Yep, and if that’s a Dman, so be it, get some offense from FA, through trades, or future picks.
- Angotti

Lou, who do you think the Hawks select? And who do you want?


I’m intrigued by Lindstrom but I think they select Levshunov.

You draft best available, period.
- paulr

Isn't that what Edmonton did with all their #1 picks? How did that turn out for them? I beleive you pick the best at the position you need. Having a team with the best players at every position is better than having a team with the best 20 centers ever.

You draft best available, period.
- paulr

Sometimes, simplest is the best. I don't understand why anyone would draft for position in a hockey draft.

Even if you are a player or two away, its not like that guy is going to play right away.

No one ever regretted taking the BPA. Don't F it up, just take the BPA, regardless of position.

Poles took heat from some places for drafting a punter in the 4th round. Many said he should've taken a DE or DT at 9, or trade down, and get the DE or DT and get extra picks instead of taking a WR when they had Moore and Allen. He didn't do it, in both cases, he stayed right where he was, and took the gift that was granted to him, and took the best player available regardless of position.

A year or two from now, he will be a genius, and everyone will be saying of course he took Odunze and Taylor, that was an easy decision anyone would have done that.

Isn't that what Edmonton did with all their #1 picks? How did that turn out for them? I beleive you pick the best at the position you need. Having a team with the best players at every position is better than having a team with the best 20 centers ever.
- powerenforcer

If you have the 20 best centers you can use some as trade bait to get what you need. You always select best available.

Isn't that what Edmonton did with all their #1 picks? How did that turn out for them? I beleive you pick the best at the position you need. Having a team with the best players at eevery position is better than having a team with the best 20 centers ever.
- powerenforcer

Who would want a talentless team like the oilers. Theyre a goalie away. They drafted the offensive skill first, what they failed to do is draft the right type of defensemen or goalie.

I would love to get eiserman and catton. Then i look to draft defensemen who can actually play defense. Bedard needs players he can play with and complement his talent. I was all in on lindstrum until the back issues emerged. At 17 its a problem. Anyway, that is my take. Lets go hawks.

Yep, and if that’s a Dman, so be it, get some offense from FA, through trades, or future picks.
- Angotti

Isn't that what Edmonton did with all their #1 picks? How did that turn out for them? I beleive you pick the best at the position you need. Having a team with the best players at every position is better than having a team with the best 20 centers ever.
- powerenforcer

Worked well for the Hawks taking Boqvist to replace Keith… Or Dach to replace Toews. Drafting for need makes you regret the better player who got drafted in the next couple of picks.

Worked well for the Hawks taking Boqvist to replace Keith… Or Dach to replace Toews. Drafting for need makes you regret the better player who got drafted in the next couple of picks.
- ObeseOprah

Were they the best at the positions? That is the key.

Were they the best at the positions? That is the key.
- powerenforcer

One would assume the previous GM and scouting staff thought so.

So far it looks like KFC may have learned from the sins of the past. Let's hope he and the scouts guess correctly. They will certainly be earning their paychecks this draft.

Were they the best at the positions? That is the key.
- powerenforcer

Drafting for need gets you Erik Johnson instead of Toews, or Olli Juolevi instead of Matthew Tkachuk.

Identify the best player available, draft them. The Blackhawks are so bereft of NHL talent right now that it is impossible to saturate one position in the course of a few drafts.

Of course most say draft the best available. And like Paul says if you have a surplus at one position you have trade chips. My thinking on all of this is that offense begins at the defense and vice versa. I also believe in building from the back out. So I value a puck moving D man who has size and speed but is also takes his job one, defending, seriously. A mean streak would be preferable. That true #1 D man whose advantage is that the puck comes to him. Then you need a solid stay at home D man to pair with the #1 guy. This allows for more possession which means the forwards don't have to chase the puck around so much. Think Keith and Seabrook. You don't want Bedard especially, but the two scoring forwards on the top three lines to waste too much energy chasing. They already have to backcheck as it is. The third guy on the top three lines is a winger with speed first and as much size as as possible. Think Ben Eager, who was drafted for his size/speed combo in the first round. But he was most effective as the 1st forechecker in. He was a nightmare for opposing D men. So much so that even Burrish was able to get prime chances and score some. But all bets are off if you can find the big agile playmaking #1 center as they seem more rare and less available than anything else. So Paul's way, my way, whatever. Get it done KD. So far I think he's done a good job.
Sorry for the novel but I didn't want to pot shot everyone else. So you guys can fire away at me.

