Interesting Info: Part XXII (Jackets-related "tidbits" here)

[majormajor]

Great post. I have shared the bolded sentiment for a long time. I think it has to do with the fact that the Jackets' GMs right from the getgo have never had a long term vision of what the team should look like when it was ready to compete. It appears to me that they have acquired players based on individual strong points rather than how they fit into whatever the plan is. The Bjorkstrand trade is a classic example of overlooking his many talents to ease a salary cap issue that could have been accomplished in many other ways.

Bjorkstrand isn't playing better with another team. He barely hit 20 goals this year after being the Jackets best forward for three years (people didn't seem to notice).

This whole thing is a focusing illusion, no one talks about the ex Jackets who fizzle out elsewhere. Why would we talk about Nikitin, for example? No reason.

 

[squashmaple]

Great post. I have shared the bolded sentiment for a long time. I think it has to do with the fact that the Jackets' GMs right from the getgo have never had a long term vision of what the team should look like when it was ready to compete. It appears to me that they have acquired players based on individual strong points rather than how they fit into whatever the plan is. The Bjorkstrand trade is a classic example of overlooking his many talents to ease a salary cap issue that could have been accomplished in many other ways.

I maintain that trading Bjorkstrand was the best choice of a bad batch. Imagine how sick we'd be if someone else currently held our 3OA because we traded it along with Nyquist somewhere last summer for relief. Yes, trading him sucks. But it could have been a much worse scenario.

 

[majormajor]

I maintain that trading Bjorkstrand was the best choice of a bad batch. Imagine how sick we'd be if someone else currently held our 3OA because we traded it along with Nyquist somewhere last summer for relief. Yes, trading him sucks. But it could have been a much worse scenario.

We were two million over the cap, we had a lot of options. We could have ran with a short roster until after game 1 when guys started going on IR (as I predicted).

It also almost certainly wouldn't have cost a 1st to move one year of Nyquist (coming off of a 53 point season), that seems wildly over the top to me. People are trying to find reasonable justifications for a terrible mistake.

 

[Monk]

we had a lot of options.

I just don't think that's true tbh, regardless of all the possibilities I'm sure you can rattle off. Jarmo was practically weeping re: this trade. He called it the hardest thing he's had to do as a GM as I recall.

 

[majormajor]

I just don't think that's true tbh, regardless of all the possibilities I'm sure you can rattle off. Jarmo was practically weeping re: this trade. He called it the hardest thing he's had to do as a GM as I recall.

I'm not buying it.

This is a case of bad priorities.

 

[squashmaple]

We were two million over the cap, we had a lot of options. We could have ran with a short roster until after game 1 when guys started going on IR (as I predicted).

It also almost certainly wouldn't have cost a 1st to move one year of Nyquist (coming off of a 53 point season), that seems wildly over the top to me. People are trying to find reasonable justifications for a terrible mistake.

Look around the league last summer. A first was absolutely the going rate to move that much money. It's why Philly didn't make room for Gaudreau; they weren't willing to risk their probably-high first. The alternative was "future considerations" like what Vegas got for Patches, and we didn't have a player of that caliber to dispatch in that way. No one was taking on Voracek's 8mill at the time for anything less than a first or Nyquist's five mill. Bjorkstrand was a valuable piece and Seattle was savvy to take advantage of a team in a hard place. Bjorkstrand also wasn't the difference between Columbus finishing second last overall and finishing, say, twenty-first. It's easy to say a team should just play short, but in practice that's absurd and you know it.

 

[Viqsi]

Here is another stat to make us feel like sh*t.

Because when we win, the other team doesn't even get the opportunity for a Game 7.

 

[majormajor]

It's easy to say a team should just play short, but in practice that's absurd and you know it.

To clarify, what I was suggesting was more in line with what tight to the cap teams like the Leafs and Lightning often do.

The combination of playing game 1 with a 20 man roster (or maybe 21, I can't remember), and dumping Jake Bean's contract would have put us under the cap. We only had to play with a small roster for a single game because guys started heading to IR immediately.

 

[Double-Shift Lasse]

Because when we win, the other team doesn't even get the opportunity for a Game 7.

"...when we WON..."

Rhymes with "one."

 

[Viqsi]

"...when we WON..."

Rhymes with "one."

In my headcanon, the play-in series counts even though it was a best of 5. Because in that case it's still technically correct, which is the best kind of correct.

EDIT: Incidentally, if you count that game 5 for that chart's purposes, we have a 5-way tie between Werenski, Foudy, Foligno, Jones, and Nyquist.

