Proposal: Interest in Jacob Trouba and Marco Dano for a CBJ LHD?

[major major]

Looking at your F lineup, I see great depth at C, but less so in the top-9 wingers. Atkinson, Saad and Foligno are locks, and Bjorkstrand and Milano good prospects, but then it gets murky.
If you are looking to improve this year, then the Jets have some assets that could step right in: Dano, Armia and Stafford come to mind, and there are others I won't mention here.
Connor is unlikely to made available, but Dano, prospects, draft picks and cap relief could be.

This isn't quite right. The Jackets have 5 solid top 6 wingers in the aforementioned 3, plus Hartnell and Jenner. All of those guys are fully capable of topping 50 points. The last top 9 scoring wing spot will probably go to Bjorkstrand (or Zaar or Anderson, who knows). I feel a bit more confident in Bjork than in Dano and Armia. So wing is set.

Center is a need. Jenner isn't a fit at center, and so the third line C spot right now is going to be a battle between Dubois, Gagner, and Karlsson. That's the weakest spot at forward.

 

[scelaton]

This isn't quite right. The Jackets have 5 solid top 6 wingers in the aforementioned 3, plus Hartnell and Jenner. All of those guys are fully capable of topping 50 points. The last top 9 scoring wing spot will probably go to Bjorkstrand (or Zaar or Anderson, who knows). I feel a bit more confident in Bjork than in Dano and Armia. So wing is set.

Center is a need. Jenner isn't a fit at center, and so the third line C spot right now is going to be a battle between Dubois, Gagner, and Karlsson. That's the weakest spot at forward.

I didn't include Jenner as a winger because my understanding was that he was a C--played C in juniors and had a great season as a C last year, no?

As for Hartnell, my personal bias is that he is at this point too old (34), too expensive and too penalty prone to be an asset to the CBJ. When the wheels really begin to slow, the holding and hacking will start to increase.

http://www.ontheforecheck.com/2015/...ers-hurt-their-team-the-most-while-in-the-box

I'd be trying to unload him and his contract.

 

[major major]

I didn't include Jenner as a winger because my understanding was that he was a C--played C in juniors and had a great season as a C last year, no?

As for Hartnell, my personal bias is that he is at this point too old (34), too expensive and too penalty prone to be an asset to the CBJ. When the wheels really begin to slow, the holding and hacking will start to increase.

http://www.ontheforecheck.com/2015/...ers-hurt-their-team-the-most-while-in-the-box

I'd be trying to unload him and his contract.

Jenner was LW last year.

Hartnell, believe it or not, is one of the best playmakers on the team, with some of the softest hands. He's been just as good as ever (and just as slow and prone to taking dumb penalties as ever). Nothings changed with him, at least not yet.

 

[Jackets16]

Thanks for the reply. I do think you are overvaluing Werenski somewhat by calling him the 3rd best prospect in the world...but we all tend to overvalue our own. I personally have no idea who projects higher from among Murray, Werenski, Rielly, Jones and Trouba--it' still too early to tell and their respective ceilings, IMHO, are similar.
Trouba and Connor for Werenski + would be a huge win for CBJ. Connor has the same upside as Werenski, at his position, as I am sure you are aware. All 3 of the aforementioned played NCAA at Michigan, where Werenski scored the most points by a rookie D since...wait for it...Jacob Trouba


I don't presume to be an expert on CBJ, but I will give it a try.
1)Columbus has not been a very strong team in shot suppression, despite its strong D on paper. Trouba's advanced stats are even better than his eye test--he is a shot suppression machine and would tilt the ice in your favour, perhaps more than even a Seth Jones.
2)If Werenski and Ryan Murray are both #1LHD ---and Werenski is the best D prospect IN the UNIVERSE--you will quickly run into the same problem Wpg has at RHD. If he actually plateaus lower, better to trade him now, while his value is high.
3) The real answer to your question is that this is only good for CBJ if you assume Trouba is in the same tier as Werenski and Murray, and CBJ gets an additional valuable asset back.
Looking at your F lineup, I see great depth at C, but less so in the top-9 wingers. Atkinson, Saad and Foligno are locks, and Bjorkstrand and Milano good prospects, but then it gets murky.
If you are looking to improve this year, then the Jets have some assets that could step right in: Dano, Armia and Stafford come to mind, and there are others I won't mention here.
Connor is unlikely to made available, but Dano, prospects, draft picks and cap relief could be.

