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

[DarkandStormy]

Unlike the Lazy Laine fan club I want the CBJ to win hockey games, not for Laine to “take off”.

Gaudreau could “take off” with plenty of guys.

Laine, and the team as a whole, that Laine plays a BIG PART OF, need to change how they play the game.

MORE goals IS NOT the solution.

The President's Trophy winners last season led the league in goals.
The Stanley Cup Champions were 3rd in the league in goals scored. They outscored their opponents in the playoffs 4.25-2.7 per game.

(In fairness, Tampa and Colorado were in the top 7 for least goals allowed last season as well.)

 

[CBJWerenski8]

Scoring goals wins games

Preventing goals wins championships

I don’t think bus is wrong on his point, but I think his approach about it misses the mark.

The Jackets can still be a better team defensively and have Laine on the roster. It’s not mutually exclusive. Laine himself might not be a good defender or a good one on one defender, but he backchecks well. It’s when they get set up is where we have issues, but if our D can be more aggressive and prevent entries, or move the puck better when it’s dumped in, we won’t have to deal with in zone pressure as much as we have the last few years.

Bjorkstrand is way better defensively and more willing to get his nose dirty. But the team defense was awful with him. It’s a team issue, not necessarily a singular player issue. Everyone needs to pitch in and do more to prevent goals, and we need better goaltending.

 

[LJ7]

Scoring goals wins games

Preventing goals wins championships

I don’t think bus is wrong on his point, but I think his approach about it misses the mark.

The Jackets can still be a better team defensively and have Laine on the roster. It’s not mutually exclusive. Laine himself might not be a good defender or a good one on one defender, but he backchecks well. It’s when they get set up is where we have issues, but if our D can be more aggressive and prevent entries, or move the puck better when it’s dumped in, we won’t have to deal with in zone pressure as much as we have the last few years.

Bjorkstrand is way better defensively and more willing to get his nose dirty. But the team defense was awful with him. It’s a team issue, not necessarily a singular player issue. Everyone needs to pitch in and do more to prevent goals, and we need better goaltending.

If Laine really will be glued to Gaudreau all season then his defensive weakness will be nearly negated. Having the puck for your entire shift is the most effective defense there is. The last thing I'm worried about for our team next year is Laine and the first line. He'll be fine and the first line will be really good. If the team is bad defensively it won't be the first line's fault. Now if Laine won't be with Gaudreau for whatever reason then maybe we'll have an issue with Laine's defense but I cannot envision that happening. Again the first line is the least of my concerns.

I'm still on my campaign that our offense has a lot of room to improve. We were 14th at GF, not 4th. Improving the defense is definitely a bigger priority and will help our offense, but the offense itself can be better. Our powerplay wasn't any good either. Sure it looked good in comparison to whatever it was pre Larsen and Voracek but it was still nothing special. If our offense truly couldn't get any better we would have been knocking on the door of the playoffs last season.

 

[DarkandStormy]

I'm still on my campaign that our offense has a lot of room to improve. We were 14th at GF, not 4th. Improving the defense is definitely a bigger priority and will help our offense, but the offense itself can be better. Our powerplay wasn't any good either. Sure it looked good in comparison to whatever it was pre Larsen and Voracek but it was still nothing special. If our offense truly couldn't get any better we would have been knocking on the door of the playoffs last season.

Larsen ran the power play for, what, the final 5 years under Torts?

 

[LJ7]

Larsen ran the power play for, what, the final 5 years under Torts?

He ran the powerplay but couldn't even decide who was on it? Correct me if I'm wrong but Torts still used powerplay time as a "reward"

 

[majormajor]

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

I'm not sure if you read a word I wrote. The whole thrust was that you didn't have to move '23 assets or even make any trades at all. We were $1.6m away.

If you were totally caught without a dance partner you could make it under with a couple temporary waiver moves until a couple players around the league get hurt and go on LTIR (happens every year) and there is a market for Gus and Bjorky, whoever you want to move.

Larsen ran the power play for, what, the final 5 years under Torts?

