Howson's Replacement???

[Stretch Factor]

My biggest gripe about Howson is he's a "capologist", not a front man. Well now we have JD, so Howson won't be forced in to being a leader, a scout, The Face, or any other job title he's not suited for. He can now be a full time numbers cruncher. He'll do fine in that role.

JD is essentially the public face of this organization and will fill most of the roles of a classic GM.

I don't see Howson leaving before his contract is up.

 

[JacketsDavid]

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.

This maybe the chicken or the egg story...

But I'm not so sure we drafted terribly, I think in most cases we drafted the guy most people expected (excption here is Zherdev, where sounds like most everyone else wanted to go another route, but Doug wanted Zherdev, and you have to wonder how much of that was because he ran his mouth about "drafting someone better than Gaborik" in that draft), but once we drafted someone the development was awful.

We have several situations where it seemed like the young guys (especially forwards) played better before our staff touched them (think of Zherdev whne he first came over, or Brule or Brassard, they all seemed to play well when first playing for the CBJ, but regressed in future seasons).

Again maybe drafting has been a problem, but I see player development as a much bigger concern.

 

[Mayor Bee]

This maybe the chicken or the egg story...

But I'm not so sure we drafted terribly, I think in most cases we drafted the guy most people expected (excption here is Zherdev, where sounds like most everyone else wanted to go another route, but Doug wanted Zherdev, and you have to wonder how much of that was because he ran his mouth about "drafting someone better than Gaborik" in that draft), but once we drafted someone the development was awful.

We have several situations where it seemed like the young guys (especially forwards) played better before our staff touched them (think of Zherdev whne he first came over, or Brule or Brassard, they all seemed to play well when first playing for the CBJ, but regressed in future seasons).

Again maybe drafting has been a problem, but I see player development as a much bigger concern.

When you draft non-NHL players in the first place, their failure to develop into NHL players shouldn't be a surprise. It's like taking the smartest kid in a remedial math class insisting that he can excel in advanced calculus...do you get mad at the administration for allowing it to happen, and do you blame them for it not working out?

When I was reading through Gare Joyce's book (Future Greats and Heartaches), I chuckled when he mentioned Montreal wasting a first-rounder on David Fischer, who Columbus had tagged as someone who would not be picked at all. As in, if the CBJ had the last pick in the draft and there were only two players who could possibly be taken, Fischer wouldn't be it. It was less funny later, when it was mentioned that Alex Picard (8th overall by Dougie Mac) had been tagged the same way by several teams.

The simple fact is that the number of players drafted who did nothing despite the involvement of Columbus is unusually high. Picard, for example, was brought along "the right way". Two years back in juniors, a couple years in the AHL with short-term callups, and then...nothing. Rick Nash was "rushed" right into the NHL and has done fine. A dozen or so college players or college-bound players were developed outside of the organization and never amounted to anything, while several of the same type of players have done substantially better since the regime change.

I'm not a Howsonite, or The Last Howsonite, simply to be a contrarian. It's because I look at the drafting and scouting and have concluded that, when the same group of scouts have that dramatic of a difference in performance/outcomes with the only change being the GM who oversees the process, that the old GM was the problem.

 

[Viqsi]

I'm not a Howsonite, or The Last Howsonite, simply to be a contrarian. It's because I look at the drafting and scouting and have concluded that, when the same group of scouts have that dramatic of a difference in performance/outcomes with the only change being the GM who oversees the process, that the old GM was the problem.

To which the natural counterargument is that to be better than, or even dramatically better than Doug MacLean, is not, in and of itself, aiming particularly high.

Not that I think he's done a bad job. Just that we needed a damned superhero after that mess...

 

[Mayor Bee]

To which the natural counterargument is that to be better than, or even dramatically better than Doug MacLean, is not, in and of itself, aiming particularly high.

Not that I think he's done a bad job. Just that we needed a damned superhero after that mess...

Ah yes, the old logic of "my grandmother would have been a better GM than MacLean, and my grandmother also never would have traded Voracek, therefore my grandmother is a better GM than Howson despite the fact that she thinks hockey is a communist conspiracy" logic.

 

[Retire91]

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

Its pretty much the way I feel. I think the Rangers of the recent past and also the Leafs are good examples of failures at trying to sign free agents to success. I think its much more tried and true method to draft and develop a core then add peices later. Penguins, Chicago, LA, Oilers, NYI even Boston in some respects are all organizations that have succeeded or looking like they will succeed doing this.

Its another reason I think Burke would be a horrible fit for Columbus. Even if he commits to building through the draft he has such a hard on for American players I feel like he sometimes passes up the best player available to draft the best "American player" available. Not good for an organization that needs major draft success going forward to crawl out of this madness. Not that American players are bad in any respect, just don't stretch pick by nationality when an organiztion needs help at every position.

 

[JacketsDavid]

When you draft non-NHL players in the first place, their failure to develop into NHL players shouldn't be a surprise. It's like taking the smartest kid in a remedial math class insisting that he can excel in advanced calculus...do you get mad at the administration for allowing it to happen, and do you blame them for it not working out?

The simple fact is that the number of players drafted who did nothing despite the involvement of Columbus is unusually high. Picard, for example, was brought along "the right way". Two years back in juniors, a couple years in the AHL with short-term callups, and then...nothing. Rick Nash was "rushed" right into the NHL and has done fine. A dozen or so college players or college-bound players were developed outside of the organization and never amounted to anything, while several of the same type of players have done substantially better since the regime change.

