A look at every Doug MacLean transaction from the beginning

[Samkow]

Chris MacFarland (CBJ Assistant GM) may have been the final authority on that move... MacLean was fired in April and Howson wasn't hired until about 2 weeks before the draft, so it would have been early june.

Jim Clark was the GM at the time, IIRC

 

[david999]

Very interesting thread on Doug Maclean, especially since we hear him everyday on one of the sport stations here in Toronto.

 

[pete goegan]

Very interesting thread on Doug Maclean, especially since we hear him everyday on one of the sport stations here in Toronto.

Then you already know what a flaccid tool he is, this thread let's you know that it didn't just begin yesterday.

 

[Sore Loser]

Very interesting thread on Doug Maclean, especially since we hear him everyday on one of the sport stations here in Toronto.

On a more serious note, well done again Palinka. Fun reads on all of your threads. The people saying D-Mac was a better GM need only compare this to two Scott Howson deals:

LeClaire for Vermette, and acquiring RJ Umberger. Those players would have been the two best players (save for Rick Nash and maybe David Vyborny) from the MacLean era.

I still think we're moving in a generally better direction now that Scott Howson has taken over. Time will tell if I'm a complete bonehead or not.

Thanks for your hard work, Palinka.

 

[Miggus]

Thank you for the great work you've done, Palinka. I started following the Jackets just a couple of years ago (and have become an avid fan since) so all three of these recaps were an excellent read, especially these two about the MacLean era.

 

[CapnCornelius]

2001-02

Date: June 22, 2002
Traded: 20th overall, 2002 draft (Daniel Paille)
Received: Mike Pandolfo; 30th overall, 2002 draft (Jim Slater)
Reason: I'm not going to act like I know exactly what it's like to be a GM. A GM deals with more issues than the public ever knows, and there's a lot more that goes into the job than simply signing contracts and making trades. But when a move like this is made, a GM deserves every ounce of criticism that he gets. It is possible to move up 10 picks in a draft by adding in a player, but this was an unsigned prospect who wasn't even a highly-touted one. This was a role player; this was a younger version of Tyler Wright at absolute best. For the sake of comparison, Buffalo picked up the 31st and 82nd picks in the draft for the 41st and SLAVA FREAKIN' KOZLOV. Slava Kozlov!
Outcome: Pandolfo ended up playing three games with Columbus. Three games. Pat yourself on the back for that one, Doug. But this madness isn't done yet.

Date: June 22, 2002
Traded: 30th overall, 2002 draft (Jim Slater)
Received: 41st overall, 2002 draft (Joakim Lindstrom); 96th overall, 2002 draft (Jeff Genovy)
Reason: I was watching the draft at a bar with a couple of friends from the world of hockey, both of whom do freelance scouting. One, being from Toledo, was never a Wings fan and didn't even have a favorite team until the Jackets came along. He's also a connoisseur of bourbon. So we're sitting there, and two of us are having a couple of beers and the other one is sipping on Maker's Mark. So we're watching this idiocy unfold, and it's announced that this deal went down as the culmination of MacLean's madness. My one friend's jaw drops, and he finishes his bourbon by gulping it down like a shot, then asks the barkeep for a full glass of the strongest stuff he's got. The barkeep pulls out this bottle and fills the glass with this stuff that smells like gasoline. My friend looks at the TV, looks at the glass, and chugs the whole thing in about three seconds flat. The barkeep stood there with his mouth hanging open; he looks at us and goes, "That stuff is 130 proof."
Outcome: Here's the final deal, as it all went down. Ron Tugnutt and the 32nd overall pick for Mike Pandolfo, the 41st pick, and the 96th pick. That's not a bad deal, that's a Mike Milbury deal. Actually, Mike Milbury was probably sitting there going, "What the hell is that guy doing?"

Now, while I agree with a lot of the MacLean bashing, this is an example where I just go "who cares?" Jim Slater, at best, would be sitting on our bottom 6. He's a dime a dozen player. The kind that you can easily pickup on the open market at or around league minimum. These type of moves really don't get my dander up much.

