If we lose the lottery.. Which I am half expecting I would take Murray. Leary of Galy due to injury but if all is good I would not be upset with that. American playmaking center. I love my American hockey players.
Those are the odds of getting the 1st overall pick; the odds of actually winning the lottery are 25% for the last-place team. The remaining 23.2% comes from the combined odds of the 6th-through-14th slots, who can win but not move up that high.
If we drop to 2nd in the draft I'm hopeful we trade the pick after seeing who's taken #1. There is always a chance that Yakupov drops to #2 if the CBJ aren't picking first.
If we drop to 2nd in the draft I'm hopeful we trade the pick after seeing who's taken #1. There is always a chance that Yakupov drops to #2 if the CBJ aren't picking first.
if its Edmonton with Hall,Nugent-H, Eberle & Gagner do they really need Yakupov? You might be right they could go for a D-man. But if I were them I'd make the Jackets do a Nash/Bouwmeester-like deal where we give up something to move to 1 and they pick 2.
If we drop to 2nd in the draft I'm hopeful we trade the pick after seeing who's taken #1. There is always a chance that Yakupov drops to #2 if the CBJ aren't picking first.
I'm torn. Assuming Nail taken at 1 Murray/Trouba/Dumba would likely be taken 3 if we trade the pick to a team that wants a center. I would rather take one of those three with the second overall than trade back to far and miss out on the premiere talent.
Edit:
Dream Scenario: We trade our Pick to Washington for their 2 first rounders. We then flip one of their picks and the Kings pick and grab Murray while trading up to grab Galchenyuk as well.
I'm torn. Assuming Nail taken at 1 Murray/Trouba/Dumba would likely be taken 3 if we trade the pick to a team that wants a center. I would rather take one of those three with the second overall than trade back to far and miss out on the premiere talent.
Edit:
Dream Scenario: We trade our Pick to Washington for their 2 first rounders. We then flip one of their picks and the Kings pick and grab Murray while trading up to grab Galchenyuk as well.
That'd probably be too little from Washington. Of course, I'm a proponent of the NFL-style draft value idea. Using the standard chart, the #2 pick would be equal to:
#3 and a second-rounder
#4 and #21
#5 and #18
#6 and #16
#7 and #14
#8 and #12
#9 and #10
Of course, the chart assumes everything is average. In a year with a clear-cut #1, the value of that pick would skyrocket. In a year with a clear-cut top three, the drop from #3 to #4 would be enormous.
That'd probably be too little from Washington. Of course, I'm a proponent of the NFL-style draft value idea. Using the standard chart, the #2 pick would be equal to:
#3 and a second-rounder
#4 and #21
#5 and #18
#6 and #16
#7 and #14
#8 and #12
#9 and #10
Of course, the chart assumes everything is average. In a year with a clear-cut #1, the value of that pick would skyrocket. In a year with a clear-cut top three, the drop from #3 to #4 would be enormous.
I hope its closer to what your scenario. I know that the top two seem to be settled, I was just wondering if there was a big drop off from #2 to #3. I would really like to see us pick up a true two way guy and a Center to replace the depth we lost with the trades of Carter and Vermette. A 1-2 of Johan and Galchenyuk could be the scariest duo short of Crosby and Malkin in a few years.
I'm torn on Grigorenko, because at times he looks like the best player in the draft ... at other times, his lackadaisical play makes him not look like a first rounder. Could be the next great center, or he could be another Victor Kozlov. That would not be good for our franchise.
If the team is set on Nail Yakupov and loses the draft lottery, they have got to hope Edmonton is the team that surpasses them. Edmonton would almost certainly not be looking at Yakupov, with a glut of young forwards (particularly wingers) in their system ... Grigorenko would be a possibility there, but Ryan Murray, IMO, would be their choice.
If it comes down to choosing between Grigorenko and Ryan Murray, put me on the Ryan Murray fan list, for sure ... all bias included ... there's a very good possibility that a guy like Galchenyuk could be around with our second first rounder, if the Kings don't go much further up the standings ... or, we could package that first with one of our seconds and certainly trade up to get him. For me, landing any combination of Yakupov/Murray and Galchenyuk/Rielly would be an excellent start to our latest rebuilding efforts.
I'm torn on Grigorenko, because at times he looks like the best player in the draft ... at other times, his lackadaisical play makes him not look like a first rounder. Could be the next great center, or he could be another Victor Kozlov. That would not be good for our franchise.
If the team is set on Nail Yakupov and loses the draft lottery, they have got to hope Edmonton is the team that surpasses them. Edmonton would almost certainly not be looking at Yakupov, with a glut of young forwards (particularly wingers) in their system ... Grigorenko would be a possibility there, but Ryan Murray, IMO, would be their choice.
