HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > Columbus Blue Jackets
Notices

2013 NHL Draft Thread II (6/30, 3PM EDT)

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-21-2013, 09:46 AM
  #251
RDriesenUD
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 7,506
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by EspenK View Post
In all trade scenarios what about one of our young D prospects to a team that needs D for a shot at Barkov? Don't know if the scenario would set up but if it did and the other team would do it, why not?

I know, you build from the net out, why trade our strength? (because we have a lot of it?), give up proven talent? "proven for a short time.

Say we trade Moore.

That leaves:

Wiz
JJ
Nikitin
Tyutin
Erixon
Murray
Prout
Goloubef
Savard ?
Weber?
other prospects

We have a logjam there and some day some of them are going to be traded. To add a top center prospect, I'd take a flyer.
I have no interest in trading Moore, Erion, or Murray. I would much rather trade a guy like Nikitin even if we can't get as much for him.

RDriesenUD is offline  
Old
03-21-2013, 09:48 AM
  #252
RDriesenUD
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 7,506
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pete goegan View Post
For me, Erixon, Murray, and Moore are the core of the young defense-to-be. I would be more willing to trade any of the others before them, perhaps excluding Jack and Wiz (though not completely, if the right move came along for one of the two). Before the draft of Murray and the acquisition of Erixon, Moore was the crown jewel of the CBJ future. I don't see anything that's changed his ranking as a potential top-four defenseman, even though the other two may have surpassed him as top-pairing potentials. Not to say that anyone is untouchable, just that others would be on my "more likely to trade" list before Johnny.
I agree.

RDriesenUD is offline  
Old
03-21-2013, 10:50 AM
  #253
angry pirate
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 545
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by blahblah View Post
To be honest, when I read stuff like "He always has caffeine in his hands", including soda, I start to get concerned.
Figured I would address this for you guys. It's widely known around Halifax that Drouin is one of, if not the, hardest working players off the ice. I hadn't heard about the caffeine issue until now, but rest assured, if you draft Drouin, your getting a guy that takes his off ice training and conditioning very seriously.

On the flip side, I've also heard that it's MacKinnon that is getting by mostly on talent, and hasn't taken his off-ice training nearly as seriously as Drouin.

Take that for what it's worth. Maybe that adds to Mackinnon's upside, that he has more room to improve via conditioning. I don't know.

I've said since early this season, that Drouin was the better junior player but I don't know how well he will adjust to the Pro game. My feelings are MacKinnon's power forward style will translate easier to the Pro level making him as close to a lock as possible to be a top 6 Center. That said, I think Drouin certainly has a higher upside, is much more creative, and has the potential to become one of those special players ala Datsyuk.

angry pirate is offline  
Old
03-21-2013, 10:51 AM
  #254
angry pirate
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 545
vCash: 500
Now to post what I came here to ask,

Do you guys think you'll take Fucale if he's available with either the Rangers or Kings pick? Possibly ending up drafting 2 Halifax Mooseheads?

angry pirate is offline  
Old
03-21-2013, 10:58 AM
  #255
SuperGenius
Moderator
For Duty & Humanity!
 
SuperGenius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,379
vCash: 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by pete goegan View Post
For me, Erixon, Murray, and Moore are the core of the young defense-to-be. I would be more willing to trade any of the others before them, perhaps excluding Jack and Wiz (though not completely, if the right move came along for one of the two). Before the draft of Murray and the acquisition of Erixon, Moore was the crown jewel of the CBJ future. I don't see anything that's changed his ranking as a potential top-four defenseman, even though the other two may have surpassed him as top-pairing potentials. Not to say that anyone is untouchable, just that others would be on my "more likely to trade" list before Johnny.
I agree 100%

I have no idea why we're in such a hurry to trade someone away anyway. I understand we need offense, but that can be had via draft and FA as well. This talk about trading this or that young 'surplus' defenseman reeks with impatience to me.

SuperGenius is offline  
Old
03-21-2013, 10:58 AM
  #256
RDriesenUD
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 7,506
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by angry pirate View Post
Now to post what I came here to ask,

Do you guys think you'll take Fucale if he's available with either the Rangers or Kings pick? Possibly ending up drafting 2 Halifax Mooseheads?
Maybe, but I wouldn't. We drafted Dansk and Korpisalo last year. I would rather we draft a goaltender later if we are going to take one this year.