This makes absolutely NO SENSE. So, you want us to now have 3 1st/2nd pairing RHD because we might have 2 1st/2nd paring LHD? You are fixing your problem while creating a problem for us. All while not making us better. We have no need for Dano. We have less need for him than we do for Troubia and we don't need him either. BTW, Trouba had 29 points as a 18/19 year old and Werenski had 25 points as a 17 year old and 36 points as an 18 year old.

 

[Old Guy]

This makes absolutely NO SENSE. So, you want us to now have 3 1st/2nd pairing RHD because we might have 2 1st/2nd paring LHD? You are fixing your problem while creating a problem for us. All while not making us better. We have no need for Dano. We have less need for him than we do for Troubia and we don't need him either. BTW, Trouba had 29 points as a 18/19 year old and Werenski had 25 points as a 17 year old and 36 points as an 18 year old.

You might think it makes no sense. I see what he is saying and the case he is making.

Scelaton is correct about the shot suppression problem. The CBJ faced way too many shots last year. And it has historically been a problem. But Coach Torts has a reputation for having a team that block shots (not the only suppression method, but one of them). Give him time to solve that. But our Jets friend has that part correct.

He is only partly correct about the Center depth. He was correct about Boone Jenner playing C in junior hockey. Jenner has been a winger in Columbus and the discussion goes on about moving him back at some point. But that has yet to happen. After 185 games NHL games he has been on the wing. He is past his ELC. Does he ever move back? He hasn't yet.

The part Scelaton has wrong is the equating the number of centers CBJ have with the quality (implied, not stated). The team still lacks that playmaking center. Wennberg might get there, but he has to win faceoffs and not be scared to shoot. Dubois might be that guy, but he has 1/2 season of junior hockey at center. Dublinski (w/ nod to Grapes) can be that shutdown type that is needed on 2nd and 3rd line, but serves 1st line on guts and guile alone. RyJo was that guy, but the trade was made (which is another thread). Karlsson still intrigues but hasn't blossomed into "that guy".

You say "NO SENSE". I say some sense, but not enough to make the proposed deal.

 

[Jackets16]

So, to you it makes sense to go from 2 good LHD and 2 good RHD to 1 good LHD and 3 good RHD? It makes sense to you for us to add another LW/RW when that isn't a need? It makes sense to you to add even more money to our team, especially on defense? It makes sense to you to deal with that agent again? It makes zero sense.

 

[Old Guy]

So, to you it makes sense to go from 2 good LHD and 2 good RHD to 1 good LHD and 3 good RHD? It makes sense to you for us to add another LW/RW when that isn't a need? It makes sense to you to add even more money to our team, especially on defense? It makes sense to you to deal with that agent again? It makes zero sense.

No. Those points you make in this post, I agree with you.

You previously copied his entire post and made an emphatic statement that this make NO SENSE. If I assumed incorrectly, that parts of it made sense to you, then I apologize.

All I was trying to do was to be civil to a visitor, and parse out what he said, and share my opinion. You can be emphatic. That's your right.

The exact reason you state is why I would not do the deal, and I said I would not do it.

While inflection cannot be gained accurately from an internet community forum, telling someone their idea makes no sense could make them think you are calling them stupid. I just wanted to know how the Jets Fan visitor saw this for the CBJ. He answered. That's it.

