HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   Columbus Blue Jackets (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=31)
-   -   2013 NHL Draft Thread III (6/30, 3PM EDT) (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1422725)

Samkow 05-06-2013 07:58 PM

2013 NHL Draft Thread III (6/30, 3PM EDT)
 
http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh....php?t=1360861

WubbaLubbaDubDub 05-06-2013 08:16 PM

In all honesty, I think we need to give Calvert and Atkinson more of an oppurtunity to take reigns on the top 6 wing positions. I really dont want to add another top winger without giving them a little bit more of a chance, and even if they dont next season, thats what the depth is for.

major major 05-06-2013 08:45 PM

SL, I found your mock to be very realistic, especially this section:

11. Philadelphia - Ristolainen
12. Phoenix - Mantha
13. Winnipeg - Domi

Phoenix might be the most d-heavy teams in the league. They're pretty much set before including Gormley or Rundblad. They'd love Mantha. Winnipeg has Enstrom, Bogosian, and Byfuglien, and Jacob Trouba looks like he'll be a great defenceman. Meanwhile Schiefele is underwhelming, they could use Domi for sure. Though they might have an obvious D BPA.

The upshot for Jacket fans is that we can't count on any of those teams to avoid taking the forwards we want. I'd much rather have the opportunity to take Mantha or Domi, but we might have to settle for Horvat or Pulock. Though those picks don't seem Jarmo-esque, so should we expect movement?

leesmith 05-06-2013 08:45 PM

I think we only need ONE proven first line winger for the offense to take it to the next level. I fully expect Atkinson, Johansen and Gaborik to have more production next season.

leesmith 05-06-2013 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by major major (Post 65468249)
SL, I found your mock to be very realistic, especially this section:

11. Philadelphia - Ristolainen
12. Phoenix - Mantha
13. Winnipeg - Domi

Phoenix might be the most d-heavy teams in the league. They're pretty much set before including Gormley or Rundblad. They'd love Mantha. Winnipeg has Enstrom, Bogosian, and Byfuglien, and Jacob Trouba looks like he'll be a great defenceman. Meanwhile Schiefele is underwhelming, they could use Domi for sure. Though they might have an obvious D BPA.

The upshot for Jacket fans is that we can't count on any of those teams to avoid taking the forwards we want. I'd much rather have the opportunity to take Mantha or Domi, but we might have to settle for Horvat or Pulock. Though those picks don't seem Jarmo-esque, so should we expect movement?

Kerby Rychel is a Jarmo-esque pick (if he picks like he did in St. Louis). Talented, versatile, physical. We might be able to get him with our 2nd pick. That said, I'd like to see more size up front.

major major 05-06-2013 09:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leesmith (Post 65469173)
Kerby Rychel is a Jarmo-esque pick (if he picks like he did in St. Louis). Talented, versatile, physical. We might be able to get him with our 2nd pick. That said, I'd like to see more size up front.

You're right. Does anyone remember that piece about Jarmo's draft tendencies a St. Louis blogger posted when we hired Jarmo? I can't find it.

WubbaLubbaDubDub 05-06-2013 09:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leesmith (Post 65468323)
I think we only need ONE proven first line winger for the offense to take it to the next level. I fully expect Atkinson, Johansen and Gaborik to have more production next season.

I agree, but we definitely need to stock the system with a few for when players like prospal retire and in case umberger shows us once again how overpaid he is.

CBJWennberg10 05-06-2013 09:48 PM

I wish tomorrow was draft day

Sore Loser 05-06-2013 10:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by major major (Post 65468249)
SL, I found your mock to be very realistic, especially this section:

11. Philadelphia - Ristolainen
12. Phoenix - Mantha
13. Winnipeg - Domi

Phoenix might be the most d-heavy teams in the league. They're pretty much set before including Gormley or Rundblad. They'd love Mantha. Winnipeg has Enstrom, Bogosian, and Byfuglien, and Jacob Trouba looks like he'll be a great defenceman. Meanwhile Schiefele is underwhelming, they could use Domi for sure. Though they might have an obvious D BPA.

The upshot for Jacket fans is that we can't count on any of those teams to avoid taking the forwards we want. I'd much rather have the opportunity to take Mantha or Domi, but we might have to settle for Horvat or Pulock. Though those picks don't seem Jarmo-esque, so should we expect movement?

