Edited Oct. 1, 2019 at 12:07 a.m.
Quoting: Eli
By points/game, no defenseman 24 or younger in Cleveland did as well as Johansen last year.
Cleveland last year:
http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/leagues/seasons/teams/0076532019.html
Johansen:
http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php?pid=169246
He's got another year of waiver exemption, after which CBJ can trade Murray for thoughts and prayers, and bring him up as a #4-5, with top pair potential. But okay.
But if you'd rather have a late first pick or something, I mean, just say that. I wouldn't.
edit: Clendening and Simpson are better right now. But that's normal. They're 26 and at their peak, they are barely NHLers. Johansen is 21 and should still be improving quickly. Scouting reports online say he's better at defense than offense, but his offense is enough to make him the Jackets' best AHL offensive defenseman under 25 this year. In a couple years, he's gonna be a decent NHLer. Who told you he isn't a good prospect? They should be ashamed. I'm not.
Blah blah blah noise noise. Here is the list of blueliners Johansen would be behind on our depth chart:
* Jones
* Werenski
* Murray
* Savard
* Nutivaara
* Kukan
* Gavrikov
* Harrington
* Peeke
You're babbling about how he can be better than guys like Clendening when Clendening is already ten names deep on an organization-wide depth chart on which every player is below (in some cases WELL below) the age of 30. We don't have room for the guys we
already have, let alone for Lucas. Would he make the Monsters better? Sure. But there's no way come hell or high water we trade a core player like Josh ****ing Anderson just to make our farm team a little nicer-looking. Especially since Peeke is probably going to take over the blueline there anyways, now that he's out of college.
* * *
Quoting: Eli
A. pay a 1st to move a year of Dubinsky and sign Anderson, who might not have a top six spot depending how well Atkinson, Bjorkstrand, and Bemstrom play?
or
B. Keep that 1st pick and get back a player and a 1st (upcoming or recent) for Anderson?
Either option is fine. But it's not just Eller and Johansen for Andersen. It's Eller and Johansen and Columbus gets to keep its 1st pick and open up a spot at RW where two of their best prospects play.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white
I'd take option C: buy out Dubinsky's last year, and to hell with worrying about top-6 spots for Anderson and the rest and just roll three or even four lines like literally every currently successful team in the NHL does. And if it gets too expensive and we can't move one of those guys to LW, we trade them for an asset we actually
need and
could use, rather than a tenth defenseman and a massively overpaid center that we get perennially shoved down our throats on the flimsy pretense of "your GM scouted him once therefore WUV".
(And there's a certain irony in insisting that we have to trade a RW because of hypothetical future depth issues at the position, and then pretending that a prospect D is a fair return for same in spite of actual current depth issues at that position. Did I say irony? I meant "gross naked hypocrisy".)