 

[JohnnyJacket13]

The only way I see the CBJ being involved in a Trouba trade is if it is a part of a three-way trade, say with a Edmonton, and with Jack Johnson being involved.

An idea:

To WPG: JJ + Gabe Carlsson + CBJ 2nd Rd pick
To EDM: Jacob Trouba + Gregory Campbell (salary reasons)
To CBJ: Ryan Nugent-Hopkins

Not saying this is realistic, but this is the only scenario I see us involved since Murray and Werenski are obviously off the table.

 

[Jackets16]

No. Those points you make in this post, I agree with you.

You previously copied his entire post and made an emphatic statement that this make NO SENSE. If I assumed incorrectly, that parts of it made sense to you, then I apologize.

All I was trying to do was to be civil to a visitor, and parse out what he said, and share my opinion. You can be emphatic. That's your right.

The exact reason you state is why I would not do the deal, and I said I would not do it.

While inflection cannot be gained accurately from an internet community forum, telling someone their idea makes no sense could make them think you are calling them stupid. I just wanted to know how the Jets Fan visitor saw this for the CBJ. He answered. That's it.

The trade makes no sense. It doesn't really matter if parts of his post do. There is just no incentive or reason for Columbus to even think about making the trade.

 

[Jackets16]

The only way I see the CBJ being involved in a Trouba trade is if it is a part of a three-way trade, say with a Edmonton, and with Jack Johnson being involved.

An idea:

To WPG: JJ + Gabe Carlsson + CBJ 2nd Rd pick
To EDM: Jacob Trouba + Gregory Campbell (salary reasons)
To CBJ: Ryan Nugent-Hopkins

Not saying this is realistic, but this is the only scenario I see us involved since Murray and Werenski are obviously off the table.

I wouldn't trade that for RNH. I just don't get the obsession some have with him. Is he any better than what we already have? I'm not so sure. Is he way overpaid and makes way more than we should be paying a #2/#3 C? Absolutely.

 

[JohnnyJacket13]

I wouldn't trade that for RNH. I just don't get the obsession some have with him. Is he any better than what we already have? I'm not so sure. Is he way overpaid and makes way more than we should be paying a #2/#3 C? Absolutely.

RNH is definitely a step above Dubinsky. He's a more skilled, younger, better skating centerman who has a considerably higher ceiling than our current 1C. Don't tell me you wouldn't be drooling over our future center depth of RNH/Dubois/Dubinsky/Wennberg/Karlsson.

Imagine this as a forward group this season:
Saad-RNH-Atkinson
Jenner-Dubinsky-Foligno
Hartnell-Wennberg-Bjorkstrand
Calvert-Karlsson-Gagner

Johnson, Campbell and a pick/prospect are certainly expendable, as this would set us up to contend this season, as well as in the future, considering JJ will most likely be selected in the expansion draft.

Edit: also, I understand that we'd have to leave one of Wennberg/Atkinson unprotected in the expansion draft. I'd lean towards Wennberg in this scenario since Dubois should be ready to contribute by next season.

 

[major major]

You might think it makes no sense. I see what he is saying and the case he is making.

Scelaton is correct about the shot suppression problem. The CBJ faced way too many shots last year. And it has historically been a problem. But Coach Torts has a reputation for having a team that block shots (not the only suppression method, but one of them). Give him time to solve that. But our Jets friend has that part correct.

Does "shot suppression" generally mean suppressing shots against or shot attempts against? The fancy stats crowd would seem to be more focused on attempts, so blocks don't help the matter. It's an important distinction in this case because Torts' turtle-up method leads to both more attempts and more blocks.

 

[99 CBJ]

Will we have Tort's turtle method of D or will he turn the D over to Brad Shaw? I hope for Shaw taking over and changing the defense we run because the sitting back and let them shoot drives me nuts. I think we have the talent to play on the offensive end of the ice and not just turtle on D and block shots waiting for a mistake by the other team so we can make an attack every now and then.