Movement is certainly possible, but I don't see a blockbuster trade into the top-3 ... that just doesn't seem to fit with the plans that JD and Jarmo are bringing on board, about being an honest, hard working team. No offense to any of the top-3 (or 4) players in this draft, but if you're building a hard working team piece by piece, you don't make huge deals to land young superstar players. You acquire assets and build from character (not saying those guys don't have character, certainly). If anything, I see a minor move to go up 3-4 spots and get a guy like Shinkaruk, Mantha, maybe even Monahan.

Perhaps a secondary prospect like David Savard and the #14 pick is enough to do that. Time will tell.

Quote:

Originally Posted by leesmith (Post 65469173)
Kerby Rychel is a Jarmo-esque pick (if he picks like he did in St. Louis). Talented, versatile, physical. We might be able to get him with our 2nd pick. That said, I'd like to see more size up front.

Rychel is a guy that should be targeted later in the round, for sure. You hit it spot on, a Jarmo type of player, and a guy that should surely be considered. A draft of any of the players that I mentioned being possibly available to us (Pulock, Zadorov, Erne, Horvat), followed by Rychel and Hartman, would make for some real excitement for sure.

Milltec 05-07-2013 07:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by major major (Post 65470913)
You're right. Does anyone remember that piece about Jarmo's draft tendencies a St. Louis blogger posted when we hired Jarmo? I can't find it.

Would really like to see this piece. Anyone?

GoJackets1 05-07-2013 07:53 AM

Getting Pulock at 14 would hardly be 'settling'.

Double-Shift Lasse 05-07-2013 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by major major (Post 65470913)
You're right. Does anyone remember that piece about Jarmo's draft tendencies a St. Louis blogger posted when we hired Jarmo? I can't find it.

A few things in the"fire/hire" thread, don't think it's exactly what you're looking for, but some info in there.

http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...&postcount=398

http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...&postcount=524

http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...&postcount=525

http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...&postcount=859

blahblah 05-07-2013 09:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slightlystewpid420 (Post 65464519)
In all honesty, I think we need to give Calvert and Atkinson more of an oppurtunity to take reigns on the top 6 wing positions. I really dont want to add another top winger without giving them a little bit more of a chance, and even if they dont next season, thats what the depth is for.

Not sure context, but this doesn't look like a draft response. Could be. Either way, I don't think adding additional scoring in the form of a top line wingers will impact Calvert or Atkinson. If AA is playing center their real competition will be RJ. It's actually good if you have 5 or 6 wingers competing for 4 spots. You need that kind of depth.

How this translates to the draft, I'm not sure. I wouldn't pencil anyone from this draft into a top six role next season no matter who was drafted. We've got a culture of earning your spot now.

The Bread Man 05-07-2013 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gojackets1 (Post 65494069)
Getting Pulock at 14 would hardly be 'settling'.

No kidding, he seems to play 100 mile an hour, and has a big shot.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9aZoQS2m54

alphafox 05-07-2013 09:26 AM

I would actually be interested too see if pulock could make the jump to forward. He has the speed, shot, and instincts it appears.

Xoggz22 05-07-2013 10:48 AM

I've softened my stance on taking a d-man in the first round depending on who's available and BPA status. HOwever, when I look in the cupboard I still see defensive depth potential 3-5 years down the road. Guys like Curcuruto and Reilly have top 4 potential and won't be pushing for jobs for a while, coupled with the fact that Murray, Erixon and Prout are all young and pushing for jobs now. I dare not mention Goloubef or Savard who could be assets for the big club or in a trade

What I don't see is any forward depth with top 6 potential. Zaar? JAM? I'm not sold. We need some players for the long term offensive game that fit the culture we want to build. Guys like Horvat, Zykov and Gauthier seem like good fits and have high end (top 6) potential. There are others too but those just jumped out to me at the moment (I like Wennberg too)

major major 05-07-2013 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Milltec (Post 65493081)
Would really like to see this piece. Anyone?

Found it! I had it linked in the old draft thread.

Here it is.

Quick Recap:

Draft BPA.

Don't draft safe picks. "He's a swing for the fences guy."

On the 2007 page, Chip McCleary writes that the Blues tried to trade all 3 first rounders for the 1st overall.

major major 05-07-2013 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jacks Johnson (Post 65497085)
No kidding, he seems to play 100 mile an hour, and has a big shot.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9aZoQS2m54

And how's his defence? Are we drafting another Wiz?