RDriesenUD is offline  
Old
03-21-2013, 11:12 AM
  #257
JacketsFanWest
Registered User
 
JacketsFanWest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Country: Sweden
Posts: 2,686
vCash: 500
There is some decent depth in goalies in the draft. Fucale gets all the attention because of the team he plays for, but there are others who could end up being just as good (Eric Comrie and Tristan Jarry in the WHL for instance).

The Jackets have a number of goalies who could be turning pro/coming to NA in 1-3 years: Forsberg (as soon as next season), Dansk (1-2 more years), Korpisalo (1-3 more years), and now Martin Ouellette is in the picture after a stellar year at Maine. He has one more year left to prove if he should get an NHL contract.

While depth is good, there are only so many starting positions for farm teams and time the goalie coach has. If they're happy with their group of goalies, then unless the scouts find an absolute steal they feel the Jackets have to draft, it's better to use the pick for another position. If the Jackets do take a goalie, drafting a long-term prospect going into the NCAA might be better since that helps build the depth and won't be in the pipeline for 3-5 years.

JacketsFanWest is offline  
Old
03-21-2013, 11:12 AM
  #258
angry pirate
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 545
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RDriesenUD View Post
Maybe, but I wouldn't. We drafted Dansk and Korpisalo last year. I would rather we draft a goaltender later if we are going to take one this year.
I missed Dansk. Wouldn't make much sense for you guys to use a 1st on another goalie prospect. Now if Fucale falls into the 2nd round, might be worth the pick.

Really excited for your guys' draft this year. Hope you guys draft another Moosehead.

angry pirate is offline  
Old
03-21-2013, 11:17 AM
  #259
angry pirate
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 545
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JacketsFanWest View Post
There is some decent depth in goalies in the draft. Fucale gets all the attention because of the team he plays for, but there are others who could end up being just as good (Eric Comrie and Tristan Jarry in the WHL for instance).

The Jackets have a number of goalies who could be turning pro/coming to NA in 1-3 years: Forsberg (as soon as next season), Dansk (1-2 more years), Korpisalo (1-3 more years), and now Martin Ouellette is in the picture after a stellar year at Maine. He has one more year left to prove if he should get an NHL contract.

While depth is good, there are only so many starting positions for farm teams and time the goalie coach has. If they're happy with their group of goalies, then unless the scouts find an absolute steal they feel the Jackets have to draft, it's better to use the pick for another position. If the Jackets do take a goalie, drafting a long-term prospect going into the NCAA might be better since that helps build the depth and won't be in the pipeline for 3-5 years.
Very good analysis. Especially the NCAA option. As a Habs fan, I know it can be torturous waiting years for prospects to work their way through the NCAA route, but the benefits of this in the salary cap era just can't be overlooked.

Don't let the 2013 Halifax Mooseheads jade your opinion of Fucale. He earned his praise last season as a 16 year old rookie who made an average team much better than they should have been.

angry pirate is offline  
Old
03-21-2013, 11:48 AM
  #260
Matt Foley
Blue Jackets
 
Matt Foley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Motivational Guru
Posts: 1,981
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by angry pirate View Post
I missed Dansk. Wouldn't make much sense for you guys to use a 1st on another goalie prospect. Now if Fucale falls into the 2nd round, might be worth the pick.

Really excited for your guys' draft this year. Hope you guys draft another Moosehead.
I can't find it at the moment, but there was a post recently that said IIRC that JD said during a season ticket holder function that they viewed Seth Jones as the top player in the draft and if they didn't get to select him that the focus after that would be "offense, offense, offense". I realize that what the team says in March may not apply in June, but it seems like the correct approach to me going into the draft. Oddball selections by teams picking before them may change that philosophy to some extent.

Matt Foley is offline  
Old
03-21-2013, 01:05 PM
  #261
Friedrich
This is not my hat.
 
Friedrich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Salzburg
Country: Austria
Posts: 2,770
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by georgiabluejacket View Post
1. It is BY FAR going to cost more to go from 4-2, than from 12-7. especially when this years is "deep" so maybe not as big of a drop off. Maybe a team wants to go defense(as much as we want to go offense) and take a defenseman and a goalie. A butt load of defenseman around #12 and the #1 goalie around mid 20's. Hmm, just about where are picks would be.
2.Where do you get "we wouldn't offer one of our first rounders" I said we'd offer them two of the three(highest and lowest)



So you agree with me that your statement "The top 10 is comprised mostly of centers outside of Jones" is wrong since a third of the top 10 is not centers. Good to know. Also, the "consensus 4th best player" last year was taken at #11. The 5th went #12.



