There is no issue about defending the FO for not insuring Horton. It is a fact. Done deal. The issue was what to do about it after they were stuck with Horton and no insurance. In the actual situation they had to face due to not insuring, Clarkson was the best they could do. Seems pretty straight forward.
Interesting Info: Part XV (All Jackets-related "tidbits" in here)
- Thread starter Samkow
- Start date
- Status
alphafox
Registered User
- Jun 14, 2011
- 1,443
- 92
How on earth would LTIR help things? It doesn't even kick in until you are up against the cap. We have 10 million in cap space and are likely only going to sign Calvert, McBackup and qualify Golo who combined may make 5 million.
As far as next year's cap goes we are looking at dropping Rene's salary of 3.5 million and will likely replace a number of guys with much better prospects on entry level deals (i.e. Tropp, Morin, Prout). Even with the Clarkson albatross we are in a pretty good position cap wise (particularly if he can regain his form while here) for next year.
As to our standing near as one of the top 10 "cap teams" that is simply misrepresenting the facts. The Cap space table you mentioned is for this offseason where we have a few small fries to resign. A bunch of teams will pass us in terms of spending for example NYR (Stepan, St. Louis, Hagelin), Detroit (Nyquist, Jurco, Zidlicky), PIT (Martin, Erhoff, Lapierre), etc. And this is all before UFA spending is factored in.
Did the Horton situation suck? Absolutely. Do we have a bunch of bad contracts (Boll, Bourque, Clarkson)? Yes. Are we even close to a cap squeeze? Probably not till 2017/2018 when Joey is going to wring every cent out of the front office while simultaneously all our great prospects (Dano, Milano, Rychel, Wennberg, Bjorkstrand, Anderson) come off their first deals.
Fro
Cheatin on CBJ w TBL
Keep defending the indefensible. I know you will.
There is no excuse, none, for not insuring Horton. It was a managerial decision which can only described as completely incompetent. It's not 'monday morning qbing'. It's common sense.
Defend the FO for not insuring Horton. I'd love to hear the case.
ummmm that isn't what he said...his reply wasn't anything to do with defending them for not insuring Horton...
SuperGenius
For Duty & Humanity!
- Mar 18, 2008
- 4,639
- 199
Keep defending the indefensible. I know you will.
There is no excuse, none, for not insuring Horton. It was a managerial decision which can only described as completely incompetent. It's not 'monday morning qbing'. It's common sense.
Defend the FO for not insuring Horton. I'd love to hear the case.
One of these days you'll surprise yourself and actually read and interpret the post you're responding to. It's probably more fun to be outraged all of the time, though.
Nothing in my response had to do with insuring or not insuring Horton, rather, finding something to do about it.
We'll never really know why they didn't do it. My best guess is that it was like all insurance decisions - a calculated risk. This was all explained for you to read months ago and you dismissed it out of hand then, so it's not really worth getting into with you and your outrage. It may have been incompetence, it may have been a risk, it may have even been the right decision at the time - I suppose given all of the information, we could easily judge it - but we don't have that...sooo....we can choose to wonder, accept or fly off the handle based on what little we know. I already know what option you're going with, so that's why I steered clear of the decision itself.
I generally agree with you here, but where are you getting the idea that Bourque's hit will be "dropped"? In fact, you seem to be making assumptions about other players, i.e. Morin, Prout, and Tropp (who is on a one-way) that need a lot more vetting before they can be incorporated into a consensus of what the team is about to do.
I'm less inclined than ever to support CR's position, but it does appear that the failure to insure Horton's contract is getting a real whitewash around here. That's too bad. We're willing to vilify xGMSH for some of the contracts he gave out, but are tripping over ourselves to "move on" from this egregious misstep by Jarmo? Just cause we're not close to a "cap squeeze" doesn't mean JK's got egg all over his face for the Horton fiasco! Even if Clarkson performs adequately for a 3rd liner, we're still paying a **** ton of money that could be better spent on another player. Why that isn't part of the Jarmo narrative here on HF is perplexing.
Cyclones Rock
Registered User
- Jun 12, 2008
- 10,914
- 7,077
Really?
Horton is due $26.1 million over the life of his deal. Clarkson is owed $27.5 million.
So explain this "cash relief" to me. Dont' bother as there is no "cash relief".
Yeah, I grasp the "at least he can play" argument. It's lame.
If you really believe that the CBJ FO used a "calculated risk" model in their decision to not insure Horton's contract, then you understand the purpose of insurance at well as the CBJ FO evidently does(n't).
