Line Combos: CBJ Roster Discussion/Line Combos/Injury Report

[majormajor]

would love bjorkstrand. having a second line that is a scoring threat would make this team a lot more formidable. seems like a guy that KJ would love playing with, as well.

Bjorkstrand needs to play the forecheck to be his best, and we need a line that can establish that. It's such a good momentum shifter when the rush play gets tilted. In Seattle they had him for a couple years on the nominal third line with Gourde and Tolvanen. It was by far the best line and frequently the top unit in terms of ice time too. I could see a unit like that, perhaps with Boone at center and Chinakhov on the other wing, or perhaps one of Silly or Danforth could fit there. In Seattle they made it to the second round of the playoffs with that forechecking line as their best unit, imagine us having a line like that with two lethal scoring lines ahead of them.

burakovsky's numbers have really fallen off a cliff, not sure what's up with that but he has two more years left after this one and an easily-digestable AAV for us. could fit as a reclamation guy, big body with some skill, and a deprecated asset. two years removed from being a really good second line winger. if the cbj pro scouts think they can build him back up it could be a shrewd move.

If you want a guy who might score 50 pts, if all goes well, while being a defensive drag, then you can find that guy with a cheaper contract than Burakovsky. He's a pure one way guy who has lost his one way.

also saw that friedman said that seattle's looking to revamp its blueline a bit. i've posted a lot on here about the ideal type of d-partner for severson… jamie oleksiak would look really good in this d-group, as they lack a pure shutdown type. has one more year after this one, too.

He's supposed to be that player but most of the time just doesn't do it. If you watch Del Bel's goal again, you see a situation where Oleksiak could just bounce the guy from the crease but tries to intercept the puck instead.

 

[cbjthrowaway]

Bjorkstrand needs to play the forecheck to be his best, and we need a line that can establish that. It's such a good momentum shifter when the rush play gets tilted. In Seattle they had him for a couple years on the nominal third line with Gourde and Tolvanen. It was by far the best line and frequently the top unit in terms of ice time too. I could see a unit like that, perhaps with Boone at center and Chinakhov on the other wing, or perhaps one of Silly or Danforth could fit there. In Seattle they made it to the second round of the playoffs with that forechecking line as their best unit, imagine us having a line like that with two lethal scoring lines ahead of them.

i agree that forechecking is one of his strongest traits but disagree with the notion that he has to be on a line with two other forecheck guys in order to be effective.

he's perfectly capable of playing a variety of scoring line roles here, and his versatility + forechecking would give them a lot of options. three wildly different theoretical lines with bjorkstrand:

• johnson - monahan - bjorkstrand (ideal support for KJ)
• chinakhov - sillinger - bjorkstrand (ideal third line)
• jenner - fantilli - bjorkstrand (ideal support for fantilli)

zero linemate overlap in either of those options, and neither includes voronkov/marchenko (who imo have to stay together).

imo the third option there is the best – two veteran forechecking wings who can produce at a second-line clip and are good in their own end supporting a young center with superstar potential.

If you want a guy who might score 50 pts, if all goes well, while being a defensive drag, then you can find that guy with a cheaper contract than Burakovsky. He's a pure one way guy who has lost his one way.

the point of buy-low guys is to extract surplus value via a deprecated acquisition cost, and turn the player (back) into a Dude.

not saying they should go after him, just saying that the jackets fit the criteria of a team that could (clear need at wing, long-term cap space) if their pro scouts think they can re-Dude-ify him.

He's supposed to be that player but most of the time just doesn't do it. If you watch Del Bel's goal again, you see a situation where Oleksiak could just bounce the guy from the crease but tries to intercept the puck instead.

even if oleksiak isn't always a physical force and isn't an ideal pure shutdown type, he may still be the best option to add those elements to the lineup, given that:

1. he's not a pure rental
2. he has traits (experience, size/reach) that are lacking in this group at present
3. he is (theoretically) available given friedman's comment about seattle wanting to change the blueline (dunn, mountour have NTCs, larson not available)

the roster has clear needs. perfect solutions to those needs that are also 1) available and 2) affordable plainly don't exist. doesn't mean the GM shouldn't take concrete steps to address those needs.

 

[GoJackets1]

Burakovsky has always intrigued me as a player but at this point he’s just a worse version of Chinakov IMO. Would love Bjork back though.

 

[majormajor]

i agree that forechecking is one of his strongest traits but disagree with the notion that he has to be on a line with two other forecheck guys in order to be effective.

Having guys on his line who can forecheck and also play rush, that's fine. But if you have someone on a line with Bjorkstrand who can't cycle the puck with him, that will be a big step backwards. I've watched his whole career and I can tell you his effectiveness as a player goes from mid level to top end when all three guys embrace cycling the puck. He's not a valuable player right now playing with Burakovsky and Stephenson, for example.

the point of buy-low guys is to extract surplus value via a deprecated acquisition cost, and turn the player (back) into a Dude.

not saying they should go after him, just saying that the jackets fit the criteria of a team that could (clear need at wing, long-term cap space) if their pro scouts think they can re-Dude-ify him.

I think this particular type of buy low project is something the Jackets no longer fit the criteria for. When you take on someone who has term on their deal, you can't just try them out, like we would with say Jack Quinn. We would have to work on Burakovsky for a long time and keep on working on him when it fails in the beginning. We need to win hockey games, we're not rebuilding anymore. Bad players shouldn't play, and let's be clear, Burakovsky is a really bad player right now. If/when Burakovsky gets bought out, then you can bring him in and try him out, and if it doesn't work, that's fine, we move on. That would be a different situation.

even if oleksiak isn't always a physical force and isn't an ideal pure shutdown type, he may still be the best option to add those elements to the lineup, given that:

1. he's not a pure rental
2. he has traits (experience, size/reach) that are lacking in this group at present
3. he is (theoretically) available given friedman's comment about seattle wanting to change the blueline (dunn, mountour have NTCs, larson not available)

the roster has clear needs. perfect solutions to those needs that are also 1) available and 2) affordable plainly don't exist. doesn't mean the GM shouldn't take concrete steps to address those needs.

I'm aware that perfect doesn't exist. Most of the time though, Oleksiak isn't even average. You're making arguments that would make more sense if we were talking about good but imperfect players. Burakovsky and Oleksiak aren't that.

I also think our defense is fine for the way our team plays. We would be a much better defensive team if we had a top end defender like Rasmus Andersson or Adam Pelech. But if you add an average defender to this mix that we have, I still think we end up at the bottom of the league in terms of goals against. Oleksiak would probably make it worse.

 

[CBJWerenski8]