No it's not. It's the complete opposite. There's more "supply" of good players, thus the "demand" for a certain one is not going to be as high.




What the crap does expiring contracts in 3 years have to do with who they are going to draft this year? I mentioned TB because they have good forwards, thus not in great need of offensive players. Do they need D? No clue, but they got some firepower already.



Once again, where was only a second rounder even mentioned?



Drouin is being mentioned as a strong possiblility at #2 after he exploded for points while Mackinnon was out, and his WJC play. Some have even mentioned him going #1. Meanwhile Barkov who was talked about at #1 beginning of the year is now being mentioned at 4-7.
Uh... you mentioned the second round.
You said 2-7th rounds, not first


Even with three defensemen, 7/10 players being centers constitutes the top ten being mostly comprised of centers So no. My statement of the top ten being comprised mostly of centers is not wrong. Seeing as how mostly, they are centers.

You're saying that suddenly 7/10 is suddenly not in the majority because 3 players are defensemen?


Once again, the fact that you agreed with me when I said that it's doubtful we can move up, makes the rest of the debate pointless anyway.

Friedrich is offline  
Old
03-21-2013, 01:29 PM
  #262
georgiabluejacket
Registered User
 
georgiabluejacket's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Georgia
Posts: 684
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bugg View Post
Uh... you mentioned the second round.
You said 2-7th rounds, not first
Uh..... go back and reread what I wrote. I compared what we would offer(mid first) vs. what NYI offered(2nd-7th).So yeah, I did say first. Reading comprehension.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bugg View Post
Even with three defensemen, 7/10 players being centers constitutes the top ten being mostly comprised of centers So no. My statement of the top ten being comprised mostly of centers is not wrong. Seeing as how mostly, they are centers.

You're saying that suddenly 7/10 is suddenly not in the majority because 3 players are defensemen?[/B]
Well let's see, 3 defenseman, Droiun is a winger. Nichushkin is a winger, & Shinkaruk is a winger so that's 6 of the 10 are NOT centers(You know the MAJORITY). Thanks for playing, we have some nice parting gifts for you


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bugg View Post
Once again, the fact that you agreed with me when I said that it's doubtful we can move up, makes the rest of the debate pointless anyway.
Really? When did I say "it was doubtful we can move up? I do agree that the debate is pointless cause you apparently can't comprehend what you read or keep saying I said things I didn't. It's ok if you can't back up your statements, but don't try to act like it's the other people fault you can't

georgiabluejacket is offline  
Old
03-21-2013, 01:41 PM
  #263
georgiabluejacket
Registered User
 
georgiabluejacket's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Georgia
Posts: 684
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperGenius View Post
I agree 100%

I have no idea why we're in such a hurry to trade someone away anyway. I understand we need offense, but that can be had via draft and FA as well. This talk about trading this or that young 'surplus' defenseman reeks with impatience to me.
We trade away our surplus so it doesn't go to waste. The fact we got a butt load of yound defenseman is awesome, but you can only play 6 D-man at a time. Don't want the rest sitting around or getting like 5 minutes a game in Springfield cause they're being blocked by others.

Take Prout for example. I'd say he's doing good as a third pairing D-man, but add a healthy Wiz and Murray to our line up & he's wasting away in Springfield along with Savard, Golobeuf, Weber, Ruth, etc. when he's shown the ability to play in the NHL. Add Reilly and other "potential" draftees and we got ourselves a certified log jam. Not enough ice time to develop all of them

georgiabluejacket is offline  
Old
03-21-2013, 01:45 PM
  #264
georgiabluejacket
Registered User
 
georgiabluejacket's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Georgia
Posts: 684
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by angry pirate View Post
Now to post what I came here to ask,

Do you guys think you'll take Fucale if he's available with either the Rangers or Kings pick? Possibly ending up drafting 2 Halifax Mooseheads?
I think Columbus's draft will be all offense until the later rounds(exception being if we land the #1 pick). I can see a goalie around the 5th round, but like other have already said, we got some young net minders coming up & we have other needs.

georgiabluejacket is offline  
Old
03-21-2013, 01:48 PM
  #265
major major
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 2,807
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bugg View Post
If you agree that it's doubtful we'd be able to move up, it pretty much makes the rest of the argument a nonissue.

