HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > Columbus Blue Jackets
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

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

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-26-2013, 09:54 PM
  #326
Ludicrous Speed
Registered User
 
Ludicrous Speed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Killumbus
Country: Micronesia
Posts: 11,061
vCash: 500
If whoever owns the 2nd or 3rd pick is calling us to make a deal, you do everything you can to not include Ryan Murray. And if said team won't budge (which I wouldn't blame them for), then don't do the deal. This isn't to say I value Murray over Mackinnon and Drouin, I'd simply prefer to have Murray and try to nab Shinkaruk at a lower cost. I don't think the difference between the top tier and the second tier is anywhere close to Murray.

Ludicrous Speed is offline  
Old
03-26-2013, 10:05 PM
  #327
alphafox
Registered User
 
alphafox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 951
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludicrous Speed View Post
If whoever owns the 2nd or 3rd pick is calling us to make a deal, you do everything you can to not include Ryan Murray. And if said team won't budge (which I wouldn't blame them for), then don't do the deal. This isn't to say I value Murray over Mackinnon and Drouin, I'd simply prefer to have Murray and try to nab Shinkaruk at a lower cost. I don't think the difference between the top tier and the second tier is anywhere close to Murray.
I agree. Murray is our only guy with bona fide top pairing potential (
Erixon might have an outside shot as a #2 guy but not a #1). I give up just about anything to move up to the top 4 Murray is one of the few truly untouchables on this roster.

alphafox is offline  
Old
03-26-2013, 10:06 PM
  #328
CBJWennberg41
Formerly CBJBrassard
 
CBJWennberg41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 13,955
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by alphafox View Post
I agree. Murray is our only guy with bona fide top pairing potential (
Erixon might have an outside shot as a #2 guy but not a #1). I give up just about anything to move up to the top 4 Murray is one of the few truly untouchables on this roster.
I think we might have to consider Erixon as a UNT as well or at least very hard to get. dudes a stud.

CBJWennberg41 is offline  
Old
03-26-2013, 10:14 PM
  #329
alphafox
Registered User
 
alphafox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 951
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CBJBrassard16 View Post
I think we might have to consider Erixon as a UNT as well or at least very hard to get. dudes a stud.
Definitely on my very hard to get list. The difference is that Murray is someone I only trade for an absolute superstar whereas Erixon I would be willing to trade for a potential superstar. I'd still trade anyone else on our defense before I'd trade these two guys though.

alphafox is offline  
Old
03-26-2013, 10:41 PM
  #330
Sore Loser
HF Partner
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Spokane, WA.
Country: United States
Posts: 6,165
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludicrous Speed View Post
If whoever owns the 2nd or 3rd pick is calling us to make a deal, you do everything you can to not include Ryan Murray. And if said team won't budge (which I wouldn't blame them for), then don't do the deal. This isn't to say I value Murray over Mackinnon and Drouin, I'd simply prefer to have Murray and try to nab Shinkaruk at a lower cost. I don't think the difference between the top tier and the second tier is anywhere close to Murray.
Clearly, I agree ... it's like how Edmonton wouldn't include Eberle in a deal to move up and select Ryan Johansen a few years back.

Sore Loser is offline  
Old
03-27-2013, 02:15 AM
  #331
major major
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 4,403
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kemisti View Post
IMO if Avs miss on Jones, they'd still happily take Drouin, Nate or Barkov. Same with Tampa, BPA. Tampa already has one promising D coming of shoulder surgery, Koekkoek. Yzerman surely isn't the one to rush this kind of things.

Statsny may walk or get traded. Only Avs management knows what they'll do with ROR.
Koekoek didn't even make first round when scouts recently re-ranked the 2012 draft for The Hockey News. And I agree that the Avs might move O'Reilly and Stastny. But looking at these 3 teams in the bottom 4 of the league, an important lesson emerges: top end talent up front without a back-end won't necessarily get you anywhere. I bet those GM's are painfully aware of this.

