Has the time come to name a Captain?

[blahblah]

So, bump.

http://mobile.bluejacketsxtra.com/w...ets+Headlines&headtitle=Bluejackets+Headlines

"I always think there's a good lesson in everything," Kekalainen said. "It's hard to see when you lose a game like we lost (at Edmonton). Leadership is being questioned right now. It's certainly something we're looking at. Leadership is a full-time job. It's not a part-time job. It has to be there every day, in every practice and every game."

So maybe our impressions of the locker room and Dubinsky aren't accurate.

If we are looking to make a move, we would have to me someone with Cap numbers and would be wanted by other team. It is also someone that likely doesn't have a NTC.

Candidates.

On defense.

1. Johnson - Not likely
2. Wiz - Not likely
3. Tyutin - Doubt it
4. Nikitin - Prime

The others offer no cap relief. A guy like Savard might be moved as part of a larger package. Could move move Erixon as part of a main piece? Sure. But we would, likely, have to move salary as well as adding leadership would cost money.

Forward.

1. Gaborik - Possible but unlikely. Deadline? Sure, more likely. If we move him and are still in it, we are getting back a building block kind of player or we are freeing up cap space for that type of player.
2. Dubinsky - Highly unlikely
3. RJ - Doubt it. Too many issues. Expensive and NTC.
4. Horton - As close to zero as you can get.
5. Foligno - I could see interest from the league. Can someone make it worth our while? Seems like we would be taking away from the leadership group and he already provides a great deal of secondary scoring.
6. Anisimov - Might have a winner here.


Not much cap hit left from the other forwards. A get like Letestu might be a part of a deal.

1. Bob - Highly unlikely.

This is all opinion on my part. Feel free to "correct". This was all quick, superficial analysis.

 

[Double-Shift Lasse]

Thanks for sharing Kek's quote. Not sure what the trade-possibility-analysis has to do with the other.

 

[blahblah]

Thanks for sharing Kek's quote. Not sure what the trade-possibility-analysis has to do with the other.

Look at the title of the article.

Might be a little OT, but it would be in any thread unless I created a new one. It's related enough for me and I don't create threads.

I don't think he's looking to add our new Captain via trade, but the article explains why we haven't named one and if we were to trade for a potential Captain we aren't in a great spot - cap wise.

How would he expect to do it?

 

[Double-Shift Lasse]

Look at the title of the article.

Might be a little OT, but it would be in any thread unless I created a new one. It's related enough for me and I don't create threads.

Ha - I looked at the thread title twice and was still wondering "huh?" until my brain clicked and then so did I. Good enough for me.

 

[Viqsi]

So where's the Internet Outrage over Overlord Jarmo proposing "yet another Ethan Moreau/Chris Clark trade fiasco"?

 

[Jaxs]

So where's the Internet Outrage over Overlord Jarmo proposing "yet another Ethan Moreau/Chris Clark trade fiasco"?

This quote doesn't exactly say that is going to happen.

"You can never have too much of that, so if there's a way to improve in that area by adding that kind of player from the outside, sure, we'd love to look at it," he said. "But at the same time, I think we have enough guys with that kind of potential on the inside." http://mobile.bluejacketsxtra.com/w...ets+Headlines&headtitle=Bluejackets+Headlines

 

[Double-Shift Lasse]

So where's the Internet Outrage over Overlord Jarmo proposing "yet another Ethan Moreau/Chris Clark trade fiasco"?

It was waiting for the pre-emptive Internet Gotcha Moment.

 

[Viqsi]

It was waiting for the pre-emptive Internet Gotcha Moment.

Touche.

 

[IBleedUnionBlue]

As I read Dispatch article, I wondered how much locker room leadership was lost with VP & AA.

 

[Crede777]

So where's the Internet Outrage over Overlord Jarmo proposing "yet another Ethan Moreau/Chris Clark trade fiasco"?

Better than "the answer is in the room."

I mean, "it starts now." We just need to "keep piling it on."

