Howson's Replacement???

[Double-Shift Lasse]

I didn't change anything! The longer list of players presented, I said were non factors. I proved that by showing they were still here the following year and what the result was. Mason got us in the playoffs with his hot streak with THOSE PLAYERS! Mason fell apart the following year with THOSE PLAYERS and the result was a 14th place finish. How hard is that to understand? Mason actually crapped out at the end of the playoff year with the Jackets winning only 3 of their last 10 games which dropped us to 7th and having to play the Wings. With Masons .880 save % and GAA avg over 4 in the playoffs we all know what happened in 4 straight games with THOSE PLAYERS!

You're all over the place.

You defend your exclusion of players as factors in the playoff run due to their presence on the team the following year? Which year are we talking about?

Not to mention the two players you do allow as factors were also here the following year. So, if the longer list were non-factors because the team sucked the following year, then how were the two players you indicated factors, when they also were here the following year?

Or was it Mason, irrespective of the any/all of players Howson brought in, responsible for both?

Just a mess.

 

[Paisano*]

Ah yes, the following year...2009-10.

In 2009-10, five players on the Jackets had 50 points. Rick Nash, Antoine Vermette, RJ Umberger, Jakub Voracek, and Kristian Huselius. Six players had 15+ goals: all of those five, plus Raffi Torres. The two highest-scoring defensemen on the team were Anton Stralman and Fedor Tyutin.

Want to guess what all of those players except Nash have in common with each other?

You're first blaming those guys for the team not continuing to have success, then blaming Mason falling apart. Well, his backup was 3 games over .500 on the year in limited action; Mason was 6 games under. That backup was Mathieu Garon...know what he had in common with the above players?

So which is it? Is it Mason's fault for falling apart, or is it the fault of all of the above players for being "non-factors" despite being the only productive players in a poor year?

You're all over the place.

You defend your exclusion of players as factors in the playoff run due to their presence on the team the following year? Which year are we talking about?

Not to mention the two players you do allow as factors were also here the following year. So, if the longer list were non-factors because the team sucked the following year, then how were the two players you indicated factors, when they also were here the following year?

Or was it Mason, irrespective of the any/all of players Howson brought in, responsible for both?

Just a mess.

Well lets try this again, the Jackets made the playoffs primarily due to a hot goalie. 10 shutouts etc. there were many one goal games but Mase kept us in them. The players mentioned, while yes they did their part, were just average with no one to speak of really standing out except Nash. Therefore non factors in making the playoffs. With the way Mase played average players made the playoffs. The following year was used to prove the point. Virtually the same team but Mase went in the tank. If he had put up the same numbers as the year before, there was a good chance they make the post season again. Yes the same two players I singled out were still there and they still sucked. I said they were a factor the playoff year because they scored 61 goals between them more than 1/4 of the total, so yeah, they were a factor since there were so many one goal games.
Virtually the same players were on the playoff team and the year after. When Mason was great they made the playoffs, when he sucked, they didn't! MASON WAS THE REASON FOR THE SEASON!

Can't make it any simpler than that!

 

[pete goegan]

Well lets try this again, the Jackets made the playoffs primarily due to a hot goalie. 10 shutouts etc. there were many one goal games but Mase kept us in them. The players mentioned, while yes they did their part, were just average with no one to speak of really standing out except Nash. Therefore non factors in making the playoffs. With the way Mase played average players made the playoffs. The following year was used to prove the point. Virtually the same team but Mase went in the tank. If he had put up the same numbers as the year before, there was a good chance they make the post season again. Yes the same two players I singled out were still there and they still sucked. I said they were a factor the playoff year because they scored 61 goals between them more than 1/4 of the total, so yeah, they were a factor since there were so many one goal games.
Virtually the same players were on the playoff team and the year after. When Mason was great they made the playoffs, when he sucked, they didn't! MASON WAS THE REASON FOR THE SEASON!

Can't make it any simpler than that!

You're right, that's pretty simple. Maybe that should send up a flag for you, though, the result of a hockey season never is the product of one individual's play. A goalie's play may have as much to do with it as any one player, but to place the entire weight of the season, for good or ill, on him is simplifying beyond rationality.

 

[jacketsinDC]

Can't make it any simpler than that!

how about that the team has turned into a last place team (despite having the ability to spend to the cap) under howson? I'd say that track record plus having five years to show improvement and getting worse is a simple decision for most business owners. The future may look bright since its the offseason and all, murray was drafted, johan is right on track, statistically, with developing into joe thornton, etc, but the last two years have been shameful. even his haircut looks like ****.

I

 

[Paisano*]

You're right, that's pretty simple. Maybe that should send up a flag for you, though, the result of a hockey season never is the product of one individual's play. A goalie's play may have as much to do with it as any one player, but to place the entire weight of the season, for good or ill, on him is simplifying beyond rationality.

