Options at #1

[Xoggz22]

McKinnon for me. I realize players improve over time but McKinnon has been in the limelight for 2+ years and continues to be highly thought of. Sounds like a pretty complete player, willing to compete and high skill and IQ. We need that up front and while Jones would be a great addition (I wouldn't lose sleep if we did pick him) I just think they are close enough to choose the need in this case.

Granted, I'm convinced the Rangers are going to miss the playoffs and win the lottery giving us Jones and McKinnon (or in that case trade down a spot or 2 and take Drouin or Barkov if necessary)

 

[The Press Express]

McKinnon for me. I realize players improve over time but McKinnon has been in the limelight for 2+ years and continues to be highly thought of. Sounds like a pretty complete player, willing to compete and high skill and IQ. We need that up front and while Jones would be a great addition (I wouldn't lose sleep if we did pick him) I just think they are close enough to choose the need in this case.

Granted, I'm convinced the Rangers are going to miss the playoffs and win the lottery giving us Jones and McKinnon (or in that case trade down a spot or 2 and take Drouin or Barkov if necessary)

You also gotta remember that LA is struggling too, We may have 3 top 15 Picks! Reading some of these comments has really made me think how sick it would be to have a Toews, Tavares, Stammy which Mackinnon should be! Although jones is gonna be a workhorse in the league! Ahh its such a tough choice! I have trust in the new front office and belive they will make all the right picks!

 

[Jackets16]

BPA.. Which to me is Jones. This team may need Mac more now but I still wouldn't pass on Jones.

I agree. I may change my mind by the draft, but that is what I am thinking right now.

 

[EspenK]

You also gotta remember that LA is struggling too, We may have 3 top 15 Picks! Reading some of these comments has really made me think how sick it would be to have a Toews, Tavares, Stammy which Mackinnon should be! Although jones is gonna be a workhorse in the league! Ahh its such a tough choice! I have trust in the new front office and belive they will make all the right picks!

They may have started slowly but the Kings are playing well now. Our best hope is for Rangers to quit on Torts and continue to struggle offensively.

My guess is Rangers win on last day to make the playoffs. Team they knock out wins lottery.

 

[Jackets16]

Mackinnon. Next 3 picks- forward, forward, forward. This team needs forwards.

First pick - BPA. Next 3 picks - BPA, BPA, and BPA.

 

[Sore Loser]

(Not comparing the players at all in terms of skill here)

Do you find a similarity between this year and the Stamkos/Hedman year with this draft? Hedmen momentarily took the lead from Stamkos for a couple of the rankings as I recall.

You must be thinking of Tavares/Hedman...

Yes, I think it's similar, but I think Seth Jones is a better player than Victor Hedman, and I don't think Nathan MacKinnon is as good as John Tavares ... so, I think there's actually merit to this one.

 

[Crede777]

First pick - BPA. Next 3 picks - BPA, BPA, and BPA.

While I agree, one could make the argument Jones isn't the BPA.

 

[db2011]

The team needs scoring, but I'm a bigger fan of defense in general, and Jones seems to have a very, very high ceiling. I wouldn't be disappointed with Mack, though, by any means.

I'm interested to see if we actually end up using all 3 first rounders, or if one of them gets traded.

 

[CapnCornelius]

This is not a 1 year rebuild, so you take the best player available. I'm not convinced our defense is as great as some had thought when you consider it has been as good without its "top pair" as it was with them.

That said, while I like Jones and I like his size, I have some concerns. Specifically, guy doesn't use his body enough for a player his size. You are not going to confuse him for Chris Pronger. He's also sometimes reluctant to take a shot. In a game earlier this week, he has a chance to tie the game with the puck on his stick and makes an ill-advised pass. Now, he's young and there is plenty of time to fix these issues, but it is a concern for me. I'd like to see how Jones plays in the playoffs and gauge whether he's going to raise his game to the next level and play with the edge he'll need to in the NHL.

