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
03-09-2013, 04:44 PM
  #151
JacketsFanWest
Registered User
 
JacketsFanWest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Country: Sweden
Posts: 2,736
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xoggz22 View Post
The way the team is playing right now we should be talking about who we'll be taking around #10... I know they can't keep this level up but they sure are playing good team hockey right now and do not look like the worst team in the NHL.
It's hard to predict who will be available there since there's probably 10 players who could go between 6-9 depending on how teams have them rated. Best case for the Jackets, there's another run on defensemen and the forwards drop.

Craig Button has Darnell Nurse up to #6 on his list now, ahead of Lindholm and Monahan. If Zadorov or Ristolainen also go in the top 10, and Nichushkin doesn't drop substantially, it's not inconceivable that Lindholm, Monahan or Shinkaruk could still be on the board at #10.

I like Erne and Wennberg, but there's likely better players available at that spot.

JacketsFanWest is offline  
Old
03-09-2013, 06:51 PM
  #152
major major
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 3,414
vCash: 500
Its presumptive to focus on any particular draft position. We are 2 pts out of last and 6 pts out of the 8th best record in the league.

major major is offline  
Old
03-09-2013, 07:22 PM
  #153
EspenK
Registered User
 
EspenK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,778
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by major major View Post
Its presumptive to focus on any particular draft position. We are 2 pts out of last and 6 pts out of the 8th best record in the league.
That's true but what fun is that?

EspenK is online now  
Old
03-09-2013, 07:47 PM
  #154
major major
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 3,414
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by EspenK View Post
That's true but what fun is that?
I know. I know.

Its still fun to try and get an early sense of what players we might target. We just don't have any clue of our draft position. You have to make a much bigger list. The problem with that is that we only have one scout here with the expertise to actually make a full rounds draft list.

major major is offline  
Old
03-12-2013, 11:13 PM
  #155
Sore Loser
Since 2009
 
Sore Loser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Spokane, WA.
Country: United States
Posts: 5,930
vCash: 500
Not a 2013 eligible, but it's notable that Sam Reinhart led his Kootenay Ice into the final playoff seed in the WHL's Eastern Conference. He led the team in scoring by 7 points, over linemate Jaedon Descheneau (eligible this year..)... and third place was a full 33 points behind the two.

I really won't be surprised if this guy goes first overall in 2014. This was not a very good team, and really they had no business making the playoffs. This is the remnant left after the team gave up 8 assets to acquire Brayden Schenn for a Memorial Cup run a few years ago ... they should be in full rebuild mode, and should have compete for the #1 pick at the bantam draft. Sam Reinhart carried them on his back for most of the year. Kid has all of the tools, leadership qualities, and work ethic ... color me impressed.

If he were 2013 eligible, I'm taking this kid top-3.

Sore Loser is offline  
Old
03-12-2013, 11:44 PM
  #156
Mayor Bee
\/me_____you\/
 
Mayor Bee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 14,183
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sore Loser View Post
Not a 2013 eligible, but it's notable that Sam Reinhart led his Kootenay Ice into the final playoff seed in the WHL's Eastern Conference. He led the team in scoring by 7 points, over linemate Jaedon Descheneau (eligible this year..)... and third place was a full 33 points behind the two.

I really won't be surprised if this guy goes first overall in 2014. This was not a very good team, and really they had no business making the playoffs. This is the remnant left after the team gave up 8 assets to acquire Brayden Schenn for a Memorial Cup run a few years ago ... they should be in full rebuild mode, and should have compete for the #1 pick at the bantam draft. Sam Reinhart carried them on his back for most of the year. Kid has all of the tools, leadership qualities, and work ethic ... color me impressed.

If he were 2013 eligible, I'm taking this kid top-3.
Compare and contrast: Sam Reinhart 2012-13 (2014 eligible) to Sean Monahan 2012-13 (2013 eligible)

Reinhart's Kootenay Ice is 33-33-2, with 190 goals scored and 207 against. They have a decent amount of experience on their roster. Reinhart personally has 31 goals and 78 points in 68 games.

Monahan's Ottawa 67s are 16-43-5, and have a chance to finish as the worst single-season team in 67s history. They have 199 goals scored and 305 against, and traded nearly every player with experience. Monahan has 75 points (30 goals) in 54 games; the second-leading scorer is 5'7" and was 15 years old when the season began (Dante Salituro) and has 38 points. Ceci, Graovac, Janes, Cardwell, and Giftopoulos were all traded. Only three players on the team outside of Monahan have 10 goals; Salituro leads the way with 14.

