Here's my issue with your response. You literally took the one sentence in my entire post that you disagreed with, drew the conclusion that that was my entire argument, and then formulated a defense against it.
What about his poor offensive production even with quality offence minutes?
What about his deployment against 3rd pairing level quality of competition?
http://www.behindthenet.ca/nhl_stati...34+45+46+63+67
While I appreciate your lecture on Zone starts, I don't agree with your example. The 57:40-58:59 shift was 50% against the 4th line of Boston (just so you don't key in on this one line in my entire post, I have no idea what line Randall-Ferraro-Vatrano is, but we can agree it's not the top competition) when their top guns were taking a breather, and 50% against the top line of Boston.
Just prior to the shift that you were talking about, Ekholm/Ellis played 1:30 against the top line of the Bruins. Just after the shift you highlighted, Weber/Josi played the final 1:01 against the top line of the Bruins.
Of the three pairings, in the last 5 minutes of the game, it's very clear to me that Jones/Jackman were the sheltered pair of the three.
Do you have another metric to show whether a guy is "sheltered"?
Edit: Just to re-calibrate what we're arguing. My point is that I think that Columbus overpaid to get Jones. Johansen has far more value, because he's a proven #1C. Jones is an excellent prospect, but hasn't shown anything at the NHL level other than the fact that he can easily play defence on the 2nd and 3rd pairings. I see his current level as a #3/4, with a high potential as #2 defencemen. I see a lot of "he's a top pairing defender" or "future superstar" in this thread, and I just don't see it, especially when I compare to someone like Ekblad. I believe that Jones has value closer to the RNH type (which is why I argued for that trade in E=NG), but clearly Johansen is much higher value, and Nashville did well to maximize their return.