 

[coooldude]

The only other marginally similar player in the league in the last 20 years was Byfuglien, who also never won anything.

Yeah, as a forward.

Byfuglien tied for the team lead with Sharpie with 11 goals (and 5 assists) in 22 games in 2010. Five of which were GWG's. I googled just to be sure.

 

[Juxtaposer]

The reason we've gotten into a small handful of these tense exchanges, from my point of view, is that you tend to hold very strong opinions and come back pretty aggressively when people disagree with you. Lots of people on here watch hockey and read about and watch prospects. Your appeal to authority, when you make it, doesn't hold a lot of water to me. Same with a few other posters who have said things like "there's only a top tier of 13 and I know this because I've been watching the prospects, so 14 is a bad pick." Nobody knows that.

We've also had very reasonable and constructive exchanges. This one is not one of them, and you have to take some responsibility by boiling down our entire exchange (multiple posts) into me thinking "big boy good small boy bad." Surely you can see how that's not constructive or respectful.

My previous posts in this very exchange detailed why I like Yakemchuk more than Parekh:
- big boy good. But actually, "he's 6'3" and dominates the slot against children in junior" isn't a good rebuttal to his size because that size will also be big in the NHL and profiles of him think he's not done getting stronger, unlike other fully grown prospects
- he plays mean. This is not just about size, but about attitude. We need "hard to play against" and this is what Grier is looking for whether any of us want that or not
- his mobility is not as bad as advertised, plus he's been in a very big growth spurt over a few years and trainers and coaches think his mobility will improve with flexibility. You can't teach 6'3" but you can teach someone how to be more mobile and flexible from age 18. He's already quite fast at top speed and he's very rangy. After all that, it's a gut feeling I have watching him that his movement will improve. That's obviously not a good argument but it's my opinion.
- his defensive zone decision making has been the knock but a lot of it is trying to do everything, getting caught at the end of shifts, having little help, etc. There's no doubt this is a question or else he would be in the top 4 discussion, but there are many more experienced scouts than me who think his D zone decision making is workable. Also he's playing 25-30min a night on a bad team.
-lots of his goals and points in junior are plays that will never fly in the NHL, but a lot of them are power moves rather than pure dangles, showing that he knows how to use his body for advantage. This will translate to the D zone. His shot is heavy and accurate - this will translate as well. His hands are very good for a big D man, even very good versus F peers. His decision-making in my viewings has been pretty sharp.
- he has been criticized for being old, but he's one month away from Levshunov and nobody argues Levshunov is old. I think both of them need at least 2-3 years before ready to sniff the NHL.

I'm not asking you to remember each and every one of my posts, even though I apparently remember more of our exchanges than you do, but please try to be less dismissive in the middle of an exchange. Many of these points, I mentioned earlier in the exchange, perhaps not to this level of detail. I also detailed my best guess of the draft likelihood of these players falling to 14 and my personal preference of who I'd hope we pick, and multiple times I acknowledged that I am no pro and it doesn't matter what I think. I think all of us on the boards can, will, and do have more fun when we acknowledge that disagreement doesn't matter much and few of us have an answer that someone else can't disagree with reasonably.

See, I have no problem agreeing to disagree with you on Yakemchuk (although I don’t really think he’s going to be more than a couple spots different on our respective lists, because as I’ve said, I do really like the player). I more have an issue with you discounting Parekh because he isn’t big or physical.

How many big physical defensemen are left in the playoffs? Ekholm, Nurse, maybe Schneider, Lindgren, Ekblad? Genuine question, because the most effective guys left in my view are the smaller puck-movers with high hockey sense or two-way guys. Your Fox, Bouchard, Forsling, Montour, Heiskanen, etc. are doing more in the playoffs than any of the big boys from my perspective. Sam Girard was better this playoff than any of the big defensemen in Colorado. And having a top-4 of Skjei, Slavin, Pesce, and Burns didn’t seem to help Carolina.

You obviously don’t want a full defense corps of tiny defensemen, but I don’t see the issue with having one 6’0” dude amongst the Mukhamadullins, Thruns, Embersons, etc.

Byfuglien tied for the team lead with Sharpie with 11 goals (and 5 assists) in 22 games in 2010. Five of which were GWG's. I googled just to be sure.

Byfuglien is one of the great boogeymen for the Sharks in the last 15 years. I remember how he terrorized Nabokov well. But he played as a forward in that run and it’s not relevant to his play as a defenseman.

 

[Grinner]

Sure, but I'd personally still rather draft the bigger, meaner guy in the highly unlikely scenario that we have a choice between Yak and Parekh.

Look, it doesn't matter what I think. Anyone on these boards can be really excited about Parekh. I am not. Both Parekh and Yak are polarizing, but there are pro scouts who put Yak in the top 5 and fewer that put Parekh in the top 6, and what they seem to like is what I personally like. Maybe this changes in the next month. For me personally, I prefer a Yak profile. As I said, I prefer Burns Lite to EK lite even if neither of them won anything, because there are more Burns Lite examples on cup winning teams than there are EK lite examples, and the profile is generally harder to play against.