 

[major major]

RNH is definitely a step above Dubinsky. He's a more skilled, younger, better skating centerman who has a considerably higher ceiling than our current 1C.

I'm with you here. Regardless of the level of upgrade, RNH is a very good player you want on your team, no doubt about it. He's more than worth JJ + Carlsson + 2nd (which is why the trade would never happen).

Edit: also, I understand that we'd have to leave one of Wennberg/Atkinson unprotected in the expansion draft. I'd lean towards Wennberg in this scenario since Dubois should be ready to contribute by next season.

I can not for the life of me figure out why someone would even consider leaving Wennberg unprotected. He's as much our likely future #1C as anyone else at the moment. He's about as effective as Atkinson right now, and he has big upside beyond that. Atkinson is also slated for UFA the year after the expansion draft.

 

[Crede777]

I wouldn't trade that for RNH. I just don't get the obsession some have with him. Is he any better than what we already have? I'm not so sure. Is he way overpaid and makes way more than we should be paying a #2/#3 C? Absolutely.

RNH is definitely a 1/2 C with the potential to still become a 70-80 point #1 C.

He gets a lot of unnecessary criticism because of the situation he was in. He probably isn't a #1 OA type player and was forced into big minutes on the Oilers before he was ready. That said, he's definitely in the same tier as Ryan Johansen and Matt Duchene. And that tier is currently 2 steps above what we have with Dubinsky and Wennberg.

I don't see us being involved in a trade to get a #1 C, though, unless the team decides to subtract one of Murray or Werenski. And we all know that's not going to happen.

 

[JohnnyJacket13]

I'm with you here. Regardless of the level of upgrade, RNH is a very good player you want on your team, no doubt about it. He's more than worth JJ + Carlsson + 2nd (which is why the trade would never happen).




I can not for the life of me figure out why someone would even consider leaving Wennberg unprotected. He's as much our likely future #1C as anyone else at the moment. He's about as effective as Atkinson right now, and he has big upside beyond that. Atkinson is also slated for UFA the year after the expansion draft.

I get what you're saying, and I agree, but my reasoning was that we lack RW scoring depth outside of Atkinson and in this scenario, we have very, very good center depth. A deal could be made with Vegas to not select Wennberg, I guess. I just don't know where he would slot in when Dubois is ready, and already having RNH and Dubinsky at C. Put Dubois at wing? Maybe that could work, but then we slot other wingers lower in the lineup where they shouldn't be (Bjork/Hartsy/etc)

Saad-RNH-Dubois
Jenner-Dubinsky-Atkinson
Hartnell-Wennberg-Foligno
Calvert-Karlsson-Bjorkstrand

That's some cazy depth in a year...

 

[major major]

I get what you're saying, and I agree, but my reasoning was that we lack RW scoring depth outside of Atkinson and in this scenario, we have very, very good center depth.

If you leave Wennberg unprotected Vegas isn't going to take a pick to not take him. They'll take Wennberg. He'd be their highest valued asset. You can give them a pick to not take Atkinson though.

Really, just make another trade or two or do any number of roster manipulations. The value is just off when you're treating Wennberg and Atkinson as comparable assets.

 

[Jackets16]

RNH is definitely a step above Dubinsky. He's a more skilled, younger, better skating centerman who has a considerably higher ceiling than our current 1C. Don't tell me you wouldn't be drooling over our future center depth of RNH/Dubois/Dubinsky/Wennberg/Karlsson.

Imagine this as a forward group this season:
Saad-RNH-Atkinson
Jenner-Dubinsky-Foligno
Hartnell-Wennberg-Bjorkstrand
Calvert-Karlsson-Gagner

Johnson, Campbell and a pick/prospect are certainly expendable, as this would set us up to contend this season, as well as in the future, considering JJ will most likely be selected in the expansion draft.

