Let's say for a second that Boychuk is claimed. He can't go to Springfield without being sent through waivers the rest of the way, where he'd undoubtedly be claimed. So he'd be stuck in the NHL, and can't be traded either (unless the 30-day waiver claim/trade rule was changed in the new CBA).
This would have the following forwards on the roster:
Umbeger, Dubinsky, Brassard, Foligno, Prospal, Johansen, Anisimov, Dorsett, Boll, MacKenzie, Gillies, Audy-Marchessault, Letestu, and Boychuk. That's 14. Atkinson and Calvert are on IR. Calvert, Atkinson, Johansen, and Audy-Marchessault are all ineligible for waivers.
With Atkinson out possibly multiple weeks, it would allow for an extended look at Boychuk to see if he's able to fit in and, if so, where. When Calvert is ready to go, someone can be sent back down. Obviously, that would depend on a lot of factors. It would keep the current forward crop intact, minus the guy being sent down.
Or, it would open up the possibility of a trade. I see three names out of the current group who would be desired by multiple teams who are likely also available to some extent. Does one of them get sent on his way? Does Atkinson come off IR and then be sent down for a conditioning stint, buying another few days before a decision must be made?
So many possibilities...
This is all contingent, naturally, on one of the seven other teams below us in the standings not claiming Zach Boychuk
This is all contingent, naturally, on one of the seven other teams below us in the standings not claiming Zach Boychuk
Impossible for two reasons.
1) I think the waiver priority order is still on last year's standings, and will be through sometime in February
2) The idea of anyone below Columbus in the standings at any point is obviously a myth perpetrated by a small group of Howsonites. At least, that's according to what I read on here.
Our beer league team (all guys who started playing in their 30-50's) played in a tournament, and our participation was a T-Shirt that read "Celly Like you Mean It" I've seen guys use it as a towel to wipe themselves down with at a game because no one will wear the shirt.
Why is we never claim anybody off waivers.....well anyone worthwhile anyways. (Giles I'm looking at you)
Remember how it was such a horrible tragedy that we traded away Beauchemin in the Fedorov deal?
Worthwhile players don't end up on waivers all that often. Generally, if they were worthwhile, they wouldn't be on waivers.
__________________
Remember - when you're a hockey fan, it's not "reckless driving", it's "good forechecking".
"Viqsi, you are our sweet humanist..." --mt-svk on the CBJ boards
Thanks, Howson, for cleaning up MacLean's toxic waste. Welcome, Kekalainen; let's get good things built!
We've gotten Beauchemin, Hainsey, Sanderson (one time around) and Malhotra off waivers. I think we've had pretty good luck, all things considered.
Although it's sucked recently. Dubielewicz, Gratton, Moreau, Rivet, Gillies, and Boyce are some of the most forgettable Blue Jackets of all time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Viqsi
I was going to contest this, and then realized that I'd forgotten that Rivet had ever been associated with this organization.
So let me be the one to say, "Stop it right there!"
Frank the Bushman was invisible for us. "Fat" if I recall Burke saying.
Hainsey was marginal and replaceable.
Sanderson? maybe but something wrong with that dude in the clubhouse. How many teams did he end up playing for? 20 or 30 I think.
Malhotra never played as well as we liked him, sorry to say.
If I recall... they loosened the waiver rules a few years ago, meaning teams can protect their interests a little more, and fewer bluechips go on waivers -unless they have ridiculous contracts.
So let me be the one to say, "Stop it right there!"
Frank the Bushman was invisible for us. "Fat" if I recall Burke saying.
Hainsey was marginal and replaceable.
Sanderson? maybe but something wrong with that dude in the clubhouse. How many teams did he end up playing for? 20 or 30 I think.
Malhotra never played as well as we liked him, sorry to
say.
If I recall... they loosened the waiver rules a few years ago, meaning teams can protect their interests a little more, and fewer bluechips go on waivers -unless they have ridiculous contracts.
Frank the Bushman - victim of the LOFT of the Maclean era?
Hainsey - Certainly replacable. He suckered Atlanta into giving him big dollars. He's never delivered on that deal.
Sanderson - Agreed. But how can you hate on his first tour of duty? He was one of the reasons the early teams were entertaining.
Malhotra was the first line center for the only playoff squad in CBJ history. Does that mean he's the best center to ever play for Columbus?
__________________
Waiting for something to happen
Sanderson? maybe but something wrong with that dude in the clubhouse. How many teams did he end up playing for? 20 or 30 I think.
