Why Ryan Murray Is Expendable
- Thread starter The Press Express
- Start date
Sore Loser
Sorest of them all
Agreed.
Ryan Murray would have played in the NHL had the season started on time last year, but with the depth that has been built on our blueline over the last 12 months (including the surprising development of Dalton Prout), we now have the luxury of letting a far above average player develop properly. We're looking at a guy who could be a legit #1 defenseman, something we've never had before. Let's not trade him before he even sees a professional game.
Plus, we've seen this mistake made far too many times - names like Grant Clitsome and Duvie Westcott immediately come to mind - where we put guys into situations that they "appear" ready for, and when the season comes and we have no plan B, we're right back to square one. If that happens with any of our defenders, we actually have the depth to maybe put pressure on the player to correct it, or outright take them out of the lineup.
Championships are won by teams with depth and skill at every position ... and we're starting to do just that.
Fro
Cheatin on CBJ w TBL
Wow... OP is really late to this party. It's been debated since almost the second he's been drafted. The pipeline and the eventual need to trade someone has been well documented. It's becoming more aggravated with the emergence of both Erixon and Prout.
Having said that, I don't see it impacting Murray anytime soon. The trade proposal isn't very good. I don't think we should consider moving Murray. Slight clarification. Murray has a legitimate shot to not only be the best d-man on this team in 3 or 4 years, but the best player on this team outside of maybe Bob. No we still don't have a true #1 on this team, at least yet. I'm not saying Murray is going to be our Weber (or insert your favorite), but he has more offensive skill than some around here give him credit for and he'll be able to defend and skate with pretty much anyone in the league. No I see no reason to move him. He might end up one tier down from the true elites in the league, but he should end up being a very strong partner on that top pairing and provide more stability to that top pairing.
(Around) One month to preseason games!
Having said that, I don't see it impacting Murray anytime soon. The trade proposal isn't very good. I don't think we should consider moving Murray. Slight clarification. Murray has a legitimate shot to not only be the best d-man on this team in 3 or 4 years, but the best player on this team outside of maybe Bob. No we still don't have a true #1 on this team, at least yet. I'm not saying Murray is going to be our Weber (or insert your favorite), but he has more offensive skill than some around here give him credit for and he'll be able to defend and skate with pretty much anyone in the league. No I see no reason to move him. He might end up one tier down from the true elites in the league, but he should end up being a very strong partner on that top pairing and provide more stability to that top pairing.
(Around) One month to preseason games!
Last edited:
The Press Express
Registered User
We don't have a true number One!!? What about JJ?? Hes only 26 years old and looked Fantastic last season! Even played 35 minutes in one game!
FANonymous
Registered User
- Nov 7, 2010
- 4,911
- 0
He's far more suited to a #2. Regardless if you somehow think he's a true #1, there would be no #2. I'll give him another year or two to see, but his defensive play can be quite lacking. Let's not delude ourselves into thinking that Bob didn't save some serious ass with the better teams in the league.
Tyutin is the closest thing to a #2, outside of JMFJ, and he's far more effective with his minutes down as a 3/4. Don't even try and say Wiz is a #2.
Moral; plenty of room from improvement in the 1/2 pairing.
Last edited:
I've advocated possibly moving Murray FOR THE RIGHT OVERPAYMENT (and I think I'm done with that now that we picked up Horton) but I don't think I ever stuck my head in the lion's mouth quite the way the OP did. Well done.
FANonymous
Registered User
- Nov 7, 2010
- 4,911
- 0
JJ ain't no number one.
I think JJ and Tyutin are both #2/3. Then we have a lot of guys who fit in nice on a second pair. A good defence, but no #1.
The Press Express
Registered User
Thanks! just an opinion mate! Like I said I do appreciate the feedback but I personally think 2 first round picks is better than Murray at this point in time. Just my opinion.
Jackets are really starting to turn the ship around and we have made it this far without Murray. Our draft picks are really going to start to stink soon! Murray has a lot of upside but so does 2 firsts.
SuperGenius
For Duty & Humanity!
- Mar 18, 2008
- 4,639
- 199
Are we not allowed to have a 1A and 1B, or because we already have a #1, we need to dump Murray for picks?
I mean, we can't have a #1 playing 2,3, or 4, so we must only draft players who fit perfectly into those positions? If they don't fit, off with them!
I mean this in the nicest way possible: you're out of your mind. I think you need to take some time to understand how a successful team and organization builds itself. As others have said, take a look at what Detroit has done over the years. Nashville is another example...