With Torts changing his personnel daily, something they feuded about.

 

[Monk]

If you were totally caught without a dance partner you could make it under with a couple temporary waiver moves until a couple players around the league get hurt and go on LTIR (happens every year) and there is a market for Gus and Bjorky, whoever you want to move.

What does that risk really get us though? A 2nd instead of a 3rd and 4th? A low first?

 

[majormajor]

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.

It certainly makes sense that Jarmo would have wanted that roster space opening up a year from now, I just don't think it explains why you would want to move Bjorkstrand at the end of the FA period a year in advance, when all you can get is peanuts. I don't think the world has turned upside down, I think Bjorkstrand still returns a very nice 1st rounder if not more if you trade him later. He certainly won't be hard to move.

 

[majormajor]

What does that risk really get us though? A 2nd instead of a 3rd and 4th? A low first?

For Bjorkstrand? Could be a mid 1st even.

 

[Monk]

For Bjorkstrand? Could be a mid 1st even.

Jarmo referred to waiting as a "huge risk" so I guess I'm questioning if a "could be" is really worth that risk.

But generally I just sort of believe Jarmo when he says this was the best option out of a set of bad options, and I have to believe he included your scenario in that list of options.

 

[majormajor]

Jarmo referred to waiting as a "huge risk" so I guess I'm questioning if a "could be" is really worth that risk.

But generally I just sort of believe Jarmo when he says this was the best option out of a set of bad options, and I have to believe he included your scenario in that list of options.

I find it unbelievable. I don't think this is a move you make if you're only $1.6m over and have months to spare and I don't think it's a huge risk if the worst that can happen is that you have to make some temporary paper moves. If this is Tampa or Florida or Toronto they just waive people and run a 20 man roster or put someone on LTIR until they can make a trade. I'm curious why we didn't go down that road.

 

[Forepar]

We're not able to keep Nyquist long term. "At least we got something" is the sunken cost fallacy.

I think the point is that CBJ gets the 3rd and 4th from Seattle AND keeps its 1st. The value to keeping Nyquist is also what he might bring at the TDL.

I hate losing Oliver Bjorkstrand. I’ve not historically been an advocate of picks being greater than established NHL’ers. My initial reaction to the trade was WTF? But as time passes, assuming all other transactions were completed “as is” the comparison was A) keep Bjorkstrand, lose 1st and Nyquist (and possibly a prospect as well) vs B) keep Nyquist, keep the 1st, get a 3rd and 4th, and potentially get something more for Nyquist at TDL. I don’t like either option, but those were the two primary options once JG and PL were signed. If that 1st rounder turns into another Sillinger (he’s the only proven player of the last 2years of picks), then Jarmo clearly made the right move. If Nyquist garners another 1st then that cements it. And I realize draft picks are “ifs” compared to a known quantity as OB.
It hurts to lose him…it would hurt to lose a 1st round pick along with Nyquist. I get that you, Major and a few others would have given up the pick (or some like Bus not signed Laine)… nothing wrong with those opinions. Nothing wrong with opposite opinion as well - that trading Bjorky was the best of bad options. It just sucks to lose a loved player, especially when the return, in a vacuum, seems very small. Outside the vacuum, the return looks to be about market rate for dumping salary.

 

[Monk]

I find it unbelievable. I don't think this is a move you make if you're only $1.6m over and have months to spare and I don't think it's a huge risk if the worst that can happen is that you have to make some temporary paper moves. If this is Tampa or Florida or Toronto they just waive people and run a 20 man roster or put someone on LTIR until they can make a trade. I'm curious why we didn't go down that road.

The problem is we'll probably never know the details. What I do know is when I watch this video:



I hear a guy who evaluated all the options and really, really did not want to trade Bjorkstrand but felt like he had to. And I'm content with that.

 

[MissADD]

Larsen ran the power play for, what, the final 5 years under Torts?

