Columbus will "Not be the same team" in 2016/2017

[JKinCLE]

I watch a lot of Monsters games, and personally I think he could probably play in the NHL next year and be better than a few guys on 1-way deals.. Not saying he's a shoe-in or anything, but he's normally very smart with the puck. He's a great skater and not afraid to lead the rush on occasion and bring the puck into the offensive zone, and as stated makes the great first pass.

He does tend to get thrown around a bit. Definitely needs to get stronger to stick in the NHL.

I know im not saying anything new that others aren't, but just my thoughts

 

[JacketsDavid]

I don't understand the high opinion on Kukan. He didn't look that special to me when he was up last season. I get he had a good plus minus, but that's a dubious stat.

I get that the CBJ need to shed some salary, but I don't think this guy is ready to fill a spot on a regular basis.

I tend to agree with this - and another poster mentioned if we had a veteran group and needed a 6th dman, I would be perfectly fine with that.

Issue is we're going to be extremely young, especially if we move Tyutin and Werenerski is added (Werenerski is a given I think).

I would assume Werenerski would start on 3rd line, so you would have 2 very young dmen on same pairing. I would guess he starts in Cleveland. Once Werenerski (hopefully) forces his way to 2nd pairing then move him up to Columbus and 3rd pairing.

 

[DJA]

I tend to agree with this - and another poster mentioned if we had a veteran group and needed a 6th dman, I would be perfectly fine with that.

Issue is we're going to be extremely young, especially if we move Tyutin and Werenerski is added (Werenerski is a given I think).

I would assume Werenerski would start on 3rd line, so you would have 2 very young dmen on same pairing. I would guess he starts in Cleveland. Once Werenerski (hopefully) forces his way to 2nd pairing then move him up to Columbus and 3rd pairing.

It is impressive that you managed to misspell Werenski's name 4 times in this post (at least you're consistent! )

 

[Juxtaposer]

Hey, just out of curiosity would you guys have any interest in a Chris Tierney for Kerby Rychel deal?

 

[Viqsi]

Hey, just out of curiosity would you guys have any interest in a Chris Tierney for Kerby Rychel deal?

Maybe, sorta, I guess? I dunno. I don't know Tierney's progression well enough to have a firm opinion, and I'm kind of "meh" on Rychel as is. It feels like a lateral move but I can't be sure. Would be curious what STBC thinks.

 

[major major]

Hey, just out of curiosity would you guys have any interest in a Chris Tierney for Kerby Rychel deal?

That's an easy yes for me. Rychel might have a bit more scoring upside but we don't need him and Tierney is more reliable and someone I wouldn't mind putting on the fourth line if he's needed there.

If I was the Sharks though, I'd trade picks/prospects for Rychel and keep Tierney.

 

[JacketsDavid]

It is impressive that you managed to misspell Werenski's name 4 times in this post (at least you're consistent! )

Until he suits up for the CBJ I'll spell it however I want

 

[Kev22]

I think that Werenski is a top 4 d-man now. I wouldn't be shocked if it results in a Johnson or Savard trade. Combine Johnson, Hartnell and Rychel and you might be able to make a deal that would cut cap space, return an asset and make room for the kids if the FO thinks they're ready.

 

[Viqsi]

I think that Werenski is a top 4 d-man now. I wouldn't be shocked if it results in a Johnson or Savard trade. Combine Johnson, Hartnell and Rychel and you might be able to make a deal that would cut cap space, return an asset and make room for the kids if the FO thinks they're ready.

I'd almost consider keeping Johnson anyways, on the theory that if the 2000 Expansion Draft rule of "a team that has lost a defenseman may not lose a goaltender and vice versa" is retained for this coming expansion draft, it could make JJ our way of keeping Korpisalo and/or Forsberg from being poached.

Of course, that's even more tenuous than pet theories about getting Clarkson off the protected list, but, hey, it's something to contemplate.

 

[spintheblackcircle]

Maybe, sorta, I guess? I dunno. I don't know Tierney's progression well enough to have a firm opinion, and I'm kind of "meh" on Rychel as is. It feels like a lateral move but I can't be sure. Would be curious what STBC thinks.

I think it would be a good trade for Columbus. Tierney was drafted a year earlier, but is only 3 months older, so they are basically the same age and he's already established himself as a 3rd line center. In time, most Sharks fans see him getting to be the #2 center, so if you can get a future #2 center for Rychel, do it.

 

[CBJx614]

I want to keep JJ to he can be lead the 3rd pairing and hopefully can gain favorable matchups. And maybe if we're lucky finish with a positive +/-

 

[spintheblackcircle]

Hey, just out of curiosity would you guys have any interest in a Chris Tierney for Kerby Rychel deal?