Its more the case that I think it's unlikely. You seem to be making the argument that there cannot be two teams who would have compatible draft needs and be willing to swap. Sometimes it happens, even in the top 10.

Top ten is pretty much BPA.

Seth Jones is the only real BPA pick. The Jackets are not drafting Zadorov or Ristolainen if they are the BPA at #8. And if the Flyers are at #5 they are going to be much less enthused about drafting Lindholm than the Flames would be. Ergo, mutually beneficial deals are commonplace, though still hard to transact.

You have an interesting assessment of our players. I'd be interested in seeing who you consider to be a top-six player on this team? That is, would be a top-six player on a playoff team. The only player to have consistently scored 20 goals in the past few years is Umberger. I would most certainly say one of our problems is a shortage of top-six players. Dubinsky, for example, has reached the twenty-goal mark only twice, and hit fifty-points only once. We currently only have two players even slated to hit twenty-goals in an 82 game season, and we're unsure of whether either one will be on the roster next year.

My definition of second line is a forward scoring between 90th (3 per team) and 180th (among forwards). We have a few guys at that level at any one time, though who it is varies. We actually have a group of 7 who are at times second line players, and this doesn't yet include Johansen or Atkinson. This assessment strongly impacts my view on team need.
Once again, my comments bolded.

major major is offline  
Old
03-21-2013, 01:59 PM
  #266
Friedrich
This is not my hat.
 
Friedrich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Salzburg
Country: Austria
Posts: 2,770
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by georgiabluejacket View Post
Uh..... go back and reread what I wrote. I compared what we would offer(mid first) vs. what NYI offered(2nd-7th).So yeah, I did say first. Reading comprehension.
I'm sorry I can't devine some kind of context when you say: "1. 2-7th rounds, not first." But I guess it's convenient to be vague so you can try and discredit my argument by saying I lack reading comprehension when it's your writing that lacks precision.


Quote:
Originally Posted by georgiabluejacket View Post
Well let's see, 3 defenseman, Droiun is a winger. Nichushkin is a winger, & Shinkaruk is a winger so that's 6 of the 10 are NOT centers(You know the MAJORITY). Thanks for playing, we have some nice parting gifts for you
Nice try. Drouin is a center.

http://www.hockeysfuture.com/prospects/jonathan-drouin/

Nichushkin is a center.

http://www.hockeysfuture.com/prospec...ri-nichushkin/

Shinkaruk is a center.

http://www.hockeysfuture.com/prospec...ter-shinkaruk/

Second source: http://www.mynhldraft.com/2013-nhl-d...ensus-rankings



That makes, you know, the MAJORITY centers.


Quote:
Originally Posted by georgiabluejacket View Post
Really? When did I say "it was doubtful we can move up? I do agree that the debate is pointless cause you apparently can't comprehend what you read or keep saying I said things I didn't. It's ok if you can't back up your statements, but don't try to act like it's the other people fault you can't
I mixed up the agreement with someone else. that is, admittedly, my mistake.

But this debate is pointless, trying to argue with someone who seems to make up his own facts, is annoyingly vague in his writing and then points fingers at everyone else for not having the clairvoyance for understand what the hell he's talking about. Even if my reading comprehension were lacking, I don't think I would be missing much. But I'm done with this debate. I don't have the patience for someone who narrows arguments to bullet-points and then becomes insulting when someone can't decipher the context, but yet has no problem construing the facts himself. Good job.

Friedrich is offline  
Old
03-21-2013, 02:09 PM
  #267
Crede777
Deputized
 
Crede777's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 6,814
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Foley View Post
I can't find it at the moment, but there was a post recently that said IIRC that JD said during a season ticket holder function that they viewed Seth Jones as the top player in the draft and if they didn't get to select him that the focus after that would be "offense, offense, offense". I realize that what the team says in March may not apply in June, but it seems like the correct approach to me going into the draft. Oddball selections by teams picking before them may change that philosophy to some extent.
Yep. He said that if Jones is available then they have to take him because he has separated himself from the rest of the draft as the best player. Davidson pointed out that he and Jarmo were major architects in drafting Rundblad in 09 despite having depth at defense then trading him the next draft to pick Tarasenko. That could also speak towards their philosophy with regards to surplus young defensemen.