2004-05

Date: November 15, 2005
Traded: Francois Beauchemin, Tyler Wright
Received: Sergei Fedorov; 142nd overall, 2006 draft (Maxime Frechette)
Reason: No one knows for sure. Fedorov was obviously declining but still worthwhile, but the way that Doug MacLean made it sound ("On-ice coaching! Screw hiring another assistant, I pay this guy $6 million a year to act like one!") was that he was still a Hart candidate. Beauchemin would nearly equal Fedorov's offensive output, and he's a defenseman.
Outcome: This move also led to Todd Marchant being put on waivers and claimed by Anaheim. Fedorov would eventually be traded to Washington, but not before taking in something like $14 million in salary that was way out of proportion to his production. The draft pick, used on Maxime Frechette, was one of the biggest wastes in team history.

I've also gotta call BS here. "No one knows for sure"? I'm pretty sure we know why MacLean was willing to take a flyer on a former MVP at center given his team's continued problems at that position. Further, it was pretty clear that Zherdev was never going to have chemistry with the likes of Todd Marchant. Feds was a risk given his albatross of a contract, no doubt. But let's not pretend that the reason for the risk was unknown.

For me, Doug's biggest sins were his drafting miscues, particularly in the first round and his constant rushing of prospects into the lineup. His other big issue? While he constantly was shuffling the chairs on the Titanic, he somehow consistently failed to adequately address our weaknesses at center and on the blueline. A lot of the rest of this is background noise.

I'm not so certain all of these issues have been rectified. Am I to believe that Doug was constantly overruling a scouting staff that is largely unchanged since he left? Has his successor done any better at addressing the continued weakness on defense and at center? By failing to acquire veteran talent, aren't we still putting pressure on our prospects to get to the NHL sooner than they might otherwise be there?

 

[Palinka]

interesting stuff - was wondering - who was GM when the bruins got adam mcquaid? was maclean still around? i believe the deal went down in may of 07.

Jim Clark, who was the interim GM.

McQuaid wasn't going to be signed before the draft re-entry deadline, so something had to be acquired rather than lose him for nothing.

 

[Palinka]

What I find interesting is that Dougie might have had a closer vision of the reality of the true value of a second round pick. Probably accidental.

The thought of "crippling" a team with the trading of a second round doesn't ring true for me.

In a normal draft year, 5 of the 30 might contribute at some point in the NHL. Of those, two might be an impact player. For every Stasny, there are 27 other guys that might play 80 games at the NHL level if they are lucky.

Except that the pick was very likely to have been high in the second round of what was being talked about more than two years ahead of time in the hushed tones normally reserved for a cathedral or monument. I'll elaborate further in a second, though.

I'm not saying that it wasn't a bad move(s) or that we should be free with moving the picks. But I am saying is that if you end up with a contributing roster player for a second round pick, even if he's bottom six, far more times then not you are actually way ahead of the game.

Picking up a young bottom-six forward who may or may not stick in that role is one thing. But with Grant Marshall, the following all applied:
- Either in or past his prime
- Was wholly underwhelming in his prime in all facets of the game
- Had decisively proven that he was not a championship-caliber player (oddly enough, his 2003 playoffs with New Jersey were terrific at times)
- Had already sustained two significant injuries in addition to an off-ice incident that was pretty serious in its own right

The question is, "Why Grant Marshall?" For that matter, "Why a bottom-six forward at all?" The NHL, in any given year, is flush with free agents who are either good bottom-six forwards or who will be in the proper situation. Unless it's a playoff team loading up for a run and/or needing to patch one single gaping hole, the idea of trading a draft pick this high for someone that middling is crazy. Marshall's true value may have been what New Jersey laid out to get him from Columbus: a fourth-rounder.

In the end Dougie and crew probably would have screwed up that pick anyway.

Sadly, this is also a true statement.

 

[Palinka]

Now, while I agree with a lot of the MacLean bashing, this is an example where I just go "who cares?" Jim Slater, at best, would be sitting on our bottom 6. He's a dime a dozen player. The kind that you can easily pickup on the open market at or around league minimum. These type of moves really don't get my dander up much.

It's not the idea of Jim Slater, who was picked by Atlanta after the trade. For that matter, it's not the idea of Daniel Paille, picked with the 20th pick.