If it comes down to choosing between Grigorenko and Ryan Murray, put me on the Ryan Murray fan list, for sure ... all bias included ... there's a very good possibility that a guy like Galchenyuk could be around with our second first rounder, if the Kings don't go much further up the standings ... or, we could package that first with one of our seconds and certainly trade up to get him. For me, landing any combination of Yakupov/Murray and Galchenyuk/Rielly would be an excellent start to our latest rebuilding efforts.
Depends on who you ask. Some say murray is the best by quite a ways, others say there neck and neck. I think Sore Loser has scouted him for a while and he says that Murray is head and shoulders above the rest of the D. Personally I think Trouba has the highest ceiling, while Murray is the more "sure" thing. Dumba is good but I'm not sure about him.
Edit:
Did some quick research as a refresher. Murray seems to have the best two way game good in his own end a bit better than good in the other end. Trouba seems to project to be a really mobile shutdown guy, but the Offense isn't there at the moment, he is already very responsible defensively. Dumba is the opposite of Trouba being really great on the offense, but his offensive instincts get him into trouble and he can get beat because he gets out of position.
Depends on who you ask. Some say murray is the best by quite a ways, others say there neck and neck. I think Sore Loser has scouted him for a while and he says that Murray is head and shoulders above the rest of the D. Personally I think Trouba has the highest ceiling, while Murray is the more "sure" thing. Dumba is good but I'm not sure about him.
Edit:
Did some quick research as a refresher. Murray seems to have the best two way game good in his own end a bit better than good in the other end. Trouba seems to project to be a really mobile shutdown guy, but the Offense isn't there at the moment, he is already very responsible defensively. Dumba is the opposite of Trouba being really great on the offense, but his offensive instincts get him into trouble and he can get beat because he gets out of position.
I'm a bit of a draft junkie myself, and it's funny to think that even at this point, you can ask 100 people what they think of the top three defensemen and it'll be probably evenly split.
I'd just as soon get the top pick and snag Yakupov, making the whole conversation irrelevant anyway.
Ah yes. Thank you. I was getting VERY confused there.
Not to be confused with Ryan Ellis. One's a 5'11" right-shooting defenseman from the OHL who looks like he's 15, the other is a 5'10" right-shooting defenseman from the OHL who looks like he's 15.
Depends on who you ask. Some say murray is the best by quite a ways, others say there neck and neck. I think Sore Loser has scouted him for a while and he says that Murray is head and shoulders above the rest of the D. Personally I think Trouba has the highest ceiling, while Murray is the more "sure" thing. Dumba is good but I'm not sure about him.
Edit:
Did some quick research as a refresher. Murray seems to have the best two way game good in his own end a bit better than good in the other end. Trouba seems to project to be a really mobile shutdown guy, but the Offense isn't there at the moment, he is already very responsible defensively. Dumba is the opposite of Trouba being really great on the offense, but his offensive instincts get him into trouble and he can get beat because he gets out of position.
The comparison I'd most use for Ryan Murray is Dan Hamhuis, but with better overall mobility. He should be a top-pairing shutdown defenceman, with very good leadership abilities and all of the tangibles - including some offensive upside. Maybe Paul Martin or Ryan Suter are also good comparisons. Safe, smart, simple, effective ... you win with guys like Ryan Murray on your roster.
For Dumba, the upside may be even higher than with Murray. Dumba has the big shot, the offensive swagger, and the ability (willingness) to step up and make the big hit. The problem that I have with Dumba is that his size is definitely going to limit him from making these big hits at the next level, and he often takes himself out of position to make these plays. He's a great skater, and at the junior level you haven't seen that hurt him yet ... but the pro game is different entirely. The best comparison for Dumba, for me, is PK Subban in Montreal.
At this point, I would also throw Trouba ahead of Dumba on my ranking, based just on the fact that I think he has better pro potential. Upside wise, alphafox is correct - Trouba may have the highest ceiling.
My dark horse is, and will always be, Morgan Rielly. Without the injury, he's the only guy for me that could have challenged Ryan Murray outright ... he's on a whole different level with his mobility, and has the offensive instincts to be a very good puck moving defenseman. If we can snag this guy with our second first round pick, we will be in much better shape very soon.
For Dumba, the upside may be even higher than with Murray. Dumba has the big shot, the offensive swagger, and the ability (willingness) to step up and make the big hit. The problem that I have with Dumba is that his size is definitely going to limit him from making these big hits at the next level, and he often takes himself out of position to make these plays. He's a great skater, and at the junior level you haven't seen that hurt him yet ... but the pro game is different entirely. The best comparison for Dumba, for me, is PK Subban in Montreal.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this basically the same thing that was said about Mike Green when he was in Saskatoon? Big shot, serious offensive skill, and a big hitter who occasionally takes himself out of position by going for a hit over the middle.