Here is all the PP stats of Torts' entire career so far as a head coach:

CBJ PP% under Torts
2015-16 17.34*
2016-17 19.91
2017-18 17.18
2018-19 15.38
2019-20 15.21
2020-21 15.38

Vancouver PP% under Torts
2013-14 15.14

NYR PP%
2008-09 13.87
2009-10 18.27
2010-11 16.90
2011-12 15.71
2012-13 15.69

Tampa Bay PP% under Torts
2000-01 12.50*
2001-02 14.74
2002-03 17.90
2003-04 16.22
2005-06 16.70
2006-07 18.45
2007-08 19.26

(*) = Midseason replacement
Bold = Top 3rd in PP%
Italics = Bottom 3rd in PP%

Since he has left Tampa, teams coached by Torts have been meh on the PP at best. I think Torts hampered Larsens ability to coach the PP the way he wanted. For reference, the Jackets PP% from last season was 18.64. That was still the bottom 3rd of the league, but it was improving as the season went and looked its best at the end of the season. I would wait to see this up coming season's PP stats before we judge Larsen because the numbers show that the CBJ PP under Torts was the norm for a Torts coached team.

 

[majormajor]

The problem is we'll probably never know the details. What I do know is when I watch this video:



I hear a guy who evaluated all the options and really, really did not want to trade Bjorkstrand but felt like he had to. And I'm content with that.

I'm sure he evaluated his options and made his best decision, but I suspect that there are constraints here that we don't know about yet. The cap issue itself is too minor to explain the trade.

 

[majormajor]

Here is all the PP stats of Torts' entire career so far as a head coach:

CBJ PP% under Torts
2015-16 17.34*
2016-17 19.91
2017-18 17.18
2018-19 15.38
2019-20 15.21
2020-21 15.38

Vancouver PP% under Torts
2013-14 15.14

NYR PP%
2008-09 13.87
2009-10 18.27
2010-11 16.90
2011-12 15.71
2012-13 15.69

Tampa Bay PP% under Torts
2000-01 12.50*
2001-02 14.74
2002-03 17.90
2003-04 16.22
2005-06 16.70
2006-07 18.45
2007-08 19.26

(*) = Midseason replacement
Bold = Top 3rd in PP%
Italics = Bottom 3rd in PP%

Since he has left Tampa, teams coached by Torts have been meh on the PP at best. I think Torts hampered Larsens ability to coach the PP the way he wanted. For reference, the Jackets PP% from last season was 18.64. That was still the bottom 3rd of the league, but it was improving as the season went and looked its best at the end of the season. I would wait to see this up coming season's PP stats before we judge Larsen because the numbers show that the CBJ PP under Torts was the norm for a Torts coached team.

Last I checked, Torts still can't find a PP coach to work for him in Philly. Maybe the coaches are wise to what Lars went through and don't want to be put in that position.

 

[Youngguns1380]

Jarmo referred to waiting as a "huge risk" so I guess I'm questioning if a "could be" is really worth that risk.

But generally I just sort of believe Jarmo when he says this was the best option out of a set of bad options, and I have to believe he included your scenario in that list of options.

I with @majormajor (I don’t believe the narrative) there has to be something else in play. It may materialize or may not but something else is cooking.

 

[LoneFunyan]

It certainly makes sense that Jarmo would have wanted that roster space opening up a year from now, I just don't think it explains why you would want to move Bjorkstrand at the end of the FA period a year in advance, when all you can get is peanuts. I don't think the world has turned upside down, I think Bjorkstrand still returns a very nice 1st rounder if not more if you trade him later. He certainly won't be hard to move.

Fair question.

Maybe he's presuming Bjork's production will fall this year because of where he's going to be used (maybe anticipating he'll get less ice time or have less able linemates or something) and so he's hedging that value is highest now.

Or maybe he'd prefer to have the extra picks this draft rather than 2024? Might be a plan where he's hoping to leverage the both 3rds and 4ths into another second or something like that, since this draft is supposed to be so good.

Or as has been suggested, use the extra picks now in a package for something else sometime before the season starts.