I'm not a Howsonite, or The Last Howsonite, simply to be a contrarian. It's because I look at the drafting and scouting and have concluded that, when the same group of scouts have that dramatic of a difference in performance/outcomes with the only change being the GM who oversees the process, that the old GM was the problem.

I'm not sure if I buy in that suddenly we develop players. Look at our history of draft picks:
Doug: Klesla, Pascal, Nash, Zherdev, Picard, Brule, Brassard
Howson: Voracek, Filatov, Moore, Johanson, NA 2011, Murray

I think if you rank who our 2 best picks were it is Nash and Klesla. Worst is Picard (as far as what he became). Moore was great last year, Murray is too young to tell as is RyJo.
Guess I'm just not seeing a ton more development under our Howson than under Doug. Two different styles, both consistently drafted in top 8 picks.
Again alot of Howson't picks are too young to tell, but Howson wasn't able to do much with Jake or Filatov.

Maybe in a few years when Moore is a top 4 d-man, RyJo is a top 6 center and murray is a top pairing d-man

 

[Nordique]

I'm not a Howsonite, or The Last Howsonite, simply to be a contrarian. It's because I look at the drafting and scouting and have concluded that, when the same group of scouts have that dramatic of a difference in performance/outcomes with the only change being the GM who oversees the process, that the old GM was the problem.

The last two drafts, the Bob acquisition, and the JJ move, have swung me back to Howson's side, something I thought impossible after the Carter trade. Howson caved when he went after Carter, he caved to Nash and went after an elite forward to put on the ice the captain. Rick Nash is a great guy, and an elite player (one of my favorites), but he is no captain and he knows nothing about running a team.

 

[EspenK]

The last two drafts, the Bob acquisition, and the JJ move, have swung me back to Howson's side, something I thought impossible after the Carter trade. Howson caved when he went after Carter, he caved to Nash and went after an elite forward to put on the ice the captain. Rick Nash is a great guy, and an elite player (one of my favorites), but he is no captain and he knows nothing about running a team.

Other than our euphoria about having somebody but Mason as a potential #1 I think the jury is still out on the Bob deal. His numbers last year were Masonesque. Time will tell.

 

[Viqsi]

Ah yes, the old logic of "my grandmother would have been a better GM than MacLean, and my grandmother also never would have traded Voracek, therefore my grandmother is a better GM than Howson despite the fact that she thinks hockey is a communist conspiracy" logic.

To be sure, I wouldn't have supported your grandmother nearly as much as I've supported (and still support, to some extent) Howson if she was the sort of "improvement" we'd gotten.

* * *​

Again alot of Howson't picks are too young to tell, but Howson wasn't able to do much with Jake or Filatov.

Jake is indisputably top-6 and currently penciled in on Philadelphia's top line. I don't think using him in the same comparison context as Filatov is entirely fair.

 

[EspenK]

To be sure, I wouldn't have supported your grandmother nearly as much as I've supported (and still support, to some extent) Howson if she was the sort of "improvement" we'd gotten.

* * *​

Jake is indisputably top-6 and currently penciled in on Philadelphia's top line. I don't think using him in the same comparison context as Filatov is entirely fair.

I agree with this. I think a big part of the Jackets drafting problems lately is that they have never had the chance to draft the franchise type player, Crosby, Ovie, Stamkos, etc and didn't have a strong enough supporting cast to let guys like Jake develop to their fullest.Jake being centered by Giroux or another Flyer center is going to be better than being paired with Brass or Vermette.

 

[Nordique]

Other than our euphoria about having somebody but Mason as a potential #1 I think the jury is still out on the Bob deal. His numbers last year were Masonesque. Time will tell.

Absolutely, the jury will be out him at least through the end of the season, if not through the end of the first full season (post season?). But he is a real potential #1, and just came off a great mini season in the K. To be honest, he was the best goalie in the league imo.

18-3-2 with a 1.94 goals-against average and .932 save percentage.

With Mason and Bob, I feel like we now have two potential #1's to roll the dice on, as opposed to one, and an aging backup on the bench.

 

[KeithBWhittington]

Absolutely, the jury will be out him at least through the end of the season, if not through the end of the first full season (post season?). But he is a real potential #1, and just came off a great mini season in the K. To be honest, he was the best goalie in the league imo.

18-3-2 with a 1.94 goals-against average and .932 save percentage.

With Mason and Bob, I feel like we now have two potential #1's to roll the dice on, as opposed to one, and an aging backup on the bench.

What the "aging backup" would give you would be stability though.... Don't get me wrong, The acquistion of probably almost any warm body would have been preferrable vs. going again with Mason and a great unknown at this level, and while I'm happy that we picked up Bob, our situation in goal is still in massive flux right now, the depth chart is incredibly shaky everywhere.

 

[FlaggerX]

The number of available, not over-the-hill, high-quality goaltenders still in their prime out there isn't overwhelming. Bob made sense, particularly as we'd have to overpay for any more proven FA. Personally, I've always like Howson. Even when his trades didn't work out, they made sense. As did resigning Mason, who might still return to form (but not for us!). Brassard was Dougie's last draft, but I think we have done better in later rounds then we had before, Cam Atkinson for one. And Boone Jenner might turn into the first good 2nd round pick we've ever had. So I think the trend is up. I think we just have a deeper, more experienced front office and Howson won't have to be the face of the team. He'll probably even get more sleep. And I think we are getting better.

Just hope that, for once, we actually do get draft way up high. Like last year, so we can get the guy we really want. Given the way Yakupov looked at World Juniors, we might have been just fine at #2 last year.