Speculation: Armchair GM - Offseason Thread (Summer Edition)

[Youngguns1380]

As I’ve mentioned before, they might not be the “perfect fits”, stylistically or where they are in currently in their careers in relation to the CBJ as a team, but, NOBODY should have ANY sort of complaints or issues about the acquisitions of either/both of Provorov/Severson after watching this team play hockey/defense the last few years.

I don’t think I’ve seen people care more about a 3rd round pick in my life. How many times are 2nd/3rd round picks spent/used on essentially NOTHING?? Provorov wasn’t getting traded for less and Severson wasn’t signing for less.

It is mind boggling that people are complaining about acquiring either of them. You are right after this season people should be rejoicing our D should be immensely better this season.

We acquired Provorov, who was 1 pick higher in the same draft as Z. He was left to toil by himself without a lot of help and now he is playing 2nd line with help. Sounds like Gavrikov this past season.

Severson is known to be defensively solid but his hallmark is his retrievals and breakouts. Sounds like something we need?? I don’t get people this was a solid move other than the term.

 

[Double-Shift Lasse]

It is mind boggling that people are complaining about acquiring either of them. You are right after this season people should be rejoicing our D should be immensely better this season.

We acquired Provorov, who was 1 pick higher in the same draft as Z. He was left to toil by himself without a lot of help and now he is playing 2nd line with help. Sounds like Gavrikov this past season.

Severson is known to be defensively solid but his hallmark is his retrievals and breakouts. Sounds like something we need?? I don’t get people this was a solid move other than the term.

OK but it's the term that most who have a beef are quibbling with. That and surrendering an asset to allow them to give him the extra term.

I don't find either particularly egregious but you can't say "why are people complaining, everything's fine but the term" when it's the term that gave rise to many of the complaints.

 

[Youngguns1380]

OK but it's the term that most who have a beef are quibbling with. That and surrendering an asset to allow them to give him the extra term.

I don't find either particularly egregious but you can't say "why are people complaining, everything's fine but the term" when it's the term that gave rise to many of the complaints.

You do have a point and the term is my only quibble about the deal. The 3rd round pick is not something I am going to lose sleep over. You gave up a 3rd so you would get ahead of the pack. I consider that a smart move. We also don’t know who else was going after Severson as well, but he was top of the list.

 

[tunnelvision]

When people start the Severson buy out talk in a few years (which I’ll be against in principle because I think buy outs are stupid), I’ll be sure to point out that not only was it a bad contract, but we also gave up a pick to sign him to that 8th year. Jarmo would have probably wasted the pick anyway, but it is the principal of giving up an asset we didn’t need to give up which bothers me.

Severson deal isn't necessarily something the Blue Jackets as an organisation and/or most fans of the team needed, but I think it's plausible to assume JD and Jarmo did need to make that move as a deliberate/desperate/whatever attempt to save their jobs. How the team performs next year matters for them. Giving up an asset was the only way to ensure they'll get the guy who they think will be the greatest help for them in near future. You of course are probably well aware of all that but I just wanted to point it out because it's an important distinction imo.

Don't forget that this signing along with Provorov and Babcock may eventually accelerate the timeline of next house cleaning (if they don't get desired results), which is what you've been hoping to see for a while now? A bad contract in itself doesn't imply it's a bad contract for the team long-term.

 

[squashmaple]

OK but it's the term that most who have a beef are quibbling with. That and surrendering an asset to allow them to give him the extra term.

I don't find either particularly egregious but you can't say "why are people complaining, everything's fine but the term" when it's the term that gave rise to many of the complaints.

And it's nothing to quibble about. There is nothing that could make me worry about what the cap will look like in 2031 right now. You know what this 2023 team has in common with the 2015 team? Boone Jenner. That's it. There might be one guy still here by the time Severson's deal is up, and I'd hazard a guess that it won't be Damon Severson, either.

 

[Xoggz22]

As I’ve mentioned before, they might not be the “perfect fits”, stylistically or where they are in currently in their careers in relation to the CBJ as a team, but, NOBODY should have ANY sort of complaints or issues about the acquisitions of either/both of Provorov/Severson after watching this team play hockey/defense the last few years.