Monahan is being asked to captain a pretty bad team, one that is mathematically going to finish dead last in the OHL (somehow taking that spot away from Erie). He plays huge minutes at even strength, as well as PP and PK. And he's able to be the sole target of opposing checking lines; stop Monahan and stop the 67s. Kootenay may not be a great team, but they're certainly deeper and have more talent currently than Ottawa.

Mayor Bee is offline  
Old
03-13-2013, 12:24 AM
  #157
Sore Loser
Since 2009
 
Sore Loser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Spokane, WA.
Country: United States
Posts: 5,930
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor Bee View Post
Compare and contrast: Sam Reinhart 2012-13 (2014 eligible) to Sean Monahan 2012-13 (2013 eligible)

Reinhart's Kootenay Ice is 33-33-2, with 190 goals scored and 207 against. They have a decent amount of experience on their roster. Reinhart personally has 31 goals and 78 points in 68 games.

Monahan's Ottawa 67s are 16-43-5, and have a chance to finish as the worst single-season team in 67s history. They have 199 goals scored and 305 against, and traded nearly every player with experience. Monahan has 75 points (30 goals) in 54 games; the second-leading scorer is 5'7" and was 15 years old when the season began (Dante Salituro) and has 38 points. Ceci, Graovac, Janes, Cardwell, and Giftopoulos were all traded. Only three players on the team outside of Monahan have 10 goals; Salituro leads the way with 14.

Monahan is being asked to captain a pretty bad team, one that is mathematically going to finish dead last in the OHL (somehow taking that spot away from Erie). He plays huge minutes at even strength, as well as PP and PK. And he's able to be the sole target of opposing checking lines; stop Monahan and stop the 67s. Kootenay may not be a great team, but they're certainly deeper and have more talent currently than Ottawa.
Difficult task. Here goes:

I think Sean Monahan was a victim of a good - not great - team that things didn't go correctly for. The most recent comparison to this that comes to the front of my mind would be with the Prince George Cougars from a few years back. This was a team that featured - amongst so much other talent - Devin Setoguchi, who at the time was one of the top snipers in junior hockey. The team was beyond dismal for most of the year, playing under expectations, and really just miserable to watch. There was a bright spot that came from that season - then-17 year old Dana Tyrell, who led the team in scoring, and went on to be selected by the Tampa Bay Lightning with one of the last picks of the first round. The point here isn't that Dana Tyrell didn't become what he was expected, it's that a good prospect can come from a team that seemingly collapsed around them. I see Sean Monahan as a guy that certainly stood out on a bad team, but it didn't really matter in the end ... his draft stock will be high, he will be selected in the top-10, but his team went nowhere.

With Sam Reinhart, what I see is a guy that came into the season with huge expectations to do exactly what Sean Monahan did... but proved to be a game changer. He was supposed to be a standout performer on a generally bad team. What amazed me - and continues to do so - is that Sam Reinhart has made every player that he's played with better. He's the offensive catalyst, but - like Sean Monahan - he has been so much more to his team. The difference for me lies in the leadership qualities. Call it coaching, call it luck, really call it whatever you want - but Sam Reinhart brought his entire team to a higher level, and it's for those reasons (combined with what I think are incredible offensive instincts) that I would take him higher than Monahan at the draft. I picture Sam Reinhart as a Jonathan Toews type player - the guy that everyone follows into battle; who can score, hit, block shots ... really, everything. With Monahan, while I see the top line potential that everyone gives him due credit for, I think you're getting more of a Jordan Staal type player ... a very good #2 type center that is certainly a big part of a winning team ... but for me, no Jonathan Toews. Those two players went in the same draft, so I feel that's a good comparison...

I really hate the late birthday rule. I get that there has to be a cutoff at some point, but I wish it were the same for all levels - as it stands right now, junior hockey players are brought along based on birth year. So, even though Sam Reinhart came into the league at the same age as the rest of the 2013 crop; due to his birthday being after the NHL's September 15th cutoff date, he's not eligible for the draft. It's always tough to get a good feel for these guys (as with Ryan Murray last year) because by the time they are draft eligible, they have been picked apart, up and down, and people seem to always want to say "well, he's a year older..." I always seem to be the guy sticking up for the late birthday guys. Maybe I'm just stubborn!