After that he said it's all offense. He, Jarmo, and some others are in Halifax as we speak, taking in a bunch of games after the GM meeting in Toronto.

Crede777 is online now  
Old
03-21-2013, 02:11 PM
  #268
Friedrich
This is not my hat.
 
Friedrich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Salzburg
Country: Austria
Posts: 2,770
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by major major View Post
Once again, my comments bolded.
You make good points. But I think Johansen and Atkinson aren't quite there yet. But I think if we got three 50-60 point players, it would only help that Johansen and Atkinson could develop into top-six talent, giving us five players that could net 50-60 points (obviously this is hypothetical). Two lines with that kind of scoring power would give other teams much more difficulties in defending us.

I'm not denying that there are instances where it makes sense for teams to swap. But I also don't think that the price to move up will justify the payoff with where I expect us to fall. Now, of course we could end up lower or higher than I expect or circumstances can change. But if it were me, I wouldn't want to sacrifice one of our extra first round picks (trading 2 for 1) to get a player. It's a deep draft, and I don't see us sacrificing an extra first rounder just to move up a little.

Now, if it is a lesser cost, I would of course change my tune, but I just don't see it happening.

Friedrich is offline  
Old
03-21-2013, 02:54 PM
  #269
InjuredChoker
Registered User
 
InjuredChoker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: LTIR or golf course
Posts: 14,417
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bugg View Post
I'm sorry I can't devine some kind of context when you say: "1. 2-7th rounds, not first." But I guess it's convenient to be vague so you can try and discredit my argument by saying I lack reading comprehension when it's your writing that lacks precision.




Nice try. Drouin is a center.

http://www.hockeysfuture.com/prospects/jonathan-drouin/

Nichushkin is a center.

http://www.hockeysfuture.com/prospec...ri-nichushkin/

Shinkaruk is a center.

http://www.hockeysfuture.com/prospec...ter-shinkaruk/

Second source: http://www.mynhldraft.com/2013-nhl-d...ensus-rankings



That makes, you know, the MAJORITY centers.
Nichushkin was winger in WJCs, is winger in KHL and I think he was that in VHL/MHL.

Drouin probably hasn't played more than few shifts at C in Halifax if that. He played C in midgets.

Not sure on Shinkaruk but he's seemed to be winger too.

Hf main site isn't the most reliable source.

The second link has Barkov as C/W for some reason though he's basically never been winger.

InjuredChoker is offline  
Old
03-21-2013, 03:11 PM
  #270
angry pirate
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 545
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kemisti View Post
Nichushkin was winger in WJCs, is winger in KHL and I think he was that in VHL/MHL.

Drouin probably hasn't played more than few shifts at C in Halifax if that. He played C in midgets.

Not sure on Shinkaruk but he's seemed to be winger too.

Hf main site isn't the most reliable source.

The second link has Barkov as C/W for some reason though he's basically never been winger.
I can confirm. Drouin is a winger. Has played the odd shift at Centre when both MacAuley and MacKinnon were out, but that's been it.

angry pirate is offline  
Old
03-21-2013, 03:58 PM
  #271
Sore Loser
Since 2009
 
Sore Loser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Spokane, WA.
Country: United States
Posts: 5,535
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bugg View Post
I'm sorry I can't devine some kind of context when you say: "1. 2-7th rounds, not first." But I guess it's convenient to be vague so you can try and discredit my argument by saying I lack reading comprehension when it's your writing that lacks precision.




Nice try. Drouin is a center.

http://www.hockeysfuture.com/prospects/jonathan-drouin/

Nichushkin is a center.

http://www.hockeysfuture.com/prospec...ri-nichushkin/

Shinkaruk is a center.

http://www.hockeysfuture.com/prospec...ter-shinkaruk/

Second source: http://www.mynhldraft.com/2013-nhl-d...ensus-rankings



That makes, you know, the MAJORITY centers.




I mixed up the agreement with someone else. that is, admittedly, my mistake.