 

[db2011]

So, can we hold up JK's high leadership standards as evidence against the notion that the captaincy is just for the fans and holds no other significance?

 

[blahblah]

So where's the Internet Outrage over Overlord Jarmo proposing "yet another Ethan Moreau/Chris Clark trade fiasco"?

Well I would hope we were getting a long term fix (no I'm not going to use brink, damn you JD) instead of a short term old dude past-his-prime. We already let two of the latter walk, so I'm hoping that implies we're not interested in that type of player?

 

[Fred Glover]

As I read Dispatch article, I wondered how much locker room leadership was lost with VP & AA.

I wonder if we really have captain material in the room. Sounds like they are looking for something/someone else

 

[leafobserver]

This team has an interesting situation with the captaincy.
Young born leaders in Murray and Jenner, and some veterans like Dubi and Horton, Foligno too. Mackenzie has been a leader in all stops, but his role may not be prominent enough to warrant the C. Johnson seems popular, but has too much Phaneuf in his game for me to say he deserves the C.
If I were CLB I'd be looking to see what transpires when Horton is added to the lineup. He's the #1 choice as far as I'm concerned.
Is there any concern about Dubinsky not sticking around? He is a UFA July 2015 and probably considers himself due for a raise. He has those intangibles, but is he a 5M+ player?

 

[blahblah]

Is there any concern about Dubinsky not sticking around? He is a UFA July 2015 and probably considers himself due for a raise. He has those intangibles, but is he a 5M+ player?

We're straying here, but he is producing at a 20G 60P pace. If he starts to contribute at the 60-70 point area, sure. If he drops down to 13G and 35 points, obviously not.

It's up to him.

 

[major major]

I'd name Murray captain. He puts the same thing out there every time, and that's the consistency you need and that GM Keklu was talking about. He'll also hopefully be a BlueJacket well into the 2030's.

As for leadership, that comes out of an organic process and it ideally isn't affected by naming a captain. In the last few years we've had Umberger then Johnson and now Dubinsky as the fan favorites for captain, and perhaps those have been the leaders at those same times (definitely in Dubinsky's case, although our knowledge as fans of the locker room is limited). Let that organic leadership process go without imposing any letters on it.

That might sound contradictory, but I think of giving it to Murray as less imposing. He'll always be a leader, but he's young enough and calm enough that other leaders will still come and go naturally. The more leaders the stronger the room.

 

[Roadman]

I'd name Murray captain. He puts the same thing out there every time, and that's the consistency you need and that GM Keklu was talking about. He'll also hopefully be a BlueJacket well into the 2030's.

As for leadership, that comes out of an organic process and it ideally isn't affected by naming a captain. In the last few years we've had Umberger then Johnson and now Dubinsky as the fan favorites for captain, and perhaps those have been the leaders at those same times (definitely in Dubinsky's case, although our knowledge as fans of the locker room is limited). Let that organic leadership process go without imposing any letters on it.

That might sound contradictory, but I think of giving it to Murray as less imposing. He'll always be a leader, but he's young enough and calm enough that other leaders will still come and go naturally. The more leaders the stronger the room.

Most unlikely.

Why when he's off to such a good start would you want to add to his responsibilities. Just let him learn the game at this level and play hockey.

I would question the wisdom of naming a rookie captain when there is a group of veterans already in place. In a few years, yea maybe or Jenner but to do it now would border on insane. GMJK can call out the group all he wants to, but can't help but feel he's lighting a fire and not much more.

 

[major major]

Most unlikely.

Why when he's off to such a good start would you want to add to his responsibilities. Just let him learn the game at this level and play hockey.

I would question the wisdom of naming a rookie captain when there is a group of veterans already in place. In a few years, yea maybe or Jenner but to do it now would border on insane. GMJK can call out the group all he wants to, but can't help but feel he's lighting a fire and not much more.

There is no hurry to name him captain this year.

I'm not sure what you have in mind about "adding to his responsibilities". There have been plenty of young captains in recent seasons: Toews, Crosby, Landeskog, etc.. What added responsibilities did they get? You need to be a good consistently good teammate and consistently good on the ice (he already does these things). What changes is his responsibilities to the fans and the refs. I think he can do those things too.

