2004 Entry Draft

Now granted this is pretty far off, but it is never to far off to talk about. The Jackets are on pace to finish in the bottom 5 of the league again. Disappointing, but then again we will get another awesome player. Assuming that we will be in the 3-6 range, who do you want? Olesz? Malkin? Schremp? Barker? Discuss amongst yourselves.

Assuming we have number 3 and Ovechkin and Malkin are gone...

1. Barker (by a mile)
2. Olesz
3. Schermp/Malkin

If Barker is picked second, I'd pick Olesz.

Now I think I'd rather have Olesz over Barker. 1. Olesz 2. Barker. 3. Schremp. Everything I hear about Olesz is he is a solid two-way kind of guy. And he is listed as a right winger so that would definitely solidify that side. That would also allow Zherdev to play whatever side he wants. If we do draft the top defenseman availible I will not shed tears though :) .

Nash-Center-Vyborny
Zherdev-Marchant-Olesz

or

Klesla-Barker
Westcott-Johnson

Actually now looking at it I'll take both

I think, right now, we have good forward prospect depth for only drafting four years. Our D, on the other hand, isn't that great. We got Rusty, Johnson, OK, and maybe Redlihs. Our forward corp looks alot better with Lindstrom, Piispanen, Mauldin, Jackman, Fritsche, Moyzakin, Tkachenko, among others. Oddly enough, all of those forwards were drafted after the first round...you can find forwards anywhere. Getting a great, top flight defenseman can really only be found in the first round, early on. I think we need that other top flight defenseman to go along with Rusty, who was really playing well till he got injured.

But, I won't shed a tear if we got Olesz either, he seems like a great prospect.

I think it depends on how Rusty Klesla is doing at the end of the season. If hes still stalled(which he has been for 2 Seasons), take Barker. If not, take Olsez, but I think he will go 2nd. So its Schremp all the way.

Getting a great, top flight defenseman can really only be found in the first round, early on. I think we need that other top flight defenseman to go along with Rusty, who was really playing well till he got injured.


:handclap:

Funny thing, I was contemplating our relatively thin prospect group at D just the other day, but didn't notice that some of our more promisng forwards were late rounders. This borders on insightful!

And I agree with the need for a top-end d-man. (I also think it might not be a bad idea for us to add a promising goalie in the neighborhood of rounds 3-to-5, for what that's worth.)

Look at this sorry bunch of losers.
Gentlemen, your negative attitude disapoints me. Yes, there are injuries and yes, only a handful of guys are playing to their potential, but there still plenty of season to go. We can't give up yet!
We can still get to that number one spot and draft Ovechkin! :)

Look at this sorry bunch of losers.
Gentlemen, your negative attitude disapoints me. Yes, there are injuries and yes, only a handful of guys are playing to their potential, but there still plenty of season to go. We can't give up yet!
We can still get to that number one spot and draft Ovechkin! :)


Is it really a good idea to draft another Russian? I mean Ovechkins great and all but that would be the final insult for the Russian Federation cause they hate us so much. ;)

In all seriousness, if Columbus is picking in the 2-5 range, I think Barker would be my priority, again based on the same reasoning of everyone else -- lack of strong D prospects.
However, I don't know what the depth of this draft is supposed to be like. Is it projected to be deep with D men? If it is and if Columbus still has their second pick (was this year's traded for Sydor?), then I'd maybe take a forward.
Olesz and Malkin are awful tempting though -- don't have a real top-flight center prospect yet. I think Fritsche will be good, but I don't know if he's the same caliber as those two.
Okay, so maybe I'm talking myself out of Barker now...
As long as they get a good player -- there, I copped out.

The prospect board is turning on Barker a little bit. Personally, I've never seen him play; but the scuttlebutt is becoming mixed there. Of course the same thing happened to Coburn lasyear (he was #2 in most prelimiary drafts, then people started wanting Jessiman and Katistyn more).

I don't think the BJs are at the point where they can say they have too much depth anywhere. It's foolish for them to pick positionally at this point.

That said if Barker or O'Neill are on the board (and Ovcheckin and Olesz are gone), I'd be tempted.

I guess maybe the reason I was leaning more toward Olesz more than Barker, was that I think Olesz would most immediately help this team. We have a crapload of veterans on the blueline with long term contracts and I can see us at least keeping a couple of them. I think if Doug moves 2 of our defensemen at the deadline (Lachance, Spacek?)then Barker is definitely our guy. Klesla's play also will have a huge impact. I really like Klesla but he has only shown potential to be a solid 3-4 right now. So unless he improves on that we might need to look into another bluechip blueliner.