We're likely to get an exciting prospect at 14. Any of these names would be a welcome addition to our prospect pool and all of them would require a lot of development before even playing limited minutes in the NHL: (highly unlikely) Parekh, Buium, Catton (less and less likely) Yakemchuk, MBN (still very possible) Chernyshov, Eiserman (very possible and a bit of a reach if the staff likes them and if so I'd be excited) Solberg, Emery.

For me personally, based on what Grier seems to want to build here (which I'm on board with), that list goes Buium, MBN, Yakemchuk, Chernyshov, Catton, Solberg, Parekh/Eiserman, Emery.

Like I said, if I'm totally wrong in 5 years, no problem. I'm no pro and I'm glad I'm not making any of these picks. But there's no such thing as certainty and true draft rankings are imaginary fabrications. The only thing that matters is what NHL teams think and we'll see an indication of what they think soon enough.

I don get Emery at 14 at all.
If they want him. Trade up a handful of spots from 33.
Frankly I'd rather see the Sharks draft Elick with such a maneuver than Emery.

Byfuglien tied for the team lead with Sharpie with 11 goals (and 5 assists) in 22 games in 2010. Five of which were GWG's. I googled just to be sure.

He was huge in that title run. He'd camp out in front if the opposing teams net and they were powerless to do anything about it

 

[jMoneyBrah]

…I think all of us on the boards can, will, and do have more fun when we acknowledge that disagreement doesn't matter much and few of us have an answer that someone else can't disagree with reasonably.

This is so on point. It’s pretty cool… dude. I appreciate it and I appreciate you!

 

[DG93]

Again, it’s not that I don’t like Yakemchuk, but rather that I feel like I need to aggressively defend Parekh that much because I just don’t feel like people appreciate his talent and ability. He’s certainly the most misunderstood player in this draft, as far as I’m concerned.

I like the sound of misunderstood because that increases the odds of him falling closer to the Sharks' pick...maybe enough to where they can use a 2nd round pick to trade up and grab him. GMs tend to reach for bigger player for better or worse, so I totally expect Silayev to get overdrafted and then Yakemchuk as well...from the forwards, Lindstrom is in the same boat (although who knows with that back injury) whereas Catton likely falls.

 

[Juxtaposer]

I like the sound of misunderstood because that increases the odds of him falling closer to the Sharks' pick...maybe enough to where they can use a 2nd round pick to trade up and grab him. GMs tend to reach for bigger player for better or worse, so I totally expect Silayev to get overdrafted and then Yakemchuk as well...from the forwards, Lindstrom is in the same boat (although who knows with that back injury) whereas Catton likely falls.

That’s sorta why I’m advocating for him. I think if any of the D slip, it’ll be Parekh. Unjustly so, but the other guys have size or, in Buium’s case, highly visible championships, so GMs might be more comfortable with him than Parekh (who is the same height).

 

[DG93]

That’s sorta why I’m advocating for him. I think if any of the D slip, it’ll be Parekh. Unjustly so, but the other guys have size or, in Buium’s case, highly visible championships, so GMs might be more comfortable with him than Parekh (who is the same height).

Buium also plays a more "palatable" style (not quite accurate but trying to approach it from a GM's perspective...)

 

[Lebanezer]

Yakemchuk is a polarizing individual. He's also super old for this draft. Corey Pronman has him ranked 3rd going into the draft.

 

[Juxtaposer]

Buium also plays a more "palatable" style (not quite accurate but trying to approach it from a GM's perspective...)

Totally agree. Buium is solid defensively. He probably won’t be a plus defensive player at the NHL level, but he won’t hurt you. Parekh probably will, but his offense is so good that IMO he’ll be easily worth it.

Yakemchuk is a polarizing individual. He's also super old for this draft. Corey Pronman has him ranked 3rd going into the draft.

View attachment 874077

See the thing is that I completely agree with Pronman’s evaluation there. His highlight reel is stunning, his shot is spectacular, and his physicality and aggressiveness is something I think any hockey fan can appreciate. I would agree that he has star potential and probably the highest upside of any defenseman in the whole draft. But that average skating and average hockey sense is what makes me nervous about him.

I really think where you rank Yakemchuk comes down to how likely it is that you feel he’ll overcome his weaknesses. If he improves his first step and agility, if he can be consistent defensively, if he’s able to bully NHLers physically like he does kids to drive the net and score, then he’s a star. Clearly Pronman believes he will do those things, or he wouldn’t have him this high. I think it’s a gamble (albeit one I’d be thrilled to take at 14). To each their own, I suppose.

 

[sampler]

I hate to wade into the thoughtful and well researched debate on Yak v. Perekh, but I cannot help it. I am impressed by both sides and can fully understand drafting either. Yak's size and gnarl is very tempting. Such a player can become chris pronger clone, with a great shot, and powerful build. Perekh is a totally different player. Much smaller, much more slender, quicker, and sneakier with better skating, better edges, and a sniping wrister.

