Confirmed with Link: Bjorkstrand to Seattle for 2023 3rd & 4th round picks

[Byrral]

Jarmo traded a second line player drafted a few years back in the 3rd round for a future 3rd, a 4th and very valuable cap/roster space which isn't readily available at this moment. Bjorkstrand is a sneaky goal scorer but he was never going to put up the raw scoring numbers he did in juniors and he is about maxed (.612 p/g) as far as his NHL ceiling goes. I get the popularity of this player (me2) but the drama being created over his departure is a bit much for me. Seems people made less of an issue when Jarmo let Panarin walk for nothing because he thought he had a good enough team to win the cup .

I'm looking forward to how the lines settle down after training camp when final roster moves are completed and whom of our young guys end up at center over the next several weeks/months/years.

 

[Hello Johnny]

Jarmo traded a second line player drafted a few years back in the 3rd round for a future 3rd, a 4th and very valuable cap/roster space which isn't readily available at this moment. Bjorkstrand is a sneaky goal scorer but he was never going to put up the raw scoring numbers he did in juniors and he is about maxed (.612 p/g) as far as his NHL ceiling goes. I get the popularity of this player (me2) but the drama being created over his departure is a bit much for me. Seems people made less of an issue when Jarmo let Panarin walk for nothing because he thought he had a good enough team to win the cup .

I'm looking forward to how the lines settle down after training camp when final roster moves are completed and whom of our young guys end up at center over the next several weeks/months/years.

Coulda sworn Jarmo offered Panarin more money than NYR did.

 

[Byrral]

Coulda sworn Jarmo offered Panarin more money than NYR did.

Well you're right but as I looked at my post that you replied to it mentions no criticism of Jarmo for salaries paid or salaries offered to Panarin or Bjorkstrand. It does criticize Jarmo for keeping Panarin past the trade deadline knowing he risked losing him for a "chance" to win a cup that he believed the team could win. That really happened. And so now I am questioning past moves where posters were ok with losing Panarin for nothing are now upset because Jarmo got less than their perceived value for Bjorkstrand which is still greater than nothing for Panarin. That's it.

 

[DoingItCoolKiwi]

If Nyquist returns 1st at deadline, it'll be easier to look back at this. Then it's technically 1st + 3rd + 4th for Bjorky

 

[Halberdier]

If Nyquist returns 1st at deadline, it'll be easier to look back at this. Then it's technically 1st + 3rd + 4th for Bjorky

Basically it was Johnny + 3rd + 4th for Bjork.

 

[Marioesque]

Patrik Laine >> Wayne Gretzky

Right??

Your words, not mine. I don't think it is so.

Patrik Laine >> Wayne Gretzky
1 of the very first things my grandfather taught me was that assists were just as important as goals.

And you're mad at me that your grandpa was wrong about something?

The fact that there can be two assists awarded to one goal immediately kills that argument.

I didn't want Bjorkstrand traded, didn't even consider it an option but it happened. Things changed when Johnny landed in Columbus to everyone's surprise. I think Bjorky was the second best winger in the team before that

You're pitting him against Laine, as if it was Laine's fault that Bjorky is out. That's not true but even if you look at it like that, you're still keeping the better player. You can disagree (pointing to previous Torts season and that alone) and ignoring the rest of his career. If you wanted elite, you're definitely closer to that with Laine than with Bjorky.

 

[Hello Johnny]

Well you're right but as I looked at my post that you replied to it mentions no criticism of Jarmo for salaries paid or salaries offered to Panarin or Bjorkstrand. It does criticize Jarmo for keeping Panarin past the trade deadline knowing he risked losing him for a "chance" to win a cup that he believed the team could win. That really happened. And so now I am questioning past moves where posters were ok with losing Panarin for nothing are now upset because Jarmo got less than their perceived value for Bjorkstrand which is still greater than nothing for Panarin. That's it.

I'm happy that the team was given a vote of confidence. It was a fun time to be a fan.

I don't see how it correlates here.

 

[Marioesque]

MORE goals IS NOT the solution.

It's the decider between winning and losing. You have to have more goals than opponent and your team collects points.

 

[NotWendell]

It's the decider between winning and losing. You have to have more goals than opponent and your team collects points.

orrrrr.... you have you allow less goals than your opponent.
MORE goals is not our problem right now. Allowing LESS goals is.

 

[Marioesque]

orrrrr.... you have you allow less goals than your opponent.
MORE goals is not our problem right now. Allowing LESS goals is.