Edit: also, I understand that we'd have to leave one of Wennberg/Atkinson unprotected in the expansion draft. I'd lean towards Wennberg in this scenario since Dubois should be ready to contribute by next season.

There is absolutely no way I would trade what it would take to get him, pay him what he is making, and lose a guy like Wennberg. He isn't even close to worth that. In your scenario we will have lost Johnson, Campbell, Carlsson, Wennberg, and a 2nd round pick for RNH. You may think that is good value. I certainly don't. I also don't think his contract is good value.

 

[Old Guy]

Does "shot suppression" generally mean suppressing shots against or shot attempts against? The fancy stats crowd would seem to be more focused on attempts, so blocks don't help the matter. It's an important distinction in this case because Torts' turtle-up method leads to both more attempts and more blocks.

I can't answer your question.

It is my logic that if you lift a stick before a shot is taken, that is shot suppression. Also, if you block a shot that your goalie doesn't have to face, that is shot suppression.
If you possess the puck, you are suppressing shots.
If you clear the puck on the PK and the power play team must retrieve it and re-enter, you are suppressing shots.

That is my logic. But I never played or coached. I don't know the correct technical definition. So I can't answer your question.

 

[major major]

I can't answer your question.

It is my logic that if you lift a stick before a shot is taken, that is shot suppression. Also, if you block a shot that your goalie doesn't have to face, that is shot suppression.
If you possess the puck, you are suppressing shots.
If you clear the puck on the PK and the power play team must retrieve it and re-enter, you are suppressing shots.

That is my logic. But I never played or coached. I don't know the correct technical definition. So I can't answer your question.

Well I must tell you that having played or coached is hardly necessary and is likely to be a detriment to understanding the "correct technical definition". The fancy stats community came up with it's own lingo to describe a set of statistics, and when someone comes in on the board and says "so and so is good at shot suppression", it probably comes from that school of thought. Just like possession is equated with shot attempt plus minus, shot attempts against is called shot suppression. All of this is very much outside of the coaching community.

 

[scelaton]

I can't answer your question.

It is my logic that if you lift a stick before a shot is taken, that is shot suppression. Also, if you block a shot that your goalie doesn't have to face, that is shot suppression.
If you possess the puck, you are suppressing shots.
If you clear the puck on the PK and the power play team must retrieve it and re-enter, you are suppressing shots.

That is my logic. But I never played or coached. I don't know the correct technical definition. So I can't answer your question.

You are mostly correct, TOG.
Using the most common terms, Corsi measures shot differential, counting all shot attempts, including blocked shots, while Fenwick eliminates blocked shots, which arguably is within the skill set of a defenseman.
As you imply, one of the the best ways to have a positive Corsi or Fenwick, ie, to reduce relative shot attempts, is to mostly have the puck in your possession and outside your defensive zone.
But most of these stats are measured at even strength only.

 

[LetsGOJackets!!]

The only way I see the CBJ being involved in a Trouba trade is if it is a part of a three-way trade, say with a Edmonton, and with Jack Johnson being involved.

An idea:

To WPG: JJ + Gabe Carlsson + CBJ 2nd Rd pick
To EDM: Jacob Trouba + Gregory Campbell (salary reasons)
To CBJ: Ryan Nugent-Hopkins

Not saying this is realistic, but this is the only scenario I see us involved since Murray and Werenski are obviously off the table.

I could see this happening except the OP came here to inquire about Werenski. He has watched UM just like we have, he knows what Werenski is going to be. On the other hand Trouba (who is extremely talented) is holding out with an agent that could take this way to far..

We lost Reilly for nothing, Joey held out during last years camp. We understand your heartache. If Mgmt., pulled a trade like you have proposed after we waited so long & given up so much to secure our Blue line I would be ill for a long while. What assurance is there Trouba would sign with us? We have Werenski on an entry level.. there is not much of a match here.

I'm thinking we might get Dano back later in the year for 4th rnd pick?