I don’t think I’ve seen people care more about a 3rd round pick in my life. How many times are 2nd/3rd round picks spent/used on essentially NOTHING?? Provorov wasn’t getting traded for less and Severson wasn’t signing for less.

I think the Olivier for a 4th was pretty close to the world ending for a few as I recall. The argument with Severson is that he could have been had for nothing and, I think, the thought is that he wouldn't have commanded that on the open market. I disagree with that premise as he was the #1 available defenseman on the market and while it would have only been 7 years, anything beyond 5, again, to me, is not worth discussing as so much changes and contracts can be moved, terminated, etc.

I don't begrudge those that didn't like the move, but I don't agree with the thought process and concern about the end of the contract.

 

[Xoggz22]

OK but it's the term that most who have a beef are quibbling with. That and surrendering an asset to allow them to give him the extra term.

I don't find either particularly egregious but you can't say "why are people complaining, everything's fine but the term" when it's the term that gave rise to many of the complaints.

Let's be honest... if it were a 6 year deal after surrendering the 3rd there would still be this discussion. I've seen a couple on here note that in many cases GMs aren't really looking beyond 4 years. I don't know that I completely agree with that but we've also seen that the impact will come if the Severson contract ends up in the loss of an up and coming player that needs a contract. At that point, you will see what so many other teams have done and take their medicine with retention, draft capital or buyout depending on what makes the most financial and team sense.

I won't say I have zero concern but I just don't think the idea that he would have been A) cheaper on the open market and B) sign cheaper for less term is realistic. Maybe it would have been... I just don't think so.

 

[Nanabijou]

When you have a pretty full prospect pool, I think it's worth mid-round picks to get ahead of the field and lock down guys prior to open free agency. Not the greatest use of assets, but with the position the CBJ were in this year (sucky D last year that needed immediate upgrade, good depth in prospect pool, extra draft picks), it's not a bad decision to get it locked away early.

 

[stevo61]

Term is how we got the player, offer 5x5 and we dont get him. Then people would cry that Jarmo didnt address the defense

 

[MoeBartoli]

Whether or not we could’ve signed Severson for 5×5 is all guesswork. But I will say the market as it played out reveals no evidence that we needed to offer the extended term.

 

[DarkandStormy]

I do know that but maybe you should explain it to me slowly, because I'm so dense.

Well, how are you calling the return "abysmal" given all those factors working against SJ? Do you think they sat on better offers and just didn't pull the trigger?

Some other factors...
1) it's possible ownership didn't want to pay more than $x on a retained salary trade
2) the initial deal was horrible, not the current GMs fault but a mess he has to work through (like Dubas in Pittsburgh with Granlund, Rutta, Petry).
3) They should have dealt him at the deadline - probably would have gotten a better return from a desperate contender.

But when you hand a guy a NMC, you lose a ton of leverage in trying to trade him. Who knows, maybe he and his agent only gave them a list of 8 teams he'd be willing to go to. When you give up leverage, you're not going to get fair value usually.

The Sharks take back a little extra money this coming season due to Hoffman being included (but he's a UFA and could be flipped at the deadline) and then they can get out of the Granlund and Rutta contracts at the following deadline. They're not going to be good for 2-3 years anyway, so this affords them more cap flexibility after 2025 than keeping Karlsson at $11.5m.

Now, the flip side is they got - on the surface - bad returns for Burns, Meier, and Karlsson. They're getting, essentially, two 1sts, a 2nd, some bad contracts, and some meh prospects for those three. Of course, the flat cap played a big part, as did the Sharks downright sucking after signing Karlsson in the post-Thornton/Marleau/Pavelski era. Doug Wilson did a really poor job at the end there.

They've freed up cap space for 2025 and beyond, rather than being locked into big/bad money with Karlsson, or signing a guy long term like they did with Hertl when they're going to bad. Their prospect pool is still probably outside the top 10 even after adding Smith and Musty, but they'll probably be selecting in the top 10 again next season in addition to Pittsburgh's pick.

 

[DarkandStormy]

Whether or not we could’ve signed Severson for 5×5 is all guesswork. But I will say the market as it played out reveals no evidence that we needed to offer the extended term.