It's the idea that a first-round pick is an important bullet in the chamber for personnel moves. A team going into its third year with holes all over the roster needs more than what a draft pick in that position is normally going to provide, particularly considering that 2002 was a pretty average draft. If there isn't someone you absolutely love at that spot, trading the pick is fine, but get something that's worthwhile. That's what this really came down to in my assessment. The idea of a team just finishing its second year deciding that the 20th overall pick is less worthwhile than a mid-second, the last pick of the third, and a prospect who could generously be described as "pedestrian", particularly when there are always trades on the table, is just strange.

I've also gotta call BS here. "No one knows for sure"? I'm pretty sure we know why MacLean was willing to take a flyer on a former MVP at center given his team's continued problems at that position. Further, it was pretty clear that Zherdev was never going to have chemistry with the likes of Todd Marchant. Feds was a risk given his albatross of a contract, no doubt. But let's not pretend that the reason for the risk was unknown.

There'd be several possibilities for "the real reason"; I was referring to the fact that any one of them could be sold and be plausible, and anything outlandish could be theorized and also be plausible. There's a school of thought that the move was made for no other real reason than to re-energize a fan base that was taking an increasingly critical eye toward Doug MacLean's failure to build the team. It's impossible to say that not only was that not a factor, but that it wasn't a major factor. Perhaps there was a lot of stock put into the idea of "on-ice coaching". Maybe there was a lot put into showing the young guys what a real professional looks like, although Fedorov isn't exactly the first guy that would come to mind.

For me, Doug's biggest sins were his drafting miscues, particularly in the first round and his constant rushing of prospects into the lineup. His other big issue? While he constantly was shuffling the chairs on the Titanic, he somehow consistently failed to adequately address our weaknesses at center and on the blueline. A lot of the rest of this is background noise.

I think a lot of moves can be explained by what's generally referred to as missing the forest for the trees. If there was a hole in one area, he would have no second thought of trading away 5-10 years of help in that very spot if it meant a possible upgrade today. Or maybe it would be making that move even if it meant creating another hole elsewhere, which would also have to be patched. Or maybe it was a case of overanalyzing what a player could not do instead of what he could do; maybe in his mind, Ray Whitney's defensive shortcomings overshadowed the fact that he could produce a good amount of offense. Maybe Jason Chimera's speed blinded MacLean to the fact that Chimera can't do much outside of skate fast, even if it meant dumping Geoff Sanderson.

Personally, I think it's a combination of all of those factors.

I'm not so certain all of these issues have been rectified. Am I to believe that Doug was constantly overruling a scouting staff that is largely unchanged since he left? Has his successor done any better at addressing the continued weakness on defense and at center? By failing to acquire veteran talent, aren't we still putting pressure on our prospects to get to the NHL sooner than they might otherwise be there?

Where I give Scott Howson credit is that he is not only aware of what the roster looks like as currently composed, but what needs to change going forward. The fact that there is not currently a true #1 center doesn't mean that he's unaware of it or that he believes that Derick Brassard is a true #1 right now. It's a reflection of the fact that he believes that the current market for a #1 center is not working in his favor, and thus will not be rushed into making an unfavorable deal simply because that's a pressing need.

To go back to the Brad Richards deal, the known (and publicly acknowledged) cost was an NHL goalie. That would have meant Pascal Leclaire, which, since there was no real backup and Steve Mason was very much unknown, would have meant getting a #1 center with a huge contract at the expense of having an NHL-caliber goalie between the pipes. Or it would have meant trading Mason and keeping Leclaire, meaning that the team was stuck with Leclaire and his injuries into the indefinite future until another goalie was up and ready to go. That's a heavy price to pay.

 

[blahblah]

Except that the pick was very likely to have been high in the second round of what was being talked about more than two years ahead of time in the hushed tones normally reserved for a cathedral or monument. I'll elaborate further in a second, though.

Doesn't matter where in the second round it is. Most people don't bother to look closely at the statistical averages of drafting. Especially if they are in deep into scouting and player development. The odds of crippling your franchise over the loss of a second round pick is pretty much non-existent. You might very well have picked someone else then who actually worked out anyway.

Picking up a young bottom-six forward who may or may not stick in that role is one thing. But with Grant Marshall, the following all applied:

I don't care about Grant Marshall, but since he played more then 5 games for us he probably did more then a drafted second rounder would have done for us.