I think, right now, we have good forward prospect depth for only drafting four years. Our D, on the other hand, isn't that great. We got Rusty, Johnson, OK, and maybe Redlihs. Our forward corp looks alot better with Lindstrom, Piispanen, Mauldin, Jackman, Fritsche, Moyzakin, Tkachenko, among others. Oddly enough, all of those forwards were drafted after the first round...you can find forwards anywhere. Getting a great, top flight defenseman can really only be found in the first round, early on. I think we need that other top flight defenseman to go along with Rusty, who was really playing well till he got injured.

But, I won't shed a tear if we got Olesz either, he seems like a great prospect.

We have twice as many good forward prospects and good defense prospects because you play twice as many forwards in a game as you play defensemen. ;) :p

With a young developing team, I think the Jackets should take the BEST player available regardless of their position for at least 2 or 3 rounds. Who really knows what a strength or weakness will be 3-4 years down the line. The Senators are the best example of taking the best player available for the 1st-3 rounds of the draft each year (Bonk with Yashin/Daigle at center; Havlat with Alfie/Hossa; Emery with Lalime/Hurme/Pruest in goal) . Then use later round picks to actually fill minor league roster/depth positions and pray that 1-2 each year pan out for NHL duty.

Its better to be super strong in one position (say LW with Nash, Sanderson and ???) than just grabbing a future 2nd line Dman because its maybe a need down the line.

Trading from strength is always better than trying to fill a hole, by creating a hole somewhere else.

With a young developing team, I think the Jackets should take the BEST player available regardless of their position for at least 2 or 3 rounds. Who really knows what a strength or weakness will be 3-4 years down the line. The Senators are the best example of taking the best player available for the 1st-3 rounds of the draft each year (Bonk with Yashin/Daigle at center; Havlat with Alfie/Hossa; Emery with Lalime/Hurme/Pruest in goal) . Then use later round picks to actually fill minor league roster/depth positions and pray that 1-2 each year pan out for NHL duty.

Its better to be super strong in one position (say LW with Nash, Sanderson and ???) than just grabbing a future 2nd line Dman because its maybe a need down the line.

Trading from strength is always better than trying to fill a hole, by creating a hole somewhere else.

All very good points. I'm now in the "best player available" camp.
But, after Ovechkin, who's best?

I'm in the best available player camp ... but you have to realize that being in that camp causes controversy. Remember how people reacted to Pascal LeClaire in the 2001 draft? Best available player (according to our board).

You can go this route as long as your willing to make the trades for your weaknesses. Of course, to do that we need enough depth in the system to have "trade bait".

The great thing about our club is we have so many weaknesses that even when our strategy is to take the "best available" we're still drafting to fill holes at this point :rolly:

I'm in the best available player camp ... but you have to realize that being in that camp causes controversy. Remember how people reacted to Pascal LeClaire in the 2001 draft? Best available player (according to our board).

You can go this route as long as your willing to make the trades for your weaknesses. Of course, to do that we need enough depth in the system to have "trade bait".

The great thing about our club is we have so many weaknesses that even when our strategy is to take the "best available" we're still drafting to fill holes at this point :rolly:

I didnt like that draft pick because we already had decent depth in goal and I thought that there were still some decent players available. Now it doesnt look so bad. I still think we take the best player available but with Denis looking like the real deal and Leclair looking like he can be if Denis falters, I dont think we need a goalie. If the best available player when we pick is a goalie, we should trade down. I think goalie is one position that we do have enough depth in. And the trade market isnt very good for goalies right now as everyone not only has a goalie, but a decent goalie prospect or two as well.

You know ... I wasn't fond of that pick either, I was rooting for Ruutu or Hamhuis with that pick. You're right though, it's not looking like that bad of a pick now.

The thing about picking a goalie though is that these hot/cold markets for positions are very cyclical ... I don't really expect there to be a glut after next season (a lot of the goalies available right now are older players who may not be around in 2-3 years).

Don't get me wrong, I don't want us to draft a goalie just trying to play a little devil's advocate. Personally I want a center, I think that's the biggest weakness we have.

...Personally I want a center, I think that's the biggest weakness we have.

Then why did we have to cut Espen??? :dunno: :p jk, I know what youre saying.