Columbus will "Not be the same team" in 2016/2017

[Crede777]

From my perspective, I don't think Murray is remotely available.

I think the plan is to obtain a #1 C while keeping Murray-Jones as the top pairing. They will move other pieces, but not those two. Unpopular as it may be, my opinion is the team would sooner move Werenski than Murray (and I don't think they're looking to move Werenski).

 

[LetsGOJackets!!]

Murray Jones
Werenski Savard
Johnson Goloubev

Prout, Kukin, Tyutin

For the first time in Blue Jacket history we actually look like someone put some planning (thought/ time/ salary) into our defense - the top 4 is still quite young. If we are trading assets it may be from the forward ranks or ossibly from Goalie depth, but I seriously doubt it from defensive assets

 

[CBJx614]

Murray Jones
Werenski Savard
Johnson Goloubev

Prout, Kukin, Tyutin

For the first time in Blue Jacket history we actually look like someone put some planning (thought/ time/ salary) into our defense - the top 4 is still quite young. If we are trading assets it may be from the forward ranks or ossibly from Goalie depth, but I seriously doubt it from defensive assets

Is that our Russian replacement for Tyutin?

 

[theD86]

I'll take Kukahn over Goloubef thanks

 

[blahblah]

Werenski with Savard in his first season is a bit laughable. Savard is horrific in transition and he's great at falling asleep and letting the defense behind him. That isn't someone that I want to put into a 3/4 role opposite a rookie. If we have to keep that monstrosity (Savard) keep him with JJ who can save is ass from time to time. I keep hoping we can pawn Savard off on someone else.

He was better last season, but I don't trust him.

 

[major major]

So Murray & Rychel for Duchene and 10OA? I think I'd do that. And hope like heck one of the top D was available at 10.

They're not going to touch that. We're talking Murray for Duchene straight up, with them probably taking on Hartnell or some other way evening out the salary.

Because then in essence that player is added to the trade cost.

No, the difference between the two players gets factored in. Remember we lose one player total no matter what!

Unless you think there is some kind of huge jump from Atkinson to Anderson or vice versa, or whoever else is in play, then it's probably almost irrelevant in comparison.

 

[major major]

Seems like the Jackets would win this trade. Definitely the best two assets would be coming our way. So basically we'd get Duchene, Puljujarvi and a top ten prospect defenseman in all likelihood. I think I would have to agree with you that Jarmo would have to seriously consider making that deal.

Murray >>> 10OA.

 

[CBJx614]

Werenski with Savard in his first season is a bit laughable. Savard is horrific in transition and he's great at falling asleep and letting the defense behind him. That isn't someone that I want to put into a 3/4 role opposite a rookie. If we have to keep that monstrosity (Savard) keep him with JJ who can save is ass from time to time. I keep hoping we can pawn Savard off on someone else.

He was better last season, but I don't trust him.

While i think it's a bit early to put him there, if Werenski shows he's capable i wouldn't mind. He seems to be the kinda guy who can get back quick enough (kinda like Jones). Lead the rush down the ice, but it's the first guy back in the D zone.

But i dont want to see Johnson moved until(if ever) Werenski shows he's capable of effectively defending at the NHL level. He did good in the AHL, but the NHL is a different monster. I think by the end of the season he'll be on the 2nd pairing.

Also i know Werenski is a LHD but is it at all possible he could play RD? Maybe on the PP he and Jones switch sides so they can fire bombs on net

 

[CBJSlash]

Except that those "hypothetical grades" are nonsensical and do not exist. Player value is not a constant. Players are not fungible assets.

In particular, I think the difference between losing Cam Atkinson and losing some other guy after him could get really, really ugly indeed. Unless we're getting a C with a transition game that's about as good, we could end up hurting a lot more than expected that way.

Well if you don't think Matt Duchene would be better than 7 of our forwards -- I'm not sure this is really something that go rounds about.

We do this sort of things with prospects all the time. First round grades is a term used by every front office in the league.

A trade like this is more likely to mean that we'd approach Foligno about waiving with the assurance that we'd compensate the team not to pick him than we'd lose a player like Jenner or Wennberg.

Bob
Jones/Murray/Savard
Saad/Jenner/Dubinsky/Wennberg/Atkinson/Foligno/???

is the most likely situation. Hartnell has waived. Clarkson would waive (if they'd have to). Tyutin probably would waive or we'd just buy him out. This freak out is much more fanbase generated than anything in reality.

 

[blahblah]

While i think it's a bit early to put him there, if Werenski shows he's capable i wouldn't mind. He seems to be the kinda guy who can get back quick enough (kinda like Jones). Lead the rush down the ice, but it's the first guy back in the D zone.

Until Wereski can develop into a true top pairing guy I want someone with him to protect him, so if he makes a bad decision we know he's covered. Savard isn't that guy.

We don't need Wereski playing hesitantly and second guessing himself.

This isn't pinching in I'm concerned about, but in transition. Plus Savard is crap on breakout passes and I've seen enough tape on Wereski to know he can move up ice fast if you get him the puck.