Personally, Id rather perekh by a mile.

Yak is a major defensive liability. Physicality is only useful if your positioning is sound. His is mediocre. Furthermore, his shot is amazing and he is very physical, but his skating is only OK, and he is a high risk-high reward player for offense. If he played far better defensively and took fewer risks, he'd have 20-30 fewer points (more like 50pts insead of 71), and hes be more or a 2nd round player. This risk taking leads to goals against ALOT and you just cant do that in the big leagues. His near team worst +/- is not a fluke. He played alot of minutes because the team was garbage, but I bet he ends up a bust unless he gets some super duper defensive coaching who teaches him how to make better reads, when to jump up and when not to, and how to play good positional D. Love the size and strength, but the NHL is no longer a league of giants and skill>physicality in today's game.

Perekh is a much more exciting prospect to me. He is all over the place, can walk the blueline, jump in back door, join the rush, and yet also get back and play solid D. His edges are solid, he can transition forward to backward and open himself up nicely. His wrist shot is also completely off the charts. So quick that he can get it off from anywhere in a blink, so in the age of blocked shots, that kind of wrister is gold. This is why he led Saginaw in scoring by over 20 pts while also putting up the +39, which is +11 over the next highest player. Sometimes, guys' stats are big because of the team they play for, but not this time.

the other thing I like about Perekh is that his game translates well to the new NHL, where D needs to be able to join the rush, walk the line, Attack the net, and have good quickness. Also an accurate wrister tops a booming slapper 100 to 1, and Perekh's wrister may be the best in the league. Cale makar is just 5'11". Quinn Hughes is 5'10".. Adam Fox is 5'11". Morissey is 6'0". Size is just not that important if the skating, quick shooting, and hockey sense is there. When Perekh is on the ice, the Defensive wingers better have their head on a swivel because he will sneak down on the back door and snipe. He's exactly the kind of quick offensive defensemen that the sharks need. Muk, Thrun, etc are fine in their own zone, but they aint scaring anybody offensively. Cagnoni and Perekh would give the sharks two of the top scoring D in juniors, who are also both massive + players. With good coaching of defensive positioning, that kind of offensive quickness and danger from the blueline makes all the difference.

BTW, if Perekh were as good as Karlsson in his prime, ummm.... that would be a ridiculously good pick. The dude won a norris!

Frankly, if Perekh falls to 10, I would LOVE the sharks to flip #43 (NJs own pick) and #14 to grab him from NJ. I strongly doubt he'll fall that far, but I would LOVE to grab him. After Buium, Silayev, and Levshunov, I'd rank Perekh fourth best D (in line with central scouting). This is why I suspect he goes 7th overall, with Cele, Demi, and Lind as the other three picks. I dont think the sharks can get into that range and tempt Ottawa or Seattle, though maybe a package of #14, #43, 2025 4th rounder, Bordy, and Cardwell? Ottawa is really short on prospects after not picking in the first three rounds last year and not until #64 in 2022. They need to restock and in this draft, where picks 4-12 are all kinda crapshoots, getting a package of NHL ready young player (Bordy), reasonable rising prospect (cardwell), an additional mid 2nd rounder this year and a 4th mext year is a pretty nice package to move back just 7 spots. For the sharks is a very small price to pay for a high end D prospect since they dont need more young forwards (Mack, Smith, Musty, Bystedt, Haltunnen, Eklund, Edstrom...), they have #33 still for yet another good player, and the 20254th is largely a throw in. It's nearly assured that he will be there at #7 overall since the top 6 are very likely to be some mix of Mack-Demi-Lev-Buium-Lindstrom-Silayev.

That's my two cents.

 

[wishman]

I wonder if that’s eiserman next to him lol

That is his older brother Aiden who was a Vancouver draft pick last year. Canucks trying to pull the Rob Neidermeyer trick to entice Macklin in about 8 years.

 

[Patty Ice]

Here's a thought - would you trade 14 for Askaraov? Wallstedt?

Easily but neither of their teams would.

 

[Hodge]

A more realistic question is would you trade 14th overall for Spencer Knight?

 

[DG93]

A more realistic question is would you trade 14th overall for Spencer Knight?

No?

 

[karltonian]

Yakemchuk is a polarizing individual. He's also super old for this draft. Corey Pronman has him ranked 3rd going into the draft.

View attachment 874077

sounds like burns

 

[LadyStanley]

Locked on Sharks podcast with Elite Prospects guest talking goalie prospects

Check out this Podcast: 2024 NHL Draft: Top Goalie Prospects 2024 NHL Draft: Top Goalie Prospects

 

[Bizz]

no doubt Parekh is better than Yakmechuk, only thing is there's no way he's making it past #8 and I don't think Grier has the stones to trade up into those slots.

 

[The Nemesis]

sounds like burns

"I was saying Boo-akemchuk" doesn't have the same ring to it, though.