The only UFAs to sign for 6 or more years with a new team this off-season were...
-Ryan Graves (6x4.5 in Pittsburgh)
-Miles Wood (6x2.5 in Colorado)
-Pierre-Luc Dubois, sort of (8x8.5 in LA by way of Winnipeg) (RFA, oops)
-Damon Severson (8x6.25)

That's it.

Generally, giving 7+ years to a guy who's 29+ years old and not a superstar is a bad idea. I get Severson was the best D available, but he got the MacKenzie Weegar contract.



I have serious doubts about Severson's strengths being retrievals and zone exits. Ditto for Provorov. By name recognition, this D should be better, but...woo boy, some of the underlyings don't look good for the two new acquisitions or 4x4.

 

[stevo61]

Whether or not we could’ve signed Severson for 5×5 is all guesswork. But I will say the market as it played out reveals no evidence that we needed to offer the extended term.

Seems like guesswork and no evidence we didnt have to

 

[Monk]

Seems like guesswork and no evidence we didnt have to

But why not make the assumption that makes you upset?

 

[cbjthrowaway]

Term is how we got the player, offer 5x5 and we dont get him. Then people would cry that Jarmo didnt address the defense

if i were the general manager i simply would have signed damon severson for to a 3-year, $800k aav two-way contract, actually.

The only UFAs to sign for 6 or more years with a new team this off-season were...
-Ryan Graves (6x4.5 in Pittsburgh)
-Miles Wood (6x2.5 in Colorado)
-Pierre-Luc Dubois, sort of (8x8.5 in LA by way of Winnipeg)
-Damon Severson (8x6.25)

That's it.

dubois was an RFA so i crossed him off of the list, leaving three guys.

damon severson is (a lot) better than the other two guys.

 

[MoeBartoli]

Seems like guesswork and no evidence we didnt have to

As I said, it is a bit of guesswork but @DarkandStormy lays out strong evidence that terms this FA season were shorter and the negotiation could have yielded a shorter term. Teams just weren’t offering 7 and 8 years. Thus, I’ll lean to that side of any debate.

 

[Youngguns1380]

The only UFAs to sign for 6 or more years with a new team this off-season were...
-Ryan Graves (6x4.5 in Pittsburgh)
-Miles Wood (6x2.5 in Colorado)
-Pierre-Luc Dubois, sort of (8x8.5 in LA by way of Winnipeg)
-Damon Severson (8x6.25)

That's it.

Generally, giving 7+ years to a guy who's 29+ years and old and not a superstar is a bad idea. I get Severson was the best D available, but he got the MacKenzie Weegar contract.



I have serious doubts about Severson's strengths being retrievals and zone exits. Ditto for Provorov. By name recognition, this D should be better, but...woo boy, some of the underlyings don't look good for the two new acquisitions or 4x4.

You have to believe that Provorov playing 2nd pairing and having the insulation for Z should help his game. He is a very good player, just needed a different place and supporting cast.

On the right side, I think coming out of camp Boqvist or Severson will play 1st pair. If Jiricek steps up and Boqvist doesn’t play well in camp?? Then the scenario would take shape on Jiricek 2nd pair, because Jiricek should not start 1st pair D+1. I think Severson can play 1st pair most of the time and probably will this season but is optimaly suited for 2nd pairing. That is why I think another reason they acquired Severson, so he is not in the way of Jiricek. Ceulemans is at least 2-4 seasons away, but would start out slotting in the 3rd pair.

Last the system Babcock deploys should be positionally sound but I still have little faith in McCarthy (I dont’t think they renew his contract after this season) to grow a cohesive defensive unit or our goaltending.

This year will be a transitional year - better positioning, more defensively sound (forwards & defense). I think the team will make some noise, but next year I expect Jiricek to be at least 2nd pair, different goaltender and different coaches.

I appreciate your point of view and for the sake of both of us, I hope you are wrong. We shall see a trend 20 games in and then we can revisit this conversation.

 

[stevo61]

As I said, it is a bit of guesswork but @DarkandStormy lays out strong evidence that terms this FA season were shorter and the negotiation could have yielded a shorter term. Teams just weren’t offering 7 and 8 years. Thus, I’ll lean to that side of any debate.

What evidence? It was a weak FA group so yeah 3rd liners and 3rd pair D dont generally get 7 years. It was just a FA group of prove it deals or actually scary deals like Wood and Holl.
Someone speculated Severson's number was 50mil (Friedman or Saravalli, cant remember) whether it was 7 or 8 years. Some guys with families want stability and some guys want to chase the money and wait for the cap to rise,Severson was clearly looking for term.