I don't particularly care if we win 10-7 or 1-0, still gets max points. The need is ti win the scoring race every game. How we get there is dictated by the players available. The defense is young and shaky, goaltending questionable. Not many teams we will beat with being defensively better, but we should get wins due to having more firepower than the opponent. That's the reality of it for now, how fast the young D develops will change that outlook.

It doesn't have anything to do with this topic though, not like Bjorky was making the team defensively better. Didn't lose any defensive prowess.

 

[LJ7]

orrrrr.... you have you allow less goals than your opponent.
MORE goals is not our problem right now. Allowing LESS goals is.

You are right that the defense is a more pressing issue but lately I've been looking for an excuse to remark that there is still plenty of room for improvement with our offense. We only finished 14th in GF last season.

 

[majormajor]

The more I look into it, it is dawning on me that the extreme cap crunch explanation of the trade is 100% false.

For reference, in today's Athletic Porty drew up a 22 man roster with $3.8m to spare. Bjorkstrand's cap is $5.4m, so we really only needed a bit over $1.6m to squeeze under with a 21 man roster. That means that the list of ways to make it under is very long. You actually don't need to trade anybody this summer.

For instance you could send Kuraly and Bean to Cleveland for a week or a few weeks until somebody gets injured (or until injuries elsewhere means a mutually advantageous trade is possible). And for those of you who think we wouldn't do something so rude to Kurls - we just dumped our homegrown hero and top goal scorer on his honeymoon. Temporarily waiving guys is something Toronto has done recently.

Perhaps that sort of temporary AHL maneuver is something you greatly want to avoid - I would agree - but think of it as the worst case scenario if a trade doesn't pop up between now and game one of the season. That's the worst that could happen if we can't find a trade, and Jarmo still chose to dump Bjorkstrand months in advance.

The real answer here is that Jarmo wasn't as attached to Bjorkstrand as most of us are. Maybe he wasn't part of the long term plan anyways, maybe he wanted to clear space on the scoring lines for one of his half dozen ELC kids. The timing of the move would still be explained by the cap. He can go over the cap in the summer and there are several clubs that routinely go over until the season starts, but Jarmo has never done that and in this case could stay under by moving someone who wasn't a part of the long run plan and was getting in the way of his young players.

 

[Keduzin]

The real answer here is that Jarmo wasn't as attached to Bjorkstrand as most of us are. Maybe he wasn't part of the long term plan anyways, maybe he wanted to clear space on the scoring lines for one of his half dozen ELC kids. The timing of the move would still be explained by the cap. He can go over the cap in the summer and there are several clubs that routinely go over until the season starts, but Jarmo has never done that and in this case could stay under by moving someone who wasn't a part of the long run plan and was getting in the way of his young players.

I agree. And I also think Jarmo wanted to get cap compliant immediately so he can make fast decisions in case some other interesting players become available.

 

[majormajor]

I agree. And I also think Jarmo wanted to get cap compliant immediately so he can make fast decisions in case some other interesting players become available.

Hmmmm, that makes sense. It seems that the timing suggests Jarmo has more in the works.

 

[Halberdier]

The more I look into it, it is dawning on me that the extreme cap crunch explanation of the trade is 100% false.

For reference, in today's Athletic Porty drew up a 22 man roster with $3.8m to spare. Bjorkstrand's cap is $5.4m, so we really only needed a bit over $1.6m to squeeze under with a 21 man roster. That means that the list of ways to make it under is very long. You actually don't need to trade anybody this summer.

For instance you could send Kuraly and Bean to Cleveland for a week or a few weeks until somebody gets injured (or until injuries elsewhere means a mutually advantageous trade is possible). And for those of you who think we wouldn't do something so rude to Kurls - we just dumped our homegrown hero and top goal scorer on his honeymoon. Temporarily waiving guys is something Toronto has done recently.

Perhaps that sort of temporary AHL maneuver is something you greatly want to avoid - I would agree - but think of it as the worst case scenario if a trade doesn't pop up between now and game one of the season. That's the worst that could happen if we can't find a trade, and Jarmo still chose to dump Bjorkstrand months in advance.

The real answer here is that Jarmo wasn't as attached to Bjorkstrand as most of us are. Maybe he wasn't part of the long term plan anyways, maybe he wanted to clear space on the scoring lines for one of his half dozen ELC kids. The timing of the move would still be explained by the cap. He can go over the cap in the summer and there are several clubs that routinely go over until the season starts, but Jarmo has never done that and in this case could stay under by moving someone who wasn't a part of the long run plan and was getting in the way of his young players.