I haven't yet seen enough of MacKinnon. But to take Jones I'd have to feel he was clearly the better overall player.

So, I'm still on the fence, but I don't think we should take MacKinnon simply because we need offense. We're going to be drafting high again next year and we are going to have to make some smart trades and acquisitions to rebuild our mess of a forward core. Rome wasn't built in a day. Hopefully we get a least one forward that can contribute going forward out of this draft, whether at #1/2 or later in the draft.

 

[EspenK]

First pick - BPA. Next 3 picks - BPA, BPA, and BPA.

theory is great but what if the 4 are all D. No way.

 

[JacketsFanWest]

MacKinnon.

There's too high of a risk taking a defenseman first overall. Too often they don't pan out, and the Jackets desperately need a big win at the draft.

 

[Matthew]

You must be thinking of Tavares/Hedman...

Yes, I think it's similar, but I think Seth Jones is a better player than Victor Hedman, and I don't think Nathan MacKinnon is as good as John Tavares ... so, I think there's actually merit to this one.

Yeah, not sure how I mixed that up.

 

[CBJx614]

I'd love to see one of those behind the scenes jackets video of JD and JK's scouting sessions or meetings like they did when JD first got in. I'm really curious to hear what he has to say about the top 4 players or at least his ranking

 

[Jackets16]

While I agree, one could make the argument Jones isn't the BPA.

I never said he was. Just saying I am not picking one specific guy just because of his position. We have to take BPA.

 

[Jackets16]

theory is great but what if the 4 are all D. No way.

Then you make trades. Either to move up/back or for prospects/players.

 

[EspenK]

Then you make trades. Either to move up/back or for prospects/players.

I don't get the logic- If I'm supposed to pick the BPA (say Jones at 1) why would I trade him to get the BPA (say Lindholm at 6) at a lower level but not chose a guy who is the next BPA (say Mackinnon at 2) but happens to be a forward. I think you buy into that theory way too much. The throw in for that kind of a deal (2nd rounder) is probably a pick where the odds of them being successful are much less.

PS I used the top guys to illustrate a point because I know their names and relative positions not to advocate giving up Jones to get Lindholm.

Probably an agree to disagree situation.

 

[Jackets16]

I don't get the logic- If I'm supposed to pick the BPA (say Jones at 1) why would I trade him to get the BPA (say Lindholm at 6) at a lower level but not chose a guy who is the next BPA (say Mackinnon at 2) but happens to be a forward. I think you buy into that theory way too much. The throw in for that kind of a deal (2nd rounder) is probably a pick where the odds of them being successful are much less.

PS I used the top guys to illustrate a point because I know their names and relative positions not to advocate giving up Jones to get Lindholm.

Probably an agree to disagree situation.

Where did I ever say to trade the first pick? You said what happens if all 4 BPA are D. Well, if you already took a D with your first pick, and want a C (for example), then you can trade up or down. We aren't drafting to be good next year. We are drafting to be good in 3 or 4 years. Who knows who will be on the team then. You have to go BPA in the first round. You can't turn down the best player when you are picking.

If you have two guys very closely rated then you can draft by position. Otherwise you need to draft the best player available.

 

[major major]

I don't get the logic- If I'm supposed to pick the BPA (say Jones at 1) why would I trade him to get the BPA (say Lindholm at 6) at a lower level but not chose a guy who is the next BPA (say Mackinnon at 2) but happens to be a forward. I think you buy into that theory way too much. The throw in for that kind of a deal (2nd rounder) is probably a pick where the odds of them being successful are much less.

PS I used the top guys to illustrate a point because I know their names and relative positions not to advocate giving up Jones to get Lindholm.

Probably an agree to disagree situation.

You get way more than a second rounder for dropping from 1 to 6. Remember when the Isles offered us their entire draft for the #2, and it wasn't nearly enough? I think you could get next year's first rounder just for dropping from 1 to 3 or 4.