Why on earth would San Jose do that, Jux?

 

[We Want Ten]

I want to keep JJ to he can be lead the 3rd pairing and hopefully can gain favorable matchups. And maybe if we're lucky finish with a positive +/-

/HF mains burn to the ground.

 

[Kev22]

I'd almost consider keeping Johnson anyways, on the theory that if the 2000 Expansion Draft rule of "a team that has lost a defenseman may not lose a goaltender and vice versa" is retained for this coming expansion draft, it could make JJ our way of keeping Korpisalo and/or Forsberg from being poached.

Of course, that's even more tenuous than pet theories about getting Clarkson off the protected list, but, hey, it's something to contemplate.

I think we are sweating this expansion draft a little too much. It's looking like only one team will come on board which means you only lose one player. I think you protect everyone you want long term and then roll the dice. Now if there are more teams, then maybe you worry more, but I just don't think we're going to be as damaged by the expansion draft as some are worried about.

 

[CBJx614]

/HF mains burn to the ground.

ANDDDDDD THEN we trade him and hope we can get a first back for him

 

[Crede777]

/HF mains burn to the ground.

"+/- is meaningless, JJ is still a garbage player." - What they'll say.

 

[Fro]

catching up...paying > $4m for a 3rd pairing defenseman is not good use of money....

 

[major major]

I think that Werenski is a top 4 d-man now. I wouldn't be shocked if it results in a Johnson or Savard trade. Combine Johnson, Hartnell and Rychel and you might be able to make a deal that would cut cap space, return an asset and make room for the kids if the FO thinks they're ready.

I agree, except you have no business putting Savard in this post. He plays a different position - right side D, opposite Werenski. His trade value would be much much higher than JJ's but he would be drastically harder to replace.

 

[major major]

I think we are sweating this expansion draft a little too much. It's looking like only one team will come on board which means you only lose one player. I think you protect everyone you want long term and then roll the dice. Now if there are more teams, then maybe you worry more, but I just don't think we're going to be as damaged by the expansion draft as some are worried about.

We're definitely over-thinking the expansion draft. But I'm less focused on it now for a different reason than you. We'll get hurt more than most teams given our depth of mid-range assets, but we're going to lose a good player no matter what we do and it's possible or even likely that our list of preferred players is very different from Vegas'. So it's all the more absurd when you have Jackets fans in trade discussions turning down proposals for #1C's on the grounds that it requires a protection spot.

 

[We Want Ten]

Has any team ever been the same from one year to the next? Not counting old timey hockey.

 

[blahblah]

We're definitely over-thinking the expansion draft. But I'm less focused on it now for a different reason than you. We'll get hurt more than most teams given our depth of mid-range assets, but we're going to lose a good player no matter what we do and it's possible or even likely that our list of preferred players is very different from Vegas'. So it's all the more absurd when you have Jackets fans in trade discussions turning down proposals for #1C's on the grounds that it requires a protection spot.

We'll be risking losing a good player, doesn't mean will lose one. A lot of horse trading goes on, things like offering up picks to protect a player. Frankly the expansion draft talk is just downright boring.

Every team is going to have some angst and I'm sure most fans on other teams will feel the exact same way.

 

[Xoggz22]

I don't understand the high opinion on Kukan. He didn't look that special to me when he was up last season. I get he had a good plus minus, but that's a dubious stat.

I get that the CBJ need to shed some salary, but I don't think this guy is ready to fill a spot on a regular basis.

I think his gAme is more NHL centric than Prout and would think if there was a spot it would be 7/8. I think he's a more likely call up for injuries and would certainly be deserving. With Prout, Golo and Tyutin on the current roster and Werenski the most likely to push one of them out the door, Kukan is unlikely to stick full time. However, I think he showed well and will chall3nge

 

[NotWendell]

I think his gAme is more NHL centric than Prout and would think if there was a spot it would be 7/8. I think he's a more likely call up for injuries and would certainly be deserving. With Prout, Golo and Tyutin on the current roster and Werenski the most likely to push one of them out the door, Kukan is unlikely to stick full time. However, I think he showed well and will chall3nge

I'd be very happy if we played Kukan instead of either Golo, Prout or Tyutin in October 2016.

 

[Cowumbus]

what is more likely:

Jenner becomes a Backes like 1C

Or

Wennberg becomes a Backstrom like 1C

 

[CBJWerenski8]

what is more likely:

Jenner becomes a Backes like 1C

Or

Wennberg becomes a Backstrom like 1C

Since it says 1C, I guess option 2. But if you just said Backes or Backstrom, option 1 and it's not close.