Of course most say draft the best available. And like Paul says if you have a surplus at one position you have trade chips. My thinking on all of this is that offense begins at the defense and vice versa. I also believe in building from the back out. So I value a puck moving D man who has size and speed but is also takes his job one, defending, seriously. A mean streak would be preferable. That true #1 D man whose advantage is that the puck comes to him. Then you need a solid stay at home D man to pair with the #1 guy. This allows for more possession which means the forwards don't have to chase the puck around so much. Think Keith and Seabrook. You don't want Bedard especially, but the two scoring forwards on the top three lines to waste too much energy chasing. They already have to backcheck as it is. The third guy on the top three lines is a winger with speed first and as much size as as possible. Think Ben Eager, who was drafted for his size/speed combo in the first round. But he was most effective as the 1st forechecker in. He was a nightmare for opposing D men. So much so that even Burrish was able to get prime chances and score some. But all bets are off if you can find the big agile playmaking #1 center as they seem more rare and less available than anything else. So Paul's way, my way, whatever. Get it done KD. So far I think he's done a good job.
Sorry for the novel but I didn't want to pot shot everyone else. So you guys can fire away at me.
- 6628

I always laugh a little when people would call Seabrook the stay-at-home defenseman. For his career, Keith scored at a 0.51 PPG pace. Seabrook was 0.41. I think it's just that their styles were notably different. They were both really good defenders, and both notably contributed to the offense. Keith had more endurance and seemed to have more speed/quickness. Seabrook was bigger with a more deliberate stride. Both were very effective at both ends of the ice.

KD has confirmed they are not drafting based on position/need with the #2 pick. They are going with their assessment of the ceiling and floor of the players available.

He also said they aren't drafting based on how soon the player will be in the NHL. They will pick who they feel is the best player available at #2.

I always laugh a little when people would call Seabrook the stay-at-home defenseman. For his career, Keith scored at a 0.51 PPG pace. Seabrook was 0.41. I think it's just that their styles were notably different. They were both really good defenders, and both notably contributed to the offense. Keith had more endurance and seemed to have more speed/quickness. Seabrook was bigger with a more deliberate stride. Both were very effective at both ends of the ice.
- Chunk

Seabrook really was just good at almost everything, so well rounded in his prime. Where, like you indicated Keith was more athletic and probably more elite in the mobility/endurance/agility, etc..

I don´t think Buffalo is interested in Hawks vets. And they have really good prospect pool themselves so I can´t see any trade happening between these two teams that includes that 11th pick.
- MjulQvist

We have one vet worth the 11th pick, a 2nd year guy next season.

You draft best available, period.
- paulr

I resemble that remark.

Looks like Keefe just got let go.

Buffalo’s first rounder (11) is supposedly on the block. I’d trade for that, any of Murphy, Richardinson, or some other vet. Imagine a haul of 2, 11, and 20.
- ObeseOprah

I don't know if Chicago has anything that would interest Buffalo enough to trade #11. Jones won't waive his NMC for the Sabres, Murphy isn't worth a 1st (plus they're not bad on defense), and I don't see any of Chicago's forwards being worth a 1st (besides Bedard).

Plus, KD wants the team to improve next year, I don't think they can afford to trade away the limited NHL talent they have.

Now...if Buffalo wants to trade #11 for Mackenzie Entwistle I can be all over that!

Isn't that what Edmonton did with all their #1 picks? How did that turn out for them? I beleive you pick the best at the position you need. Having a team with the best players at every position is better than having a team with the best 20 centers ever.
- powerenforcer

Nurse was a top 10 pick. Kelfbom they drafted 19 one of the years and Bouchard was 10 I think. Broberg was a top 10 pick.