Here's one such source on part of it, but I think that I saved another Woodlief submission from the same year that said the same as above.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this basically the same thing that was said about Mike Green when he was in Saskatoon? Big shot, serious offensive skill, and a big hitter who occasionally takes himself out of position by going for a hit over the middle.
Here's one such source on part of it, but I think that I saved another Woodlief submission from the same year that said the same as above.
Yes, you're right, a lot of the same knocks on Mike Green in his draft year. But, there are guys with the same question marks in almost every draft, and they seldom turn into Mike Green. I'm not saying Dumba won't be a great NHLer, I'm just saying that Murray is more of a glaring need in our system ... we don't have that kind of shutdown potential, anywhere in the system. Not to mention his leadership capabilities.
Dumba could very well turn out to be the best defenseman taken in this draft, only time will tell. He has some growing to do, however.
Really depends on what we got for the pick. Would you be angry if we got King Henry for it? Patrick Kane? I know all of these are ridiculous but the return is what matters in any trade, very rarely is it the asset going away. If we can trade back to third and pick up Murray or Trouba I would actually be ok with that given our history with Russians.
I'm on record right now that I want Nail so take the following with a grain of salt, Nail and Grigs might not be the guys we need right now. Eventually we are going to need the goal scorers, but once we trade away Nash (for little return, damn you Howson ) we are going to be worse than we have ever been. If we are starting over from 0 (more like somewhere in the negative numbers) I would rather pick up pieces that the team can sell while the rebuild goes on. With the face of the franchise gone and on bad terms its going to take everything ownership has to keep the team in Columbus and we need guys to sell to the average midwestern fan.
P.S. alot of this is based upon the fact that next years draft has few quality D prospects, and that we will likely have the first overall with which to pick Mickinnon.
But if we trade in our 1st or 2ed, then that would mean that he's picking up someone to fill a space for use that season, and knowing Howson, not get his money's worth, and won't help rebuild the team so much as fill a space.
Would it not be better to pick up a top prospect like (Yakupov, Mickinnon, King Henry IV) and if we don't exactly need a Forward, Off D Man, or King of France to rebuild the team to trade them later in the season for what/whomever we need?
I think the actual player (Yakupov, Mickinnon, King Henry IV) is worth more in the season than the 1st or 2ed Draft pick.
[The question is at 10:15, the actual quote at 11:04 in case you're ADD.]
Thoughts?
The St. Louis Rams announced yesterday that they're trading the 2nd overall pick in the NFL Draft. That's not for another two months, but it's going to give every team the chance to put together an absolutely enormous package to move up and get the pick.
The NFL is a different story entirely, since there are so many different positions to fill. The only comparable I can think of is the 1998 draft, when Arizona had the #2 pick (and no need for a QB) and San Diego had the #3 pick. To move up one spot to get their guy, it cost San Diego the #3 pick, their 2nd-round pick (#33), their 1999 1st-rounder (#8), and two players.
In a year where there's a clear-cut #1 like Yakupov, I don't see the harm in talking about moving the pick. I can guarantee you that someone puts a huge package together. I don't know if it would be a Lindros package, but it wouldn't exactly be Nazem Kadri and a 1st-rounder.
EDIT: More recently was the Eli Manning trade in 2004. He was picked 1st overall and refused to play, and so was traded to New York for their first-rounder (#4, Philip Rivers), their 2005 first-rounder (#12, Shawne Merriman), and their 2004 3rd-rounder (#65, Nate Kaeding). That's slightly different because a known player has a different value than a draft pick for some reason.
No way the CBJ can afford to pass on Yakupov if they win the lottery. They are losing Nash and will need another dynamic player to excite the fanbase. On top of that his character, work ethic, and desire to win this organization needs. And no I would not even move the pick for Kane or Lundquist.
... there's a very good possibility that a guy like Galchenyuk could be around with our second first rounder, if the Kings don't go much further up the standings ... or, we could package that first with one of our seconds and certainly trade up to get him. For me, landing any combination of Yakupov/Murray and Galchenyuk/Rielly would be an excellent start to our latest rebuilding efforts.
) we are going to be worse than we have ever been. If we are starting over from 0 (more like somewhere in the negative numbers) I would rather pick up pieces that the team can sell while the rebuild goes on. With the face of the franchise gone and on bad terms its going to take everything ownership has to keep the team in Columbus and we need guys to sell to the average midwestern fan. 
