SalarySwishSalarySwish
Avatar

pocke

Member Since
May 26, 2022
Favourite Team
Columbus Blue Jackets
Forum Posts
409
Posts per Day
0.6
Forum: Armchair-GMFeb. 16 at 11:27 a.m.
Forum: Armchair-GMFeb. 15 at 6:33 p.m.
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Skyraider112</b></div><div>Makes no sense to trade for and sign Hanifin, trade for Jiricek and Borgen and also draft Levshunov. You'd have too many top 4 D men and not enough ice-time nor cap to pay them. We don't need or want Hanifin and Jiricek won't be moved. Borgen would be a great add but would cost more than Krebs and a 3rd imo



That's ridiculous. Man hasn't done anything in the NHL he's not worth that much lol. But agree Columbus shouldn't move him</div></div>


<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>AntiAnalytics</b></div><div>Agree with Absolutely ALL of this
Great post</div></div>


It's just the caliber of prospect he is. He was drafted 6OA, had an absolutely outstanding D+1 and has had flashes of an insane ceiling in the NHL in his D+2.

His defensive numbers on CBJ are good and his scoring output is similar to Power's with 0.92 points/60 against Power's 1.01 Points/60.

Here are some hand-tracked metrics that are important for defensemen. First, both are already excellent puck movers.

<img class="for_img" src="https://i.imgur.com/Fw591l7.png" alt="Fw591l7.png">

Second, Jiricek is a fantastic neutral zone defenseman whereas Power is more absorb focused.

<img class="for_img" src="https://i.imgur.com/c7hjEOo.png" alt="c7hjEOo.png">

In terms of HockeyViz's predictive analytics, they both grade out quite similarly.

<img class="for_img" src="https://i.imgur.com/ZZo3o4M.png" alt="ZZo3o4M.png">
<img class="for_img" src="https://i.imgur.com/u4EQ2zw.png" alt="u4EQ2zw.png">
Forum: Armchair-GMFeb. 8 at 3:24 p.m.
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>JacketsComrade</b></div><div>i will fully admit that the chinakhov, johnson, bean, and marchenko deals are heavily informed by the AFP analytics projections - i've looked at some comps myself but im not great at contract prediction so i was deferring a good bit. i think marchenko 5 years $5 mil AAV <em>feels</em> better to me and then you find out if he's a true #1 RW and pay up at the end of the deal or you move on at the deadline. conveniently, 5 years would mean johnny off the books when it's time to theoretically pay up.

i agree with you on chinakhov. personally, i'd love to get all of chinakhov, sillinger, and marchenko deals with 4+ term this summer but i don't feel like that matches the precedent we've seen around the league. it'd be a lot of money to give out in one summer with just a slight cap bump. chinakhov's posturing earlier this season makes me feel like he's the most likely in that bunch to only sign short term in a "bet on myself" kind of way.

yea KJ is interesting because im personally not convinced he's an NHL center but it does feel like he needs a center we don't have, although i think he and voronkov have shown some things that might work out long term.</div></div>

Yeah I assumed as much with the AFP projections! It's going to be an interesting offseason. I think punting 2 years, even though that's what their most common projections were, on so many of these is potentially fraught with risk. It sets up some of these players to be moved as the core comes up. It <em>might</em> be better to move some of them earlier for a veteran who can help insulate the remaining players skills instead of them all experiencing growing pains. At the same time, though, we've had so much coaching/system turmoil that it's hard to identify a "core" that we are willing to bet on.

Worth mentioning that Gaudreau's full NMC changes to a 10-team NTC in 26-27, so perhaps it may be worth risking 2 year deals for some of the prospects were are iffy about.
Forum: Armchair-GMFeb. 8 at 11:36 a.m.
Forum: Armchair-GMFeb. 1 at 1:02 p.m.
Forum: Armchair-GMJan. 30 at 11:00 a.m.
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>CaseyFlyman</b></div><div><em>What did Adam Boqvist do to you?</em>

In all seriousness, I think Boqvist fits as the 3RD/7th D long-term. He's not physical, but he's okay at stick checking and versatile enough that he'd make a great depth guy, especially if someone like Z goes down. Elvis is a fine placeholder until Greaves is fully ready to go. Hopefully someone takes him for a late-rounder this offseason.

Laine still has some value, this year has been rough. I think he could still be the 1RW, but he's not going to be an all-around elite player or perpetual all-star. Trade him or keep him, makes no difference to me at this point, so long as a trade returns at least a 2nd/okay prospect without retaining salary.

Provorov was one of the stupidest trades I've ever seen this team make, and definitely one of my least-favorite. Peeke is quickly turning into one of my least favorite <em>players </em>all-time.

Hot(ish) take: I think it's time for Jenner to go, too. His value will never be higher, and his leadership has never been more stale. Start the culture change with him, too. Let the centers run Fantilli, Sillinger, Voronkov, and Kuraly for the rest of this year, hoping they stick. Give the team that consistency at least.</div></div>

Not a hot take to trade Jenner at all. It's by far the highest his value has ever been and ever will be. The cap goes up after this year so his efficient deal will become that much less important.

In my opinion, it's Zach Werenski's team and has been anyway.

The solution for this team isn't to just keep getting younger but we can't keep only having "leaders" who play physical styles that aren't at all like the players they are trying to teach. Namely, Jenner, Gudbranson, Kuraly.

