Interesting Info: Part XIII (All Jackets-related "tidbits" in here)
- Thread starter Samkow
- Start date
- Status
Viqsi
"that chick from Ohio"
Given the number of Blue Jackets on the Rangers roster, he could still be useful there.
* * *
Well, if he signs, we can always say the XGMSH did a hell of a job building the Rangers.
omfg lol
1857 Howitzer
******* Linesman
InjuredChoker
Registered User
Fro
Cheatin on CBJ w TBL
I found this to be interesting, though I know it doesn't fit with what many around here believe:
But the years of losing took a toll and when Nash wasn’t moved at the 2011-12 trade deadline, a public war of words with then-GM Scott Howson put the franchise in an awkward spot. Howson eventually traded Nash that summer to the New York Rangers in a blockbuster deal that saw Brandon Dubinsky, Artem Anisimov, Tim Erixon and a first-rounder come to Columbus, but by then the Jackets had already limped to another fifth-place finish in the Central Division.
“It was such an odd thing,†Umberger says. “Everyone was expecting he was going to move on, but we didn’t know when.â€
To his credit, Nash held a meeting during the odd period, in which he let his teammates know he was always available to answer any questions they had about the situation. On the ice, he was still playing like a captain.
“He handled it as well as he possibly could,†says defenseman Jack Johnson. “We were last place, or almost last, but there wasn’t one game where he took the night off.â
Mayor Bee
Registered User
- Dec 29, 2008
- 18,087
- 535
Minor points of contention:
I won't say it, but you know I'm thinking it.
...except for promptly going 1-5-0. I've said it plenty of times on here before, and apparently THN needs to learn it as well. There has not been a recorded instance of a GM being fired midseason and the team suddenly improving on the ice; this does not apply to coach/GM, which is a different story entirely.
This is the one that gets me. Look, I'm all in favor of assessing drafting. I do it my own way, everyone else does it, but there's a right way and a wrong way to do it. This is the wrong way.
Brule over Kopitar? That's fine; it's widely known that Columbus was taking one of those two, and the buffoon who made the call botched it. Zherdev over Vanek? Also fair; that's #4 and #5 overall in a draft. But Brassard over Giroux?
In the CSB rankings, Claude Giroux was #38 among North American skaters. Just among QMJHL players, he was behind Brassard (#4), James Sheppard (#9), Bryce Swan (#17), Ryan Hillier (#23), Joe Ryan (#31), and Ivan Vishnevskiy (#32). Overall, he was between Riley Holzapfel (#37) and Michael Forney (a high school player).
No, predraft rankings aren't absolute. But it still creates a particular setting, where in the eyes of a collective who actually scout players for a living, Claude Giroux was not that highly regarded in his draft year. Here's a couple of quotes from Gare Joyce's book "Future Greats and Heartbreaks".
I'm all in favor of blasting MacLean; I've done it plenty of times, and it's more than justified. But to act like taking Giroux over Brassard should have happened then, or that failing to do so is a sign of poor management, is completely absurd. It's the height of revisionist history; it would have been as bad as Los Angeles taking Thomas Hickey at #4 back in 2007, or what Ryan Johansen in 2010 was perceived to be at the time.
You know what I don't see? Credit for Tom Sestito. Ranked #112 among North American skaters, taken 85th overall that year. He made himself enough of a prospect to be traded for Michael Chaput, who's an actual prospect and not a donkey in skates. Credit MacLean for taking a guy way ahead of where he was projected, then having it work out with the guy who followed him.(and now the experiment begins)
The article has interesting quotes and sloppy comparisons.
I agree with Mayor Bee. It is very odd to implicate Howson in a decade-plus of mismanagement, when he built the team that you are pimping with all the Stanley Cup talk.
I agree with Mayor Bee. It is very odd to implicate Howson in a decade-plus of mismanagement, when he built the team that you are pimping with all the Stanley Cup talk.
Sore Loser
Sorest of them all
Beauty post, MB ...
As someone who follows prospects/drafting religiously (with 2005 being the first draft I really fell into), going hindsight 20/20 on the draft, so to speak, is completely unfair. Prior to the 2004 season, across the board it was talk of Brule or Crosby; with their skillsets being argued heavily from both sides. Clearly, Crosby was the better prospect, but many people loved Brule's sense of physicality and compete level. Most (including yours truly) thought he was a Jeremy Roenick type of player, a legitimate #1 center prospect that could do it all.