Lot of stuff I agree, but I think you might overlook the roster spot clearance and also the long term cap clearance that likely was one of the reasons why Jarmo acted now. When Johnny came in, he grabbed 1 TOP-6 (and therefore TOP-9) spot that is really needed for prospects like KJ, Marchenko etc., and in the presence of Johnny, Laine, Voracek, Bjorkstrad (the 4th best winger, btw.) there really was not TOP-6 spots for wingers, and add in Nyquist and then you have only 1 TOP-9 spot available for wingers.

My takes:
1. Jarmo needed cap space, but more long term than short term

2. Jarmo needed roster spots for Marchenko, Johnson & others like Bemström, Chinakov and who knows for dark horses like Luoto.

3. After last season, Jarmo probably was no more as high on Bjorkstrand as he was before that. I think he still saw the contract as pretty good, but probably no more as excellent he valued it before.

Bonus:
the flexibility to make moves both cap & roster wise is certainly a thing as well. I think Jarmo would be pretty unhappy as a GM if his cap space was constantly pretty non-existent.

 

[Ippenator]

You are right that the defense is a more pressing issue but lately I've been looking for an excuse to remark that there is still plenty of room for improvement with our offense. We only finished 14th in GF last season.

It’s really about the balance, and not a black and white-thing. The better your goal difference is, the likelier it is to get wins. So to maximize the opportunity to get a better goal difference, Columbus absolutely needs to find ways to score goals more than they did last season, while hopefully being able to allow less goals than they did last season. I think the goaltending was even weaker than defending was last season, so if the goalies (or even one of them) have a clearly better season, it might already help with allowing less goals.

Also one more year with the same system and coach, while the younger players are getting more experience and hopefully developing, I would hope to see the defence being better already through it. Also a play driving superstar winger like Gaudreau should be able to change the scales more likely towards Columbus when he is on the ice, which can mean better control of the games and give less chances to the opponents then. Better offence is often better defending as well, at least in the way of controlling the flow of the game better.

 

[majormajor]

Lot of stuff I agree, but I think you might overlook the roster spot clearance and also the long term cap clearance that likely was one of the reasons why Jarmo acted now. When Johnny came in, he grabbed 1 TOP-6 (and therefore TOP-9) spot that is really needed for prospects like KJ, Marchenko etc., and in the presence of Johnny, Laine, Voracek, Bjorkstrad (the 4th best winger, btw.) there really was not TOP-6 spots for wingers, and add in Nyquist and then you have only 1 TOP-9 spot available for wingers.

My takes:
1. Jarmo needed cap space, but more long term than short term

2. Jarmo needed roster spots for Marchenko, Johnson & others like Bemström, Chinakov and who knows for dark horses like Luoto.

3. After last season, Jarmo probably was no more as high on Bjorkstrand as he was before that. I think he still saw the contract as pretty good, but probably no more as excellent he valued it before.

Bonus:
the flexibility to make moves both cap & roster wise is certainly a thing as well. I think Jarmo would be pretty unhappy as a GM if his cap space was constantly pretty non-existent.

I think you're making the same point I made. I mentioned roster space and Jarmo's long run plan.

The return is still mind boggling. Even if you were as dispassionate about Bjorkstrand as Jarmo, and you want both Bjorkstrand and Nyquist off the roster in a year, you can still do that by moving Gus now and Bjorkstrand when there is a market. Even if we had to pay to move Gus (I really doubt it was a 1st round price, potentially no price at all), you could recoup or more than recoup that by selling Bjorkstrand mid-season or at the deadline when teams have capspace. My guess is that Gus might have cost a 2nd or mayyybe a pair of 2nds to move and Bjorkstrand could fetch a mid 1st or maybe even a pick around #10 by midseason. Still baffling. That or did Jarmo just panic? Hard to imagine.

It seems to me that there is something I don't know about, a missing piece of info, and I don't think it is this extreme cap crunch which seems to be the generally accepted theory. There's something else.

 

[Halberdier]

I think you're making the same point I made. I mentioned roster space and Jarmo's long run plan.

The return is still mind boggling. Even if you were as dispassionate about Bjorkstrand as Jarmo, and you want both Bjorkstrand and Nyquist off the roster in a year, you can still do that by moving Gus now and Bjorkstrand when there is a market. Even if we had to pay to move Gus (I really doubt it was a 1st round price, potentially no price at all), you could recoup or more than recoup that by selling Bjorkstrand mid-season or at the deadline when teams have capspace. My guess is that Gus might have cost a 2nd or mayyybe a pair of 2nds to move and Bjorkstrand could fetch a mid 1st or maybe even a pick around #10 by midseason. Still baffling. That or did Jarmo just panic? Hard to imagine.

It seems to me that there is something I don't know about, a missing piece of info, and I don't think it is this extreme cap crunch which seems to be the generally accepted theory. There's something else.