 

[DesertDawg]

You build offense with Centers. Take the center

...and you build a team from the blue zone out, go with Jones ...
but then again a team may be willing to over pay to get that franchise center (and not for more draft picks it would be for a top prospect/player + a top 1st rnd pick).

 

[Fred Glover]

You take the BPA. This team needs talent all over the ice. If Jones is the BPA, then you draft him and trade your vet defensemen if he happens to beat them out. Remember, our #1 last year is a defenseman who is injured, all the reports were that he was and will be a stud. We need to upgrade in the worse way all over the ice. So, BPA for me. That being said, I would be happy with anyone of the three that are listed in the poll

 

[EspenK]

Where did I ever say to trade the first pick? You said what happens if all 4 BPA are D. Well, if you already took a D with your first pick, and want a C (for example), then you can trade up or down. We aren't drafting to be good next year. We are drafting to be good in 3 or 4 years. Who knows who will be on the team then. You have to go BPA in the first round. You can't turn down the best player when you are picking.

If you have two guys very closely rated then you can draft by position. Otherwise you need to draft the best player available.

You didn't. Nor did I. I was merely using the names of the top guys (see the PS) to illustrate a point.

And I don't disagree that trading up to get a player you really want isn't smart. Nor am I saying that trading down if the guy you like is probably going to be available later, What I am saying is that by trading down you are violating the principle of taking the best player available because the best guy is probably not who you want but is 5 or 10 spots down the list of "best" players. He is probably a guy who best fits the situation. Our situation is we are offensively challenged and I believe we should spend out top picks on the best offensive players we can get. And further more if the BPA was readily ascertainable why do guys down the list become stars and top picks sometimes bust? I think the BPA is a mythical character who people use as a crutch for missing better players.

Capn had a post where he suggested that the guy who revolutionizes hockey scouting will probably reap great benefits. I tend to agree. Otherwise everyone should just buy Central Scoutings list and there can be an autodraft.

You can't have it both ways. Either you think we should always draft the best guy available or you don't.

 

[EspenK]

You get way more than a second rounder for dropping from 1 to 6. Remember when the Isles offered us their entire draft for the #2, and it wasn't nearly enough? I think you could get next year's first rounder just for dropping from 1 to 3 or 4.

That isn't what I said either. See above for what I was trying to say.

 

[CBJWerenski8]

...and you build a team from the blue zone out, go with Jones ...
but then again a team may be willing to over pay to get that franchise center (and not for more draft picks it would be for a top prospect/player + a top 1st rnd pick).

We already have a crop of defenseman. Unless Jones is far and away no questionably the best player in the draft, take MacKinnon.

 

[Mayor Bee]

We already have a crop of defenseman. Unless Jones is far and away no questionably the best player in the draft, take MacKinnon.

Once had a crop of forwards too, only their names were Picard, Platt, Brule, and Fritsche.

Imagine if the 2006 draft had involved falling back to take the best defenseman available, what with D being a major organizational weakness at the time. The next 10 defensemen taken (all in the 1st or early 2nd round) were Ty Wishart, Mark Mitera, David Fischer, Bobby Sanguinetti, Denis Persson, Ivan Vishnevskiy, Chris Summers, Matt Corrente (the preceding were all in the 1st round), Carl Sneep, and Yuri Alexandrov. Every one of those guys was taken in the top-37.

 

[The Press Express]

Once had a crop of forwards too, only their names were Picard, Platt, Brule, and Fritsche.

Imagine if the 2006 draft had involved falling back to take the best defenseman available, what with D being a major organizational weakness at the time. The next 10 defensemen taken (all in the 1st or early 2nd round) were Ty Wishart, Mark Mitera, David Fischer, Bobby Sanguinetti, Denis Persson, Ivan Vishnevskiy, Chris Summers, Matt Corrente (the preceding were all in the 1st round), Carl Sneep, and Yuri Alexandrov. Every one of those guys was taken in the top-37.

That's very interesting