2024 NHL Draft Thread (CBJ to pick 4th)

Predict CBJ's draft position


  • Total voters
    40
  • Poll closed .

CBJx614

Registered User
May 25, 2012
14,972
6,601
C-137
That’s nonsense . In life you make your luck .. Are you trying to say the process is fixed ?
You can work hard to pay for tickets hoping to win the lottery, but you could play for 100 years and never win once...

I don't know if you're being facetious or not, but the lottery is literally just that. A lottery...
 
  • Like
Reactions: KJ Dangler

KJ Dangler

Registered User
Oct 21, 2006
8,366
5,017
Columbus
You can work hard to pay for tickets hoping to win the lottery, but you could play for 100 years and never win once...

I don't know if you're being facetious or not, but the lottery is literally just that. A lottery...
And scientifically , there is nothing that applies , that says Columbus can never have nice things , why bother looking at things optimistically ?
 

Viqsi

"that chick from Ohio"
Oct 5, 2007
53,973
31,750
40N 83W (approx)
That’s nonsense . In life you make your luck .. Are you trying to say the process is fixed ?
:facepalm: Okay, the next time we run a genetic linkage analysis here at work I'll make sure to bring that up in the future. "Yeah, sure there's no signal we can see on any chromosomes for this construct phenotype after trying literally millions upon millions of different permutations of possibilities, but have you considered the possibility that in life you make your own luck, and so some extra hard work on the part of our study cohort could somehow make a signal appear so we can get our grant renewed?"

* * *​
And scientifically , there is nothing that applies , that says Columbus can never have nice things , why bother looking at things optimistically ?
Because certain folks here have an established history of grossly overestimating the likelihood of favorable outcomes and then when the most probable outcome (no lottery win) DOES occur they persist in whining about it to us all as though this was somehow some sort of unprecedented, unpredictable shock that we all need to comfort ourselves over. It's the stupidest of unforced errors.

If you're going to pick things to be optimistic about, at least look for outcomes that are probable.
 

KJ Dangler

Registered User
Oct 21, 2006
8,366
5,017
Columbus
:facepalm: Okay, the next time we run a genetic linkage analysis here at work I'll make sure to bring that up in the future. "Yeah, sure there's no signal we can see on any chromosomes for this construct phenotype after trying literally millions upon millions of different permutations of possibilities, but have you considered the possibility that in life you make your own luck, and so some extra hard work on the part of our study cohort could somehow make a signal appear so we can get our grant renewed?"

* * *​

Because certain folks here have an established history of grossly overestimating the likelihood of favorable outcomes and then when the most probable outcome (no lottery win) DOES occur they persist in whining about it to us all as though this was somehow some sort of unprecedented, unpredictable shock that we all need to comfort ourselves over. It's the stupidest of unforced errors.

If you're going to pick things to be optimistic about, at least look for outcomes that are probable.
All that to basically say because we are Columbus , statistics don’t apply , we are destined for the worst outcome , don’t bother getting hopes up ? Sounds reasonable …
 

Cowumbus

Registered User
Mar 1, 2014
11,714
6,477
Arena District - Columbus
:facepalm: Okay, the next time we run a genetic linkage analysis here at work I'll make sure to bring that up in the future. "Yeah, sure there's no signal we can see on any chromosomes for this construct phenotype after trying literally millions upon millions of different permutations of possibilities, but have you considered the possibility that in life you make your own luck, and so some extra hard work on the part of our study cohort could somehow make a signal appear so we can get our grant renewed?"

* * *​

Because certain folks here have an established history of grossly overestimating the likelihood of favorable outcomes and then when the most probable outcome (no lottery win) DOES occur they persist in whining about it to us all as though this was somehow some sort of unprecedented, unpredictable shock that we all need to comfort ourselves over. It's the stupidest of unforced errors.

If you're going to pick things to be optimistic about, at least look for outcomes that are probable.
We got Fantilli last year. That wasn’t probable! :sarcasm: 🤷
 

Viqsi

"that chick from Ohio"
Oct 5, 2007
53,973
31,750
40N 83W (approx)
All that to basically say because we are Columbus , statistics don’t apply , we are destined for the worst outcome , don’t bother getting hopes up ? Sounds reasonable …

We have a less than 1 in 10 chance of winning the lottery and a nearly 1 in 2 chance of moving down. The reasons for "not getting hopes up" are exactly because statistics apply.