The whole debate here is whether Howson should receive any credit for the Jackets only playoff appearance because of players he brought in. I say no more than Doug Maclean should receive for bringing in Nash and Mason. This franchise has had two GM's, neither one worth a damn.

 

[Paisano*]

how about that the team has turned into a last place team (despite having the ability to spend to the cap) under howson? I'd say that track record plus having five years to show improvement and getting worse is a simple decision for most business owners. The future may look bright since its the offseason and all, murray was drafted, johan is right on track, statistically, with developing into joe thornton, etc, but the last two years have been shameful. even his haircut looks like ****.

I

No argument here!

 

[Crede777]

The difference between Howson and Maclean to me is this:

Howson is learning hockey. Maclean thought he already knew everything. I think Howson can improve while Maclean never will.

That said, this is a pro sports franchise. Should we let on the job learning go on like this?

 

[XX]

That said, this is a pro sports franchise. Should we let on the job learning go on like this?

Howson gave away Klesla and Vermette to the Coyotes, imo. I don't think those trades are defensible. In both cases, the Jackets gave up the best player in the deal and got nothing substantial in return.

Burke would give you guys instant credibility, along with JD. You could do worse...

 

[Paisano*]

Howson gave away Klesla and Vermette to the Coyotes, imo. I don't think those trades are defensible. In both cases, the Jackets gave up the best player in the deal and got nothing substantial in return.

Burke would give you guys instant credibility, along with JD. You could do worse...

Can't agree that the Jackets gave up the best player in acquiring Vermette. Giving up an injury prone LeClaire was a good move................However!!!...Six months earlier Howson had the chance to get Nash that #1 center he always wanted. Tampa wanted a goalie for Brad Richards, they wanted LeClaire, Richards said he would come to Columbus, Howson said no, wouldn't do the deal. Now Richards and Nash are finally together and are being touted as part of one of the best lines in hockey....before they even play! The only problem with that is its for the wrong team!!

Never mind I misread your post, you were referring to when we traded Vermette, my bad!!

 

[LetsGOJackets!!]

Completely agree on this point,

Howson gave away Klesla and Vermette to the Coyotes, imo. I don't think those trades are defensible. In both cases, the Jackets gave up the best player in the deal and got nothing substantial in return.

Burke would give you guys instant credibility, along with JD. You could do worse...

not sure why Howson has let the Yotes bend him over, but these two trades were terrible and not needed on our part. Klesla still has a very reasonable contract to this day. Vermette is great when played on the proper line.

 

[Mayor Bee]

[deleted]

 

[Jaxs]

^Richards scored five points in his first game with Dallas after that trade. Smith is now starting in Phoenix.

 

[Paisano*]

How the hell is this still going?

It's been stated that the asking price for Richards included either an actual NHL goalie or else a legitimate prospect.

Now, let's say that Leclaire is sent to Tampa Bay and Richards comes back. That leaves Fredrik Norrena (injured at the time) as the starter, and he was 34 years old. That would have pushed Dan LaCosta in as the starter, with no backup. Tomas Popperle was injured (and would miss the entire next season), and Steve Mason was stuck in juniors.

So the entire depth chart in the entire franchise would be Norrena, LaCosta, and Mason.

Let's say that Mason was traded to Tampa Bay instead of Leclaire. That would have left Leclaire as the only NHL goalie in the system, banking on him to stay healthy for the next several years until someone else could step in.

Maybe this could have all been alleviated at the draft that year, when the top goalie prospect was Chet Pickard and the one after him was Thomas McCollum.

Oh, and let's overlook the fact that Richards was signed to a $7.8 million/year contract.

Columbus ramping up for the playoffs while completely decimating the goaltending core and asking Dan LaCosta (0 NHL games) to carry the team down the stretch. And by getting Richards, that would have meant sticking with Adam Foote, thus never getting the draft picks that became Umberger and David Savard...he'd have retired, and Columbus would have nothing. Fedorov would have stuck around with that albatross of a contract.

Gee, what could have possibly gone wrong?

Columbus ramping up for the playoffs??... Really?? No wonder you like Howson, you think like him!

 

[Samkow]

The only positive to Burke is I like how he handles the media. I'd love to see how he'd handle Portzline.

Can you imagine his reaction after the first passive aggressive Portzline article?

 

[blahblah]

Columbus ramping up for the playoffs while completely decimating the goaltending core and asking Dan LaCosta (0 NHL games) to carry the team down the stretch. And by getting Richards, that would have meant sticking with Adam Foote, thus never getting the draft picks that became Umberger and David Savard...he'd have retired, and Columbus would have nothing. Fedorov would have stuck around with that albatross of a contract.

That is a pretty poor prediction of events.

 

[EspenK]

Late to this party but-I cant see how having any goalie rather than Mason or Leclaire would not have been a good thing (or at least no worse). And to have had Richards as Nash's center would have been a good thing. I have to say this was a bad move by Howson.