I'm guessing folks have this Mark Messier idea of the captaincy, where he takes the team on his shoulders and its his duty to try and captain the team to glory. He was called "the captain" and was a great leader, but his great leadership was the important thing, not the C and not dependent on the C.

 

[CBJx614]

I'd name Murray captain. He puts the same thing out there every time, and that's the consistency you need and that GM Keklu was talking about. He'll also hopefully be a BlueJacket well into the 2030's.

As for leadership, that comes out of an organic process and it ideally isn't affected by naming a captain. In the last few years we've had Umberger then Johnson and now Dubinsky as the fan favorites for captain, and perhaps those have been the leaders at those same times (definitely in Dubinsky's case, although our knowledge as fans of the locker room is limited). Let that organic leadership process go without imposing any letters on it.

That might sound contradictory, but I think of giving it to Murray as less imposing. He'll always be a leader, but he's young enough and calm enough that other leaders will still come and go naturally. The more leaders the stronger the room.

This.

Maybe not yet. I don't think a captain gets named until after Horton comes back and I wouldn't name one until next season. Let someone emerge during the struggle.

But there have been very few consistencies on this team this season. One was involved in lots of trade talks for "lack of offense " and the other some thought wouldnt even make it for his 9 games this season

I'll be the first one to admit the Jackets may be a step further back then we thought, but the potential of the team hasn't dropped a hair in my eyes. Murray and Johansen have been the back bone so far this season. The 4th line has done a pretty good job at keeping the energy up when they can. What's truly lacking is a line that can truly generate scoring chances and is a true threat every time it touches the ice. RJ - Johansen - Foligno goes out there in crucial situations to get **** done. What they can't do is be a offensive threat every time. However when Horton comes back into the lineup it adds a completely unpredictable element back into the lineup. We don't know how he's going to mesh and fit in yet. Hopefully he'll hit the ground running, but who knows.

 

[Double-Shift Lasse]

I'd name Murray captain. He puts the same thing out there every time, and that's the consistency you need and that GM Keklu was talking about. He'll also hopefully be a BlueJacket well into the 2030's.

As for leadership, that comes out of an organic process and it ideally isn't affected by naming a captain. In the last few years we've had Umberger then Johnson and now Dubinsky as the fan favorites for captain, and perhaps those have been the leaders at those same times (definitely in Dubinsky's case, although our knowledge as fans of the locker room is limited). Let that organic leadership process go without imposing any letters on it.

That might sound contradictory, but I think of giving it to Murray as less imposing. He'll always be a leader, but he's young enough and calm enough that other leaders will still come and go naturally. The more leaders the stronger the room.

Some interesting stuff and I'm not sure I agree about Murray but I'm willing to wait and see because...

The less-concrete stuff, more philosophical second paragraph is where I'm in total agreement (assuming I'm reading you right). Don't anoint a leader by giving him the C, recognize a leader by giving him the C when its deserved and acknowledged.

Which I think we're getting a look at as far as why there hasn't been a captain named - because no one is the captain.

 

[major major]

Some interesting stuff and I'm not sure I agree about Murray but I'm willing to wait and see because...

The less-concrete stuff, more philosophical second paragraph is where I'm in total agreement (assuming I'm reading you right). Don't anoint a leader by giving him the C, recognize a leader by giving him the C when its deserved and acknowledged.

Which I think we're getting a look at as far as why there hasn't been a captain named - because no one is the captain.

Glad you're agreeable, and I agree with your interpretation in the abstract, but my particular point was different.

As far as we know Dubinsky is the leader. We don't know much about the locker room, but he's certainly leading on the ice. He runs hot and cold though, pisses people off, and is only under contract for another couple years. Right now I think he's a great leader I just don't have much more confidence that he'll be the leader in 2016 than I should have had that Umberger was going to continue leading.