* * *​
We got Fantilli last year. That wasn’t probable! :sarcasm: 🤷
That also had nothing to do with the draft lottery.
 

majormajor

Registered User
Jun 23, 2018
24,979
29,794
:facepalm: Okay, the next time we run a genetic linkage analysis here at work I'll make sure to bring that up in the future. "Yeah, sure there's no signal we can see on any chromosomes for this construct phenotype after trying literally millions upon millions of different permutations of possibilities, but have you considered the possibility that in life you make your own luck, and so some extra hard work on the part of our study cohort could somehow make a signal appear so we can get our grant renewed?"

* * *​

Because certain folks here have an established history of grossly overestimating the likelihood of favorable outcomes and then when the most probable outcome (no lottery win) DOES occur they persist in whining about it to us all as though this was somehow some sort of unprecedented, unpredictable shock that we all need to comfort ourselves over. It's the stupidest of unforced errors.

If you're going to pick things to be optimistic about, at least look for outcomes that are probable.

We have a 9.5% chance of winning the Celebrini pick. That's all that needs to be said about it. Our odds don't change because of what happened in previous lotteries, you've made that point yourself many times but you won't take your own advice.

I mean if we had millions upon millions of lottery losses, then sure I'd change my beliefs, but that hasn't happened.

That also had nothing to do with the draft lottery.

The Fantilli win though should put to bed this nonsense about us not being able to get nice things. He's better than plenty of #1OA picks, maybe better than Celebrini, though that's a tough call.
 

Viqsi

"that chick from Ohio"
Oct 5, 2007
53,973
31,750
40N 83W (approx)
We have a 9.5% chance of winning the Celebrini pick. That's all that needs to be said about it. Our odds don't change because of what happened in previous lotteries, you've made that point yourself many times but you won't take your own advice.

I mean if we had millions upon millions of lottery losses, then sure I'd change my beliefs, but that hasn't happened.
9.5% is not exactly worth "getting one's hopes up". Especially not to the degree that so many folks here do.
 

Viqsi

"that chick from Ohio"
Oct 5, 2007
53,973
31,750
40N 83W (approx)
The Fantilli win though should put to bed this nonsense about us not being able to get nice things. He's better than plenty of #1OA picks, maybe better than Celebrini, though that's a tough call.
And that is why the draft itself is still worthwhile. Leaning on hopes with the lottery is nonetheless absurd.
 

Viqsi

"that chick from Ohio"
Oct 5, 2007
53,973
31,750
40N 83W (approx)
Policing other's modest hopes is nonetheless absurd.
It's a probably futile attempt to fend off the inevitable weeks of griping and whining about how We Should Have Tanked More that will make up the entirety of discussion in May and much of the rest of the offseason. That and hamfisted attempts to somehow try and trade up despite that being even less probable.
 

majormajor

Registered User
Jun 23, 2018
24,979
29,794
@coooldude put together this chart showing the distribution of votes in Mckenzie's poll, with some guesswork in the 6-10 range.


I'm going through a mock draft based on it right now and I noticed that if Anaheim picks Levshunov at #2, then our most likely pick at #4 is Anton Silayev. And don't forget that Silayev said Columbus and Utah were the teams that showed the most interest.

The next most likely pick is Cayden Lindstrom. Obviously if you know my posts, you'd know I would much rather have Lindstrom.
 

majormajor

Registered User
Jun 23, 2018
24,979
29,794
It's a probably futile attempt to fend off the inevitable weeks of griping and whining about how We Should Have Tanked More that will make up the entirety of discussion in May and much of the rest of the offseason. That and hamfisted attempts to somehow try and trade up despite that being even less probable.

I think savior syndrome has mostly passed from our fanbase since we drafted Fantilli and then had a humbling year, where we realize how difficult it is going to be to teach these kids to win, and we realize that it's not just a question of talent. Not a lot of hardcore tankers left here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MAHJ71

Double-Shift Lasse

Just post better
Dec 22, 2004
33,595
14,388
Exurban Cbus
I can’t decide if it would be so Jackets to win the lottery in a year when the top overall pick is a little bit down or if the clear-cut top player means it would be so unlike the Jackets to win it.
 