I don't agree with the deal. But I also don't covet a second rounder for more then a chip in the NHL poker game. Some will work out, most won't. If I can get a roster player for one, that can actually help my team in the role I want, I'm seriously considering it.

You don't want to constantly trade your 2-7th round draft positions, as you want to load up on your farm system depth in the hopes of developing something, but there is too much value placed on the second rounder. If I'm a seller at the trade deadline, I might try and load up on them to use at the draft. Either increase my odds if I like the depth that year, or make a move to improve my roster or move up into another first round pick.

 

[Viqsi]

Where I give Scott Howson credit is that he is not only aware of what the roster looks like as currently composed, but what needs to change going forward. The fact that there is not currently a true #1 center doesn't mean that he's unaware of it or that he believes that Derick Brassard is a true #1 right now. It's a reflection of the fact that he believes that the current market for a #1 center is not working in his favor, and thus will not be rushed into making an unfavorable deal simply because that's a pressing need.

(Now, whether or not folks agree with that market assessment is, of course, another debate entirely. I do. Some don't.)

 

[blahblah]

(Now, whether or not folks agree with that market assessment is, of course, another debate entirely. I do. Some don't.)

Read my name... More of the same. Fact remains.... Four years, same holes in key positions. There was nothing new in that statement, just like there was nothing new in mine.

I'm tired of hearing how patient and smart he is. A smart man wouldn't have almost signed Redden for 8 thousand years either.

There is nothing to say that Howson has any idea what the defense needs to "look like" going forward if he actually liked the group we have now. It was probably GM nonsense to not insult his defensemen. I don't care if he can look at the roster and identify needs, I assume he can do that. What I care about is how he addresses those needs.

 

[Viqsi]

Read my name... More of the same. Fact remains.... Four years, same holes in key positions. There was nothing new in that statement, just like there was nothing new in mine.

I'm tired of hearing how patient and smart he is. A smart man wouldn't have almost signed Redden for 8 thousand years either.

There is nothing to say that Howson has any idea what the defense needs to "look like" going forward if he actually liked the group we have now. It was probably GM nonsense to not insult his defensemen. I don't care if he can look at the roster and identify needs, I assume he can do that. What I care about is how he addresses those needs.

New? No. Well-put, and something many other posters tend to not think about or not know? Yes.

I don't expect points like that to sway you; I'm more concerned about everyone else.

 

[CapnCornelius]

New? No. Well-put, and something many other posters tend to not think about or not know? Yes.

Not know? How about "not agree with"? It was a statement of opinion, not fact.

 

[blahblah]

New? No. Well-put, and something many other posters tend to not think about or not know? Yes.

I'm struggling to find what was new in there that we haven't talked about ad nauseam.

Doesn't matter I guess.

 

[LetsGOJackets!!]

I don't want to forget to say this AWESOME THREAD!!

As for Palinka's quote about losing a 2nd round pick i.e. Louie Erickson I think you need to consider the value of high first round picks to a new franchise.

It's not like we had a developed roster, and a schitt load of talent in development. To lose a 2nd on Kyle Mc Clod, and then another 2nd that turned into Louie Erickson..

I agree Palinka, this was devistating decision making.

 

[Palinka]

Doesn't matter where in the second round it is. Most people don't bother to look closely at the statistical averages of drafting. Especially if they are in deep into scouting and player development. The odds of crippling your franchise over the loss of a second round pick is pretty much non-existent. You might very well have picked someone else then who actually worked out anyway.

Oh, come on. I love stat analysis as much as the next guy.....okay, bad example. I love stat analysis as much as most members of SABR, but the assertion that a second-rounder is a second-rounder is a second-rounder is simply not true. For one, averages skew heavily based on a variety of factors, including the fact that, over the last 15 years, there have been several average to below-average drafts, especially the horrid 1999 draft. If you were to look at first-rounders from 1999 to 2002, to use but one example, it could be concluded that the value of a first-rounder was declining over time because of any reason that could be mentioned.

Issues that people seem to forget entirely, such as the total breakdown of Canada being able to develop defensemen, are overlooked. The United States not producing a transitionary crop of forwards that would be in their prime between 1998 and 2004 is overlooked. The sudden downfall of Sweden (admittedly short-lived) is forgotten; Loui Eriksson was the first Swede taken in 2003, which is really staggering.