 

[cbjthrowaway]

As I said, it is a bit of guesswork but @DarkandStormy lays out strong evidence that terms this FA season were shorter and the negotiation could have yielded a shorter term. Teams just weren’t offering 7 and 8 years. Thus, I’ll lean to that side of any debate.

you're mistaking correlation with causation.

in broad strokes, there were three main types of players at the (very light) top of the UFA market this year:

1. players who wanted short-term deals (orlov, gavrikov, bertuzzi) to bet on a cap increase
2. players who had to take short-term deals (pacioretty, brown, kane*) coming off of injury
3. players who couldn't command term (o'reilly, killorn, tarasenko) due to age

*hasn't signed yet due to injury

severson doesn't fall into any of those categories: he wanted term, is relatively young (only bertuzzi – by a couple of months – and gavrikov are younger on that list) and has been incredibly durable. on top of that, he plays a premium position – 8/9 of the guys listed above play non-premium positions (wing or LHD); the other is ryan o'reilly. both severson and o'reilly signed deals that expire when they're 36.

plus, while the top-market guys didn't sign for term, the mid-market was rife with players who did: engvall, mayfield, graves, wood, compher and korpisalo all got 5+ years.

had severson hit the market, he almost undoubtedly signs a 7-year deal with a team that isn't columbus.

 

[DarkandStormy]

You have to believe that Provorov playing 2nd pairing and having the insulation for Z should help his game. He is a very good player, just needed a different place and supporting cast.

On the right side, I think coming out of camp Boqvist or Severson will play 1st pair. If Jiricek steps up and Boqvist doesn’t play well in camp?? Then the scenario would take shape on Jiricek 2nd pair, because Jiricek should not start 1st pair D+1. I think Severson can play 1st pair most of the time and probably will this season but is optimaly suited for 2nd pairing. That is why I think another reason they acquired Severson, so he is not in the way of Jiricek. Ceulemans is at least 2-4 seasons away, but would start out slotting in the 3rd pair.

Last the system Babcock deploys should be positionally sound but I still have little faith in McCarthy (I dont’t think they renew his contract after this season) to grow a cohesive defensive unit or our goaltending.

This year will be a transitional year - better positioning, more defensively sound (forwards & defense). I think the team will make some noise, but next year I expect Jiricek to be at least 2nd pair, different goaltender and different coaches.

I appreciate your point of view and for the sake of both of us, I hope you are wrong. We shall see a trend 20 games in and then we can revisit this conversation.

Oh, it's very hard to be much worse than last year lol.

33 points out of the playoffs and a -116 goal differential is hard to overcome in one season. Injuries alone should be a boost of 10-15 points. The net acquisitions (Severson, Provorov, Fantilli, Voronkov, Texier in / Korpisalo, Gavrikov, Nyquist out) should probably be another 6-10 points. Then you've got to trust the system/structure to be better.

Of course, if Elvis is .880 again and Tarasov only stays healthy for 15 games nothing else will matter.

 

[CBJWerenski8]

Well, how are you calling the return "abysmal" given all those factors working against SJ? Do you think they sat on better offers and just didn't pull the trigger?

Some other factors...
1) it's possible ownership didn't want to pay more than $x on a retained salary trade
2) the initial deal was horrible, not the current GMs fault but a mess he has to work through (like Dubas in Pittsburgh with Granlund, Rutta, Petry).
3) They should have dealt him at the deadline - probably would have gotten a better return from a desperate contender.

But when you hand a guy a NMC, you lose a ton of leverage in trying to trade him. Who knows, maybe he and his agent only gave them a list of 8 teams he'd be willing to go to. When you give up leverage, you're not going to get fair value usually.

The Sharks take back a little extra money this coming season due to Hoffman being included (but he's a UFA and could be flipped at the deadline) and then they can get out of the Granlund and Rutta contracts at the following deadline. They're not going to be good for 2-3 years anyway, so this affords them more cap flexibility after 2025 than keeping Karlsson at $11.5m.