The Press Express
Registered User
Are we not allowed to have a 1A and 1B, or because we already have a #1, we need to dump Murray for picks?
I mean, we can't have a #1 playing 2,3, or 4, so we must only draft players who fit perfectly into those positions? If they don't fit, off with them!
I mean this in the nicest way possible: you're out of your mind. I think you need to take some time to understand how a successful team and organization builds itself. As others have said, take a look at what Detroit has done over the years. Nashville is another example...
I was responding to a comment that said we dont have a Number 1, I was not saying that its not okay to have 2 Number 1's!
Its all opinions, we all have the same endgame but with different ways of getting there. I sure hope That Murray pans out and becomes our number 1 but its okay to debate other options as well. All I'm saying is that we have done pretty darn good without him and with our latest acquisitions, this team really looks like something!
Yeah, I could see that easily turning into a #11 and a #22 over the next two years. That could then easily come down as one of the most idiotic trades ever. Only way we salvage it is with a bit of luck or turning one into a top 2 pick (actually that involves some luck as well). Well I suppose there is another way, in which Murray becomes a complete bust.
What do you hope to get out of 2 1sts? A guy as good as Murray? The 2 1sts won't be playing with the Jackets for a few years, at least, so why is it a big deal if Murray doesn't play with the Jackets this year? Saying we could trade Murray is fine, but you are giving bad reasons for doing it.
FANonymous
Registered User
- Nov 7, 2010
- 4,911
- 0
I like depth, but I'm not saying a trade is a terrible idea either.
Savard isn't likely going to be a top 6 defenseman. Goloubef, maybe. Count on 1 of our top 6 being injured at all times. Murray should start the season in the AHL and by mid season, if he shows strong play, be our regular 7th man up here.
candyman82
Registered User
My biggest issues with your article:
1. Developing a player properly is not "rotting in the system". This is especially untrue for a 19 year old defenseman. The last five Norris Trophy winners were P.K. Subban, Erik Karlsson, Nicklas Lidstrom, Duncan Keith, and Zdeno Chara. Let's look at the age where they hit their stride as NHL players
PK Subban: 23 years old
Erik Karlsson: 20 years old
Nicklas Lidstrom: 21 years old
Duncan Keith: 24 years old
Zdeno Chara: 25 years old
Murray isn't close to hitting his peak yet.
2. It's totally fair to send remove a current Jackets defenseman if somebody below him, in this case Murray, is a better player. That's why players like Grant Clitsome and Mike Commodore are no longer members of the Jackets. That is professional sports.
3. We were 27th in power play goals. Our power play was very much a problem last year and it needs to get better.
4. If Nikitin, Erixon, Goloubef, and Savard are nothing special why on earth are you looking to trade Murray, who actually is special.
5. Tim Erixon for a 2nd rounder? Are you kidding me? That's horrible asset management. The kid was worth two 2nds and a prospect two years ago and he has only improved since then.
6. If you don't feel comfortable having Goloubef or Savard on the NHL team why aren't you actively trying to trade them?
7. "There are plenty of NHL Teams that would be more than thankful to have Murray on that 2nd or 3rd line first game of the season"
Yeah, sorta like the Columbus Blue Jackets.
8."To Columbus: 2014 1st, 2015 1st
To Tampa Bay: Ryan Murray"
Okay, you are giving TOML a run for his money when it comes to bad trade proposals. Why would the Jackets give up one of the best prospects in the game for two draft picks of unknown position that are unlikely to ever make the kind of impact Murray can? This is obscenely bad asset management and altogether nonsensical.
9. Learning the pro game at the minor league level and having to earn your spot on the NHL team is not a "bad situation" by any stretch of the imagination.
10. Bobrovsky has 25 games of star level performance. Let's see him in a full 82 game season before we put all our eggs in that basket.
11. If we are perfectly capable of picking 20th-30th for years to come, why are we trading our best prospect for less valuable futures? If we were to trade Murray, wouldn't it make more sense to trade him for a proven NHL player to help us win the Cup?
12. Murray is a valuable asset. In fact, he is more valuable than two firsts of unknown position. If your reason for giving him up is that "he hasn't done anything to help us yet", why do you want to trade him less valuable assets that also haven't done anything to help us yet.