My point, unlike yours, is "Anoint a consistent leader by giving him the C, as long as he allows other leaders (read: Dubinsky) to continue leading." The more leaders the better.

Just theorizing. All I know: It's nice to have a captain. I don't know how important it is. Don't name some guy captain who will at some point have half the room furious at him.

 

[Double-Shift Lasse]

Glad you're agreeable, and I agree with your interpretation in the abstract, but my particular point was different.

As far as we know Dubinsky is the leader. We don't know much about the locker room, but he's certainly leading on the ice. He runs hot and cold though, pisses people off, and is only under contract for another couple years. Right now I think he's a great leader I just don't have much more confidence that he'll be the leader in 2016 than I should have had that Umberger was going to continue leading.

My point, unlike yours, is "Anoint a consistent leader by giving him the C, as long as he allows other leaders (read: Dubinsky) to continue leading." The more leaders the better.

Just theorizing. All I know: It's nice to have a captain. I don't know how important it is. Don't name some guy captain who will at some point have half the room furious at him.

Makes sense. I haven't thought much about Murray being captain, so beyond the abstract... I haven't cared too much about the whole captain thing, but it's moderately interesting to ponder.

 

[RogerSterling]

I'm talking about relative to how it's been run, although comparing it to how other franchises are run is a good idea. When I think of the CBJ franchise, the NHL roster is only part of the equation. To me the top of the organization seems healthier than it's ever been. The GM hasn't even been here a year, so the franchise as we now know it less than a year old. It's all speculation, but it's not unreasonable to imagine comparing this franchise to the best-run franchises in the not-too-distant future and come away thinking it's not a one-sided comparison.

If you want to base an analysis of the the strength of a franchise purely on NHL rosters and the standings, I guess it's not unreasonable but you may come away with false positives, so to speak. By your own reckoning, this team is not as good as the Rangers; but I'd rather be this team than the Rangers. Sather? Dolan?? There's widespread belief in NY that the priority is to make the playoffs, and the Cup would be gravy- which means they'll never tear down for a full rebuild when they need it. If that's really true, that to me isn't a well-run franchise.

Or the Coyotes, a team I have a soft spot for, have 28 points to our 13, but the woes of that franchise are well known.

Apologies for not responding earlier, I've been out of town for about a week now.

You're right about the NHL roster only being part of the equation, but of course it's the most important part of the equation. It's that part that comes after the "equals" sign, and the only part that matters in the long run. The prospect depth is excellent right now. But then again, prospect depth is something this franchise has had in the past. It's also something that the Jackets have failed to translate into NHL success in the past. It is also 100% unreasonable to compare this franchise under JD/JK to the best run franchises in the league right now. These guys have an incomplete grade as the heads of the franchise whereas the guys in charge of Chicago, Detroit, Pittsburgh, Boston, etc., are fairly well known and well respected quantities. You can "imagine" comparing this franchise to them as much as you want, I'd prefer to deal with the reality of the situation.

I don't know if I'd rather be the Rangers, but I do know they're not far off from what this team may look like some day. They have a great goalie, a good blueline, and a solid, young forward core. They're brimming with homegrown talent (Stepan, Lundqvist, Kreider, McDonagh, Girardi, Del Zotto, Staal, Hagelin, Zuccarello, Callahan, Miller) and have several other guys knocking on the door in the AHL. Who knows if they'll ever tear down for a full rebuild, but that roster doesn't need it. Nor will it happen with that goaltender. Lundqvist has carried them via sheer will to decent records in the past, and unless he leaves via FA or they trade him they will never be able to tank and commit to a full rebuild. That's one disadvantage to a bad team (note - I do not think the Rangers are a bad team, or bad as it compares to other Metro teams) having a great goalie. That one player can get you a record just good enough to avoid a good chance at winning the draft lottery and not good enough to make the playoffs. Personally, I think that is exactly the team the Jackets had last year - bad team, great goalie performance. This year the team is better and the goaltending isn't as good, so I'm not surprised they are where they are.