I am pretty sure that moving Gus now had a hefty price. And given that price, and at least no price / some return from Bjork, I guess he preferred Gus for this season over Bjork as Bjork would maybe not fit his long term plan anyway since Johnny arrived and the prospect pool looks even better than 1 years ago.

I am also thinking that Gus might even be content with a big salary cut / smaller role after the season and that might be one of the options Jarmo is considering.

 

[majormajor]

I am pretty sure that moving Gus now had a hefty price. And given that price, and at least no price / some return from Bjork, I guess he preferred Gus for this season over Bjork as Bjork would maybe not fit his long term plan anyway since Johnny arrived and the prospect pool looks even better than 1 years ago.

I am also thinking that Gus might even be content with a big salary cut / smaller role after the season and that might be one of the options Jarmo is considering.

Okay I suppose it might have been a 1st to move Gus, though I'm a bit skeptical. Let's leave that aside.

Like we discussed earlier, if it was just a matter of staying under the cap, there were ways of doing that (some not even involving trades), and you still could have traded Bjorkstrand in the Fall for probably a 1st round pick as soon as a couple teams have injuries and the market moves like it does every Fall. All of the objectives that we've projected on to Jarmo could have been met and still gotten a good return.

Could there be some reason why the Jackets can't go over the cap in the summer, even though some other clubs do it? Are we even paying player salary this time of year? It doesn't seem like it would be an internal hard cap type of concern.

 

[Halberdier]

Okay I suppose it might have been a 1st to move Gus, though I'm a bit skeptical. Let's leave that aside.

Like we discussed earlier, if it was just a matter of staying under the cap, there were ways of doing that (some not even involving trades), and you still could have traded Bjorkstrand in the Fall for probably a 1st round pick as soon as a couple teams have injuries and the market moves like it does every Fall. All of the objectives that we've projected on to Jarmo could have been met and still gotten a good return.

Could there be some reason why the Jackets can't go over the cap in the summer, even though some other clubs do it? Are we even paying player salary this time of year? It doesn't seem like it would be an internal hard cap type of concern.

I guess Jarmo simply didn't like about going under cap without any trades, and that would have been really tight and pretty irritating situation to handle and hurting for the prospect pool as younger guys would not be given chance to show what they have got. Also if he already adjusted his long term plans (Bjork swapped for Johnny; KJ, Marchenko etc. coming for the rescue) I guess the earlier you deal with the situation, the better. Actually even for Bjork. Each and everyone can now have 100% focus for the coming season. CBJ, Nyquist & Bjork. Younger CBJ guys now see that the roster has been cleared for them (Bjork now, Nyquist likely within a year, Voracek in 2 seasons) to win in a fierce but hopefully fair competition.

 

[Fro]

Okay I suppose it might have been a 1st to move Gus, though I'm a bit skeptical. Let's leave that aside.

Like we discussed earlier, if it was just a matter of staying under the cap, there were ways of doing that (some not even involving trades), and you still could have traded Bjorkstrand in the Fall for probably a 1st round pick as soon as a couple teams have injuries and the market moves like it does every Fall. All of the objectives that we've projected on to Jarmo could have been met and still gotten a good return.

Could there be some reason why the Jackets can't go over the cap in the summer, even though some other clubs do it? Are we even paying player salary this time of year? It doesn't seem like it would be an internal hard cap type of concern.

It's a buyers market...GMs know teams have to get below the cap and it was the best deal available without adding assets to move 1...

It's best to do it early than to be caught without a dance partner later

I think you'll see a lot of ppl doing "future considerations" deals bc no one is going to do a solid deal closer to the season...

I'm sorry moving him still hurts..but they weren't moving '23 assets just to rid a contract...it wasn't happening

 

[ThirdPeriodTurtle]

There was earlier the notion that they should've waited until the end of Bjorky's honeymoon to announce the trade. In my experience (with relationships), that tends to come off as dishonest, and most people prefer to know immediately instead of being withheld information that concerns them. It stings but it's more honest and keeps a level of trust. It's the difference of keeping or burning the bridges. And for Bjorky, it allows him to take in the news, accept it, relax, and plan his life going forward with some extra time instead of trying to scramble everything just before preseason etc.

Likewise with urgency. It is probably far better for the team to settle now and not have 20+ guys worry about a potential axe hanging over their head. People tend to stress about these things whether they say it or not, and everybody knows "it's just a business" and could hit you at any point. Given how many options we fans had to clear cap room, that's 10 players who would've been in a realistic danger (from their perspective) of being traded. Now those players can sleep easy and focus on the summer training. I think this is an important point. What's best for the team isn't always black and white numbers/trades, there's intangibles in non-hockey stuff too.

