2016 Draft Thread (Lottery: April 30th, 7PM EST)

[alphafox]

Are you suggesting we can trade Hartnell and a prospect for a topline center with higher upside on a cheap contract? If that's the case then Jarmo will be all over it regardless of who we draft.

Hartnell is a positive asset for a few teams that need a skilled winger, and for a somewhat bigger list of teams on trade deadline day. But that's about it. I don't see how he is a major piece in any search for a higher upside player.

The most I see we'll get next year from a player like Laine is that he'll make it easy to swallow moving out a key producer like Hartnell, because he'll replace his production next year. That's it.

Sorry for the confusion, I figured that a Hartnell+Rychel+pick would return a top 6 center not necessarily a 1st line center. I disagree regarding Hartnell's value but given that we could not move him this deadline I will concede that I may be over estimating his value. That being said even if we do not get a roster player back for him I still think that the ability to trade him, afforded by a top 2 pick is a positive thing for the franchise.

 

[CBJx614]

I expect us to get the 4th pick, I want us to get the 1st pick, and I will be okay with whatever pick we actually get. It is a lottery for a reason. There just isn't any reason, IMO, to get upset over something we have no control over.

We have a better chance at a lotto pick than we do 4th, just saying

 

[JacketsDavid]

Are you suggesting we can trade Hartnell and a prospect for a topline center with higher upside on a cheap contract? If that's the case then Jarmo will be all over it regardless of who we draft.

Hartnell is a positive asset for a few teams that need a skilled winger, and for a somewhat bigger list of teams on trade deadline day. But that's about it. I don't see how he is a major piece in any search for a higher upside player.

The most I see we'll get next year from a player like Laine is that he'll make it easy to swallow moving out a key producer like Hartnell, because he'll replace his production next year. That's it.

I agree.
I hoped at the deadline (current year) that with so few sellers that e could get a deal for him, but problem is his age and remaining years. He's productive but not many teams will give up a valuable asset for him. He's one of those guys that's likely worth more to us than most other teams.

 

[WannabeFinn]

TSN Hockey's Prospect Rankings: Draft Lottery Edition

1. Matthews - C
2. Laine - RW
3. Puljujarvi - RW
4. Tkachuk - LW -> Button highlights his ability to drive play. Compares him to Hartnell, projects him as a complimentary 1st line power winger.
5. Dubois - LW
6. Nylander - RW -> Button highlights his hockey IQ. Compares him to Pavelski, projects him as a 1st line skilled winger.
7. Juolevi - D -> Button highlights his two-way excellence. Compares him to McDonagh, projects him as a No. 1/2 defenseman.
8. Sergachev - D
9. Chychrun - D -> Button highlights his skating ability. Compares him to Fowler, projects him as a No. 2/3 defenseman.
10. Keller - C
11. Jost - C
12. Bean - D
13. Brown - C
14. McAvoy - D
15. McLeod - C

- I think it's interesting that Chychrun is ranked the lowest of the top 3 D and is nearly outside of the top 10.
- It's also interesting that a handful of centers might be taken in the 8-15 spots (Keller, Jost, Brown, McLeod). Certainly makes this draft feel like there's some real options at center past Matthews.
- Personally, I don't get the hype about McAvoy. Surprised to see him in the top 15 and ranked above a guy like Fabbro. Guess he's reaping the benefits of being a RHD and playing in NCAA compared to the BCHL, despite Fabbro's talent.
- It's amusing to me that all of the wingers in the top 15 are ranked #2-6. Goes to show that D and C really are valued above wingers unless they've truly got elite talent.

 

[We Want Ten]

How come almost no one is talking about Tkachuk? I mean I am pulling for Dubois if we miss the lotto, but curious why no one mentions Tkachuk.

 

[WannabeFinn]

How come almost no one is talking about Tkachuk? I mean I am pulling for Dubois if we miss the lotto, but curious why no one mentions Tkachuk.

What, like in this thread specifically? Tkachuk gets a decent amount of attention in general IMO. But I think he isn't getting the hype of a Dubois because Tkachuk has had the benefit of playing with Dvorak and Marner.