At the same time, Anze Kopitar was also highly touted, but there were serious concerns about his being from a nontraditional hockey country, and whether or not his game would translate that well. At the draft, there were several gasps in the crowd when Montreal went slightly "off the board", opting for the goaltender (Carey Price) over the center that everyone thought they so desperately needed. With Brule available at #6, I think it was a bit of a surprise to the Jackets, and Dougie picked the player he wanted. Whether or not that's the guy the scouts had is moot - maybe some/most/all of them had figured that Brule would be gone, and that Kopitar was the next best thing? Or, maybe legitimately, they actually preferred Kopitar and saw the future the way it has worked out. We'll never honestly know.
To go back to 2003, when yes, I followed prospects - though admittedly not as much as in 2005 - several people had Nikolai Zherdev at #1 on their list. There was the chance that he went first overall; he was touted as the most skilled player in the draft; whereas Tomas Vanek (this will sound familiar) was a player coming from a nontraditional hockey market, with question marks about his upside.
Looking back, yes, we could have picked other players. Hell, why stop at Vanek and Kopitar? We could have had any of Carter, Richards, Phaneuf, Getzlaf, Perry, Seabrook, Weber ... you get the point. Again, hindsight is 20/20.
All that, and like Mayor Bee, I'm completely blown away by the notion that anyone would have picked Claude Giroux ahead of Derick Brassard. Giroux was considered an off the board pick when the Flyers picked him at 22 ... had he been picked at #6, you know, where we took Brassard, I can only imagine the reactions of people across the hockey world. Doug MacLean would have been strung up in front of Nationwide the next morning. Pierre McGuire's head would have popped again. Hell, I would have probably walked out into the street, ripped off my CBJ apparel, and thrown on a Calgary Flames hat. It would have been a HUGE leap of faith, needless to say.
Whoever wrote the article clearly didn't do their homework.
As someone who follows prospects/drafting religiously (with 2005 being the first draft I really fell into), going hindsight 20/20 on the draft, so to speak, is completely unfair. Prior to the 2004 season, across the board it was talk of Brule or Crosby; with their skillsets being argued heavily from both sides. Clearly, Crosby was the better prospect, but many people loved Brule's sense of physicality and compete level. Most (including yours truly) thought he was a Jeremy Roenick type of player, a legitimate #1 center prospect that could do it all.
At the same time, Anze Kopitar was also highly touted, but there were serious concerns about his being from a nontraditional hockey country, and whether or not his game would translate that well. At the draft, there were several gasps in the crowd when Montreal went slightly "off the board", opting for the goaltender (Carey Price) over the center that everyone thought they so desperately needed. With Brule available at #6, I think it was a bit of a surprise to the Jackets, and Dougie picked the player he wanted. Whether or not that's the guy the scouts had is moot - maybe some/most/all of them had figured that Brule would be gone, and that Kopitar was the next best thing? Or, maybe legitimately, they actually preferred Kopitar and saw the future the way it has worked out. We'll never honestly know.
To go back to 2003, when yes, I followed prospects - though admittedly not as much as in 2005 - several people had Nikolai Zherdev at #1 on their list. There was the chance that he went first overall; he was touted as the most skilled player in the draft; whereas Tomas Vanek (this will sound familiar) was a player coming from a nontraditional hockey market, with question marks about his upside.
Looking back, yes, we could have picked other players. Hell, why stop at Vanek and Kopitar? We could have had any of Carter, Richards, Phaneuf, Getzlaf, Perry, Seabrook, Weber ... you get the point. Again, hindsight is 20/20.
All that, and like Mayor Bee, I'm completely blown away by the notion that anyone would have picked Claude Giroux ahead of Derick Brassard. Giroux was considered an off the board pick when the Flyers picked him at 22 ... had he been picked at #6, you know, where we took Brassard, I can only imagine the reactions of people across the hockey world. Doug MacLean would have been strung up in front of Nationwide the next morning. Pierre McGuire's head would have popped again. Hell, I would have probably walked out into the street, ripped off my CBJ apparel, and thrown on a Calgary Flames hat. It would have been a HUGE leap of faith, needless to say.