The reverse loyalty question is totally valid though. Not good optics to trade loyal players. Jarmo sometimes comes off very business-like, I wonder if he does it on purpose (the Gaudreau intro presser a prime example - I don't think he said Johnny's name once, always just "players like this" and so on). It's a fine line to walk... In Jarmo's defense, he came off very genuine in the Laine presser when he talked about Bjorky (the most emotional Jarmo I've ever heard) and said it was his first Draft where they selected him. Bjorky was "his" guy and I bet GMs value these things a bit. I doubt he was willing to part with him as easily as some here believe - but for other reasons he ended up doing so.

Remember how things were on the mains after we signed Gaudreau? And then Laine was extended? Yes, there were some jerks, but we mostly had all those well wishes and congratulations and folks actually saying good things about the team and the city and how we're really going places and praising what's going on here?

That's gone. That's all dead now. Hope y'all enjoyed it while it lasted, because it is dead and gone and not ever coming back. Because we just got utterly humiliated. There was an obvious, simple path out, and Kekalainen decided that he would rather lose a very high quality player for too little than pay to lose a good player. We took a severe self-inflicted wound, and while maybe some of us will be mollified if one of our young guys is able to step up and fill the role Bjorkstrand did, the team will never get any credit for it whatsoever.

We had a couple weeks in the spotlight, but now that there's a legitimate excuse again, we're now back to being the perpetually mocked punchline with nobody to speak for us. That's what this is in the end. That's what we lost and can't get back.

I want to touch on this a bit. I think the viewpoint is rather narrow - us fans and the people here on the board, sure, they may laugh at these couple of seemingly bad trades and take away the positive hype we got from the Gaudreau signing. It sucks and you're absolute right on that. But if we extend the viewpoint a bit, that's a really small percentage of hockey followers. I'm gonna bet most people who follow hockey casually will focus on Gaudreau (and to some extent Laine), and CBJ will get plenty of new fans because of these signings. Ultimately it'll come down to how we play next season and how exciting the hockey is to watch. And frankly I think on the mains people want to bash if they can, there's probably a lot of silent followers who are waiting to see how things pan out in-season. Bjorkstrand trade in the short term maybe enforces the old beliefs about CBJ but the Gaudreau signing in the long term has a chance to change that.

 

[JacketsDavid]

Jarmo traded a second line player drafted a few years back in the 3rd round for a future 3rd, a 4th and very valuable cap/roster space which isn't readily available at this moment.

That is like saying Jarmo just gave $9M+ to a 4th round draft pick, we got screwed... Original draft position has noting to do with worth or value.

Listen I'm thrilled w Johnny, but generally I am worried about the make up of the team. We have way too many forwards who have little interest in playing defense, for a team who (IMO) was about as bad as possible last year in the defensive zone, and are still missing at least a first pairing RD (and some could argue are missing a 2 pairing RD despite the fact we spent $4M on a guy in free agency).

Maybe with this $2M+ in cap room we can move a forward for a dman, but right now we look like a team that will need to score 4+ goals a night to win.

 

[Jovavic]

I believe we just saw the worst save percentage by a Cup winning goalie in decades, maybe the way Colorado won by simply outscoring the other team more times then not and ushering back in that 80s firewagon brand of hockey is the future that Jarmo is banking on.

Having had a few days to digest the trade, it is what it is. Jarmo had options to move salary and this was the one that hurt the least. Not only moving salary to help this year, but also term to help resign the kids in the coming years.

I guess I have a new Western team now, let's get Kracken.

 

[LoneFunyan]

The more I look into it, it is dawning on me that the extreme cap crunch explanation of the trade is 100% false.

Personally, I think it was cap AND roster.

The "choice" seemed to come down to Nyquist and Bjork. Both clear similar cap this year. But Bjork clears it for a couple extra years - so it means there's no similar decision to make next year. Moving Bjork makes your decision 3x in one.

Additionally - and this is presuming we do not resign Nyquist - it creates an "extra" roster spot. Had we gotten rid of Gus, we get one spot to fill this year and "no spots" next year (because the spot would already have been filled by someone this year). Moving Bjork, we have a spot this year and, again presuming Nyquist is gone next year, we have another one organically open next year.

There were three pieces that were at odds and while moving Nyquist was the easiest move to see from a cap perspective, the roster was a problem as well, and I worried we'd start having to move pieces around Laine, JG and Z in ways that were going to be tough. It'll happen again next year, though not with a player as well-liked as Bjork.