/rant

Sore Loser is offline  
Old
03-13-2013, 01:19 AM
  #158
Mayor Bee
\/me_____you\/
 
Mayor Bee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 14,183
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sore Loser View Post
Difficult task. Here goes:

I think Sean Monahan was a victim of a good - not great - team that things didn't go correctly for. The most recent comparison to this that comes to the front of my mind would be with the Prince George Cougars from a few years back. This was a team that featured - amongst so much other talent - Devin Setoguchi, who at the time was one of the top snipers in junior hockey. The team was beyond dismal for most of the year, playing under expectations, and really just miserable to watch. There was a bright spot that came from that season - then-17 year old Dana Tyrell, who led the team in scoring, and went on to be selected by the Tampa Bay Lightning with one of the last picks of the first round. The point here isn't that Dana Tyrell didn't become what he was expected, it's that a good prospect can come from a team that seemingly collapsed around them. I see Sean Monahan as a guy that certainly stood out on a bad team, but it didn't really matter in the end ... his draft stock will be high, he will be selected in the top-10, but his team went nowhere.

With Sam Reinhart, what I see is a guy that came into the season with huge expectations to do exactly what Sean Monahan did... but proved to be a game changer. He was supposed to be a standout performer on a generally bad team. What amazed me - and continues to do so - is that Sam Reinhart has made every player that he's played with better. He's the offensive catalyst, but - like Sean Monahan - he has been so much more to his team. The difference for me lies in the leadership qualities. Call it coaching, call it luck, really call it whatever you want - but Sam Reinhart brought his entire team to a higher level, and it's for those reasons (combined with what I think are incredible offensive instincts) that I would take him higher than Monahan at the draft. I picture Sam Reinhart as a Jonathan Toews type player - the guy that everyone follows into battle; who can score, hit, block shots ... really, everything. With Monahan, while I see the top line potential that everyone gives him due credit for, I think you're getting more of a Jordan Staal type player ... a very good #2 type center that is certainly a big part of a winning team ... but for me, no Jonathan Toews. Those two players went in the same draft, so I feel that's a good comparison...

I really hate the late birthday rule. I get that there has to be a cutoff at some point, but I wish it were the same for all levels - as it stands right now, junior hockey players are brought along based on birth year. So, even though Sam Reinhart came into the league at the same age as the rest of the 2013 crop; due to his birthday being after the NHL's September 15th cutoff date, he's not eligible for the draft. It's always tough to get a good feel for these guys (as with Ryan Murray last year) because by the time they are draft eligible, they have been picked apart, up and down, and people seem to always want to say "well, he's a year older..." I always seem to be the guy sticking up for the late birthday guys. Maybe I'm just stubborn!

/rant
Interesting conclusion, although I can see certainly see how you arrived at it.

I guess the difference, if we had to oversimplify, is that I see a greater testament of leadership in being the lone man on a poor team and yet consistently bearing down and show up night in and night out, knowing that the odds of success on any given night are minimal. Maybe that's because in my own life in sports, I've been a part of some form of success most of the time, and the one losing season I was a part of was the most miserable season of my life. We've all heard it said that success fuels success and failure fuels failure. In the case of the 67s this year, I'm looking at both the poor play on the ice and also the sell-off of nearly every worthwhile player that they have. Monahan is about the only player who's both good and productive right now; some of these guys are two or three years off, but they're nowhere close right now.

Maybe it's my own bias from my own experience creeping in, but I have to wonder how the hell he keeps showing up night in and night out, knowing that they're not going to win and there's a good chance that they get embarrassed.

Mayor Bee is offline  
Old
03-13-2013, 05:44 AM
  #159
EspenK
Registered User
 
EspenK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,778
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor Bee View Post
Interesting conclusion, although I can see certainly see how you arrived at it.

I guess the difference, if we had to oversimplify, is that I see a greater testament of leadership in being the lone man on a poor team and yet consistently bearing down and show up night in and night out, knowing that the odds of success on any given night are minimal. Maybe that's because in my own life in sports, I've been a part of some form of success most of the time, and the one losing season I was a part of was the most miserable season of my life. We've all heard it said that success fuels success and failure fuels failure. In the case of the 67s this year, I'm looking at both the poor play on the ice and also the sell-off of nearly every worthwhile player that they have. Monahan is about the only player who's both good and productive right now; some of these guys are two or three years off, but they're nowhere close right now.

Maybe it's my own bias from my own experience creeping in, but I have to wonder how the hell he keeps showing up night in and night out, knowing that they're not going to win and there's a good chance that they get embarrassed.
Its in his character. The kind of guy you want to go to battle with. Think maybe Dorsett rather than some other Jackets of yesteryear.

