Any interest in Buff?

[Sore Loser]

As has been mentioned several times on this thread: Murray would be a non-starter in any deal.

Remember a few years back, when people were saying McDonagh + for Rick Nash? Yeah, it's like that. Murray is going to be our #1 defenseman in the near future; he's not going anywhere. In fact, had he been healthy this year, I'll make the argument that he would be our #1 defenseman right now; he's certainly looked good since coming back.

You don't trade a #2 overall pick who's been injured all year and has lower than fair value. That's something Mike Milbury would do.

 

[major major]

Maybe Buff ain't the apple of your eye, but I'd like to know what folks suggest we do about our right-side D.

I just feel a lot better about

Buff 25 mins.
Savard 20
Golo 15

than

Savard 25
Golo 20
Prout 15

We might be able to get a guy like Petry (not a real top pair guy, but it's less minutes for Prout and Golo).

Petry 23
Savard 22
Golo 15

Any other ideas?

 

[Fro]

i think you're really underselling Goloubef...its the perfect storm there, you never notice him on defense which for a defenseman, is not a bad thing...maybe I'm in the minority of being a fan of his...

 

[Nanabijou]

Maybe Buff ain't the apple of your eye, but I'd like to know what folks suggest we do about our right-side D.

I just feel a lot better about

Buff 25 mins.
Savard 20
Golo 15

than

Savard 25
Golo 20
Prout 15

We might be able to get a guy like Petry (not a real top pair guy, but it's less minutes for Prout and Golo).

Petry 23
Savard 22
Golo 15

Any other ideas?

I'd like to see how the draft order shapes up and how the playoffs go before targeting 'one guy' to be the answer. It will give us a better idea of which teams might be looking to shake things up. Luckily nothing is going to happen until then anyways. I'd also like to see what is going to happen with this Reilly situation. The focus on pairing RHD with LHD may have to be jettisoned.

As another example, if Edmonton ends up with #3, I'd really kick the tires on whether they'd be willing to move down so we could grab Hanifin. No one is moving out of the top 2, but Edmonton may be the one team who who would move out of #3 for a strong package that includes help now.

Regardless, Buff isn't going to be the answer for me with his current contract situation.

 

[EspenK]

While I guess this LH-RH theory makes sense it wasn't always emphasized, correct? My thought is it is a bit like advanced stats cool but not 100% necessary to be successful(Red Wings are still playing a mismatched set). I just want 6 guys that can play good defense.

And Golo has looked pretty good in my mind these past few games. Or at least no worse than some of the others.

 

[Sore Loser]

It wasn't that long ago that right-handed defensemen were a luxury. The grassroots programs all over the world were teaching kids that their dominant hand (in most cases, the right) should be the top hand on the stick. So kids were literally being raised and trained to play left handed, even if they were naturally right handed.

I don't think it's as big a deal as people make it out to be. You just have to be able to make plays on the backhand, which most guys in the NHL can do. It's actually beneficial when clearing the puck out of the zone; with your stick blade open to the boards, it's a natural movement. The biggest place it helps is on the power-play, for one-timers.

I'm not against bringing in a guy like Byfuglien by any means, but like I said above, does the team really have interest in throwing $7+ million at a guy to keep him around? Or, do you sell off the farm for a guy and only keep him for one year?

I would rather see the Jackets continue to develop from within. We're already starting to see the payoffs from guys like Wennberg and Dano. There are plenty of good defensemen available in the draft this summer, who may be able to become that type of player in just 2-3 years ... you know, when the team will be expected to contend anyhow.

 

[major major]

I'd like to see how the draft order shapes up and how the playoffs go before targeting 'one guy' to be the answer.
Regardless, Buff isn't going to be the answer for me with his current contract situation.

There aren't any RHD in the draft that have good top-pair upside. It's the hardest player type to find, and you might have to pay money for it. And if Buff keeps up his play of this year, $7m is a bargain.

It's true that we might just have to play guys on their off-side and deal with it. This is most likely what we'll do for the next 5 or so years.

i think you're really underselling Goloubef...its the perfect storm there, you never notice him on defense which for a defenseman, is not a bad thing...maybe I'm in the minority of being a fan of his...

I think he's looked good. Like a good bottom-pair guy, and that's where I want to play him.

 

[Jackets16]

thanks for the feedback jackets fans...much appreciated.

We get Murray is not on the table or your 2015 first, but we would have high interest in Calvert and Bjorkstrand.

How does Calvert, Bjorkstrand and Dano sound?

Terrible

 

[major major]

It wasn't that long ago that right-handed defensemen were a luxury. The grassroots programs all over the world were teaching kids that their dominant hand (in most cases, the right) should be the top hand on the stick. So kids were literally being raised and trained to play left handed, even if they were naturally right handed.

I don't think it's as big a deal as people make it out to be. You just have to be able to make plays on the backhand, which most guys in the NHL can do. It's actually beneficial when clearing the puck out of the zone; with your stick blade open to the boards, it's a natural movement. The biggest place it helps is on the power-play, for one-timers.

I'm one of those right-handed guys who shoots left. This was true of the majority of Canadian kids east of the Rockies (so not Joey), and when my family moved to Ohio I was playing against all right-shooters, some of whom had never played with a left-shooter. I haven't read up on this, but it seems appropriate to me to have the dominant hand on top. It isn't like baseball or golf where the motion is always the same, there are so many dextrous motions besides shooting where the top hand has to work over the top of the handle.

I'm still not sure how big of a problem it is for a defenceman to play on the off-side. Yes, if you can make plays on the backhand you're fine. The problem is guys typically just flip it out, with little control. It's not hard to get elevation on the backhand and clear the zone, the problem is that the other team gets the puck back. There's been a greater push lately for passing plays to exit the zone, and that's why getting the correct position for d-men has become a greater priority.

I can't find it now, but there are stats on the success of d-men on their off side versus their on-side. It clearly shows a higher tendency to lose possession in the d-zone when the d-man is on the off-side. But in the offensive zone, the stats clearly showed more goals scored in one-time position (the off-side). In the offensive zone it's harder to keep the puck in along the boards, but the one-timer advantage is huge. IMO powerplays should always try to set up in one-timer mode- RH-LH, right off the draw. The Jackets powerplay usually starts LH-RH and might switch later if the D-men are comfortable with the possession.

 

[Viqsi]

Maybe Buff ain't the apple of your eye, but I'd like to know what folks suggest we do about our right-side D.

Until I hear otherwise about his availability, I remain all about pursuing The Human Rocket Ship.

(for those of y'all who don't get the reference: youtube here)

 

[NotWendell]

Until I hear otherwise about his availability, I remain all about pursuing The Human Rocket Ship.

(for those of y'all who don't get the reference: youtube here)

I've noted the irony of the video promoting a defenseman who is "bad with money"

 

[Viqsi]

I've noted the irony of the video promoting a defenseman who is "bad with money"

Yeah, but he can afford it. He scores goals on the MOON.