I don't care about Grant Marshall, but since he played more then 5 games for us he probably did more then a drafted second rounder would have done for us.

By and large, a false statement. With the GM drafting the way that he did, possibly a true statement. Still not the point.

I don't agree with the deal. But I also don't covet a second rounder for more then a chip in the NHL poker game. Some will work out, most won't. If I can get a roster player for one, that can actually help my team in the role I want, I'm seriously considering it.

And there's nothing wrong with trading a draft pick to get a roster player. But the big question remains: Why Grant Marshall? Why did the deal go from a conditional third-rounder to an actual second-rounder?

You don't want to constantly trade your 2-7th round draft positions, as you want to load up on your farm system depth in the hopes of developing something, but there is too much value placed on the second rounder. If I'm a seller at the trade deadline, I might try and load up on them to use at the draft. Either increase my odds if I like the depth that year, or make a move to improve my roster or move up into another first round pick.

Again, nothing wrong with this line of thinking.

Read my name... More of the same. Fact remains.... Four years, same holes in key positions. There was nothing new in that statement, just like there was nothing new in mine.

Top centers and top defensemen don't grow on trees, and the asking price (either in trade value or in salary as a free agent) is normally astronomical. Hence, the need to draft them. And in the last three drafts, we've seen a top defenseman prospect and a top center prospect picked, so I'd argue that "something" is most certainly being done in the best way possible.

I'm tired of hearing how patient and smart he is. A smart man wouldn't have almost signed Redden for 8 thousand years either.

To be fair to both parties...
- Redden, in the prior two years to hitting free agency, had been asked to break in a rookie (Andrej Meszaros) and then had been the center of very public trade talks.
- The thinking was that Redden's decline in 2007-08 was a direct result of the public trade talks and that, once removed from something that toxic, would rebound to form.
- This was not just the opinion of two teams that wear blue jerseys with red pants; it was the opinion of several other teams who were interested in signing Redden.
- However, there have been rumors that Redden has been fighting his own chronic health conditions, unrelated to on-ice injuries, that have sapped him of his ability so suddenly and so dramatically. Whether that's true or not is unknown, and no one in Redden's camp has any reason to say anything.
- What was being offered from Columbus was right in line with what other teams were offering.
- If Redden had signed elsewhere and had actually rebounded, Scott Howson would be the target of criticism for failing to do everything he could to get Redden in the fold, and it would be justified.

There is nothing to say that Howson has any idea what the defense needs to "look like" going forward if he actually liked the group we have now. It was probably GM nonsense to not insult his defensemen. I don't care if he can look at the roster and identify needs, I assume he can do that. What I care about is how he addresses those needs.

And you'll be seeing very soon exactly how that's done.

 

[pete goegan]

And you'll be seeing very soon exactly how that's done.

I don't think there is anyone here who is not anxious for that to be true.

 

[blahblah]

@ Palinka

One of these days, I'll bother to do that actual math on %'s on the second round. But just looking over the draft years, it's easy to see that the second round is highly over rated. You'll have to use your draft picks for four or five years to come up with someone that contributes anything of value. And that's if you are good.

You can spin the Redden situation any way you like to fit your agenda, which is to support Howson. I don't have to spin anything. He was going for Redden and then he ended up with Commie. I don't care that he ended up with Commie, I cared about the number of years with a guy that seemed to show up every other year. Neither look good on his resume.

As far as centers and D's growing on trees. No kidding. However, there have been quality players moved during his tenure that fit the mold (more on D then at C) and he was not the one that finished the deal(s). But the only thing he addressed on D was Stralman. If it was hindsight from my perspective, I wouldn't care so much, but I begged for it after the playoff year. It wasn't hard to see that this defense was stretched pretty thing.

And I'll be seeing it very soon? Hopefully that means you have inside knowledge that Howson is close to something. Either this year or this off season. It will be about freaking time if it happens. I've seen glaciers move faster then this guy. You seem to have some feeling or knowledge of his "genius", as he'll somehow be vindicated. Well as soon as we go to the playoffs again, if he's still around he'll get to claim vindication and everyone will be able to say "See I just told you if you were patient!....". I'm not claiming that his glacier pace might not eventually pay off. There just might not be much of a fan base left by the time it happens.