EspenK is online now  
Old
03-13-2013, 09:33 AM
  #160
Samkow
Global Moderator
Sidney Cosby
 
Samkow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Columbus
Country: Colombia
Posts: 13,532
vCash: 500
Send a message via Skype™ to Samkow
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sore Loser View Post
Not a 2013 eligible, but it's notable that Sam Reinhart led his Kootenay Ice into the final playoff seed in the WHL's Eastern Conference. He led the team in scoring by 7 points, over linemate Jaedon Descheneau (eligible this year..)... and third place was a full 33 points behind the two.

I really won't be surprised if this guy goes first overall in 2014. This was not a very good team, and really they had no business making the playoffs. This is the remnant left after the team gave up 8 assets to acquire Brayden Schenn for a Memorial Cup run a few years ago ... they should be in full rebuild mode, and should have compete for the #1 pick at the bantam draft. Sam Reinhart carried them on his back for most of the year. Kid has all of the tools, leadership qualities, and work ethic ... color me impressed.

If he were 2013 eligible, I'm taking this kid top-3.
I thought Schenn got traded to his hometown Blades? Very confused.

__________________
Truth should never get in the way of a good persecution complex.
Samkow is offline  
Old
03-13-2013, 09:45 AM
  #161
InjuredChoker
Registered User
 
InjuredChoker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: LTIR or golf course
Posts: 17,445
vCash: 500
Maybe SL meant Cody Eakin? They did gave up a fair amount to get him in 10-11.

InjuredChoker is offline  
Old
03-13-2013, 07:36 PM
  #162
Sore Loser
Since 2009
 
Sore Loser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Spokane, WA.
Country: United States
Posts: 5,930
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Samkow View Post
I thought Schenn got traded to his hometown Blades? Very confused.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kemisti View Post
Maybe SL meant Cody Eakin? They did gave up a fair amount to get him in 10-11.
Whoops! Yeah, I meant Cody Eakin ... he and Schenn were traded within a week of each other, so it's easy to mix up. My mistake!

Will be interesting to see how the Ice match up in the playoffs, likely against the defending champion Edmonton Oil Kings.

As I write this, I'm currently watching a replay of an Everett Silvertips game from earlier in the week. Mirco Mueller is showing more offensive instincts than I've seen from him thus far, jumping into the rush to create odd-man chances and showing off his wheels. Not sure if this raises or lowers his stock for me, as I think his best asset is playing defense - but it surely makes him stand out more, which can't hurt.

Still see us as a long shot to take a player like Mueller, especially in the first round. If he's there in the second, then I see it as a possibility.

Sore Loser is offline  
Old
03-14-2013, 06:00 AM
  #163
EspenK
Registered User
 
EspenK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,778
vCash: 500
Question for the day:

Let's ASSUME (very important part of this) that the Jackets wind up with the 10th pick and one of the top 4 AGREE (another key point) to a deal what would you give up in terms of picks and prospects for one of the top 4 picks?

EspenK is online now  
Old
03-14-2013, 07:13 AM
  #164
Roadman
Moving On
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: London OH
Country: United States
Posts: 2,592
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by EspenK View Post
Question for the day:

Let's ASSUME (very important part of this) that the Jackets wind up with the 10th pick and one of the top 4 AGREE (another key point) to a deal what would you give up in terms of picks and prospects for one of the top 4 picks?
WHY?

I just don't understand this obsession with getting one of the "top four" big picks. Yes I know they are the creme of the crop and "all that", but I have yet to hear that they are that kind of generational talent that can single-handedly make a team ala Crosby, Malkin, Toews. Yes I get it, look at Pittsburgh, look at Chicago, heard it ad nauseum.

The top pick in the draft guarantees you nothing except a very good player (usually) see EDM. BUT Cup winners have been built with solid drafting that doesn't include the top prize, see BOS, see LA, see ANA. There is so much more to it than just a top Pick.

We have what should be 4 picks in the top 40 in a very deep draft. We have some organizational depth, we have some additional prospects coming. We have managed to change the culture to an environment in which a up and coming young player actually has an opportunity to develop.

We have all this going forward, WHY would we pay an exorbitant price, and make no mistake it will be exorbitant, to move up, when excellent options are there for the taking WITHOUT sacrificing much needed assets already in place?????

__________________
__________________

I post, therefore I am.
Roadman is offline  
Old
03-14-2013, 07:47 AM
  #165
JacketsDavid
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 200
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by EspenK View Post
Question for the day:

Let's ASSUME (very important part of this) that the Jackets wind up with the 10th pick and one of the top 4 AGREE (another key point) to a deal what would you give up in terms of picks and prospects for one of the top 4 picks?
Can honestly say I don't know.