Nothing wrong with Sanderson at all.
He was a purely offensive forward, and in a more restrictive offensive scenario, his value would plummet. He had two 40-goal seasons in Hartford, followed by two more 30-goal years. He struggled with Carolina, who traded him to Vancouver, who traded him to Buffalo. Lindy Ruff didn't like him, so they gave him to Columbus. It was one of those "take Sanderson, and we'll give you a couple players and picks" type of deals. He had two 30-goal years in Columbus as well.
The problem is that, if a team wasn't able to slot him in on the top two lines and give him PP time, he wasn't going to do anything else. He couldn't go on the third line, since his defense was poor. He couldn't go on the fourth line, since his physical game was non-existent. So all of these teams who wanted versatility from their forwards had no use for him.
Buffalo could have won a Stanley Cup in 1999 if they'd actually given Sanderson some minutes. But they were busy using some real scoring wingers, guys like Dixon Ward and Vaclav Varada. Buffalo at that time had three actual scoring forwards: Sanderson, Derek Plante, and Miroslav Satan. Satan was the only one who actually was used properly, while Sanderson floundered on the bench and Plante was traded. So Buffalo had the 17th-best offense out of 29 teams and fell short.
He was a purely offensive forward, and in a more restrictive offensive scenario, his value would plummet. He had two 40-goal seasons in Hartford, followed by two more 30-goal years. He struggled with Carolina, who traded him to Vancouver, who traded him to Buffalo. Lindy Ruff didn't like him, so they gave him to Columbus. It was one of those "take Sanderson, and we'll give you a couple players and picks" type of deals. He had two 30-goal years in Columbus as well.
The problem is that, if a team wasn't able to slot him in on the top two lines and give him PP time, he wasn't going to do anything else. He couldn't go on the third line, since his defense was poor. He couldn't go on the fourth line, since his physical game was non-existent. So all of these teams who wanted versatility from their forwards had no use for him.
Buffalo could have won a Stanley Cup in 1999 if they'd actually given Sanderson some minutes. But they were busy using some real scoring wingers, guys like Dixon Ward and Vaclav Varada. Buffalo at that time had three actual scoring forwards: Sanderson, Derek Plante, and Miroslav Satan. Satan was the only one who actually was used properly, while Sanderson floundered on the bench and Plante was traded. So Buffalo had the 17th-best offense out of 29 teams and fell short.
Now, come on MB, you of all people should know that it was the NHL's fault that the Sabres lost the Cup...
Yakupov with 4 goals so far. To not have drafted him #1 (as it was indicated we wouldn't have) would have ranked with Zherdev & Filatov as the biggest draft mistakes.
Yakupov with 4 goals so far. To not have drafted him #1 (as it was indicated we wouldn't have) would have ranked with Zherdev & Filatov as the biggest draft mistakes.
I would have said the same thing that Howson said "We got the guy we wanted" whether or not we did. Losing the draft lottery was one of the larger disappointments in franchise history. Sounds like Ryan Murphy was pretty good pick too though.
On the good side, NY Rangers and LA Kings only got 1 point between them last night and both were at home. I can't imagine Rangers missing playoffs, but they're on the right track after playing 5 of first 7 games at home. LA has 8 of their next 9 games on the road. They could bury themselves in the standings now.
If we get three top 14 picks out of this hell bent season (and 3 chances at #1 overall pick), it would be good step forward for this franchise.
Yakupov with 4 goals so far. To not have drafted him #1 (as it was indicated we wouldn't have) would have ranked with Zherdev & Filatov as the biggest draft mistakes.
Not worried about this at all at this point.
1) Personally, I still don't think Yakupov is going to be that great of a #1 pick as his career progresses. I don't think he has enough between his ears.
2) Even if I'm wrong, he wasn't available to us anyways so there is no use wondering what would have happened if we had the #1.
A bigger concern of mine is whether Murray can make a full recovery from this shoulder injury.
Yakupov with 4 goals so far. To not have drafted him #1 (as it was indicated we wouldn't have) would have ranked with Zherdev & Filatov as the biggest draft mistakes.
Your logical reasoning is killing me. You mention Yakupov's 4 goals in 7 games as a reason that he is a "can't miss" prospect and then mention Filatov and Zherdev as mistakes.
But... but...
Filatov had 4 goals after just 6 NHL games!
And Zherdev... Zherdev also had 4 points in his first 6 NHL games.