Almost every roster is imbalanced in some way, and mutually beneficial deals are ready to be had all over the league. But there are transaction costs (negotiating, they know their assets more than you do, etc...) that prevent them from occurring.

major major is offline  
Old
03-27-2013, 02:30 AM
  #332
major major
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 4,403
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludicrous Speed View Post
If whoever owns the 2nd or 3rd pick is calling us to make a deal, you do everything you can to not include Ryan Murray. And if said team won't budge (which I wouldn't blame them for), then don't do the deal. This isn't to say I value Murray over Mackinnon and Drouin, I'd simply prefer to have Murray and try to nab Shinkaruk at a lower cost. I don't think the difference between the top tier and the second tier is anywhere close to Murray.
Top tier minus second tier < Murray. This is confusing separate arguments. The question is "Murray for Mackinnon?", Shinkaruk is just as available either way. If the question is "Murray + Shinkaruk pick for Mackinnon?" then you ask whether the difference between Mackinnon and Shinkaruk is < or > Murray.

Or are you thinking because we can take high end forwards later in the draft we don't need Mackinnon as much as we need Murray?

major major is offline  
Old
03-27-2013, 06:31 AM
  #333
EspenK
Registered User
 
EspenK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 5,676
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by major major View Post
Top tier minus second tier < Murray. This is confusing separate arguments. The question is "Murray for Mackinnon?", Shinkaruk is just as available either way. If the question is "Murray + Shinkaruk pick for Mackinnon?" then you ask whether the difference between Mackinnon and Shinkaruk is < or > Murray.

Or are you thinking because we can take high end forwards later in the draft we don't need Mackinnon as much as we need Murray?
Here is . Don't over analyze every statement.

EspenK is offline  
Old
03-27-2013, 09:32 AM
  #334
InjuredChoker
Registered User
 
InjuredChoker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: LTIR or golf course
Posts: 19,807
vCash: 872
Quote:
Originally Posted by major major View Post
Koekoek didn't even make first round when scouts recently re-ranked the 2012 draft for The Hockey News. And I agree that the Avs might move O'Reilly and Stastny. But looking at these 3 teams in the bottom 4 of the league, an important lesson emerges: top end talent up front without a back-end won't necessarily get you anywhere. I bet those GM's are painfully aware of this.

Almost every roster is imbalanced in some way, and mutually beneficial deals are ready to be had all over the league. But there are transaction costs (negotiating, they know their assets more than you do, etc...) that prevent them from occurring.
I don't think Tampa management gives a damn how much Koekkoek had fallen in scouts re-draft 6 months later . He didn't get to play much this year and Tampa seems to be pretty high on him anyway.

InjuredChoker is offline  
Old
03-27-2013, 12:40 PM
  #335
Ludicrous Speed
Registered User
 
Ludicrous Speed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Killumbus
Country: Micronesia
Posts: 11,061
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by major major View Post
Top tier minus second tier < Murray. This is confusing separate arguments. The question is "Murray for Mackinnon?", Shinkaruk is just as available either way. If the question is "Murray + Shinkaruk pick for Mackinnon?" then you ask whether the difference between Mackinnon and Shinkaruk is < or > Murray.

Or are you thinking because we can take high end forwards later in the draft we don't need Mackinnon as much as we need Murray?
Bolded is what I mean; I kind of said it in a round-about way. Point is, I'd rather have Murray and keep this team well balanced (and ultimately improved with Murray's presence on D), than give him up to get Mac or Drouin when no one really knows if those guys will be the best forwards out of the crop. I think with JD, Jarmo and 3 picks, we have just as good of a chance at picking one of the best forwards in the draft while still having a guy who would be the second defenseman taken in this draft in Murray.

I don't know if I did myself any favors re-wording that, but hopefully it makes more sense.

Ludicrous Speed is offline  
Old
03-27-2013, 01:50 PM
  #336
major major
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 4,403
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludicrous Speed View Post
Bolded is what I mean; I kind of said it in a round-about way. Point is, I'd rather have Murray and keep this team well balanced (and ultimately improved with Murray's presence on D), than give him up to get Mac or Drouin when no one really knows if those guys will be the best forwards out of the crop. I think with JD, Jarmo and 3 picks, we have just as good of a chance at picking one of the best forwards in the draft while still having a guy who would be the second defenseman taken in this draft in Murray.

I don't know if I did myself any favors re-wording that, but hopefully it makes more sense.
Yes, it's a very clear point.

I think when it comes to risk, both Murray and Mack are very safe picks. Scouting reports generally have Mack well ahead in terms of upside, but I see both as very valuable and effective two way guys on the top units.