This negligence/incompetence is going to be a huge factor the year Johansen goes to arbitration and gets an award which the Jackets won't have the cap room to pay. But, I'm sure you'll be at the forefront defending the FO financial follies.
Last edited:
WannabeFinn
Beloved One
A large portion of Clarkson's contract was in signing bonuses, hence the reason he isn't a buyout candidate. I'm not sure of the specifics here but I'm pretty sure we're gonna be saving money because we didn't pay the signing bonuses.
Xoggz22
Registered User
Keep defending the indefensible. I know you will.
There is no excuse, none, for not insuring Horton. It was a managerial decision which can only described as completely incompetent. It's not 'monday morning qbing'. It's common sense.
Defend the FO for not insuring Horton. I'd love to hear the case.
He actually isn't defending the FO and makes no mention of the insurance issue. The point is simple... Regardless of how they got there, the move ended up being financially driven because the CBJ didn't want to pay a dead contract. Paying the same money for someone who has a chance to contribute is all this was. Yes, the situation sucks and the insurance issue is a major reason for it but that isn't what was being discussed. They are two separate issues that are certainly tied together.
Last edited:
I
Yes it was a disgrace. And will definitely hurt us bad in the future. But it's time to move on.
I would make him wear number 8 though haha
Yes it was a disgrace. And will definitely hurt us bad in the future. But it's time to move on.
I would make him wear number 8 though haha
alphafox
Registered User
- Jun 14, 2011
- 1,443
- 92
It is simply a numbers game for me regarding what players will be sticking around. We have four above average forward prospects on the roster projected to be second line + players on entry level deals. They are probably better ATM than most of our fourth line, plus they are cost controlled. Replacing guys like a Tropp with a better player at half the salary is just common sense, ditto the defensive side with Heatherington and Collins projecting as middle pairing guys.
As to the "whitewashing" of Jarmo and the Horton situation I think there are a lot of factors. First, I think that he has bought him a lot of leash with his drafting of the 2013 and 2014 classes, drafting is the most important part of being a GM and Jarmo is one of the best in the league. Second, the contract mistake was a freak accident which buys some sympathy, an unknown and unrelated condition appearing before they could insure him as they intended to do is an "act of God" more or less. Did Jao screw up by not paying the the extra to insure him? Yes, but at the same time the reasoning is clear and relatively sound provided to did not know the future. Finally, I think the "pass" he gets is also somewhat a reaction to the hyperbolic minority of posters who seem intent on telling us that the FO is incompetent all while these are the best three years the franchise has had (even when factoring in this years injury disaster of a campaign).
This remains the seed stuck in your craw and is the basis for virtually every post you make. Your business, of course. Carry on.
SuperGenius
For Duty & Humanity!
- Mar 18, 2008
- 4,639
- 199
It really is simple. If someone is on LTIR, you're still paying them, but it doesn't count against the cap. if you then spend the money you have in cap relief, you're spending more overall. CBJ apparently don't want to be in that position and wanted a player who could play.
We Want Ten
Johnny Gaudreau
Incredibly short sighted by the club and FO IMO. I understand having this position when you are out of the playoffs and have no plans of going, but what about when we need to make a TD move to acquire talent for a PO push?
Doing nothing would have been better than taking on the worst contract in pro sports. It just ties up a bunch of money and if you do find yourself against the cap, then the move just locks you in costing you talent to keep, or acquire. 5 years is a long time, this move ends up costing this club before its all said and done.
Even simpler, get the insurance dopes! Prevents any of this from even being a concern.
Not entirely true. You only get LTIR once you're up against the cap. So the CBJ would have needed to spend ~$14 million MORE last season to get LTIR for Horton. There is no "cap relief" for a $5 million cap hit if you're $10 million below the cap. No point.
It's not that CBJ don't want to be in that position - it's more that ownership, who is still losing money, didn't want the $5+ million / year spent on a guy who wasn't ever going to play again, regardless of the cap implications. This isn't Toronto where they can just throw away $26+ million the next 5 years.
Now, the insurance coverage would have reimbursed the club 80% of Horton's remaining salary. But we know that story...pre-existing conditions made it unlikely/unneeded for 2013-2014. Then his back became a problem before he could be covered at the start of the '14-'15 season. Short-sighted / enormous risk by the FO in signing him for 7 years knowing he was injury prone. Came back to bite them.
SuperGenius
For Duty & Humanity!