Thats between 2010 and 2018. So in 8 years they burnt 4 first round picks on defenders. What should that spread look like?

2012 in general was a very bad draft class.
2011 they took RNH and Adam Larsson went 4, Dougie went 9 and Brodie went 10.
2010 they picked Hall and Gudbranson was the only one picked in the top 10.

Last 5 years only Owen Power has gone in the top 2 spots. Dahlin in the last 10.

Most of the defenders start getting picked up at 4.

It's probably too early to count Luke Hughes - but other than Makar - the top 5 defenders have been pretty underwhelming. Dahlin is very good but not sure how much better he is than Quinn Hughes, Bouchard or Dobson who went later.

Based on historical trends - the 'safer' bet to get full value for that number 2 slot is probably going to be a forward. The mock drafts are all over the place but maybe there is an opportunity to move up and grab someone else they like sooner.

I always laugh a little when people would call Seabrook the stay-at-home defenseman. For his career, Keith scored at a 0.51 PPG pace. Seabrook was 0.41. I think it's just that their styles were notably different. They were both really good defenders, and both notably contributed to the offense. Keith had more endurance and seemed to have more speed/quickness. Seabrook was bigger with a more deliberate stride. Both were very effective at both ends of the ice.
- Chunk

Seabrook went 12 and Keith was a second round pick.

Davidson just interviewed on WSCR radio. I'll try to post a link of a replay if there is one available.

Some snippets.

1. Happy to have the 2nd pick. Will get a very good player.

2. No problem taking a player from the KHL. Due diligence required of course.

3. Believes existing prospect pool well balanced.

4. Subscribes to taking the best player available.

5. Will bring in a few players this summer to elevate the group either through promotion, trades, free agency. Trades at this time hard to predict since you don't know who's available.

6. He's big into responsible cap management. Doesn't want to to sign veterans to long contracts that look good when signing but won't pay off in long run. Doesn't want to let go of young talent eventually because of bad cap management. Don't want to box yourself into corner. Cap space goes quickly.

7. Lots of flexibility with picks this draft - 2-1sts, 3-2nds, 2-3rds. Can trade up or trade down with picks including push some back to future years.

I don't know if Chicago has anything that would interest Buffalo enough to trade #11. Jones won't waive his NMC for the Sabres, Murphy isn't worth a 1st (plus they're not bad on defense), and I don't see any of Chicago's forwards being worth a 1st (besides Bedard).

Plus, KD wants the team to improve next year, I don't think they can afford to trade away the limited NHL talent they have.

Now...if Buffalo wants to trade #11 for Mackenzie Entwistle I can be all over that!

- DarthKane

I’ll just say it - Demidov is the Russian Caufield and you do NOT pass on a Caufield from any place and that is all I have to say about that. God Bless America 🇺🇸

Lou, who do you think the Hawks select? And who do you want?


I’m intrigued by Lindstrom but I think they select Levshunov.
- paulr

I’m thinking that they draft Levshunov as well, seems like a safe pick, you don’t want to miss with the #2 pick. This rebuild isn’t close to being complete, many more picks coming to add upfront to Bedard, Nazar, Reichel, Kurashev, Moore, etc. they’ll be better next year, but will still pick top ten for a year or two, and who knows, maybe they win the top pick again.

Isn't that what Edmonton did with all their #1 picks? How did that turn out for them? I beleive you pick the best at the position you need. Having a team with the best players at every position is better than having a team with the best 20 centers ever.
- powerenforcer

Did they though? I've come around to premium position drafting in the NFL but even then i feel a team is best served if they draft the best available player at the WR, T, Edge, CB even if you have no room for them, eventually you will.

Hockey wise I agree with 66, offense starts with defense, if my research leads me to a LD being best available i draft him. Don't care if in 2 years i have 5 left handed dmen in the lineup is just so hard to find a difference maker.

The other thing is this, when you don't pick best available you make the other teams better who draft after you.

Best available for me please even if it's a winger