Would have to have a better understand of the worth of all of our #1 picks - are there legit NHL top line scorers (not elite players, but guys that can score 20 goals, 60+ points) that could be available for those picks? Maybe a team against the cap? The advantage of drafting a guy is you control him at reasonable price for awhile, but downside is you never know what you're going to get. If you can get a vet you pay more but you know more about the upside and downside.

That is where our opportunity may lie with all these picks - trading one or two for legit scoring forwards for a team needing cap space.

JacketsDavid is offline  
Old
03-14-2013, 08:57 AM
  #166
alphafox
Registered User
 
alphafox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 850
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadman View Post
WHY?

I just don't understand this obsession with getting one of the "top four" big picks. Yes I know they are the creme of the crop and "all that", but I have yet to hear that they are that kind of generational talent that can single-handedly make a team ala Crosby, Malkin, Toews. Yes I get it, look at Pittsburgh, look at Chicago, heard it ad nauseum.

The top pick in the draft guarantees you nothing except a very good player (usually) see EDM. BUT Cup winners have been built with solid drafting that doesn't include the top prize, see BOS, see LA, see ANA. There is so much more to it than just a top Pick.

We have what should be 4 picks in the top 40 in a very deep draft. We have some organizational depth, we have some additional prospects coming. We have managed to change the culture to an environment in which a up and coming young player actually has an opportunity to develop.

We have all this going forward, WHY would we pay an exorbitant price, and make no mistake it will be exorbitant, to move up, when excellent options are there for the taking WITHOUT sacrificing much needed assets already in place?????
Wow, Where to start. (Great post/question btw)

First, Unlike Basketball this is not a sport where one person can drag you from being a terrible team to being a good one. Team composition as you pointed out is extremely important, just look at Ourselves and your example, Edmonton. Right now we are playing extremely well for our roster because we have a room and coaching staff that is demanding/fueling hard work on and off the ice, however we lack anything approaching elite offensive talent which has resulted in our "best" not being good enough. Alternatively look at the oilers, A team loaded with talent, but who can't play there way out of a paper bag because the "stars" are surrounded by a bad room (Horcoff as your mentor really?), a bad supporting cast, and bad coaching. With the environment we have built hopefully we have put most of the pieces in place to become a winning organization, now we just need the talent to do it.

To your main point, in my mind there is a major difference between "generational" (Crosby is borderline IMO), Superstar (Malkin, Stamkos), and Star Players (Toews). Now I completely agree you can find talent throughout the first round, but the can't miss superstar is found generally in the first couple of picks. Now as to your question, you're right that there are no generational players in this draft at least not that we can see right now (the next potential generational talent looks to be McDavid in 2015). However, there are 4-5 guys that look to be locks to become superstars. Therefore rather than hoping that we find a Zach Parise or Anze Kopitar in the draft (something we have never done in the organizations 11 year history ) most people, myself included, would rather trade some assets to move up to grab a sure fire elite forward. Just look at where the "best" players in the league have been drafted (Crosby #1, Stamkos #1, Kane #1, Tavares #1, Ovi (remember when he was good?) #1, Malkin #2, etc.)

Now, I understand not wanting to pay the price to move up to grab one of these guys, but then I ask myself what I would be willing to trade to get one of these guys on my team now...

Now in an ideal world we would find a superstar player with one (hoepfully all three) of the picks we already have anyway, but the major issue is the uncertainty involved in later picks. I understand we all want to believe in JK as a drafting Guru, and if he is it's an answer to this organization's prayers, but we are swinging for the fences in this draft. Unfortunately this is a draft where if we don't get at least one star player the draft will be considered a bust, Even if all of our first round picks become top six nhl players the draft will still be a "bust" because we missed out on the first line talent that this team so desperately needs, and as I've said before there is only one place where you are guaranteed to find that talent.

alphafox is offline  
Old
03-14-2013, 01:00 PM
  #167
Roadman
Moving On
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: London OH
Country: United States
Posts: 2,592
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by alphafox View Post
Wow, Where to start. (Great post/question btw)

First, Unlike Basketball this is not a sport where one person can drag you from being a terrible team to being a good one. Team composition as you pointed out is extremely important, just look at Ourselves and your example, Edmonton. Right now we are playing extremely well for our roster because we have a room and coaching staff that is demanding/fueling hard work on and off the ice, however we lack anything approaching elite offensive talent which has resulted in our "best" not being good enough. Alternatively look at the oilers, A team loaded with talent, but who can't play there way out of a paper bag because the "stars" are surrounded by a bad room (Horcoff as your mentor really?), a bad supporting cast, and bad coaching. With the environment we have built hopefully we have put most of the pieces in place to become a winning organization, now we just need the talent to do it.