I never said I was convinced it will work out. It's well known that I feel leaving Vinny to twist in the wind was ridiculous, and there are other moves/non-moves that I question. But at this point, although I'm disappointed in how the team is playing and their place in the standings, I'm not moved by those benchmarks to to think the franchise is in bad shape. I think it's in good shape.

Good thing you aren't convinced - it's always best to remain skeptical when it comes to situations like this. I try to remain as objective as possible when it comes to the Jackets (aside from during and immediately after games, of course) and it is very difficult at times. I can't say if the franchise is in good shape. I have more faith in the guys currently in charge than in Priest/Howson, but that's setting the bar awfully low.

Anyway, I think the two of us are on mostly the same page. I'm just a bit more cautious in my praise for the guys in charge, but to each his own.

 

[Crede777]

For Murray, I think he has the leadership qualities and on-ice ability to be a captain. That puts him in good company with guys like Dubinsky and Johnson.

That said, he doesn't have experience and isn't a player that speaks his mind to the media. When you see quotes and clips, it's almost always from guys like Dubi, Johnson, Umberger, Wisniewski, Foligno, and (surprising or not) Johansen. I'm betting we will also hear a good bit from Horton when he comes back. But you don't hear much from Murray. That could be because they aren't printing what he says or simply aren't asking him. Or it could be because he isn't comfortable speaking his mind yet.

 

[db2011]

Apologies for not responding earlier, I've been out of town for about a week now.

You're right about the NHL roster only being part of the equation, but of course it's the most important part of the equation. It's that part that comes after the "equals" sign, and the only part that matters in the long run. The prospect depth is excellent right now. But then again, prospect depth is something this franchise has had in the past. It's also something that the Jackets have failed to translate into NHL success in the past. It is also 100% unreasonable to compare this franchise under JD/JK to the best run franchises in the league right now. These guys have an incomplete grade as the heads of the franchise whereas the guys in charge of Chicago, Detroit, Pittsburgh, Boston, etc., are fairly well known and well respected quantities. You can "imagine" comparing this franchise to them as much as you want, I'd prefer to deal with the reality of the situation.

I don't know if I'd rather be the Rangers, but I do know they're not far off from what this team may look like some day. They have a great goalie, a good blueline, and a solid, young forward core. They're brimming with homegrown talent (Stepan, Lundqvist, Kreider, McDonagh, Girardi, Del Zotto, Staal, Hagelin, Zuccarello, Callahan, Miller) and have several other guys knocking on the door in the AHL. Who knows if they'll ever tear down for a full rebuild, but that roster doesn't need it. Nor will it happen with that goaltender. Lundqvist has carried them via sheer will to decent records in the past, and unless he leaves via FA or they trade him they will never be able to tank and commit to a full rebuild. That's one disadvantage to a bad team (note - I do not think the Rangers are a bad team, or bad as it compares to other Metro teams) having a great goalie. That one player can get you a record just good enough to avoid a good chance at winning the draft lottery and not good enough to make the playoffs. Personally, I think that is exactly the team the Jackets had last year - bad team, great goalie performance. This year the team is better and the goaltending isn't as good, so I'm not surprised they are where they are.



Good thing you aren't convinced - it's always best to remain skeptical when it comes to situations like this. I try to remain as objective as possible when it comes to the Jackets (aside from during and immediately after games, of course) and it is very difficult at times. I can't say if the franchise is in good shape. I have more faith in the guys currently in charge than in Priest/Howson, but that's setting the bar awfully low.

Anyway, I think the two of us are on mostly the same page. I'm just a bit more cautious in my praise for the guys in charge, but to each his own.

If it seems like I'm crazy about the Pres. and GM, then I'm not being clear- I'm skeptical of those guys, particularly Jarmo. He seems effective at accomplishing what he wants to accomplish, but my reservations about him are growing.

We need time to be able to evaluate the individuals in question. My feelings about the franchise being run well are based the change in the structure of the front office- there are more guys in charge, and they are all hockey guys (no Priest). Also, the owner seems supportive, which seems like a change from before Davidson.