Here at The-Rink, our editorial policy is to be thought-provoking and intellectually challenging to hockey fans—as opposed to dispensing the click bait “crack” of more “sign Panarin” articles. This will be one of those “challenging” articles—you may disagree with the logic of the Blackhawks making some of the potential moves laid out here. And that is okay, we do not agree with them all, either.
But clearly, Chicago Blackhawks General Manager Stan Bowman will have options afforded by this high pick. As always, the outcome will depend on which door he chooses. That is what we will discuss here.
The fact is, Bowman not only “lucked out” in getting the third overall pick in the draft lottery last month—he also got a ton of added pressure. It is easier for a GM to slide out from under the responsibility of a missed 18th overall selection (Mark McNeill) than it is at a pick position where Jonathan Toews was selected.
Another fact: this is a pick, if Bowman handles it properly, that could not only accelerate the Hawks’ rebuild, but could have a positive and significant impact on the franchise for the next decade or more.
So here, dear readers, are all the options (as we see them today):
BEST AVAILABLE ATHLETE
This was a draft strategy coined by the Dallas Cowboys in the 1970s. Gil Brandt and Co., did not just draft the best available defensive tackle because his team couldn’t stop the run the previous year. The Cowboys always thought two or three years out. And there is a strong argument for this philosophy in the NHL.
Sure, more and more, because of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, salary cap, more and more former European pros coming to North America and improvement in NCAA hockey, players now tend appear more often in the NHL the year after they are drafted. Still, overall, most players are a mere 17 years old when drafted and even some of the best typically require development in junior, college and/or the minors before debuting in the NHL. Sometimes, young players rushed to the NHL can be ruined by high expectations, followed by early struggles on bad teams.
All that said, let’s follow the conventional wisdom that Jack Hughes and Kappo Kaako are off the board when the Hawks go on the clock. Who, then, is the best available athlete?
Again, we will not presume to tell you that. We are not NHL scouts. And we put far more credence in those opinions than “YouTubes” and mock drafts put out by people who get their information from…YouTubes and internet-based mock drafts.
What we can say is this: there does not appear to be any position on the Hawks, except perhaps left wing (Alex DeBrincat, Brandon Saad), that you can say with any certainty is “set,” right now, or, more importantly, three to four years from now.
And for the record, our opinion is, the Hawks should be looking for the highest potential impact player at No. 3 this year—regardless of position—with one important caveat (that we will get to later).
The Hawks need elite young prospects all over the ice. Some may disagree and point to a defense pipeline that includes Adam Boqvist, Ian Mitchell and Nicolas Beaudin, all of whom are good-to-very-good prospects. However, until proven otherwise, all of these players are small and have documented defensive deficiencies that raise some valid questions as to where and exactly how they project in the NHL.
Aside from Henri Jokiharju, who is perhaps the most well-rounded defensive prospect (because that is really what he still is), the Hawks do not have a legitimate high-end defense prospect who plays a two-way game. Jokiharju, at this point appears to be a top-four defenseman in the future. But, where in the top four? Probably not an elite, No. 1 defenseman.
There is one defenseman, Bowen Byram of the Vancouver Giants (WHL), who scouts say stands head and shoulders above the rest in this draft class. At 6-foot-1, 195 pounds, he is more Jokiharju-sized than the smaller Boqvist (for example), skates exceptionally, can defend in space, shoots and passes with aplomb, has off the charts hockey sense and a nasty streak to boot.
So if the Hawks braintrust sees Byram as the best available athlete and a future elite player at No. 3, slam dunk. He is the pick.
While Bowman now appears to have stolen Dylan Strome from Arizona last season, and Jonathan Toews had a solid rebound season, Toews is now north of 30, the Hawks are still weak overall on faceoffs and—especially in the playoffs—you can never have enough quality centers.
From 3–8 in this draft, center is well-represented. Take your pick from Alex Turcotte, Dylan Cozens, Kirby Dach, Payton Krebs or Trevor Zegras. We will not try to fake our way through telling you which should be “the guy” at No. 3. Again, that is up to the Hawks, and that would also be assuming that any of the above are better players than say Byram or Vasili Podkolzin.
Easy for us to say.
Seriously though, Podkolzin, the enigmatic Russian right wing has perhaps “fallen” in the eyes of “internet hockey experts,” but it is hard to imagine serious hockey people dismissing his obvious set of talents and disposition: fast, über-competitive, physical, a great shot (you miss Panarin? This guy could potentially solve that) and defensively responsible.