Whoever wrote the article clearly didn't do their homework.
Robert
Foligno family
Here is a tid bit from a veteran Blue Jacket fan.... when we play Pittsburgh on Friday I hope Dublinsky flattens Crosby on his first shift... not a head hit, just a solid NHL hockey hit that puts Crosby face first on the ice.... that is Blue Jacket hockey...
I'm all in for Duby!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! A true warrior...
I'm all in for Duby!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! A true warrior...
Mayor Bee
Registered User
- Dec 29, 2008
- 18,087
- 535
"Penalty to #17 Brandon Dubinsky. 5 minute major for touching the golden boy, 2 minutes for unsportsmanlike by raising his eyebrows at the call, a 10-minute misconduct, a game misconduct, a match penalty, and a Roman-style scourging from a dominatrix named Helga."
Crede777
Deputized
- Dec 16, 2009
- 14,841
- 4,558
Agreed, if you could have foreseen what Brule became you would either be the best hockey mind in the world or a time traveler.
That said, nobody should be mistaken for thinking MacLean was even decent as a GM. He was bad and being in charge of a brand new expansion team (starting from scratch, no inherited roster or staff like relocation teams get) makes the situation worse.
As for Howson, I've said it before and I'll say it again. In order to prosper in the NHL as a GM, you either have to be good or lucky. Howson was mediocre and unlucky.
And me on the boards ranting about how bad his timing with the hit was.
FANonymous
Registered User
- Nov 7, 2010
- 4,911
- 0
Some people have to pay good money for that. Professional athletes get all the breaks!
EspenK
Registered User
- Sep 25, 2011
- 15,842
- 4,445
EspenK
Registered User
- Sep 25, 2011
- 15,842
- 4,445
For those that think Bob hasn't been part of the problem this year:
http://http://bluejacketsxtra.dispatch.com/content/stories/2013/10/29/bobrovsky-not-yet-up-to-last-years-high-standard.html
Edit: Decided to fact check the stats and according to TSN he is 16th in Save % and 20th in GAA. Maybe Dispatch used guys with one or two starts? Bad reporting. So he is not as bad as reported but still not what we expected/hoped for.
http://http://bluejacketsxtra.dispatch.com/content/stories/2013/10/29/bobrovsky-not-yet-up-to-last-years-high-standard.html
Edit: Decided to fact check the stats and according to TSN he is 16th in Save % and 20th in GAA. Maybe Dispatch used guys with one or two starts? Bad reporting. So he is not as bad as reported but still not what we expected/hoped for.
Last edited:
I think the Dispatch used the NHL.com stats, where there isn't a minutes/starts qualifier. Bobrovsky and Alex Stalock, Richard Bachman, etc. aren't comparable.
Either way, Bob has been part of the problem this year in the early going. Hopefully he gets going soon.
Bob should be proud that he ranks in the bottom half of the league of qualifying goal tenders or middle of the league when get rid of a couple of backups.
Mayor Bee
Registered User
- Dec 29, 2008
- 18,087
- 535
To be a great GM, you need to be both. To be a good GM, you need either a heavy dosage of one and less of the other, or a decent amount of both.
Sam Pollock is generally regarded as the best ever, but even he needed a good deal of luck (mainly when it came to getting others to accept his trade ideas). Figuring that the expansion 6 had little talent and little hope of doing anything, then fleecing them accordingly, is an obvious combination of the two.
When Denis Potvin was the top prospect in the 1973 draft, Pollock approached Bill Torrey (Islanders GM) about picking up the #1 overall pick. The deals from Pollock kept getting better and better, and the Islanders were going to take Pollock's best deal. Finally, Torrey realized the morning of the draft that if Sam Pollock was willing to trade that much for #1, then he (Torrey) had the chance at getting a true franchise player who could be built around. The deal was rejected, Potvin was drafted by the Islanders, and he ended up being a first-ballot HOFer and the backbone of a dynasty that won 19 straight playoff series.
Well, last year after first 9 games Bob's stats were even worse than this year. His SV% was 0.897 and his record was 2-5-2.
Same story with his play in the KHL a year ago - slow start, great later. He should be OK.
Same story with his play in the KHL a year ago - slow start, great later. He should be OK.
- Status