Ice9

Registered User
Jun 25, 2016
1,418
757
In the woods
Maybe the league will feel bad because of last years hiccup and give the #1 to CBJ. You know, slip a few more balls into the gizmo...;)
 

koteka

Registered User
Jan 1, 2017
3,981
4,325
Central Ohio
How are we evaluating toughness between the two?

Mostly the eye test. Don’t know that I have ever seen Provorov hit someone and think, “Wow, nice hit.” I have seen that from Andersson (and I don’t mean the cheap hit on Laine). Andersson is a guy I have picked up when I need another defenseman in fantasy hockey the last few seasons so I tend to watch him if Calgary is playing. I really liked that Calgary defense 3 years ago (with Gudbranson).

If you want an objective measure of “toughness” I sometimes check Hockey Fights to see if a guy is willing to fight occasionally (or never or all the time):


 
  • Like
Reactions: MAHJ71

stevo61

Registered User
Jul 5, 2011
11,184
12,292
Canada
Mostly the eye test. Don’t know that I have ever seen Provorov hit someone and think, “Wow, nice hit.” I have seen that from Andersson (and I don’t mean the cheap hit on Laine). Andersson is a guy I have picked up when I need another defenseman in fantasy hockey the last few seasons so I tend to watch him if Calgary is playing. I really liked that Calgary defense 3 years ago (with Gudbranson).

If you want an objective measure of “toughness” I sometimes check Hockey Fights to see if a guy is willing to fight occasionally (or never or all the time):


Earlier in his career Provorov used to lay people out. He also used to dangle through the other team and score highlight reel goals, not sure where that went. Needing to fight after a clean hit or something to appear tough though is stupid.


 
Last edited:

Indy18

Registered User
Aug 17, 2023
270
307
@coooldude put together this chart showing the distribution of votes in Mckenzie's poll, with some guesswork in the 6-10 range.


I'm going through a mock draft based on it right now and I noticed that if Anaheim picks Levshunov at #2, then our most likely pick at #4 is Anton Silayev. And don't forget that Silayev said Columbus and Utah were the teams that showed the most interest.

The next most likely pick is Cayden Lindstrom. Obviously if you know my posts, you'd know I would much rather have Lindstrom.
Never mind just repeated what you said carry on
 

Aaaarrgghh

Registered User
Jul 17, 2022
355
339
@coooldude put together this chart showing the distribution of votes in Mckenzie's poll, with some guesswork in the 6-10 range.


I'm going through a mock draft based on it right now and I noticed that if Anaheim picks Levshunov at #2, then our most likely pick at #4 is Anton Silayev. And don't forget that Silayev said Columbus and Utah were the teams that showed the most interest.

The next most likely pick is Cayden Lindstrom. Obviously if you know my posts, you'd know I would much rather have Lindstrom.
I have previously wondered about the state of Columbus' Russian scouting department, due to them not drafting any Russians whatsoever for the first time in around a decade last year. If nothing else, those Silayev comments suggest to me that those concerns were unfounded.
 

MAHJ71

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Dec 6, 2014
11,740
4,037
NWA 217
Mostly the eye test. Don’t know that I have ever seen Provorov hit someone and think, “Wow, nice hit.” I have seen that from Andersson (and I don’t mean the cheap hit on Laine). Andersson is a guy I have picked up when I need another defenseman in fantasy hockey the last few seasons so I tend to watch him if Calgary is playing. I really liked that Calgary defense 3 years ago (with Gudbranson).

If you want an objective measure of “toughness” I sometimes check Hockey Fights to see if a guy is willing to fight occasionally (or never or all the time):


Disclaimer: I haven't watched a lot of Andersson so it's hard for me to compare the two.

But from what I saw of Provorov all season (and factoring in his early career as highlighted by @stevo61) I lean towards Provorov still being "tough" but maybe we're seeing a bit more matured and measured approach to his game. Almost like he knows what hits are worth throwing and what should be avoided. He did play in all 82 games - which was more than any of the other d-men.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad