Around Hockey XIII (All Non-Jackets Hockey talk in here)

[CBJWerenski8]

This is one of those BS rationalizations. If its cap space you're after you don't trade Dorsett, Moore, and Brassard for Gaborik (who makes more than the other three combined and whose contract lasts just as long). Maybe they all go for prospects and picks in various deals, or maybe an entirely different set of deals occurs, but not that deal.

The Rangers got more cap space for trading Gaborik, who they were going to buy out anyways, and they got three young players in return who they can still let go of whenever they need more space. They're not more constrained.

The Rangers got more cap space? Yeah maybe for that season and this one for which they made no moves so far. Now they are going to have to pay girardi, Callahan, Brass, Moore, etc or they are all walking. If they had Gaborik, they'd cut his 7.5 cap loose and have tons of cap. Now they are in a crunch.

They weren't going to buy out Gaborik. He had just put up 40 goals for them the year before for Gods sake. They dealt him when he was low, and we bought. Now his stock hasn't risen, but itsn ot like it was a big investment.

I'll take our eventual cap space.

 

[Mayor Bee]

The Rangers got more cap space? Yeah maybe for that season and this one for which they made no moves so far. Now they are going to have to pay girardi, Callahan, Brass, Moore, etc or they are all walking. If they had Gaborik, they'd cut his 7.5 cap loose and have tons of cap. Now they are in a crunch.

They weren't going to buy out Gaborik. He had just put up 40 goals for them the year before for Gods sake. They dealt him when he was low, and we bought. Now his stock hasn't risen, but itsn ot like it was a big investment.

I'll take our eventual cap space.

It was against a probable opportunity cost of two unpegged first-round picks, plus at least another one around the third round, and that's without considering what someone would have paid out for Dorsett.

This isn't the NBA, where trades for pending UFAs either that year or a year later in order to clear cap space make sense.

 

[major major]

The Rangers got more cap space? Yeah maybe for that season and this one for which they made no moves so far. Now they are going to have to pay girardi, Callahan, Brass, Moore, etc or they are all walking. If they had Gaborik, they'd cut his 7.5 cap loose and have tons of cap. Now they are in a crunch.

You're still not getting it. If the Rangers want to pay Brass and Moore they will, if they don't they won't. It's not a constraint, because the Rangers can walk away, just the same as they presumably would with Gaborik. The only way they keep Brass and Moore is if they prefer having them on their team to having cap space. That doesn't make the deal look better from the Jackets perspective.

Would you rather have 1) space without the players or 2) the option of a crunch with players or space without the players? The answer is 2.

 

[EspenK]

Trading each of Brassard, Moore, and Dorsett undoubtedly would have netted a good return of picks and prospects. Moving each for what might be 40-60 games of Gaborik and then getting nothing for him can hardly be the better end of anything.

You have to be kidding. Right? Individually maybe Brass & Moore bring a 2nd. Dorse maybe nothing or a 4th. Moving them for Gaborik that might produce 4 or 5 seasons of 50+ points can hardly be called the worst end of the deal.

 

[major major]

You have to be kidding. Right? Individually maybe Brass & Moore bring a 2nd. Dorse maybe nothing or a 4th. Moving them for Gaborik that might produce 4 or 5 seasons of 50+ points can hardly be called the worst end of the deal.

This is all guesswork for me too, but I thought we could have nabbed a late first for either Brass or Moore.

 

[Sore Loser]

This is all guesswork for me too, but I thought we could have nabbed a late first for either Brass or Moore.

Maybe after they were traded and showed hot streaks last year. While they were playing here? No way ... we would have been lucky to talk someone into taking that contract of Brassard's, and Moore was already being written off by many.

I'm still of the belief that the best asset we traded away in that deal was Derek Dorsett. Stupid penalties and injuries aside, he's the only guy in that deal that plays with any heart ... other than that, the trade is an easy win for the Jackets, because neither Brassard or Moore were going to become anything other than what they already were here; which is a stretch of a third line center and a #6/7 defenseman. To package parts like that and come away with a gamebreaking forward such as Gaborik is a win no matter what ... even if he comes here and busts completely, you're only out spare parts.

We've never had much success with middle-round picks anyhow. Trading Brassard for (hopefully) a second, Dorsett for a 3rd/4th (to a contender looking for depth), and Moore for (hopefully) a 3rd wouldn't have netted us much in return. And, we would have been out 3 NHL roster players - be it spare parts or whatever, while the playoffs were still a major hope for us. Imagine the panic that would have occurred if any of those trades had happened. Even the simplest minded hockey fans know that trading players away for picks during an attempted playoff run is a bad idea.

 

[blahblah]

Trading each of Brassard, Moore, and Dorsett undoubtedly would have netted a good return of picks and prospects. Moving each for what might be 40-60 games of Gaborik and then getting nothing for him can hardly be the better end of anything.

We could have gotten a different array of stuff that may or may not panned out to anything; with the possibility of getting less than what we got with Gaborik.

The joys of deadline deals.

You really seem to have an inflated estimation of what those players were worth and what teams were willing to spend to get them. You also seem to have an overly optimistic view of what those assets would have ultimately been at the NHL level. It's more likely that we would have gotten would have ended up as jack **** or, best case, a role player. It's unlikely we would have gotten anything resembling an impact player. If we had, it would have been far down the line. The possibility of good prospects was almost non-existent. Moore being a prospect (with a remote change of bringing in a top six forward prospect) and Brassard being a marginal top six center. Maybe we could have gotten another 20 goal scoring forward.

Maybe we could have flipped the picks we would have received into something else. However, we didn't flip a single first rounder this year. Those players wouldn't have netted us a top 10 pick. Maybe a middle to late round first to a playoff bound team.

Your posting has always been solid in the past, but I don't think I can trust your posting(s) in regards to the new JM and president. I'm sensing you might not be impartial.

 

[Crede777]

I don't think that the Nash trade was a win for the Rangers. In 2011-12 they finished regular season 1st on the East, made it to the Conference finals and were looking for the final piece that would have put them over the top. The next season they barely made playoffs, where Nash scored only 1 goal in 12 games. They were destroyed in the Conference semifinals. The team results have not improved, it became just worse. And I don't think Nash's decent play in the regular season compensates the obvious regress of the team as a whole.
The Jackets finished 2011-12 season dead last in the league, but had just 1 point less that the Ranger in 2013. Both teams made a step towards each other as a result of the trade.

I can't argue with the fact that the Rangers took a step backwards after the trade, but I don't think it was because of the trade itself.

More, I think it was a lack of production from Richards, Gaborik, and others who had monster years in 2011-12 but then took a step backwards themselves. Maybe Dubinsky was the difference, but I doubt it, I think Richards, Gaborik, Kreider, and others not playing well was the difference. I certainly don't think Anisimov or Erixon were. The question is why is Nash currently their best player? I think it's because, again, Richards and Gaborik took a step back.

 

[Mayor Bee]

We could have gotten a different array of stuff that may or may not panned out to anything; with the possibility of getting less than what we got with Gaborik.

The joys of deadline deals.

You really seem to have an inflated estimation of what those players were worth and what teams were willing to spend to get them. You also seem to have an overly optimistic view of what those assets would have ultimately been at the NHL level. It's more likely that we would have gotten would have ended up as jack **** or, best case, a role player. It's unlikely we would have gotten anything resembling an impact player. If we had, it would have been far down the line. The possibility of good prospects was almost non-existent. Moore being a prospect (with a remote change of bringing in a top six forward prospect) and Brassard being a marginal top six center. Maybe we could have gotten another 20 goal scoring forward.

Based on both the state of the league approaching the deadline and the way the market looked, I don't think it's unreasonable at all.

Major deals in the two weeks up to (and including) the deadline:
- Dallas trades Brenden Morrow and a 3rd to Pittsburgh for Joe Morrow and a 5th. Brenden Morrow was a pending UFA who looked to be not only past his prime, but truly washed up as well. He'd been injured most of the prior season and looked bad when he was on the ice as well. Dallas got a pretty highly-regarded prospect for the 33-year-old Morrow.

- San Jose trades Douglas Murray to Pittsburgh for a 2nd and a conditional pick (either 2nd or 3rd). Murray was 33 and his play had also taken a dramatic downturn in recent years.

- Calgary trades Jarome Iginla for two middling prospects and an unpegged 1st-rounder (15th or later though). Iginla was about to turn 36 and was a pending UFA, in addition to having clearly slowed down although he was still productive.

- Buffalo trades Jordan Leopold to St. Louis for a 2nd and a 4th/5th (the round depending on certain conditions). Leopold was 32, a pending UFA, and in decline.

- Buffalo trades Robyn Regehr to Los Angeles for two 2nd-rounders. About to turn 33 years old, pending UFA.

- Calgary trades Jay Bouwmeester to St. Louis for Reto Berra, Mark Cundari, and a 1st. Bouwmeester had a year left on his contract, was 29, and has been the subject of the same criticism as Derick Brassard.

- San Jose trades Michal Handzus to Chicago for a 4th-rounder. Handzus was 36, a pending UFA, and words fail to describe how brutally he played last year before being traded.

- Dallas trades Jaromir Jagr to Boston for two prospects and a 1st-rounder. Pending UFA, old, much less productive than in years past.

- San Jose trades Ryane Clowe to NYR for a 2nd, 3rd, and 5th. 30 years old, pending UFA, and unproductive.

- Derek Roy for a 2nd and a prospect. Pending UFA.

- Raffi Torres for a 3rd. Old, unproductive, pending UFA.

- Martin Erat and Michael Latta for Filip Forsberg.

Easily the biggest return was for Jason Pominville, who was still productive and had a year left before UFA status. Teams were paying through the nose for washed-up rental players. The closest comps are Erat, Roy, and Pominville; all are about the same age, all have been able to consistently produce. Brassard doesn't have the same history as those three, but he's the youngest and still had plenty of upside (compared to the other three, who have peaked and are declining to some extent).

With this market, I don't think it's unreasonable to think that someone would have coughed up a decent amount for Brassard, Moore, or Dorsett individually. Obviously not as much as what Buffalo got for Pominville, but at least as much as Regehr (two 2nds).

Maybe we could have flipped the picks we would have received into something else. However, we didn't flip a single first rounder this year. Those players wouldn't have netted us a top 10 pick. Maybe a middle to late round first to a playoff bound team.

Maybe.

Your posting has always been solid in the past, but I don't think I can trust your posting(s) in regards to the new JM and president. I'm sensing you might not be impartial.

I'd argue I'm more impartial now than before. Perhaps it's everyone else that's excessively biased.

 

[Samkow]

It was against a probable opportunity cost of two unpegged first-round picks, plus at least another one around the third round, and that's without considering what someone would have paid out for Dorsett.

You're massively overvaluing the value of Brassard and Moore. If we're lucky, maybe a very late 1st round pick and a mid-range second round pick for each, respectively.

 

[major major]

Based on both the state of the league approaching the deadline and the way the market looked, I don't think it's unreasonable at all.

Major deals in the two weeks up to (and including) the deadline:
- Dallas trades Brenden Morrow and a 3rd to Pittsburgh for Joe Morrow and a 5th. Brenden Morrow was a pending UFA who looked to be not only past his prime, but truly washed up as well. He'd been injured most of the prior season and looked bad when he was on the ice as well. Dallas got a pretty highly-regarded prospect for the 33-year-old Morrow.

- San Jose trades Douglas Murray to Pittsburgh for a 2nd and a conditional pick (either 2nd or 3rd). Murray was 33 and his play had also taken a dramatic downturn in recent years.

- Calgary trades Jarome Iginla for two middling prospects and an unpegged 1st-rounder (15th or later though). Iginla was about to turn 36 and was a pending UFA, in addition to having clearly slowed down although he was still productive.

- Buffalo trades Jordan Leopold to St. Louis for a 2nd and a 4th/5th (the round depending on certain conditions). Leopold was 32, a pending UFA, and in decline.

- Buffalo trades Robyn Regehr to Los Angeles for two 2nd-rounders. About to turn 33 years old, pending UFA.

- Calgary trades Jay Bouwmeester to St. Louis for Reto Berra, Mark Cundari, and a 1st. Bouwmeester had a year left on his contract, was 29, and has been the subject of the same criticism as Derick Brassard.

- San Jose trades Michal Handzus to Chicago for a 4th-rounder. Handzus was 36, a pending UFA, and words fail to describe how brutally he played last year before being traded.

- Dallas trades Jaromir Jagr to Boston for two prospects and a 1st-rounder. Pending UFA, old, much less productive than in years past.

- San Jose trades Ryane Clowe to NYR for a 2nd, 3rd, and 5th. 30 years old, pending UFA, and unproductive.

- Derek Roy for a 2nd and a prospect. Pending UFA.

- Raffi Torres for a 3rd. Old, unproductive, pending UFA.

- Martin Erat and Michael Latta for Filip Forsberg.

Easily the biggest return was for Jason Pominville, who was still productive and had a year left before UFA status. Teams were paying through the nose for washed-up rental players. The closest comps are Erat, Roy, and Pominville; all are about the same age, all have been able to consistently produce. Brassard doesn't have the same history as those three, but he's the youngest and still had plenty of upside (compared to the other three, who have peaked and are declining to some extent).

With this market, I don't think it's unreasonable to think that someone would have coughed up a decent amount for Brassard, Moore, or Dorsett individually. Obviously not as much as what Buffalo got for Pominville, but at least as much as Regehr (two 2nds).

I agreed to begin with, but thanks for marshaling the substantial evidence to back us up. If Leopold and Murray (declining defencemen) can go for 2nd+ then I think its probable John Moore could have gone for a bit more. Brassard's a little harder to peg, Derek Roy is the closest comparable but he was a UFA. Chicago and Vancouver were the teams that were looking for center help the most, and ended up going for expiring contracts. But they had the cap space for a continuing contract in Brassard, and I'm guessing they would have ponied up their late firsts to get him. Those picks became Ryan Hartman and Hunter Shinkaruk.

 

[Samkow]

The main thing John Moore has in common with Douglas Murray and Jordan Leopold is that they're all defensemen. Different ages, different styles, and different levels of experience.

No team was going to see John Moore and think, "wow, this guy's a key piece we need to help us down the stretch." That's who teams want down the stretch and some teams pay a premium to get.

Keaton Ellerby, who's 2 years older, went for a 5th round pick. That's the best comparable out there. Similar levels of success in the NHL, both of them both derive their value from what they could be, and both were a year away from waivers.

 

[Sore Loser]

The main thing John Moore has in common with Douglas Murray and Jordan Leopold is that they're all defensemen. Different ages, different styles, and different levels of experience.

No team was going to see John Moore and think, "wow, this guy's a key piece we need to help us down the stretch." That's who teams want down the stretch and some teams pay a premium to get.

Keaton Ellerby, who's 2 years older, went for a 5th round pick. That's the best comparable out there. Similar levels of success in the NHL, both of them both derive their value from what they could be, and both were a year away from waivers.

Excellent comments. And, Keaton Ellerby was a former 10th overall pick, to boot.

 

[major major]

The main thing John Moore has in common with Douglas Murray and Jordan Leopold is that they're all defensemen. Different ages, different styles, and different levels of experience.

No team was going to see John Moore and think, "wow, this guy's a key piece we need to help us down the stretch." That's who teams want down the stretch and some teams pay a premium to get.

Keaton Ellerby, who's 2 years older, went for a 5th round pick. That's the best comparable out there. Similar levels of success in the NHL, both of them both derive their value from what they could be, and both were a year away from waivers.

Ellerby is not a better comparable. He had well established himself as a bust by last year. And looking exclusively at deadline pickups distracts a bit from why a team might want to acquire John Moore. He could do bottom pair similar to Leopold (who's style isn't that much different) and had significantly more upside than a proven bust like Ellerby.

 

[Sore Loser]

Ellerby is not a better comparable. He had well established himself as a bust by last year. And looking exclusively at deadline pickups distracts a bit from why a team might want to acquire John Moore. He could do bottom pair similar to Leopold (who's style isn't that much different) and had significantly more upside than a proven bust like Ellerby.

wut?

Keaton Ellerby as a 20 year old in the AHL:

3g, 20a, -8 in 75 games

John Moore:

5g, 19a, -27 in 73 games

In the NHL, the year of the trade(s):

Ellerby: 9gp, -2 rating, 0 points, 36 penalty minutes

Moore: 17gp, 1 assist, -5 rating, 2 penalty minutes

After the trades:

Ellerby: 35gp, 3 assists, +5 rating, 16 penalty minutes

Moore: 13gp, 1 goal, 5 assists, +9 rating, 5 penalty minutes

My point in this argument is that, Ellerby and Moore are nearly identical in terms of production - and in fact, the argument can be made that Ellerby is a more reliable defender. After the trades, Moore's production went up, followed by a sharp drop this season - whereas Ellerby's production stayed level, but has gone up this season.

Basically, without the injuries that Ellerby suffered in 2011-12, the two have followed very similar career paths.

 

[major major]

wut?

Keaton Ellerby as a 20 year old in the AHL:

3g, 20a, -8 in 75 games

John Moore:

5g, 19a, -27 in 73 games

In the NHL, the year of the trade(s):

Ellerby: 9gp, -2 rating, 0 points, 36 penalty minutes

Moore: 17gp, 1 assist, -5 rating, 2 penalty minutes

After the trades:

Ellerby: 35gp, 3 assists, +5 rating, 16 penalty minutes

Moore: 13gp, 1 goal, 5 assists, +9 rating, 5 penalty minutes

My point in this argument is that, Ellerby and Moore are nearly identical in terms of production - and in fact, the argument can be made that Ellerby is a more reliable defender. After the trades, Moore's production went up, followed by a sharp drop this season - whereas Ellerby's production stayed level, but has gone up this season.

Basically, without the injuries that Ellerby suffered in 2011-12, the two have followed very similar career paths.

I don't much like either defender, and didn't last spring either, but there was a distinct difference in expectations and perception despite the similar numbers. Moore was talked about as future top 4. I just looked at the Panthers boards to gauge expectations for Ellerby and the first post I see is "Keaton ellerby waived by LA (Buh bye scrub)." Did anyone here say "buy bye scrub" to Moore?

The second post I read said "Firstly I believe it's far too early to give up on Kulikov. He's young and learning, still a lot of potential there. It's not like he's Ellerby. " So Ellerby apparently has taken up usage in the Floridian dialect of English as an adjective meaning "worth giving up upon, worthless". I was the most pessimistic on Moore of anyone around here and I never said anything like that.

 

[Sore Loser]

I don't much like either defender, and didn't last spring either, but there was a distinct difference in expectations and perception despite the similar numbers. Moore was talked about as future top 4. I just looked at the Panthers boards to gauge expectations for Ellerby and the first post I see is "Keaton ellerby waived by LA (Buh bye scrub)." Did anyone here say "buy bye scrub" to Moore?

The second post I read said "Firstly I believe it's far too early to give up on Kulikov. He's young and learning, still a lot of potential there. It's not like he's Ellerby. " So Ellerby apparently has taken up usage in the Floridian dialect of English as an adjective meaning "worth giving up upon, worthless". I was the most pessimistic on Moore of anyone around here and I never said anything like that.

Wait another year on Moore, and I guarantee you that you start reading the same stuff.

Keaton Ellerby is a #6/7 defenseman in the NHL. He was taken 10th overall and, as is typical with any defenseman of ilk coming into the NHL, was projected as the next Chris Pronger. Unfortunately for the Panthers, the prospect that they landed was very raw - something that I can attest to. His skating and vision were well above par, as was/is his physical play ... but, he was very immature, both physically and mentally, and the Florida system was in complete shambles at the time. So, those projections as a #1 defenseman didn't last long ... any organization would be disappointed in such a let down; but he has developed into at least a marginally effective, physical depth blueliner.

For John Moore, what's his likely projection at this point? A third pairing defenseman who can hopefully step into the lineup and provide some sort of value.

If, in another year, he were being traded or waived by the CBJ, I can guarantee you that any number of fans on this board would be saying similar things about a former first round pick. And, it may very well be the case for Ranger fans by the end of it.

 

[major major]

Wait another year on Moore, and I guarantee you that you start reading the same stuff.

Keaton Ellerby is a #6/7 defenseman in the NHL. He was taken 10th overall and, as is typical with any defenseman of ilk coming into the NHL, was projected as the next Chris Pronger. Unfortunately for the Panthers, the prospect that they landed was very raw - something that I can attest to. His skating and vision were well above par, as was/is his physical play ... but, he was very immature, both physically and mentally, and the Florida system was in complete shambles at the time. So, those projections as a #1 defenseman didn't last long ... any organization would be disappointed in such a let down; but he has developed into at least a marginally effective, physical depth blueliner.

For John Moore, what's his likely projection at this point? A third pairing defenseman who can hopefully step into the lineup and provide some sort of value.

If, in another year, he were being traded or waived by the CBJ, I can guarantee you that any number of fans on this board would be saying similar things about a former first round pick. And, it may very well be the case for Ranger fans by the end of it.

Yeah my point is the same as yours, that extra two years of stagnation plummeted Ellerby's stock, and the same thing could happen to Moore. But at the time of last year's trades Ellerby was post-plummet and Moore was pre-possible plummet. Their value was not comparable.

Glad to see you coming around to my point.

 

[bizzz*]

I don't much like either defender, and didn't last spring either, but there was a distinct difference in expectations and perception despite the similar numbers. Moore was talked about as future top 4. I just looked at the Panthers boards to gauge expectations for Ellerby and the first post I see is "Keaton ellerby waived by LA (Buh bye scrub)." Did anyone here say "buy bye scrub" to Moore?

Actually I did. I used a bit different wording though.

I was the most pessimistic on Moore of anyone around here and I never said anything like that.

And I gave up on John Moore even before you registered here.
My quote from February 2013: "Speaking of Moore. I was saying a year ago, before the injury at the beginning of this year, and also lately - he sucks under pressure and shouldn't play big role on the team".

Interesting conversation you guys are having here though. I won't interfere with my primitive English. To say it in a couple words: I don't think there's an NHL GM who would have gave up a 1st round pick for either Moore or Brassard.

 

[Fro]

SB Nation NHL ‏@SBNationNHL 1m
Ryan Callahan is going to miss 4-6 weeks with an MCL sprain.

 

[bizzz*]

I can't argue with the fact that the Rangers took a step backwards after the trade, but I don't think it was because of the trade itself.

More, I think it was a lack of production from Richards, Gaborik, and others who had monster years in 2011-12 but then took a step backwards themselves. Maybe Dubinsky was the difference, but I doubt it, I think Richards, Gaborik, Kreider, and others not playing well was the difference. I certainly don't think Anisimov or Erixon were. The question is why is Nash currently their best player? I think it's because, again, Richards and Gaborik took a step back.

I also don't say that the trade is a reason of the Rangers struggles. They had a lot of problems you listed. But Nash hasn't helped them to overcome those problems, he is not a savior, and considering the price they paid for him I won't say that the trade was a win for the Rangers.
I watched their game against Nashville during the intermissions of the Jackets game tonight. And they looked exactly like the jackets looked against Nashville for 12 years. Nash scores, team looses.

 

[EspenK]

SB Nation NHL ‏@SBNationNHL 1m
Ryan Callahan is going to miss 4-6 weeks with an MCL sprain.

From reading the Rangers board he has been having a tough season. I think his debut was delayed by injury and now this. Plus he is an upcoming UFA at season end. Rangers probably re-sign him but for the right price I wouldn't mind seeing him in Columbus.

 

[blahblah]

Based on both the state of the league approaching the deadline and the way the market looked, I don't think it's unreasonable at all.

I think you didn't read my post very closely; nor am I going to cover it a second time. I'm not going to sort through the mounds of testimony to verify, but I'm seeing things like "Ignina" and "2nd round pick".

But I throw out a couple of thoughts based on skimming; in most years, unless you flip it, 2nd's are mostly useless (as are the majority of mid-to-late 1sts). Ignina has no comparable on this team, unless you were trying to make a case that we overpaid for Gaborik.

Yes, you overvalued Brassard. There is nothing special there. He could end up being a journeyman for bad teams as he progresses with his career and hits those UFA gates. Moore only had moderate value (he wasn't even playing) to the right team. Dorse had little to no value in the scheme of things.

I'd argue I'm more impartial now than before. Perhaps it's everyone else that's excessively biased.

When it comes to this new regime, you need to look internally. You are arguing things against them that you used to brush aside with the previous. It's subtle, but your bias is there. Sorry, I can't trust your opinion on JK/JD.