He can add a dynamic that even Murray can't.

 

[major major]

Wrong. The difference between that player and the next player is added to the trade cost.

If the player unprotected is a hypothetical graded "80" and the player that would have been taken is a hypothetical graded "75" then sure this "5" could be added to the trade cost.

Thank you for the cogent explanation. I've really been baffled why this is so hard to get.

When we talk about having too many assets, it's very likely the trade to be made would be with Vegas -- a team with no assets. They would likely be interested in 3 of our prospects than 1 unprotected player.

Would they rather have three of these:

Forsberg, Carlson, Heatherington, Bittner, Zaar, Kolesar, Anderson.

Maybe just two if they are interested in Korpisalo, Milano or Rychel.

Or

Cam Atkinson

Not sure...

And now you lost me. Anderson, Kolesar, and Forsberg are worth almost as much as Milano and Rychel, if not more, and come to think of it I'd actually value Anderson more than Atkinson, just because he's 22, ready, and Atkinson is a year from UFA.

Except that those "hypothetical grades" are nonsensical and do not exist. Player value is not a constant. Players are not fungible assets.

In particular, I think the difference between losing Cam Atkinson and losing some other guy after him could get really, really ugly indeed. Unless we're getting a C with a transition game that's about as good, we could end up hurting a lot more than expected that way.

Player value changes, but in a snapshot it exists, and you're right, they're not completely fungible - you can bet Las Vegas' preference list is different from our preference list - but it is a certainty that our team will have a preference list and some kind of implied valuation of players. You could put numbers on it if you want, though you don't have to. The numbers here are just to help explain the concept.

I personally value Atkinson and Anderson similarly, call it 75, and that's factoring in Atkinson's transition abilities and upcoming UFA status. If you think our team has a particular need (transition), then that absolutely figures into your valuations. But for me, sliding from one player to the other is completely costless. Zero, donut. You might feel differently, but I suspect after you spend a little time watching someone like Duchene in transition, you'll completely forget about the issue.

If you want to be rigorous and factor expansion into every deal that involves a protected spot, sure go ahead. But be honest, it's not just adding in your boy Atkinson into the costs of every deal. IF Las Vegas would want him (a soon to be UFA??), then you lose him on the debit side and gain Anderson on the credit side. That's the rigorous way to do it. Write in both!

Duchene + Josh Anderson

for

Murray + Atkinson

And to reiterate: that's your worst-case scenario! Viqsi's nightmare! More likely, we go through all this panic and then Las Vegas picks,.... drumroll please... Anton Forsberg, or someone else out of left field.

 

[major major]

Im not trading Johnson until Werenski proves he's NHL capable.


Im not trading Murray until Werenski is a bonafide #1D

Im not trading for another C until Wennberg proves he's not a 1C


Just my .02

I think that's reasonable. Though I'd add Wennberg has a good chance at becoming a low end #1C he's unlikely to turn into anything remotely elite or even above average as far as #1C's go. That's still a very valuable thing to get if we can.

 

[major major]

I'll take Kukahn over Goloubef thanks

Me too, but unfortunately they don't play the same position. The choice that has been given to us at RHD is Golo or Prout.

 

[major major]

Also i know Werenski is a LHD but is it at all possible he could play RD? Maybe on the PP he and Jones switch sides so they can fire bombs on net

They'll end up switching on the PP anyways (after control is established after the draw). Being on your one-time side is a big plus, and in my opinion they ought to just line up that way at the draws on PP and anytime you need a goal in a hurry. There's good stats on off-side effectiveness, and it's a big plus in the offensive end, and a big minus in your own end.

 

[blahblah]

Well if you don't think Matt Duchene would be better than 7 of our forwards -- I'm not sure this is really something that go rounds about.

We can't afford Duchene and he's only signed for 3 more years before going UFA. Why are we even talking about him? I saw some crap post about trading the #3 for him, with some other moving parts - was that the reason I see him name again? Unless we are getting the Avs first rounder along with Duchene I don't even know why it's even a discussion as we would end up taking a hit to move Dubinsky or Foligno (we won't get his value because teams know we need to dump salary). We also need some protection in case he decides to bolt after three seasons, so he wouldn't be at full value. If he would still be a RFA, that would be a different story.

I'm not going to debate who we think he's better than. It's a nonsensical argument. The only question is where he would fit as a top six center, not where he stacks up with other forwards. We would have to move Dubinsky or Foligno to even make this a consideration and they both have NMC's (partial or otherwise).

Personally I would love to have him but it's hard to trade the #3 for a guy that you might only have for 3 seasons. If we considered moving him over to play wing, just forget it.

Personally I'm getting comfortable with Dubinsky (eventually Wennberg and move Dubinsky to wing) along with Jenner as our top six centers.

 

[major major]

We can't afford Duchene and he's only signed for 3 more years before going UFA. Why are we even talking about him? I saw some crap post about trading the #3 for him, with some other moving parts - was that the reason I see him name again? Unless we are getting the Avs first rounder along with Duchene I don't even know why it's even a discussion as we would end up taking a hit to move Dubinsky or Foligno (we won't get his value because teams know we need to dump salary). We also need some protection in case he decides to bolt after three seasons, so he wouldn't be at full value. If he would still be a RFA, that would be a different story.

