Fair enough, but the lineup you posted with them in those positions, you had guys who probably won't be on the team by the time they get there. That is my point. You say we have depth by making those picks, but you include guys who probably won't still be on the team.
2013 NHL Draft Thread III (6/30, 3PM EDT)
- Thread starter Samkow
- Start date
- Status
Fair enough, but the lineup you posted with them in those positions, you had guys who probably won't be on the team by the time they get there. That is my point. You say we have depth by making those picks, but you include guys who probably won't still be on the team.
Mayor Bee
Registered User
- Dec 29, 2008
- 18,087
- 535
I'd have to ask Sore Loser, but reading the reports on Pulock sounds almost word-for-word like what was said about (a more lightly regarded) Kris Letang back in 2005.
The other side of the coin is that there have been plenty of can't-miss type of picks who have completely busted. Trust me, I remember watching the entire 1999 draft.
I like Pulock a lot. I wasn't saying he wasn't going to be good. Just asking him why he thinks those guys, especially Mantha, will be 1st pairing/1st line guys which is their high end potential, but doens't think MacKinnon will reach his high end potential. Not only do I think MacKinnon is more likely to reach his high end potential, but I think he is more likely to be a top line forward before those 2 are 1st pairing/1st line guys.
I never said I thought Mackinnon wouldn't reach his high end potential. I do, I just don't think he'll end up being worth the potential asking price. If he was touted as the best since Crosby, like Connor McDavid already is, it would be a different story.
I guess my point is I'd rather have 3 or 4 really good players than one great one.
I would too if we needed 3 to 4 really good players. We don't. We need a great one. We have enough good players already.
Delicious Pancakes
Top Pocket Find
If you had the option of trading picks #14 and #19 with Edmonton for picks #7 and #56 would you do it?
Fro
Cheatin on CBJ w TBL
CBJWerenski8
Rest in Peace Johnny
- Jun 13, 2009
- 43,701
- 26,750
I'm not even a Murray fan, in fact I was proclaimed as a Murray hater by some, and even I wouldn't move him + 1sts to get MacKinnon.
I'd rather have a quantity of good players over one great player. That's worked out real well for us in the past.
I'd rather have a quantity of good players over one great player. That's worked out real well for us in the past.
But having good players will only get you so far. To be a contending franchise, meaning to be a real threat year in and year out you need and ELITE corps of players. Right now as it stands we have a VERY solid and legitimate offensive corps. And VERY strong defensive depth, with Vezina quality goaltending. What we are lacking is that edge. I'm all for depth don't get me wrong, but we do have extra pieces, and idc where they're sent or when(this offseason preferably) but they need to bring back some type of elite or elite potential talent one way or the other. I get the feeling that's what they are looking for.
When have we had a great player to go along with a bunch of good players? We haven't been good, because we have had Nash and not much else.
Also, why can't we have both? Aren't we a better team if the only roster player we have to trade to get MacKinnon is Johansen? We still have that team of good players, but improved it by now having a #1 C (if MacKinnon is that good).
Last edited:
EspenK
Registered User
- Sep 25, 2011
- 15,842
- 4,446
I don't agree that you need elite players to be a contending franchise. Sure they help but I'm not sure you need elite.
Take Boston for example. Charo is elite and maybe someday Seguin and Rask will be but they aren't there yet.
I think what sets them apart is that they have a bunch of very solid and effective offensive guys and D for that matter. The Jackets imo have few if any very effective offensive guys. We have forwards who are serviceable and a few who may become very effective in the future. Gaborik obviously has great offensive talents and hopefully displays them again in the season to come. Atkinson has potential to be a goal scorer. The rest of our guys probably don't strike fear from an offensive point of view in many teams.
I think what the pro-trade faction has advocated is that MacKinnon has the potential to be elite or at least very very good. The three guys we get with the picks should we keep them have the same chance just at much lower odds. Much more likely is that those three will produce one good player,a serviceable guy and one who will turn out to be a non-factor.
I'll take my chances with MacKinnon if a realistic deal could be mae.
Ah, this is interesting. (I'll leave aside your presumption that we'd be trading all of our good players to get Mackinnon, when in fact the proposed trades involve trading at most two roster players to get him). It seems the Rick Nash experience has a strong influence on many here. Most teams have better experiences with talent, but I'll acknowledge it's important to think through whether adding a great player really will make your team better.
My questions to ask of any great player to see if they'll be very helpful:
1) Does the player make players around him better?
2) Does the player play a position where he can make a significant difference on the course of the game?
That's the rub isn't it? I just don't see a realistic deal out there.
Much discussion, trade this for this, and move that for something else, and then that for the big prize. Just not going to happen. Look at history. How many times has a player of MacKinnon's caliber been traded at the draft? Lot's of lip service, "we're going to look at all our options", yea right. Unless there is an out of bounds offer the teams with those top picks aren't going to trade them. And I don't want the CBJ to be the team making that outrageous offer.
The question has been asked, would you rather have MacKinnon or the three guys with the current three picks? Of course it's MacKinnon, but while the teams at the bottom of the standings have the pick, it would require significant expenditure of assets for Columbus to acquire it. I think it's a fools errand.
KJ Dangler
Registered User
Double-Shift Lasse
Just post better
Sore Loser
Sorest of them all
Letang is a decent comparison at the same age, but I don't see Pulock being that type of player in the NHL. More Dion Phaneuf or Al MacInnis - my two favorite comparisons for him - if he develops properly. This is a player that I believe merits a top-10 selection ... had he been on a better team, he would be talked about as a top-6 pick in this draft.
Was reading the prospect boards and a lot of folks were mentioning Burakowsky as a potential home run pick of the draft. High risk, but his upside is that of an elite first liner, as I've seen multiple times. That sounds like a very Jarmo-esque pick to me, and if he's there at 27, wouldn't be surprised at all to hear his name called. Not opposed to a home run type pick in the late first round. Especially since we have 3.
- Status