 

[Mayor Bee]

I think you didn't read my post very closely; nor am I going to cover it a second time. I'm not going to sort through the mounds of testimony to verify, but I'm seeing things like "Ignina" and "2nd round pick".

But I throw out a couple of thoughts based on skimming; in most years, unless you flip it, 2nd's are mostly useless (as are the majority of mid-to-late 1sts). Ignina has no comparable on this team, unless you were trying to make a case that we overpaid for Gaborik.

Yes, you overvalued Brassard. There is nothing special there. He could end up being a journeyman for bad teams as he progresses with his career and hits those UFA gates. Moore only had moderate value (he wasn't even playing) to the right team. Dorse had little to no value in the scheme of things.

As with every trade, the major variables are:
- Level of production then
- Level of production in the near future
- Age
- Contract length
- Salary
- "Other considerations"

In Brassard's case, he had:
- A $3.2 mil cap hit, and a $3.7 mil salary for 2013-14. Neither of these is a negative, and in light of what the UFA salary scale looked like coming out of the 2013 period, could be a positive.
- A full year remaining on his contract, with RFA status at the end of it (and thus needing a qualifying offer of $3.7 mil)
- Brassard was 25, and would turn 26 just before the 2013-14 season began.
- Although Brassard was producing around a 20-goal and 50-point pace, he hadn't yet stepped up in a big way. However....
- There seemed to be a perception that, once free of Columbus, Rick Nash suddenly exploded into "the player he should have been all along". Voracek had the same thing happen. So it's entirely possible that Brassard had a similar type of halo effect, and thus there would be a team or teams basing additional value off the expectation that he would emerge once free.

To be honest, I never much cared for Brassard. I thought that his wildly inconsistent play was detrimental; I understand that goal-scoring forwards tend to be streaky for unknown reasons (just as home run hitters in baseball are the same), but I find it inexcusable that someone who fits more of an all-around profile in the offensive zone should play that way. I felt that he floated around too much looking for theoretical offense instead of reacting to an actual defensive situation.

I think that the most comparable player in the trade market last year was Martin Erat, who would hold an edge over Brassard in actual production but would be behind Brassard in potential, contract terms, development curve, and basically everything else. I don't think it's reasonable to have expected a return like Filip Forsberg for Brassard, but I do think his value was higher than what the return was. Both Erat and Brassard fall into that realm of offensive forward with limited defensive ability, good for 15-25 goals and 35-50 assists depending on a myriad of factors.

When it comes to this new regime, you need to look internally. You are arguing things against them that you used to brush aside with the previous. It's subtle, but your bias is there. Sorry, I can't trust your opinion on JK/JD.

The two things I've mentioned most are the goalies in the system and the 50-contract limit. If you want to stretch it further, failure to acquire depth scoring in free agency.

I've addressed the myth of "Howson never got a Plan B with Mason" on numerous occasions, and don't care to bring that up. The 50-contract limit was never an issue previously because the team usually carried somewhere between 41-45, instead of the current 49. And I was fairly critical of Howson's overall lack of aggression in free agency, to the point of giving him a D+ in that area in a series that more than one person branded "the worst type of revisionism" and "pure whitewashing".

 

[blahblah]

The two things I've mentioned most are the goalies in the system and the 50-contract limit. If you want to stretch it further, failure to acquire depth scoring in free agency.

It's the method in which you "attack" JK. It's subtle, but I can see it.

Not even going to read the rest of that post. I've said my peace and just reading a line or two I can tell that you aren't saying anything new.

I've addressed the myth of "Howson never got a Plan B with Mason" on numerous occasions, and don't care to bring that up. The 50-contract limit was never an issue previously because the team usually carried somewhere between 41-45, instead of the current 49. And I was fairly critical of Howson's overall lack of aggression in free agency, to the point of giving him a D+ in that area in a series that more than one person branded "the worst type of revisionism" and "pure whitewashing".

Sorry, I find the 50 contract limit discussion comical. Not sure which myth you are talking about; but Howson's mismanagement of Mason (and goal tending in general) is epic and legendary. That you would even attempt to create a way to defend it baffles me.

I don't want to talk about that dude from Edmonton anymore and, if you realize it or not, you seem to have a chip on your shoulder about it.

I don't let my feelings about the Hitch firing influence my opinions of Richards(on).