I'm not going to debate who we think he's better than. It's a nonsensical argument. The only question is where he would fit as a top six center, not where he stacks up with other forwards. We would have to move Dubinsky or Foligno to even make this a consideration and they both have NMC's (partial or otherwise).

Personally I would love to have him but it's hard to trade the #3 for a guy that you might only have for 3 seasons. If we considered moving him over to play wing, just forget it.

Personally I'm getting comfortable with Dubinsky (eventually Wennberg and move Dubinsky to wing) along with Jenner as our top six centers.

If Duchene was signed at $6m for 6 years we wouldn't be having this discussion - his value would be much higher than Puljujarvi, being a young established #1C without any of the odd issues befalling someone like Johansen. So that risk of not re-signing after the third year is really what evens it out.

We would not have a debate about where Duchene fits in our lineup. He is unquestionably the #1C and probably the best forward over all. Leaguewide he is definitely a real #1C and a good one at that.

And yes, you have to throw in some guys to even out the salary. This is more of an outline discussion, don't sweat the small stuff.

 

[major major]

Deleted.

 

[Xoggz22]

Werenski will be sheltered on the bottom pair of he ends up with the CBJ. He still has a lot to learn and gain some strength to play top 4 minutes.

 

[blahblah]

If Duchene was signed at $6m for 6 years we wouldn't be having this discussion - his value would be much higher than Puljujarvi, being a young established #1C without any of the odd issues befalling someone like Johansen.

I don't buy it. Duchene isn't in the discussion of elite centers, just top line. When you start talking top three you are now talking potential elite players - depending on the year.

We would almost always be having this discussion, as the player offered wouldn't be elite (or perceived as going to be). For example, we aren't talking MacKinnon.

But yes, if he was 23 and had just signed a six year deal it would be a far more interesting discussion. I'm not really looking for signing a 28 year old to a 7 or 8 year deal in 3 years. They just don't seem to work out as well as you would hope in a lot of cases.

 

[blahblah]

Werenski will be sheltered on the bottom pair of he ends up with the CBJ. He still has a lot to learn and gain some strength to play top 4 minutes.

He may end up a bottom pairing guy but he's going to get a lot of minutes, over 16. They will get him in for special teams play and he will be in the lineup a lot when we're down late in games.

 

[major major]

I don't buy it. Duchene isn't in the discussion of elite centers, just top line.

You can use whatever lingo you want. The point is he is in select company, top 10 (all positions) in points, P/60, assists and primary assists in the last 4 years (5 on 5). The worst thing he has is 14th in goals, tied with Neal and Toews.

 

[Viqsi]

No, the difference between the two players gets factored in. Remember we lose one player total no matter what!

As I said earlier - there's no objective way to measure that "difference". You have to ensure that the skillset you are losing can be replaced either by the guy you're acquiring or someone coming up from the minors that didn't need to be exposed.

* * *​

I personally value Atkinson and Anderson similarly

All due respect, but I consider this to be lunacy on a par with "similarly valuing" Murray and Kukan.

 

[major major]

As I said earlier - there's no objective way to measure that "difference". You have to ensure that the skillset you are losing can be replaced either by the guy you're acquiring or someone coming up from the minors that didn't need to be exposed.

In this case the skillset is fully replaced.

And yes there isn't a fully objective mathematical way of evaluating players, I think we're all aware of that. Do you think the fact that player evaluation is partly subjective means that you can completely ignore the parameters of the expansion draft - such as the fact that we are going to lose one player and one player only, and not both Atkinson and the player they would have taken instead - and that in all likelihood Atkinson wouldn't be exposed regardless of a trade, and in all likelihood Las Vegas would probably pick someone else anyways (considering that their needs are not going to be the same as our special needs that you've been discussing).

All due respect, but I consider this to be lunacy on a par with "similarly valuing" Murray and Kukan.

Let's return to this discussion in a year or two, shall we?

 

[CBJx614]

Saad-Wennberg-Bjorkstrand
Foligno-Dubinsky-Atkinson
Hartnell-Jenner-Pujujarvi
Calvert-Karlsson-Clarkson/Anderson/whoever

Johnson-Jones
Murray-Savard
Werenski-Goloubef

Bob
Korpi/Cmac( )

And powerplay would be the first two lines with Puljujarvi getting rotated in and the D would be something like Jones-Werenski/Savard-Murray/Johnson

PK would basically be the bottom 6 with Wennberg/Foligno/Dubi rotating in



Thats if management is wise enough to bury whoever needs to get buried... which I dont see happening tbh

 

[blahblah]

You can use whatever lingo you want. The point is he is in select company, top 10 (all positions) in points, P/60, assists and primary assists in the last 4 years (5 on 5). The worst thing he has is 14th in goals, tied with Neal and Toews.

I never want to hear about stats, especially if it's advanced stats. As I said I don't buy it. Perception is reality. Your valuation of players is off.