To your main point, in my mind there is a major difference between "generational" (Crosby is borderline IMO), Superstar (Malkin, Stamkos), and Star Players (Toews). Now I completely agree you can find talent throughout the first round, but the can't miss superstar is found generally in the first couple of picks. Now as to your question, you're right that there are no generational players in this draft at least not that we can see right now (the next potential generational talent looks to be McDavid in 2015). However, there are 4-5 guys that look to be locks to become superstars. Therefore rather than hoping that we find a Zach Parise or Anze Kopitar in the draft (something we have never done in the organizations 11 year history ) most people, myself included, would rather trade some assets to move up to grab a sure fire elite forward. Just look at where the "best" players in the league have been drafted (Crosby #1, Stamkos #1, Kane #1, Tavares #1, Ovi (remember when he was good?) #1, Malkin #2, etc.)

Now, I understand not wanting to pay the price to move up to grab one of these guys, but then I ask myself what I would be willing to trade to get one of these guys on my team now...

Now in an ideal world we would find a superstar player with one (hoepfully all three) of the picks we already have anyway, but the major issue is the uncertainty involved in later picks. I understand we all want to believe in JK as a drafting Guru, and if he is it's an answer to this organization's prayers, but we are swinging for the fences in this draft. Unfortunately this is a draft where if we don't get at least one star player the draft will be considered a bust, Even if all of our first round picks become top six nhl players the draft will still be a "bust" because we missed out on the first line talent that this team so desperately needs, and as I've said before there is only one place where you are guaranteed to find that talent.
I understand what you are saying I just couldn't disagree more. This probably one of those where we simply differ but I will try anyway.

First there is no guarantee of first line talent no matter where you draft. Yes, the probabilities increase the higher in the draft you go, but nothing is guaranteed, especially not to get a "star".

Now let’s take a look at where the currently successful teams and recent Cup Winners have found their first line players. Yes I have omitted PIT & CHI, we all know about them.

LA: D Brown #13, Kopitar #11, J Miller #28
ANA: Ryan #2, Getzlaf #19, Selanne #10
BOS: Lucic #50, Krejci #63, Horton #3
MTL: Ryder #216, Plekanec #21, Gionta #82

These are the three of the top five point teams minus CHI & PIT plus last year’s Cup winner, I see 2 out of 12 top 3 picks.

Finally there is the cost to move to the “coveted top four”. The original post did say assuming someone was willing to trade down, it would probably take the CBJ #1, a roster player, and a prospect. So if we’re at #8, that plus say Calvert, and Golobuef. And I'm probably low balling. Is it really worth that to move 4 slots? I just don’t see it.

I repeat the Jackets have 4 of the top forty picks in a very deep draft. When you couple that fact with the drafting record of JD/Jarmo, there is every reason to expect 2 or maybe 3 top six quality players. Add them to existing mix it spells progress. I prefer my chances with 4 quality picks as opposed to giving away the farm for one.

Roadman is offline  
Old
03-14-2013, 01:18 PM
  #168
cslebn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 386
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadman View Post
WHY?

I just don't understand this obsession with getting one of the "top four" big picks. Yes I know they are the creme of the crop and "all that", but I have yet to hear that they are that kind of generational talent that can single-handedly make a team ala Crosby, Malkin, Toews. Yes I get it, look at Pittsburgh, look at Chicago, heard it ad nauseum.

The top pick in the draft guarantees you nothing except a very good player (usually) see EDM. BUT Cup winners have been built with solid drafting that doesn't include the top prize, see BOS, see LA, see ANA. There is so much more to it than just a top Pick.

We have what should be 4 picks in the top 40 in a very deep draft. We have some organizational depth, we have some additional prospects coming. We have managed to change the culture to an environment in which a up and coming young player actually has an opportunity to develop.

We have all this going forward, WHY would we pay an exorbitant price, and make no mistake it will be exorbitant, to move up, when excellent options are there for the taking WITHOUT sacrificing much needed assets already in place?????
This further motivated me for soemthing I've wanted to do for a while; look at each team by draft position.

Let's start with Anaheim (can only do so many while at work) by looking at the full roster (34 players listed on TSN)

Anaheim had 5 undrafted players. Two goalies, 2 D and 1 F.
Anaheim had 13 first round selections.

Their Average of all the drafts by round (using a 10 for unsigned) is 3.8, but the median (middle point of the data) is 1.5.

Looking at Forwards alone it is 2.9 and Defense are 4.1. Forwards clearly trend being taken higher. If you remove the undrafted players, then you have all of the averages in the second round, which really shows the importance of 1st round picks paying off.