Even Gilbert Brule scored 4 points in his first 6 NHL games.
And they didn't have a bunch of 1st overall picks setting them up on power-play (3 of 4 goals Yak scored on the PP).
HOW do you know that Yakupov already has proved anything? And I like Yak more than 90% of posters on these boards... But your reasoning and conclusion are just completely ignorant. Someone forgot January 2009 and posts like this:
Your logical reasoning is killing me. You mention Yakupov's 4 goals in 7 games as a reason that he is a "can't miss" prospect and then mention Filatov and Zherdev as mistakes.
But... but...
Filatov had 4 goals after just 6 NHL games!
And Zherdev... Zherdev also had 4 points in his first 6 NHL games.
Even Gilbert Brule scored 4 points in his first 6 NHL games.
And they didn't have a bunch of 1st overall picks setting them up on power-play (3 of 4 goals Yak scored on the PP).
HOW do you know that Yakupov already has proved anything? And I like Yak more than 90% of posters on these boards... But your reasoning and conclusion are just completely ignorant. Someone forgot January 2009 and posts like this:
As a followup to the point: I get similar impressions ("4 goals in 6? Damn, he'd be nice to have about now") all the damn time, and I suspect the same is true of other Positivity Police. The difference isn't whether or not that sort of thing comes to mind, but whether or not it's taken seriously enough to be brought up as a legit topic of discussion.
To say "damnit, that's frustrating, wish he could have scored that for us" is fine. That's just simple commiseration. We all do it. Hell, following this team, we all need it. To come to the conclusion that that's what we should have done and that it would have been a major strategic mistake to do otherwise is going over the top.
Taunting us with virtual cookies again? Me wants the real thing...
Nail is going to have a longer career that Filatov and Brule, baring injury. Having said that, I haven't gotten the same feeling from him they first dozen times I watched Skinner.
Taunting us with virtual cookies again? Me wants the real thing...
Nail is going to have a longer career that Filatov and Brule, baring injury. Having said that, I haven't gotten the same feeling from him they first dozen times I watched Skinner.
Sadly, real cookies don't transmit well over the Internet.
Yakupov with 4 goals so far. To not have drafted him #1 (as it was indicated we wouldn't have) would have ranked with Zherdev & Filatov as the biggest draft mistakes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bizzz
Your logical reasoning is killing me. You mention Yakupov's 4 goals in 7 games as a reason that he is a "can't miss" prospect and then mention Filatov and Zherdev as mistakes.
But... but...
Filatov had 4 goals after just 6 NHL games!
And Zherdev... Zherdev also had 4 points in his first 6 NHL games.
Even Gilbert Brule scored 4 points in his first 6 NHL games.
And they didn't have a bunch of 1st overall picks setting them up on power-play (3 of 4 goals Yak scored on the PP).
HOW do you know that Yakupov already has proved anything? And I like Yak more than 90% of posters on these boards... But your reasoning and conclusion are just completely ignorant. Someone forgot January 2009 and posts like this:
As a followup to the point: I get similar impressions ("4 goals in 6? Damn, he'd be nice to have about now") all the damn time, and I suspect the same is true of other Positivity Police. The difference isn't whether or not that sort of thing comes to mind, but whether or not it's taken seriously enough to be brought up as a legit topic of discussion.
To say "damnit, that's frustrating, wish he could have scored that for us" is fine. That's just simple commiseration. We all do it. Hell, following this team, we all need it. To come to the conclusion that that's what we should have done and that it would have been a major strategic mistake to do otherwise is going over the top.
okay let me explain since you obviously missed the point- what i said was that NOT DRAFTING Yak IF we had the chance would have been a mistake as big as drafting Z & Filatov.
See not drafting a guy who I think will be a star is as bad as drafting the two bums.
Hopefully you now understand. If you disagree fine but at least disagree with the correct concept.
okay let me explain since you obviously missed the point- what i said was that NOT DRAFTING Yak IF we had the chance would have been a mistake as big as drafting Z & Filatov.
See not drafting a guy who I think will be a star is as bad as drafting the two bums.
Hopefully you now understand. If you disagree fine but at least disagree with the correct concept.
I consider myself a smart individual. And yet I'll admit to stupidly thinking for five full years that Dougie not moving up in 2004 to take Cam Barker was an idiotic move.
Turns out that I would have screwed up the 2004 draft as badly as Dougie actually did by taking Alex Picard.