Jarmo not clearing the D jam, and signing Severson (though in a vacuum he's a good skillset to add to the D corps), was ridiculous. Peeke wasn't going to add dramatic value by playing. At best you could have upgraded a 4th to a 3rd. Boqvist was only going to add value if he was playing big minutes. He's still a young kid with a PP1 pathway. You also had Nick Blankenburg to fill in as well. This is without the Jiricek shenanigans.
Forum: Armchair-GMDec. 26, 2023 at 12:47 p.m.
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>CaseyFlyman</b></div><div>If CBJ make that trade, I'd be mad. Dumais projects to be an offensively-gifted top-6 winger for a long time, moving him for an older defensive winger and a late-first (wouldn't mind if it was 32nd overall, personally) would be a bad idea. Does Vancouver really have an appetite to change anything around right now, aside from Kuzmenko?</div></div>

It's a little early to say that Dumais projects as a gifted top 6 winger. His playstyle isn't directly translatable to the NHL without physical gifts. His best NHLe comps are Point and Kyrou who are both elite skaters and played in more projectable leagues. The QMJHL in general struggles to translate to the NHL because there's just limited quality forechecking.

You have to love Dumais' IQ and skill but Garland is a pretty optimistic projection for someone like him. There are plenty of players that dominate juniors, like Dumais, that struggle to become anything at the NHL level. Nic Petan is the easiest cautionary tale.

In order for Dumais to hit in the NHL level, he'll need to find a role in an NHL forecheck scheme or flash instant chemistry with an all-situations C and forecheck dominant W. CBJ have plenty of wings (Brindley in the prospect pool and already a more projectable style) ahead of him on the depth chart so it's unlikely he gets favorable deployment under an NHL head coach. For that reason, he'll need some time in the AHL to cook.

CBJ would certainly accept this on value. A 1st and an NHL player, Garland has excellent 5v5 numbers, for Dumais is pretty crazy. Whether this move fits within the cap and roster scheme CBJ are going for is another question. It would require quite a few moves for CBJ to be willing to add the cap and find a roster spot for Garland for 3 years and I think CBJ would rather spend for a C. That being said, a 1st is a great asset with which to get a quality C.
Forum: Armchair-GMDec. 19, 2023 at 9:56 a.m.
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>GreatWhiteNorth</b></div><div>I wouldn’t say he’s a unicorn at all, he’s a third line centre that plays physical. Those aren’t THAT rare.

I do agree that this offer isn’t enough, solely based on the fact that Krebs doesn’t have much value and needs a change of scenery. But I also don’t think Jenner would have an extremely high return either</div></div>

I think unicorn might be overstating Jenner's skillset a bit. He is a little more than a 3C who plays physical, though imo he's more of a faceoff winning top-six wing. He goes to the net and is extremely proficient at old-school net front play. If you have a lot of rush players who want to play around in the zone and need space, Jenner is a perfect complement. If you have a line with two skilled players who create a lot of rebounds, Jenner will help them cash-in on their offense.

His scoring rate is well above his cap-hit and for that reason I believe he would fetch a rather large return.

<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>SK101</b></div><div>He’s a Bo Horvat type player on a contract that costs half for this season and the next two. These are the types of players GMs drool over at the deadline. The return would be huge especially if the jackets half retain</div></div>

Boone Jenner isn't really close to Bo Horvat. He doesn't really contribute to the game outside of faceoff wins and net-front play. Those are incredibly valuable skillsets, don't get me wrong, but Bo Horvat can drive 60pt offense without help, as he did often in Vancouver, and is even better with good players. Boone Jenner needs a Jake Voracek or Johnny Gaudreau to get to 60 pts.
Forum: Armchair-GMJul. 28, 2023 at 12:31 p.m.
Peeke+Roslovic&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;Garland.

Garland couldn't be moved for free, so Van bought out OEL. There's no situation where CBJ should be helping Vancouver's cap situation, and losing talented but flawed players in Peeke and Roslovic, while not hand-over-fist winning the trade. Additionally, there's no way you intentionally give up cap flexibility for, at best, a middle 6 winger. This would make it more difficult for us to look at a high end center, (Lindholm, Backlund, Necas and more could be available next offseason if you have the cap-space) and sign KJ and Marchenko to good deals.

I like Garland the player. He draws penalties and does a generally good job of driving positive possession results.

Jack Roslovic is maligned and had a down year, but there isn't a player on CBJ who carried the transition responsibilities as well as him. He generated zone-entries even with Gaudreau but did much more hard work to get it out of the zone. He doesn't have great hockey sense and that makes him waste a lot of the offense he creates. In a more structured offensive zone environment, Roslovic will improve. Still, his ability to take the top end of the defense off and create space for Laine cannot be underestimated.

Furthermore, I'd argue Garland is a worse fit with Babcock than Roslovic, despite his improved compete. Babcock has stated he wants a lefty and righty faceoff person on as many lines as possible so that they can take strong-side faceoffs. CBJ only currently has Roslovic, Danforth and, optimistically, Laine. Garland doesn't contribute in this case and takes a roster spot away from players that could, while getting paid $4 million for 3 years. That fact, combined with the depressed winger market, makes this not a deal worth pursuing.
Forum: Armchair-GMJul. 17, 2023 at 11:46 a.m.
Thread: Kuznetsov
Forum: Armchair-GMJul. 14, 2023 at 7:58 p.m.
Thread: Kuznetsov