 

[IHeartZherdev*]

The Vermette trade was great by Howson.

First, he totally fleeced Ottawa getting him. Then, Vermette had a couple of career years for us.

But last year, like all Blue Jackets do after signing an extension, he was atrocious. It was painful to watch. I'll never forget his drop-passes to no one.

Obviously, the core of Nash, Carter, Vermette, Tytuin, Umberger, Mason, Brassard ... last year was a disaster. Getting two picks for Vermette, who again, was horrible last year, was great because we didn't have to take a player back. That freed up space for this year's roster to have the young guys. Hard to have another three years of Vermette entering his 30's at $3.75 million after he was so bad and we're in clear "reshape" mode. We're not winning the cup anytime soon, so give me Ryan Johansen or Artem Anisimov or another young guy centering the second line and developing over 30 year old Vermette.

The Klesla trade was basically to clear him off our cap, so I'm OK with it. Obviously we could have used him last year, but we were terrible anyway...not like he would have a future here with Moore/Murray and Jack/Wiz. Also, as much as I loved Rusty Blue Eyes, he could never stay healthy at all and was barely on the ice for us.

 

[Mayor Bee]

[deleted]

 

[IHeartZherdev*]

A potential Brad Richards deal wouldn't have mattered in the long run.

The CBJ botched every draft before taking Nash and most of the drafts after. That's why this franchise has been so bad.

To be a successful team, you have to build and develop strongly from within and then compliment that core with free agency and trading.

Having Richards and Nash on a top line would have been great to see. But it wouldn't have made the Jackets some legit playoff contender for years to come considering the lack of depth all around, the terrible defense, goaltending, atrocious drafting, etc.

 

[Jumptheshark]

Craig Custance of ESPN suggests in an Insiders column that one possibility for Brian Burke is to be a GM of another NHL team, perhaps to replace our own Scott Howson. It is one of four options for Burke, the others are to do nothing, be GM for the USA team, or work in the League office. Thoughts????

espn insiders once used me as a source to give you some idea of how credible the insider is

 

[Mayor Bee]

A potential Brad Richards deal wouldn't have mattered in the long run.

The CBJ botched every draft before taking Nash and most of the drafts after. That's why this franchise has been so bad.

To be a successful team, you have to build and develop strongly from within and then compliment that core with free agency and trading.

Having Richards and Nash on a top line would have been great to see. But it wouldn't have made the Jackets some legit playoff contender for years to come considering the lack of depth all around, the terrible defense, goaltending, atrocious drafting, etc.

And, of course, the monstrous contract that would have impaired the ability to sign depth players to fill those holes.

 

[IHeartZherdev*]

And, of course, the monstrous contract that would have impaired the ability to sign depth players to fill those holes.

When the Rangers tried to build with bringing in Jagr, Gomez, Redden, Drury, etc, they failed.

When they put together a solid young core of Callahan, Dubinsky, Girardi, Staal, McDonough, Del Zotto, Hagelin, Stepan, and of course Lundvuist...once that is in place, you can add in a Gaborik or Richards as a UFA, or part with some players and prospects to bring in a big name trade.

If Atkinson, Moore, Johanson, Calvert, Anisimov, Murray, Jenner, Foligno and the like develop like we hope they can, we'll be in a position to get good free agent additions and also make trades, where we part with higher picks or prospects to solve other issues.

Colorado is a great example of this

 

[Viqsi]

I have to say, I'm quite relieved that the "we should hire Burke" talk has been as restrained as it has. I'd been delaying coming back for fear that I'd have to start by murdering people.

No, I don't exactly have a high opinion of Brian Burke. Why do you ask?

 

[EspenK]

And, of course, the monstrous contract that would have impaired the ability to sign depth players to fill those holes.

Yes, it would have been a shame if we had missed out on all those great depth guys we did wind up with.

 

[KeithBWhittington]

I'll agree with whoever said that we needn't continue to get these "Learning on the Job" executives, at least to the extent of the learning still needed.

People never stop "Learning", whatever your walk in life, what can be controlled is hiring someone with the amount of "learning" about said profession, be it through age, experience, etc.

The CBJ's problem with the power vacuum left by MacLean's firing was that they (whatever the reasons) plugged two pieces (Howson and Priest) that weren't ready (not to say they never will be) for the tasks at hand. This situation was a mess when MacLean left, big changes were needed at that time, not trying to steady a sinking ship, what was essentially done the first two years, probably better to let the ship sink completely and start to build a new one in port. This required a more seasoned set of hands guiding the franchise. Someone with Clout and experience enough to have complete faith of both franchise and fanbase.

This defense of Howson that he had no where to go but up, so he did, is just as fruitless as attacking the man for not adding integral pieces for a 4 and out playoff run.