EDM 05-07-2013 01:01 PM

I agree with the comment about having a huge pipeline of defensive prospects in the system but a bare cupboard when it comes to forwards. I really hope are first rounds picks are forward, forward, forward.

JacketsFanWest 05-07-2013 01:36 PM

There should be a decent defenseman available in the 2nd round and there are chances in the later rounds to pick up some longer term defensive prospects.

What forward is available at 14 depends on how many defensemen go in the top 13, and it's possible it's only 3 (Nurse, Ristolainen, Zadorov).

In the case, trading down a few spots to a team who wants to jump up and grab Pulock or another defenseman might not be a bad idea if it added a decent pick or prospect.

WubbaLubbaDubDub 05-07-2013 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blahblah (Post 65497033)
Not sure context, but this doesn't look like a draft response. Could be. Either way, I don't think adding additional scoring in the form of a top line wingers will impact Calvert or Atkinson. If AA is playing center their real competition will be RJ. It's actually good if you have 5 or 6 wingers competing for 4 spots. You need that kind of depth.

How this translates to the draft, I'm not sure. I wouldn't pencil anyone from this draft into a top six role next season no matter who was drafted. We've got a culture of earning your spot now.

It is and isnt, I dont want to see us add more wingers via FA. I want us to draft wingers to fill the spaces that will be created. Give Cam and Calvert a season or two to solidfy themselves as our go to wingers. If they cant, well we have 2-3 first rd wingers hungry for a spot, competition for a top spot should only make everybody play better.

major major 05-07-2013 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jacks Johnson (Post 65497085)
No kidding, he seems to play 100 mile an hour, and has a big shot.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9aZoQS2m54

So how good is Pulock's defence?

I ask because just watching that video I can imagine, even with our stacked defence, that Pulock could become our best offensive defenceman. That adds a lot of value. But the flip-side of having a stacked defence is that if you put an offensive specialist out there you're having him take the place of a better defender, which reduces value. So what sort of defender is Pulock tracking towards? How would he slot in offensively and defensively compared to our current d-men?

WubbaLubbaDubDub 05-07-2013 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by major major (Post 65513231)
So how good is Pulock's defence?

I ask because just watching that video I can imagine, even with our stacked defence, that Pulock could become our best offensive defenceman. That adds a lot of value. But the flip-side of having a stacked defence is that if you put an offensive specialist out there you're having him take the place of a better defender, which reduces value. So what sort of defender is Pulock tracking towards? How would he slot in offensively and defensively compared to our current d-men?

I honestly dont really know much about him, but people have said he has the potential to be a top pairing mate with Murray. Which could make it worth it. Some of our Dmen are starting to age(Tyutin) and have 3 potential top 4 dmen under the age of 23 is a awesome problem to have. It makes Wiz and Tyutin dispensable here in 2-3 seasons depending on how Prout, Murray and Erixon develop.


Dont get me wrong though, I still think we need to take offense. But if Pulock for some reason slips into the late 1st you snag him. If a Dman of say his caliber is available in the last 1st I would be find with taking a dman there if we already have 2 solid offensive prospects, and there arent any potential top 6 players left.

GoJackets1 05-07-2013 02:32 PM

I'd be interested to hear where SL would slot Pulock in with the defensive class of last year... :)

major major 05-07-2013 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slightlystewpid420 (Post 65514169)
I honestly dont realistically know much about him, but people have said he has the potential to be a top pairing mate with Murray. Which could make it worth it. Some of our Dmen are starting to age(Tyutin) and have 3 potential top 4 dmen under the age of 23 is a awesome problem to have. It makes Wiz and Tyutin dispensable here in 2-3 seasons depending on how Prout, Murray and Erixon develop.


Dont get me wrong though, I still think we need to take offense. But if Pulock for some reason slips into the late 1st you snag him. If a Dman of say his caliber is available in the last 1st I would be find with taking a dman there if we already have 2 solid offensive prospects, and there arent any potential top 6 players left.

If it looks like he'll be good defensively too, and the preferred forwards are off the board (don't know Jarmo's, but maybe Wennberg, Domi, Mantha), than I would have no qualms with taking Pulock with our first pick.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:54 AM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.