I firmly believe Tkachuk is in the group of prospects right behind the Big 3 but I still would want Dubois, a defenseman, and MAYBE Nylander over him.

 

[grindline]

How come almost no one is talking about Tkachuk? I mean I am pulling for Dubois if we miss the lotto, but curious why no one mentions Tkachuk.

For me the reason is because I really don't want us to draft him.

What I want more than anything is to win the draft, trade down to two with a cap dump like Clarkson as part of the price, draft Laine then sign Jones to a Reilly deal.

It's quite a long and specific list, I realise, but you should see the letter I wrote to Father Christmas last year.

 

[EspenK]

The most I see we'll get next year from a player like Laine is that he'll make it easy to swallow moving out a key producer like Hartnell, because he'll replace his production next year. That's it.

Guys can produce more than Hartnell production in their first year. Ovechkin had 106 points, Patrick Kane 72, Toews 54 pts in 64 games,Mackinnon had 63. Tavares 54. Many don't. Steven Stamkos had 46. No need to mention Yakupov.

Point is we don't know.

Trade Hartnell? If the deal is right yes. Especially if it brings a draft choice back.

 

[We Want Ten]

What, like in this thread specifically? Tkachuk gets a decent amount of attention in general IMO. But I think he isn't getting the hype of a Dubois because Tkachuk has had the benefit of playing with Dvorak and Marner.

I firmly believe Tkachuk is in the group of prospects right behind the Big 3 but I still would want Dubois, a defenseman, and MAYBE Nylander over him.

In this thread generally, but I hear everyone talking about who is ahead of him and who is behind him in the draft rankings, but not as much about him. Its weird.

 

[Jackets16]

For me, it is because I don't really want him. Not a fan of his game and I like other players more.

 

[alphafox]

In this thread generally, but I hear everyone talking about who is ahead of him and who is behind him in the draft rankings, but not as much about him. Its weird.

Honestly, I think that is due to a number of factors including his position and play style. First Tkachuk is a big left wing with grit, basically a new younger version of Hartwell or more skilled Rychel. Adding Tkachuk to a team that has Saad, Jenner, Rychel, Bittner, foligno, Dubi, Hartnell, et al is not terribly exciting even if it is a decent pick. Additionally the fact he is a winger whose ceiling is not clearly higher than a number of centers (Dubois) around him makes picking him less likely, particularly for a wing heavy team like us. Finally, there is such a drop off after the big three it seems like if we don't get one of them, the season ends up as a complete failure without anything to redeem it, which people don't want to admit even though it is true.

 

[EspenK]

I think Tkachuk is suffering from his high 2nd assist total. People are wondering if he can manufacture the same with less talented line mates.

Although the scouting services still seem to rank him 4th or 5th.

 

[Boomshakalaka]

If we can trade clarkson as a dump with our first pick and trade down, how high do you think we would do that top 3 or 4-6. I think if we have any 3 or below we do it.

 

[CBJx614]

I wouldnt. Is it bad? yes. Is it worth giving up a price controlled impact star(potential) player? No.

If we have a top 5 pick and we trade down just to get rid of clarkson i'd be pretty furious.

 

[Jackets16]

If we can trade clarkson as a dump with our first pick and trade down, how high do you think we would do that top 3 or 4-6. I think if we have any 3 or below we do it.

Why would any team trade for a pick after the top 3 and take back Clarkson?

 

[Jackets16]

I wouldnt. Is it bad? yes. Is it worth giving up a price controlled impact star(potential) player? No.

If we have a top 5 pick and we trade down just to get rid of clarkson i'd be pretty furious.

Exactly. The cost of Clarkson and one of the top 3 picks is almost the same as Clarkson. So, I'd MUCH rather have Clarkson and one of the top 3 guys than anyone else and no Clarkson.

 

[JohnnyJacket13]

Exactly. The cost of Clarkson and one of the top 3 picks is almost the same as Clarkson. So, I'd MUCH rather have Clarkson and one of the top 3 guys than anyone else and no Clarkson.