We hesitate to project 17-year-olds, but watching him on tape in the top Russian junior league, it is hard not to see elements of Panarin and another great current NHLer from Russia, Vladimir Tarasenko.
Sure, there are potential transfer issues from Russia. Sure, he did not flash gaudy offensive numbers in a recent international tournament. Important considerations, but relative blips on the bigger radar picture. Let scouts figure it out based on a much greater set of metrics and time spent watching the player, talking to coaches, etc.
The bigger point is this, it appears that the Hawks have four or five (minimally) viable choices at No. 3 from whom to take the best available athlete—assuming they feel that player is clearly better than who they might take at pick 6, 7 or later.
Which leads to what, for some fans, might be a less comfortable scenario.
TRADING DOWN
“What? Why would you do that? You lucked out and got the third overall pick.”
Here is why. Two words: Cam Barker.
2004 was a two-player draft, perhaps not unlike this one. After Alex Ovechkin and Evgeni Malkin, there was a clear drop off to the next player who most, but not all, thought was Cam Barker of the Red Deer Rebels in the WHL. The Hawks held that pick, took Barker and the rest is history.
I wanted the Hawks to take Andrew Ladd instead, who was picked fourth by Carolina, and ironically, ended up hoisting the Cup with the Hawks in 2010—while Barker did not. But, the point is, sometimes in a two-player draft, your scouting might not see much difference in the quality of the player you would take at No. 3 than the one you could get at No. 7 or 8.
Perhaps, the grade you have on all the players left on the board are good to very good, but not elite future NHLers. But, as so often happens in all major sports’ drafts, another GM may have someone targeted that they want at No. 3—and they want him enough to give up a lot to move up and take him.
Here is a purely hypothetical scenario:
On draft night, Hughes and Kaako go first and second as expected. At No. 3, the Hawks are leaning toward taking Turcotte—a sturdy, skilled all-around center prospect—but they do not necessarily grade him much higher than Cozens or Krebs. And they grade none of those players as future, true elite players (a la McDavid, Crosby, Toews).
Thus, the Hawks know if they trade down a few slots, they will very likely get one of those comparable players.
Enter the Buffalo Sabres, picking seventh. Or, perhaps new Edmonton GM—and noted Russophile—Ken Holland, who might absolutely knock the door down to grab Podkolzin at No. 3. Edmonton picks eighth, where the Hawks would still be positioned to snag a future quality NHL center.
But, of course, Holland would need to further sweeten the pot for Chicago. Perhaps quite a bit.
Again, it depends on how much the other team’s GM wants that player at No. 3—how much would they give up?
Could the Hawks not only get a really good center at 7 or 8 who can be a difference maker for another decade, but also, for example, fill a glaring need on the blueline as well?
We can debate whether the Hawks could pry an Adam Larsson or an Evan Bouchard out of Holland in return for a five-slot swap to get a player he loves.
Likely not. But you never know.
The point is, if GMs come to Bowman with those kinds of offers—unless he is thoroughly convinced his guy at No. 3 is “can’t miss” elite— then he is dumb not to at least listen and evaluate.
WHERE IT COULD ALL GO WRONG
Broken record time: Cam Barker.
Say the Hawks hold the No. 3 pick, even though there is (hypothetically) a drop off from 1–2 to 3–7, and take, say, Turcotte.
Let’s even say Turcotte ends up being a better player than Barker, more along the lines of, say, Matt Duchene (a pretty good pro comparable for Turcotte). Duchene has become a nice player. But in the history of the NHL, is he ever going be mentioned in the same breath with Toews? No.
Or, let’s say, Turcotte, like another high first round, former USNTDP player, Jack Skille, ends up significantly underperforming in the NHL. Would that happen? Probably not.
But, over and over, time has a way of defying our initial expectations. Typically, everyone feels good about the pick the morning after the first round, when it is all sunshine and roses, but often not so much three or four years out.
And that is when the second guessing starts, or someone saying: “they should have traded down.”
In the end, no one knows right now—and no one can predict the future. But, this is why NHL scouts are paid to go to places like Nisku, Alberta, in January to watch hockey players, talk to coaches, etc., and you hope yours are as good as or better than anyone else’s…and that your GM has the judgement and courage to, when presented with good data, do the right thing for the franchise—not just temporarily placate the masses.
Please comment below.