Their average by draft position is 104 overall with 79 for forwards and 108 for Defense.

Their top end players (Perry, Getz, Koivu, Selanne, Ryan, etc.) are all 1st round picks. the most impacting players on their team not from the first round are Beauchemin and Souray.

This suggests that while yes, you don't need a top 5 pick to be great (they have two on the roster - Allen and Ryan), you do need top end talent from the first round. The avg draft position of their top 5 forwards is 16.


This leads to the conclusion you can form a team on middle 1st round talent but you need 1st round talent to pan out (who wouldn't have taken Getz or Perry higher seeing what they have become?). I can post raw data if needed. I will be doing Boston next.


Last edited by cslebn: 03-14-2013 at 01:23 PM. Reason: added note on undrafted removal
cslebn is offline  
Old
03-14-2013, 01:40 PM
  #169
alphafox
Registered User
 
alphafox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 850
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadman View Post
I understand what you are saying I just couldn't disagree more. This probably one of those where we simply differ but I will try anyway.

I repeat the Jackets have 4 of the top forty picks in a very deep draft. When you couple that fact with the drafting record of JD/Jarmo, there is every reason to expect 2 or maybe 3 top six quality players. Add them to existing mix it spells progress. I prefer my chances with 4 quality picks as opposed to giving away the farm for one.
Yep, the bolded is true, and being fair if we had an organizational history of successful drafting I would be on your team or if i though we only needed top six forwards. I love what JD/JK bring across the board, however most of the scouting team is still the same as under Howson (though I will admit they have been decent the last few years). JK can only be as good as the information he gets. Do I think he will draft well, yes. However, I'd like him to get his team in place first before we just take it on faith that we will draft well.

The other big reason I advocate the trade up method is because I honestly think we have most of what we need already on the team, we just lack a first line. Right now I see our forwards for the future as

XXX-XXX-Anisimov
Dubinsky-Johansen-Atkinson
Foligno-Jenner-Calvert
Dorse-Chaput-Boll

To me we have a lot of good players, and our second and third lines are scoring lines that can play a two way game. Honestly one star that can take over a game and we would have the depth to roll lines like say Boston or Pitt. We have a good team, we just don't have the top end talent to carry our team when we make mistakes or any guys who can take over a game (Johansen may still develop into one). I think we need to focus on top 3 players not simply top 6 guys. As you said no pick is a "lock" to be a star or top line player, but the probability is higher the higher you go in the draft (especially now with the improved scouting of Europe and Russia), I hate to use "quality over quantity" given that our 4 picks are in the top 40, but I would prefer 2 with a higher likelihood of becoming stars.

alphafox is offline  
Old
03-14-2013, 01:55 PM
  #170
Roadman
Moving On
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: London OH
Country: United States
Posts: 2,592
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by alphafox View Post
Yep, the bolded is true, and being fair if we had an organizational history of successful drafting I would be on your team or if i though we only needed top six forwards. I love what JD/JK bring across the board, however most of the scouting team is still the same as under Howson (though I will admit they have been decent the last few years). JK can only be as good as the information he gets. Do I think he will draft well, yes. However, I'd like him to get his team in place first before we just take it on faith that we will draft well.

The other big reason I advocate the trade up method is because I honestly think we have most of what we need already on the team, we just lack a first line. Right now I see our forwards for the future as

XXX-XXX-Anisimov
Dubinsky-Johansen-Atkinson
Foligno-Jenner-Calvert
Dorse-Chaput-Boll

To me we have a lot of good players, and our second and third lines are scoring lines that can play a two way game. Honestly one star that can take over a game and we would have the depth to roll lines like say Boston or Pitt. We have a good team, we just don't have the top end talent to carry our team when we make mistakes or any guys who can take over a game (Johansen may still develop into one). I think we need to focus on top 3 players not simply top 6 guys. As you said no pick is a "lock" to be a star or top line player, but the probability is higher the higher you go in the draft (especially now with the improved scouting of Europe and Russia), I hate to use "quality over quantity" given that our 4 picks are in the top 40, but I would prefer 2 with a higher likelihood of becoming stars.
Of course I would like to have one of the top 3 or two out of the top ten, I understand probability well. But you don't factor in the cost to get those better odds. You are going to lose pieces to make that move and I for one don't see the return on investment, whereas you do.

6 of one, half dozen of the other, the sun still comes up in the morning.

