Would the devils be interested in a deal like this? It seems to me they would want to get a player who is ready sooner, or would they be looking to “restock” the prospect cupboards for sustained success?

I think possibly. If Dickinson or Catton or Buium or someone falls, we probably just use the pick. But most of our core is set and we just have to fill various holes, most of which wouldn’t require a top-10 pick to fill. So by trading down, it’s like breaking a $100 for five $20s. Then can spend the various pieces plugging holes to fill out roster.

Personally believe trading down past 12 in this draft is a bad idea and don’t understand why you’d do it.

I think the hope is Catton, Ignila, or Sennecke jump over one of the defenseman.

With regard to that Ullmark proposal, I think he goes to the highest bidder for a 2024 pick or a prospect. If all things are equal, trade him to the team you view as less of a threat in the East or out West,

Your position is sound if you believe he is undifferentiated from the next guy on your list. I don’t believe that, but I don’t believe Saros is available either

I am desperately hoping Sam Dickinson drops. I’m not an expert on this draft class but I think he’s an absolute stud (I’ve gotten to watch him play a number of times live and on TV/streaming as a London Knights fan)

With your current depth chart, I think any of the defenseman falling would be a positive.

I’d also be quite happy with Catton, Eiserman, Buium, Lindstrom, or Iginla. But Dickinson would be my preference

Getting 1 of the 2 D mentioned here is imo why Sharks would be very motivated to jump on this. I wouldn’t do this trade and just go BPA @14 if they are both off board and use both seconds rounders on D.

Dickinson, Buium, Eiserman, Catton for me. But I think all will be long gone by #10.

Iginla I worry is gonna be ‘buzzy’ name (have seen as him as #2 on mock drafts) and probably ends up going where he was originally expected (10-15 range). Lindstrom may be appealing, but the health concerns could be problematic…if those were clear…I suppose it works.

It’s a thin draft…after top 7-8 guys, the next 15 or so all look similar.

I have hope/faith that Iginla will go to either Calgary or MTL.. He’s my “best of the rest” I think, and I hope it causes someone who I really want to fall to NJD.

Celebrini, Demidov, Levshunov, Buium, Catton, Dickinson, Eiserman, Lindstrom, Perekh likely the nine guys gone.

At that point, if not trading down, I guess we just take one of the wingers (Connelly, Iginla, MBN). But I would be tempted to grab Jiricek, Emery, Boisvert.

Iginla is going to go top 9 imo and leave 1 of those 10 for us to take

I love the lottery picks and all…but picking 10th brings a lot of intrigue.

And Silayev…forgot him! (Bumps Parekh)

Celebrini, Demidov, Levshunov, Buium, Catton, Dickinson, Eiserman, Lindstrom, Silayev as top 9

Ahh yes, I thought you were missing someone but I couldn’t remember who. I don’t think about Silayev much because he’s not one of the “big 3” at the top in Celebrini, Lev, or demidov, but also has 0 chance of falling to our pick at 10

Interesting, however I imagine the sharks would be trading up for Parekh or Buium or Dickinson so maybe there is a little issue lol

I think the ideal scenario is something like (in any order)

1. Celebrini
2. Demidov
3. Levshunov
4. Silayev
5. Iginla
6. Parekh
7. Yakemchuk
8. Sennecke
9. Helenius

Then we have choice of Buium, Dickinson, Catton, Lindstrom, Eiserman.

One of Buium or Dickinson…if they stick around that along…would hopefully become our pick.

As a London Knights fan, DICKINSON is the answer

I am with you…and congrats

Devils are ready to win now. You should totally go for Ullmark and you are a solid playoff team. Goaltending and slow starts killed you.

Injuries were what hurt us the most…and departures of Severson and Graves. Goaltending issues were partly a byproduct of those.

The GSAx suggests it was more than your defensive structure. The goalies, for the most part, saved less than expected

It lack of puck protection, too many quality chances against, too few build ups for quality chances for.