The question then is really about balance. For you, we're more balanced with Murray, for me with Mackinnon.

major major is offline  
Old
03-27-2013, 02:06 PM
  #337
major major
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 4,403
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crede777 View Post
I don't know how deep the draft is for forward though. Guys like Shinkaruk and Lazar don't seem to be THAT enticing. The only real enticing forwards to me are Mackinnon, Drouin, Barkov, Monahan, and Lindholm. That's 5 total beyond which I kind of yawn. Nichushkin scares me btw. I'm skeptical of Monahan's ability to have an offensive impact like we need.
Most reports (all but one) have this as a very deep draft for forwards.

I am also unexcited by Shinkaruk, Lazar, and Monahan. Lazar and Monahan look like middle six two-way centers (we have a bunch of those already), and Shinkaruk should be good but I just haven't seen what people are raving about. But there are plenty of mid-late-round forwards who could be stars (though of the boom-bust variety): Domi, Mantha, Wennberg, etc.. And character players who might still have top line offence: Hartman, Rychel, etc..

major major is offline  
Old
03-27-2013, 02:08 PM
  #338
Ludicrous Speed
Registered User
 
Ludicrous Speed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Killumbus
Country: Micronesia
Posts: 11,061
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by major major View Post
The question then is really about balance. For you, we're more balanced with Murray, for me with Mackinnon.
Well, if I'm honest, I believe this team right now would be better "balanced" with Mackinnon than with Murray given the lack of scoring threats we have. However, I trust the new regime to not only have the ability to identify the right players later in the round, but to also choose the best possible developmental routes for them. That's why I think it's better to keep Murray in lieu of trading him for a top 2-3 pick, because I believe we'll be able to get one of the guys later in the first round whom appear higher in "re-do" drafts years later, like Giroux, Skinner, Eberle, Tarasenko, etc. The guys we never seem to get. So why not keep your potential top-pair guy? (Rhetorical question – I understand that you get where I'm coming from).

Ludicrous Speed is offline  
Old
03-27-2013, 02:10 PM
  #339
Crede777
Deputized
 
Crede777's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 7,811
vCash: 500
With Atkinson, Calvert, Tynan, and JAM I would be a bit miffed if we selected 5'9" Max Domi. We are full up on tiny forwards.

Crede777 is offline  
Old
03-27-2013, 02:15 PM
  #340
RDriesenUD
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 8,267
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by major major View Post
Yes, it's a very clear point.

I think when it comes to risk, both Murray and Mack are very safe picks. Scouting reports generally have Mack well ahead in terms of upside, but I see both as very valuable and effective two way guys on the top units.

The question then is really about balance. For you, we're more balanced with Murray, for me with Mackinnon.
It comes down to this for me.

Murray + a forward we could draft

vs

MacKinnon + a defenseman we could draft

I think the difference in Murray to the defensman we could get in the middle to late first round is bigger than the difference between MacKinnon and the forward we could get in the middle to late first round.

RDriesenUD is offline  
Old
03-27-2013, 02:17 PM
  #341
RDriesenUD
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 8,267
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crede777 View Post
With Atkinson, Calvert, Tynan, and JAM I would be a bit miffed if we selected 5'9" Max Domi. We are full up on tiny forwards.
I wouldn't if he is the BPA.

RDriesenUD is offline  
Old
03-27-2013, 02:29 PM
  #342
Ludicrous Speed
Registered User
 
Ludicrous Speed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Killumbus
Country: Micronesia
Posts: 11,061
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RDriesenUD View Post
It comes down to this for me.

Murray + a forward we could draft

vs

MacKinnon + a defenseman we could draft

I think the difference in Murray to the defensman we could get in the middle to late first round is bigger than the difference between MacKinnon and the forward we could get in the middle to late first round.
Exactamundo. Pretty much what I was trying to say in way fewer words.

Ludicrous Speed is offline  
Old
03-27-2013, 02:51 PM
  #343
major major
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 4,403
vCash: 500
What do people think about family pedigree?

I used to think it was all hype, just a good story. But we've seen enough pedigree players come into the league and overachieve to think it worthless. Think of the Sutter family. A lot of those guys have unexciting junior careers and go on to play important roles in the NHL. Or look at a guy like Paul Stastny, who comes in as a second round pick and ends up a top six center. I don't know if it's grooming or genetics, but there is something there.