Roadman is offline  
Old
03-14-2013, 02:02 PM
  #171
major major
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 3,414
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by EspenK View Post
Question for the day:

Let's ASSUME (very important part of this) that the Jackets wind up with the 10th pick and one of the top 4 AGREE (another key point) to a deal what would you give up in terms of picks and prospects for one of the top 4 picks?
The previous poster said no to Calvert + Goloubef + 10th for the 4th, but I would do it in a heartbeat. Its a risk, but the odds are in your favor that the difference in value between the 4 and the 10 is going to be worth far more than Calvert and Golo. I would pay more than that if I had to.

If you can get Barkov at 4 it gives the Jackets a cornerstone center.

major major is offline  
Old
03-14-2013, 02:03 PM
  #172
alphafox
Registered User
 
alphafox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 850
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadman View Post
Of course I would like to have one of the top 3 or two out of the top ten, I understand probability well. But you don't factor in the cost to get those better odds. You are going to lose pieces to make that move and I for one don't see the return on investment, whereas you do.

6 of one, half dozen of the other, the sun still comes up in the morning.
lol, very true. I'm one of those that thinks Brass and Umby have value. I also figured that we would trade some D (tyutin, Nikitin) as well. I definitely won't be upset either way as you said 6 of one, half dozen of the other.

alphafox is offline  
Old
03-14-2013, 02:39 PM
  #173
major major
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 3,414
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by EspenK View Post
Question for the day:

Let's ASSUME (very important part of this) that the Jackets wind up with the 10th pick and one of the top 4 AGREE (another key point) to a deal what would you give up in terms of picks and prospects for one of the top 4 picks?
Here are the 4th overall and 10th overall choices from 1998-2008.

4th....................10th
Bryan Allen.........Nik Antropov
Pavel Brendl.......Branislav Mezei
Rusty Klesla.......Michal Yakubov
Stephen Weiss...Dan Blackburn
Joni Pitkanen......Eric Nystrom
Nik Zherdev.......A. Kostitsyn
Andrew Ladd......Boris Valabik
Benoit Pouliot.....Luc Bourdon
N. Backstrom(C)..Michael Frolik
T. Hickey...........Keaton Ellerby
A. Pietrangelo.....Cody Hodgson

This doesn't support the conclusion I drew in my last post, that it would be definitely worthwhile to move from 10th to 4th if all it cost was Golo and Calvert. In many cases the players you are giving up end up better than both the players at 4th and 10th.

But the Jackets are looking for superstars, not top six or second pair. There are only two guys in this analysis who qualify in my book: Backstrom and Pietrangelo, both taken at 4th. And of course we have to consider the scouting reports here. Barkov has superstar potential, and not bad downside.

major major is offline  
Old
03-14-2013, 03:13 PM
  #174
slightlystewpid420
Registered User
 
slightlystewpid420's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 2,399
vCash: 500
if there is one thing I learned this year, it's that depth is everything. and we can't afford to lose any. We're in a position to add even more depth with a chance to get lucky and make a few steals being such a deep draft. We need to add to our current rosters not subtract a few apples for a few pears, unless it's a deal we can't refuse.

slightlystewpid420 is online now  
Old
03-14-2013, 03:46 PM
  #175
CBJ Bob
It Smells Bad!
 
CBJ Bob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: In Hiding
Country: United States
Posts: 873
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by major major View Post
Here are the 4th overall and 10th overall choices from 1998-2008.

4th....................10th
Bryan Allen.........Nik Antropov
Pavel Brendl.......Branislav Mezei
Rusty Klesla.......Michal Yakubov
Stephen Weiss...Dan Blackburn
Joni Pitkanen......Eric Nystrom
Nik Zherdev.......A. Kostitsyn
Andrew Ladd......Boris Valabik
Benoit Pouliot.....Luc Bourdon
N. Backstrom(C)..Michael Frolik
T. Hickey...........Keaton Ellerby
A. Pietrangelo.....Cody Hodgson

This doesn't support the conclusion I drew in my last post, that it would be definitely worthwhile to move from 10th to 4th if all it cost was Golo and Calvert. In many cases the players you are giving up end up better than both the players at 4th and 10th.

But the Jackets are looking for superstars, not top six or second pair. There are only two guys in this analysis who qualify in my book: Backstrom and Pietrangelo, both taken at 4th. And of course we have to consider the scouting reports here. Barkov has superstar potential, and not bad downside.
Good analysis. I believe Barkov is worth the price to move up. He's dominating the top league in Finland as a 17 yo. He's going to be one of the youngest players drafted. IMO he'd be #1 overall most years. This size and skill dosn't come along often.

CBJ Bob 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 07:39 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.