Do we have to pay to read more?
- JRR1285

no, this is gonna be free for all

I think Ottawa is taking Bouchard at 4, that's a preview of Jimbo's mock draft
- jimbo83

And I think the Wings pick Hughes at 6.

Do we have to pay to read more?
- JRR1285

No, but you do have to just infer the rest on your own. Basically Jimbo makes the 4th overall pick in your mock draft and that's it.

And I think the Wings pick Hughes at 6.

- Pete V

if Tkachuk was still there at #6, would the Wings take him over Hughes?

if Tkachuk was still there at #6, would the Wings take him over Hughes?
- jimbo83

Not sure to be honest. That one is tough.

I am also interest to see if Wahlstrom is sitting there at 8, do the Hawks go him or defense.

Not sure to be honest. That one is tough.

I am also interest to see if Wahlstrom is sitting there at 8, do the Hawks go him or defense.
- Pete V

Hawks need D bad right? I'm thinking they go defense all the way.

Dobson seems to be a riser right now, so if he gets drafted in the Top 8, it will push one of the commonly viewed top 8 guys down. I could see one of Boqvist, Hughes, Bouchard or Wahlstrom dropping to the Rangers. But if its Dobson, I would be fine with that -- and even a couple of other guys.
- Pete V

I saw some experts' mocks that had Boqvist lowered in rank to #10 or even lower. I believe it was in part due to suffering his concussion just recently, which caused him to miss that Bronze Medal game for the Czechs.

Hawks need D bad right? I'm thinking they go defense all the way.
- mdw7413

They need everything. Trading countless 1st round picks (rightfully so) over the years left that pipeline barren. They should just take whoever they view as the best player available.

Hawks need D bad right? I'm thinking they go defense all the way.
- mdw7413

you really can't quibble with anything Chicago does for the next 100 years, they won 3 Cups, but man, have they made some bad personnel decisions since they won that last one

Hawks need D bad right? I'm thinking they go defense all the way.
- mdw7413

They do, but they are getting to the point where their offensive starts are aging as well. They might be in full scale rebuild mode at some point soon, so they may choose to go best available. For need, they would go defense I think.

I saw some experts' mocks that had Boqvist lowered in rank to #10 or even lower. I believe it was in part due to suffering his concussion just recently, which caused him to miss that Bronze Medal game for the Czechs.
- RangerSaver

I have heard a few prospect guys that don't particularly love him.

They need everything. Trading countless 1st round picks (rightfully so) over the years left that pipeline barren. They should just take whoever they view as the best player available.
- eichiefs9

Wings I think are worse off than the Hawks.

PeteV brings up a good point on the Hawks though, their forwards are getting up there in age.

Wings I think are worse off than the Hawks.

PeteV brings up a good point on the Hawks though, their forwards are getting up there in age.
- mdw7413

I don't the Wings are worse off than the Hawks. I think the Wings have actually started to build a prospect base. The Hawks are at the beginning of that process, while the Wings are some time into that rebuilding project.

Wings I think are worse off than the Hawks.

PeteV brings up a good point on the Hawks though, their forwards are getting up there in age.
- mdw7413

I wonder if they'll even qualify Duclair, he sucks

I wonder if they'll even qualify Duclair, he sucks
- jimbo83

I am sad to say that I don't even know where Duclair is now. Hawks?

you really can't quibble with anything Chicago does for the next 100 years, they won 3 Cups, but man, have they made some bad personnel decisions since they won that last one
- jimbo83

Its funny. I remember thinking after the 94 cup, "That should hold me for awhile." Next year I wanted the Rangers to win just as bad.

I wonder if they'll even qualify Duclair, he sucks
- jimbo83

What a fall from grace. Dude looked like such a good prospect with the Rangers

I don't the Wings are worse off than the Hawks. I think the Wings have actually started to build a prospect base. The Hawks are at the beginning of that process, while the Wings are some time into that rebuilding project.
- Pete V

Well I meant more in the near future. Think the Hawks have a better team, but yeah once they hit that wall if they don't make some creative trades it could be a painful rebuild for them.

What a fall from grace. Dude looked like such a good prospect with the Rangers
- mdw7413

He was never my cup of tea. I always thought he was soft, and was kind of happy that the Rangers traded him at a high point (rather than having to include someone else to make that deal happen). And yes, I realize Yandle didn't quite work out.

Well I meant more in the near future. Think the Hawks have a better team, but yeah once they hit that wall if they don't make some creative trades it could be a painful rebuild for them.
- mdw7413

Gotcha. There is no doubt that they are probably better right now. But maybe not by much.

Wings I think are worse off than the Hawks.

PeteV brings up a good point on the Hawks though, their forwards are getting up there in age.
- mdw7413

Wings have some recent 1st round picks in the hopper, at least. They're not the picks I would have made where I selected (Rasmussen and Cholowski are two 1st's I didn't like over the last two first rounds) but CHI has nothing.

Look at their draft history since 2012. Four first round picks, two of which (Teravainen/Hartman) are playing for different teams now and one of which, Jokiharju, is still in juniors. In that same time-frame, they haven't really hit on a single later-round pick either, outside of Sikura and maybe Hinsotroza...who are both still unproven at the pro level. They are utterly barren in the prospect department.

Its funny. I remember thinking after the 94 cup, "That should hold me for awhile." Next year I wanted the Rangers to win just as bad.
- mdw7413

oh man, I remember the '95 first round vs the Nordiques absolutely freaking out like we never won anything

I have heard a few prospect guys that don't particularly love him.
- Pete V

Is that meaning "don't particularly love him" overall, or for certain teams needs? Most scouting reports on him seem to say he appears better suited offensively than defensively, with his skills and "daring" play making, which I recall some source using that word, "daring" as for his style of play at times. That type of d'man wouldn't fit best then for a team like Edmonton who has the #10 selection.

Is that meaning "love him" overall, or for certain teams needs? Most scouting reports on him seem to say he appears better suited offensively than defensively, with his skills and "daring" play making, which I recall some source using that word, "daring" as for his style of play at times. That type of d'man wouldn't fit best then for a team like Edmonton who has the #10 selection.
- RangerSaver

When I say didn't "particularly love him" it was more in assessing him at a potential 4-5 type pick where he was projecting at the time (and may still project). Didn't see him as an true impact player to justify a Top 5 pick.

He was never my cup of tea. I always thought he was soft, and was kind of happy that the Rangers traded him at a high point (rather than having to include someone else to make that deal happen). And yes, I realize Yandle didn't quite work out.
- Pete V

No more high scorers from the Q..

In hindsight that trade really just didn't work for anyone. Weirdest thing was Yandle was at his best for awhile paired with McIlrath