Say we win the lottery and are selecting first overall. If Arizona came knocking on the door and offered Strome, their first (7th OA I believe), AND NYR's first in return for the first OA AND Clarkson...would you turn that down?

I certainly wouldn't turn it down. Strome is a young potential #1C who will most likely play in the NHL next year, and we'd still be able to select one of Juolevi/Chychrun/Sergachev too, as well as add another mid-first round pick (which we could subsequently use to trade back up the draft board). Not to mention ridding ourselves of the worst contract in NHL history.

 

[major major]

Guys can produce more than Hartnell production in their first year. Ovechkin had 106 points, Patrick Kane 72, Toews 54 pts in 64 games,Mackinnon had 63. Tavares 54. Many don't. Steven Stamkos had 46. No need to mention Yakupov.

Point is we don't know.

Trade Hartnell? If the deal is right yes. Especially if it brings a draft choice back.

Ovechkin's rookie year was 2 years after his draft. And you said it yourself, Stamkos, Tavares, Toews, all basically did what Hartnell did in their rookie years. Matthews or Laine might beat that, but 50 pts is a reasonable enough expectation. "Rookie in, Hartnell out" is probably not going to net us much for next year, if anything.

 

[CBJx614]

Say we win the lottery and are selecting first overall. IF Arizona came knocking on the door and offered Strome, their first (7th OA I believe), AND NYR's first in return for the first OA AND Clarkson...would you turn that down?

I certainly wouldn't turn it down. Strome is a young potential #1C who will most likely play in the NHL next year, and we'd still be able to select one of Juolevi/Chychrun/Sergachev too, as well as add another mid-first round pick (which we could subsequently use to trade back up the draft board). Not to mention ridding ourselves of the worst contract in NHL history.

thats a pretty big if.

 

[Double-Shift Lasse]

thats a pretty big if.

The original one was just normal-sized, though.

 

[CBJx614]

The original one was just normal-sized, though.

Far too many ifs for my liking.

IF we win the lottery
IF they offer that package
IF they want to even consider taking back Clarkson.

 

[Jackets16]

Say we win the lottery and are selecting first overall. If Arizona came knocking on the door and offered Strome, their first (7th OA I believe), AND NYR's first in return for the first OA AND Clarkson...would you turn that down?

I certainly wouldn't turn it down. Strome is a young potential #1C who will most likely play in the NHL next year, and we'd still be able to select one of Juolevi/Chychrun/Sergachev too, as well as add another mid-first round pick (which we could subsequently use to trade back up the draft board). Not to mention ridding ourselves of the worst contract in NHL history.

No, but that is completely different than the original post of trading down just to get rid of Clarkson.

 

[Tulipunaruusu*]

You can't just deduct Hartnell from a line when he makes it work like there would be four men on a line. Rookie may need a place in the line-up but sure as hell he could do also with someone who can play some advanced ice hockey which is still a bit limited quality in the currently signed forward list. Those who are capable might be counted with fingers of one hand.

Divide Hartnell's cap hit with two and I don't know if there is better value per point in the league outside ELC's. Good luck with coming up another Hartnell like deal in trade or free agency when you are dealing with question marks.

 

[EspenK]

Ovechkin's rookie year was 2 years after his draft. And you said it yourself, Stamkos, Tavares, Toews, all basically did what Hartnell did in their rookie years. Matthews or Laine might beat that, but 50 pts is a reasonable enough expectation. "Rookie in, Hartnell out" is probably not going to net us much for next year, if anything.

But if it just held us even and we experience the organic growth we should get the we're ahead of the curve especially when you consider any cap savings we'd realize, having another young asset for the future, etc.

If we draft Laine or Matthews (or maybe even Puljujarvi) then trading Hartnell for picks/prospects would be a smart thing to do imo. Sooner or later Hartnell is going to slow down and because I don't think we'll be much different with or without him that's why I think a trade would make sense.

All that being said I don't think it happens in reality. Maybe Hartnell gets traded at the deadline but even that will be tough due to his deal.