There is a decent argument that Murray is in fact expendable and that it would be in the best interest of the Jackets to trade him. However, nothing in your article actually backs that claim up. Your argument boils down to "Murray has yet to make an impact on the Jackets, therefore we should trade him for less valuable pieces that also have yet to make an impact on the Jackets." No offense, but your proposal makes Mike Milbury look like Bill Torrey.
1. Developing a player properly is not "rotting in the system". This is especially untrue for a 19 year old defenseman. The last five Norris Trophy winners were P.K. Subban, Erik Karlsson, Nicklas Lidstrom, Duncan Keith, and Zdeno Chara. Let's look at the age where they hit their stride as NHL players
PK Subban: 23 years old
Erik Karlsson: 20 years old
Nicklas Lidstrom: 21 years old
Duncan Keith: 24 years old
Zdeno Chara: 25 years old
Murray isn't close to hitting his peak yet.
2. It's totally fair to send remove a current Jackets defenseman if somebody below him, in this case Murray, is a better player. That's why players like Grant Clitsome and Mike Commodore are no longer members of the Jackets. That is professional sports.
3. We were 27th in power play goals. Our power play was very much a problem last year and it needs to get better.
4. If Nikitin, Erixon, Goloubef, and Savard are nothing special why on earth are you looking to trade Murray, who actually is special.
5. Tim Erixon for a 2nd rounder? Are you kidding me? That's horrible asset management. The kid was worth two 2nds and a prospect two years ago and he has only improved since then.
6. If you don't feel comfortable having Goloubef or Savard on the NHL team why aren't you actively trying to trade them?
7. "There are plenty of NHL Teams that would be more than thankful to have Murray on that 2nd or 3rd line first game of the season"
Yeah, sorta like the Columbus Blue Jackets.
8."To Columbus: 2014 1st, 2015 1st
To Tampa Bay: Ryan Murray"
Okay, you are giving TOML a run for his money when it comes to bad trade proposals. Why would the Jackets give up one of the best prospects in the game for two draft picks of unknown position that are unlikely to ever make the kind of impact Murray can? This is obscenely bad asset management and altogether nonsensical.
9. Learning the pro game at the minor league level and having to earn your spot on the NHL team is not a "bad situation" by any stretch of the imagination.
10. Bobrovsky has 25 games of star level performance. Let's see him in a full 82 game season before we put all our eggs in that basket.
11. If we are perfectly capable of picking 20th-30th for years to come, why are we trading our best prospect for less valuable futures? If we were to trade Murray, wouldn't it make more sense to trade him for a proven NHL player to help us win the Cup?
12. Murray is a valuable asset. In fact, he is more valuable than two firsts of unknown position. If your reason for giving him up is that "he hasn't done anything to help us yet", why do you want to trade him less valuable assets that also haven't done anything to help us yet.
There is a decent argument that Murray is in fact expendable and that it would be in the best interest of the Jackets to trade him. However, nothing in your article actually backs that claim up. Your argument boils down to "Murray has yet to make an impact on the Jackets, therefore we should trade him for less valuable pieces that also have yet to make an impact on the Jackets." No offense, but your proposal makes Mike Milbury look like Bill Torrey.
Hello Johnny
Registered User
- Apr 13, 2007
- 13,208
- 1,142
What about in 5 years when JJ and Tyutin et al are slowing down, while Murray is entering his prime? Gotta keep the cupboard full my man. Building a great franchise means thinking about the future. Murray has a good chance of being the best defenseman this team has ever had. Make upgrades some other way.
Xoggz22
Registered User
I shoud probabl read the article before commenting but when I see Murray and Expendable in the thread title I simply assumed it would be a train wreck.
Murray is our top prospect and offers the chance at a top pair, Ryan Suter style player. He's not quite 20 yet and, dare I say, is said to have the highest upside of any defensive player ever to play with the CBJ. if anything, he proves his mettle and makes others expendable.
I hope he shows at camp he's ready for the big club and makes the decision difficult. I also hope he gets the experience and time he needs to actually develop into said "top pair guy".
No, he isn't expendable in my opinion. Moveable, yes but I don't think the word I would use is expendable.
Murray is our top prospect and offers the chance at a top pair, Ryan Suter style player. He's not quite 20 yet and, dare I say, is said to have the highest upside of any defensive player ever to play with the CBJ. if anything, he proves his mettle and makes others expendable.
I hope he shows at camp he's ready for the big club and makes the decision difficult. I also hope he gets the experience and time he needs to actually develop into said "top pair guy".
No, he isn't expendable in my opinion. Moveable, yes but I don't think the word I would use is expendable.