I'm intrigued by Max Domi, son of Tie, Kerby Rychel, son of Warren, and Darnell Nurse, son of a CFLer and nephew of Donovan McNabb. Oh and Seth Jones, son of Popeye.

major major is offline  
Old
03-27-2013, 02:57 PM
  #344
InjuredChoker
Registered User
 
InjuredChoker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: LTIR or golf course
Posts: 19,807
vCash: 872
Barkov injured. Wrist or shoulder.

InjuredChoker is offline  
Old
03-27-2013, 03:13 PM
  #345
major major
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 4,403
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RDriesenUD View Post
It comes down to this for me.

Murray + a forward we could draft

vs

MacKinnon + a defenseman we could draft

I think the difference in Murray to the defensman we could get in the middle to late first round is bigger than the difference between MacKinnon and the forward we could get in the middle to late first round.
I don't agree, and definitely not if Nurse is on the board.

major major is offline  
Old
03-27-2013, 03:18 PM
  #346
Mayor Bee
\/me_____you\/
 
Mayor Bee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 15,082
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by major major View Post
What do people think about family pedigree?

I used to think it was all hype, just a good story. But we've seen enough pedigree players come into the league and overachieve to think it worthless. Think of the Sutter family. A lot of those guys have unexciting junior careers and go on to play important roles in the NHL. Or look at a guy like Paul Stastny, who comes in as a second round pick and ends up a top six center. I don't know if it's grooming or genetics, but there is something there.

I'm intrigued by Max Domi, son of Tie, Kerby Rychel, son of Warren, and Darnell Nurse, son of a CFLer and nephew of Donovan McNabb. Oh and Seth Jones, son of Popeye.
I still think it's mostly hype, but haven't done anywhere near enough study on the issue to be able to go beyond that.

I have seen an odd thing in families who put brothers into the NHL, which is that the younger one is generally regarded as having more talent but rarely has the career of his older brother.

Mayor Bee is offline  
Old
03-27-2013, 03:19 PM
  #347
major major
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 4,403
vCash: 500
Ultimately what I see Jarmo doing is crafting a list with the scouts, and then if he doesn't think he can get one of the top forwards on his list he'll be very aggressive in moving up.

This is in line with his tendencies, the only thing being different about this year is the focus on forwards. JD has already said they are thinking Seth Jones as BPA and then all forwards.

major major is offline  
Old
03-27-2013, 03:24 PM
  #348
major major
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 4,403
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor Bee View Post
I still think it's mostly hype, but haven't done anywhere near enough study on the issue to be able to go beyond that.

I have seen an odd thing in families who put brothers into the NHL, which is that the younger one is generally regarded as having more talent but rarely has the career of his older brother.
Who are you thinking of? I think of younger brothers as feistier, as they have to really want it to play 10 years of ball hockey with a bigger brother. But then the older brothers get 10 years of practice against a slightly inferior opponent, which is very good for developing skills and talent.

major major is offline  
Old
03-27-2013, 03:38 PM
  #349
Mayor Bee
\/me_____you\/
 
Mayor Bee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 15,082
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by major major View Post
Who are you thinking of? I think of younger brothers as feistier, as they have to really want it to play 10 years of ball hockey with a bigger brother. But then the older brothers get 10 years of practice against a slightly inferior opponent, which is very good for developing skills and talent.
Notorious younger brother floaters include Fedor Fedorov, Marcel Hossa, Mike Comrie, Rob Niedermayer, Sergei Kostitsyn, and Alexander Radulov.

Mayor Bee is offline  
Old
03-27-2013, 03:56 PM
  #350
CBJ Scruffy
Registered User
 
CBJ Scruffy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Planet Express Co.
Country: Canada
Posts: 80
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor Bee View Post
Notorious younger brother floaters include Fedor Fedorov, Marcel Hossa, Mike Comrie, Rob Niedermayer, Sergei Kostitsyn, and Alexander Radulov.
Jared Staal! I read an article somewhere where the Staal father said he was the most talented, but least motivated of all his kids.

CBJ Scruffy 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 07:08 PM.

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.