We're starting to pass that line where he can claim the issue is errors of the past. He's probably got another year for the players to develop, save his skin, and make him look like the genius that people seem to think he his. I hope the players on the roster save his job.

 

[Palinka]

@ Palinka

One of these days, I'll bother to do that actual math on %'s on the second round. But just looking over the draft years, it's easy to see that the second round is highly over rated. You'll have to use your draft picks for four or five years to come up with someone that contributes anything of value. And that's if you are good.

There's a good reason for a lot of second-round flameouts: it's when the reaching begins. It's when GMs start picking guys with obvious flaws in their game, or guys who are productive from being on a certain pairing or line, or any of a number of things.

You can spin the Redden situation any way you like to fit your agenda, which is to support Howson. I don't have to spin anything. He was going for Redden and then he ended up with Commie. I don't care that he ended up with Commie, I cared about the number of years with a guy that seemed to show up every other year. Neither look good on his resume.

Just so we're clear, I have no agenda and I have no need to spin anything. What I am doing and will continue to do is bring a level-headed common sense to the boards. I don't consider preaching patience and development to be "spin". And I sure don't consider laying out the basic facts of the Redden signing to be "spin".

As far as centers and D's growing on trees. No kidding. However, there have been quality players moved during his tenure that fit the mold (more on D then at C) and he was not the one that finished the deal(s). But the only thing he addressed on D was Stralman. If it was hindsight from my perspective, I wouldn't care so much, but I begged for it after the playoff year. It wasn't hard to see that this defense was stretched pretty thing.

Quality players moved for what? Let's use the Frolik deal as an example. Dale Tallon apparently values Jack Skille and Hugh Jessiman a great deal more than anyone else in the world of hockey would ever think of valuing them. I'd love to see Frolik in Columbus, but I sure wouldn't be as pleased if it meant Voracek or Brassard going the other way.

And I'll be seeing it very soon? Hopefully that means you have inside knowledge that Howson is close to something. Either this year or this off season. It will be about freaking time if it happens. I've seen glaciers move faster then this guy. You seem to have some feeling or knowledge of his "genius", as he'll somehow be vindicated. Well as soon as we go to the playoffs again, if he's still around he'll get to claim vindication and everyone will be able to say "See I just told you if you were patient!....". I'm not claiming that his glacier pace might not eventually pay off. There just might not be much of a fan base left by the time it happens.

I refuse to believe that a fan base largely composed of Browns, Bengals, Reds, Indians, and Cavs fans knows nothing about the importance of drafting and development. And I definitely can't see how the Ohio State contingent that survived the 90s with John Cooper doesn't know a thing or two about enormous promise falling short year after year after year.

We're starting to pass that line where he can claim the issue is errors of the past. He's probably got another year for the players to develop, save his skin, and make him look like the genius that people seem to think he his. I hope the players on the roster save his job.

No, that line hasn't been touched yet. Roster players drafted at any point during Scott Howson's tenure (whether drafted by him or not) are John Moore, Matt Calvert, and Jakub Voracek. To pick out another random team, Florida has just four players drafted since 2007 on their roster. Anaheim has three. New Jersey has three. The Islanders have four. And so on.

That means that the remaining 19 players on the Jackets' roster would have had to have come from players drafted before 2006. And this is a clear example of how the botched initial build continues to haunt the team, particularly since the chance to draft immediate-impact players has not been there. So yes, errors of the past are very much an issue.

 

[Samkow]

So, since Puck-Daddy link dropped this thread, figure it's a good time to bump it.

Anyone got anything to add?

 

[Socks]

Nope.

 

[Mayor Bee]

So, since Puck-Daddy link dropped this thread, figure it's a good time to bump it.

Anyone got anything to add?

Nothing that hasn't been covered a thousand times over before.

 

[Fro]

what about the eventual Ovechkin for Nash trade that is bound to happen?

 

[NotWendell]

When you add in the lack of organizational success in developing players, this post alone explains why the Jackets sucked for so long. Scott Howson's moves in comparison will make him look like a genius. Love to see that thread next (it's a long summer).