- Mar 18, 2008
- 4,639
- 199
I imagine they're going to dance with whoever brought them and/or be strategic about who they add. I don't get the doomsday slant.
I can't help but read the above as if it were said by Stephen A. Smith. What a load of hyperbolic crap this is. Clarkson's contract sucks, for sure, but the worst in pro sports? How do you even rank it? I guess I can see the angle if you judge him only by what happened in Toronto, but IMO, he's a better player than that and we are going to see it. Sometimes a player just doesn't fit and IMO, he fits better here. I'm at least waiting to see him play out a season before I make any judgements.
If you think it was a simple yes/no proposition, you're really out of the loop. I'm not saying the end result was good, wise or whatever, but there were a lot more factors than simply choosing to get it or not get it.
Cyclones Rock
Registered User
- Jun 12, 2008
- 10,914
- 7,077
It is a seed in my craw.
It is the basis for every post I make? Really? Have difficulty with percentages?
Carry on.
Hey CBJ...Jets fan coming in peace...
I have a big interest in pairing jacob Trouba with a stud partner...do u need a center? I am not sold on Scheifle...is Ryan Johannsen going to stick around for you guys?
any feedback appreciated..thank you
I have a big interest in pairing jacob Trouba with a stud partner...do u need a center? I am not sold on Scheifle...is Ryan Johannsen going to stick around for you guys?
any feedback appreciated..thank you
Double-Shift Lasse
Just post better
I'm staying out of the specific discussion, but this...
The day is coming, indeed, coming soon, when the phrase "grey area" will go the way of "bee's knees", "gams" and "going steady."
Xoggz22
Registered User
If I understand LTIR, you can put a player on LTIR after 1/4 of the season and Insurance would kick in to cover X portion of the contract (I think I read up to 90% somewhere). Cap relief occurs if you are bumping against the cap and you make a move that would put you over the cap. At that point you get the cap relief as well as the player coverage.
If I'm correct on this Toronto won't get cap relief unless (until) they spend to the cap. At that point they would simply be paying Horton to sit in the stands with zero contribution.
Cyclones Rock
Registered User
- Jun 12, 2008
- 10,914
- 7,077
Easy concept. I get it. 3 out of my 4 cats get it. The other just doesn't give a damn.
At the end of the day, I'm just not quite as forgiving as many on here of a horrific decision not to insure the biggest contract on the team of a player who was subject to injuries in his past. Losing 7% of one's payroll capacity (my assumption is Clarkson is not going to be of any more value to the team than a minimum salaried player at most) to this mistake will have long term ramifications.
Cyclones Rock
Registered User
- Jun 12, 2008
- 10,914
- 7,077
The Jackets are pretty loaded at center.
We also need defensemen, so I wouldn't think that we'd be a very good trading partner on this.
Cyclones Rock
Registered User
- Jun 12, 2008
- 10,914
- 7,077
It was just that simple. And obvious. Only the most extreme of FO apologists would suggest otherwise.
The primary purpose of insurance is to mitigate the damage from potential large losses. Not insuring one's largest contract shows a complete lack of understanding of that. Not insuring that same contract for half a season because the injury risk of that player may be marginally less than another player is no justification for not insuring that contract.
Really simple stuff.
Clarkson may not have the worst contract in sports, but I just googled "worst contract in hockey". Here are the first 5 results:
1)http://grantland.com/features/hockeys-worst-contracts/
2)http://thehockeywriters.com/buyers-beware-the-worst-contracts-on-all-30-nhl-teams/
3)http://thehockeywriters.com/the-worst-contracts-in-the-nhl-this-season/
4)http://www.thehockeynews.com/blog/the-nhls-10-worst-contracts/
5)http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...-contract-ahead-of-the-2014-15-season/page/28
https://www.google.com/search?q=worst+contracts+in+hockey&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
Jackets also have a big interest in finding a stud partner for Murray. We have Dubinsky, Jenner, Wennberg, Anisimov, Dano and potentially Milano as capable top 6/9 centers, so you really are barking up the wrong tree. Also Jackets management think Johansen has the potential to be one of the best centers in the league, so its very very unlikely he goes anywhere.
The only way Johansen gets moved is if theres another contract dispute that cant get settled. But if Joey puts up another 70+ pt season I don't think the FO has any problem with backing up the brinks truck to Joeys front door.
Jovavic
Concept of a Plan
I thought they couldn't insure him because he was already injured with the shoulder thing before he signed here? Preexisting condition?
- Status