But this debate is pointless, trying to argue with someone who seems to make up his own facts, is annoyingly vague in his writing and then points fingers at everyone else for not having the clairvoyance for understand what the hell he's talking about. Even if my reading comprehension were lacking, I don't think I would be missing much. But I'm done with this debate. I don't have the patience for someone who narrows arguments to bullet-points and then becomes insulting when someone can't decipher the context, but yet has no problem construing the facts himself. Good job.
Clearly, you don't watch junior hockey. Relying on HF to provide you with all of your information on prospects will make you look extremely uneducated sometimes.

I would recommend not being so standoffish, you know, unless you have actually watched these players play. For the bolded part, look in the mirror.

Jonathan Drouin - as mentioned above - has barely played center at all this year. I have never seen Hunter Shinkaruk line up as a center in the WHL - he has spent his entire career flanking guys like Tyler Pitlick and Curtis Valk. Nichuskin spends the majority of his ice time on the wing as well.

Sore Loser is offline  
Old
03-21-2013, 10:16 PM
  #272
LetsGOJackets!!
Registered User
 
LetsGOJackets!!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Columbus Ohio
Posts: 2,472
vCash: 500
What would you give for those three wingers?

Soreloser.. say we could get those three wingers, what would you give beyond our 3 picks?

LetsGOJackets!! is offline  
Old
03-21-2013, 10:25 PM
  #273
Sore Loser
Since 2009
 
Sore Loser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Spokane, WA.
Country: United States
Posts: 5,535
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LetsGOJackets!! View Post
Soreloser.. say we could get those three wingers, what would you give beyond our 3 picks?
Not much ... we will probably be in a position to draft two of them. The other one (Drouin), I don't think you're going to get fair value in an upward trade to get him. It would cost our other first round pick, a prospect (think Jenner), and probably a good roster player. While I'm big on building with prospects, I'm not a proponent of putting all your eggs in one basket - especially not for the third/fourth rated prospect in the draft.

Should be able to land Shinkaruk in the 8-14 range, and while Nichuskin has huge upside, the Russian factor is heavy, and he could fall as far as the mid-20s, from what I'm hearing.

Sore Loser is offline  
Old
03-22-2013, 12:04 AM
  #274
georgiabluejacket
Registered User
 
georgiabluejacket's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Georgia
Posts: 684
vCash: 500

I could just defer to the other three people that have already pointed out your lack of knowledge, but I'll go ahead and continue to prove it.

From the Halifax Mooseheads own page:

Jonathan Drouin, LW
http://www.halifaxmooseheads.ca/rost...57/season/last

How about the Russian:

Valeri Nichushkin, LW
http://www.eliteprospects.com/player.php?player=108661
OR
http://www.tsn.ca/draftcentre/feature/?id=9840
OR
http://www.mckeenshockey.com/draft-b...february-2013/
OR
http://www.tsn.ca/draftcentre/feature/?id=49649
OR
http://prospects.dobbersports.com/in...-20&Itemid=180

I could post the other 10 sites that have him as a winger, but my Russian sucks so for the third time now, the majority ARE NOT centers

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bugg View Post
But this debate is pointless, trying to argue with someone who seems to make up his own facts
What "facts" have I made up? Oh, that's right, the ones others have already shown I was right about.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bugg View Post
is annoyingly vague in his writing and then points fingers at everyone else for not having the clairvoyance for understand what the hell he's talking about
Hmm, everyone else seems to understand but you, so once again, reading comprehension.

georgiabluejacket is offline  
Old
03-22-2013, 12:09 AM
  #275
georgiabluejacket
Registered User
 
georgiabluejacket's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Georgia
Posts: 684
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crede777 View Post
Yep. He said that if Jones is available then they have to take him because he has separated himself from the rest of the draft as the best player. Davidson pointed out that he and Jarmo were major architects in drafting Rundblad in 09 despite having depth at defense then trading him the next draft to pick Tarasenko. That could also speak towards their philosophy with regards to surplus young defensemen.

After that he said it's all offense. He, Jarmo, and some others are in Halifax as we speak, taking in a bunch of games after the GM meeting in Toronto.
Do you see us actually drafting Jones though if we get the #1?

I just thing we hold a good old fashioned "hold up" auction and come away with a plethora of picks/prospects. As I mentioned earlier in this post, imagine some of the packages we could get from teams in the 2-5 positions. We'd be able to get a "franchise" player plus more just for moving down a couple slots.

georgiabluejacket is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:32 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.