Again, I think it all starts with "If you want to trade us Gus, we will also need another valuable asset" and he was faced with losing a player and an asset, or losing a player and gaining weak assets. Weighed with the roster flexibility he needs long term, that's a reasonably straight-forward choice

 

[Monk]

I'm sure he evaluated his options and made his best decision, but I suspect that there are constraints here that we don't know about yet. The cap issue itself is too minor to explain the trade.

Completely agreed.

 

[majormajor]

Fair question.

Maybe he's presuming Bjork's production will fall this year because of where he's going to be used (maybe anticipating he'll get less ice time or have less able linemates or something) and so he's hedging that value is highest now.

Yeah I think they might have had internals that are lower on Bjorkstrand. But I'm sure you see the humor in calling this "selling high".

Or maybe he'd prefer to have the extra picks this draft rather than 2024? Might be a plan where he's hoping to leverage the both 3rds and 4ths into another second or something like that, since this draft is supposed to be so good.

Or as has been suggested, use the extra picks now in a package for something else sometime before the season starts.

I'm 100% sure there is no master plan with those picks. It's pocket change.

Again, I think it all starts with "If you want to trade us Gus, we will also need another valuable asset" and he was faced with losing a player and an asset, or losing a player and gaining weak assets. Weighed with the roster flexibility he needs long term, that's a reasonably straight-forward choice

At $1.6m over, these weren't our only options. But maybe he wanted to clear $5m+ in a hurry for some other reason.

I think there might have been a trade that fell through. Was Jarmo after someone like Tkachuk?

 

[LJ7]

I with @majormajor (I don’t believe the narrative) there has to be something else in play. It may materialize or may not but something else is cooking.

It's possible that the teams with cap space actually are squeezing that hard, but if they're operating THIS tightly then some of those teams may be overplaying their hand and will end up with no sweetener assets. Maybe doing it early is smart? But I'm starting to feel it's more likely there's another huge move coming. We do have too many forwards still, and a lot of them are the same age. Gaudreau coming here changes the calculus and time frame.

 

[majormajor]

It's possible that the teams with cap space actually are squeezing that hard, but if they're operating THIS tightly then some of those teams may be overplaying their hand and will end up with no sweetener assets. Maybe doing it early is smart? But I'm starting to feel it's more likely there's another huge move coming. We do have too many forwards still, and a lot of them are the same age. Gaudreau coming here changes the calculus and time frame.

I'm thinking there is a reason why they cleared $5m+ off the books in a hurry. It wasn't just getting under the salary cap, we didn't need that much space and had time. But maybe there was an internal cap, or maybe there is another trade target (or I suspect was another trade target that fell through).

 

[Crede777]

I'm thinking there is a reason why they cleared $5m+ off the books in a hurry. It wasn't just getting under the salary cap, we didn't need that much space and had time. But maybe there was an internal cap, or maybe there is another trade target (or I suspect was another trade target that fell through).

Could have been internal cap (not able to go above the cap even in the offseason) but I think the Jackets have done that before.

Could have been that the Jackets had a trade target.

Could have been that Jarmo got wind that Seattle was about to complete a different trade.

Could have been that the price for teams to move cap who are actually over the cap is higher than teams that are theoretically going to be over the cap (you don't have options when you actually are over the cap but you have options when you're only theoretically over the cap such as waiting or not signing Laine).

Etc.

 

[Forepar]

I'm thinking there is a reason why they cleared $5m+ off the books in a hurry. It wasn't just getting under the salary cap, we didn't need that much space and had time. But maybe there was an internal cap, or maybe there is another trade target (or I suspect was another trade target that fell through).

And whether a continuing trade target or a trade target that fell through, or a FA, that’s the price JK was willing to pay. We don’t have to agree with it, but if the target is/was a C that could slide everyone down a slot or a first-pair RHD, then I’m fine with it. If it fell through, other opportunities will arise. I understand you are not fine with it…maybe that changes for either of us as the year plays out, maybe it doesn’t. But we both can agree watching Bjorky go is not easy, even if our reasoning is different.

 

[CBJWerenski8]