Now, the flip side is they got - on the surface - bad returns for Burns, Meier, and Karlsson. They're getting, essentially, two 1sts, a 2nd, some bad contracts, and some meh prospects for those three. Of course, the flat cap played a big part, as did the Sharks downright sucking after signing Karlsson in the post-Thornton/Marleau/Pavelski era. Doug Wilson did a really poor job at the end there.

They've freed up cap space for 2025 and beyond, rather than being locked into big/bad money with Karlsson, or signing a guy long term like they did with Hertl when they're going to bad. Their prospect pool is still probably outside the top 10 even after adding Smith and Musty, but they'll probably be selecting in the top 10 again next season in addition to Pittsburgh's pick.

I like these types of posts better than the one I quoted before.

You make solid points. I just figured San Jose would have retained more for a bigger return. They had a lot going against them, sure, but I’d take the cap retention and bigger payout over the long term cap relief. But hey, it’s not my team. Most San Jose fans seem content with it

 

[DarkandStormy]

I like these types of posts better than the one I quoted before.

You make solid points. I just figured San Jose would have retained more for a bigger return. They had a lot going against them, sure, but I’d take the cap retention and bigger payout over the long term cap relief. But hey, it’s not my team. Most San Jose fans seem content with it

I think it was the best of a bad situation, even if it looks mediocre on the surface. Some of that was signing the contract in the first place and some might have been not striking while the iron was hot at the deadline. Some also might be cheap ownership not wanting to eat $4m+ of dead cap.

 

[majormajor]

I think it was the best of a bad situation, even if it looks mediocre on the surface. Some of that was signing the contract in the first place and some might have been not striking while the iron was hot at the deadline. Some also might be cheap ownership not wanting to eat $4m+ of dead cap.

From the long-standing rumors it seemed San Jose would be retaining $3-$4m per year for the full remaining 4 years of the deal.

Yes they got less in futures than expected but now they will have all but $1.5m retention off the books in 2 years (when the cap dumps expire). Maybe that was San Jose's priority.

 

[koteka]

Let's be honest... if it were a 6 year deal after surrendering the 3rd there would still be this discussion. I've seen a couple on here note that in many cases GMs aren't really looking beyond 4 years. I don't know that I completely agree with that but we've also seen that the impact will come if the Severson contract ends up in the loss of an up and coming player that needs a contract. At that point, you will see what so many other teams have done and take their medicine with retention, draft capital or buyout depending on what makes the most financial and team sense.

I won't say I have zero concern but I just don't think the idea that he would have been A) cheaper on the open market and B) sign cheaper for less term is realistic. Maybe it would have been... I just don't think so.

I don’t know who would have been interested in Severson that could have afforded his cap hit to offer a similar contract as to what we offered.

Most of the league doesn’t have cap space.

New Jersey was a team that could have made it work, but they spent money on Meier and moved on from Graves and Severson.

Pittsburgh obviously was interested in upgrading their D and willing to make some sacrifices to make it work, but Karlsson was their target. Maybe they would have gone after Severson, but then they wouldn’t have been able to get Graves. I think adding Graves and then trying to make the cap work for Karlsson was always their first choice, so I don’t see them adding Severson.

Ottawa seems more interested in acquiring offensive free agents than adding to their defense.

Chicago wasn’t going to sign another right D to a long term contract. Arizona and Anaheim arent ready to make a move like this. San Jose is trying to get out from bad long term defensemen contracts, not add more.

Severson has good size, but is not known for his defense. He is known for mixing in beautiful offensive plays with plenty of stupid plays. He has been a top pair defender, but on a bad team. New Jersey, a team that is truly on the cusp of something really terrific, wants to move on from him, and nobody seems to have any regrets. I think most of the league does not believe he is the savior some Jackets fans think he is.

If he had gone to free agency I think he would have quickly learned that in this off season he was not going to get the contract he thought he was going to get. And I think we could have gotten him for a lot less term.

 

[cbjthrowaway]

New Jersey, a team that is truly on the cusp of something really terrific, wants to move on from him, and nobody seems to have any regrets. I think most of the league does not believe he is the savior some Jackets fans think he is.

not to go all "well, actually" on you, but…

If he had gone to free agency I think he would have quickly learned that in this off season he was not going to get the contract he thought he was going to get. And I think we could have gotten him for a lot less term.