 

[Double-Shift Lasse]

In my headcanon, the play-in series counts even though it was a best of 5. Because in that case it's still technically correct, which is the best kind of correct.

I know that, and that's why I posted what I did.

*runs and hides*

 

[majormajor]

In my headcanon, the play-in series counts even though it was a best of 5. Because in that case it's still technically correct, which is the best kind of correct.

It was a postseason series.

It was vs the Leafs.

We won.

All reasons to count it.

 

[JacketsDavid]

I maintain that trading Bjorkstrand was the best choice of a bad batch. Imagine how sick we'd be if someone else currently held our 3OA because we traded it along with Nyquist somewhere last summer for relief. Yes, trading him sucks. But it could have been a much worse scenario.

IMO - it was a terrible trade. Trading a quality NHL player with a good contract for scraps. Just because the CBJ says it's the best deal they could does not make it a fact.

poor cap management with too many bad contracts or 3 pairing dman and 4th line forwards.

 

[Monk]

To clarify, what I was suggesting was more in line with what tight to the cap teams like the Leafs and Lightning often do.

The combination of playing game 1 with a 20 man roster (or maybe 21, I can't remember), and dumping Jake Bean's contract would have put us under the cap. We only had to play with a small roster for a single game because guys started heading to IR immediately.

I dunno man, for me this starts to fall into "you're not on the other phone line" territory like the "you're not in the room" dialogue re: the coaching search.

 

[majormajor]

I dunno man, for me this starts to fall into "you're not on the other phone line" territory like the "you're not in the room" dialogue re: the coaching search.

The difference being you could pencil out the costs on cap friendly to know what the alternative options are.

 

[Iron Balls McGinty]

Bjorkstrand isn't playing better with another team. He barely hit 20 goals this year after being the Jackets best forward for three years (people didn't seem to notice).

This whole thing is a focusing illusion, no one talks about the ex Jackets who fizzle out elsewhere. Why would we talk about Nikitin, for example? No reason.

I think we tried to make Bjorkstrand a top line forward because it was all we had. If I'm not mistaken he was playing 3rd line minutes. His average TOI was down almost 2:30. We had him playing almost 18 minutes a game. Seattle used him for 15:37 in the regular season.

No matter who we have on the team we don't manage ice time very well and we horn players into roles that they are not good fits to be in.

 

[Monk]

The difference being you could pencil out the costs on cap friendly to know what the alternative options are.

What does 'dumping Jake Bean's contract' mean? I'm actually asking, not being a snarky douche.

 

[Iron Balls McGinty]

I’d say the point regarding Bjorkstrand, isn’t so much dwelling on what he’s doing with another team, it’s that he’s NOT doing it with the CBJ, when he did so consistently when he was with the team.

He’s not performing better with another team. He should have never been traded as a good chunk of people here were vocal about.

Many others considered him “redundant” or the “odd man out”.

In actuality he should have possibly been considered “untouchable” with only a few other players, and almost any other moves should have been made, other than moving Bjorkstrand.

Bjorkstrand > Laine

If we hadn't signed Johnny we wouldn't have had to move Bjorkstrand. We also don't know if other options to clear space would have been better or worse for the team long term and what it would have cost us.

Gaudreau > Bjorkstrand

We could have still been shitty playing Bjorkstrand too many minutes and drafting in the teens this year too. Or maybe we would have had to give up this year's #1 pick in order for someone to take money off the roster. We just don't know.

 

[Monstershockey]

The thing with Bjorkstrand is he is a guy that does a lot of things well. He can play up and down the lineup, and play well. He is outstanding utility player. It doesn't matter if he is better than anyone on the team, just that he does his job well, and is the type of player that can help no matter what line he is on. You can plug a guy like him in on any team and he will fit. He probably wouldn't have helped last year, but if they take a step forward, he could be a player type we need/miss

 

[majormajor]

What does 'dumping Jake Bean's contract' mean? I'm actually asking, not being a snarky douche.

Trading him. Potentially having to throw in like a 3rd rounder or something.

 

[Monk]

Trading him. Potentially having to throw in like a 3rd rounder or something.

OK, that's what I thought... so you see my point then hopefully.

 

[JacketsDavid]

If we hadn't signed Johnny we wouldn't have had to move Bjorkstrand. We also don't know if other options to clear space would have been better or worse for the team long term and what it would have cost us.

Gaudreau > Bjorkstrand

We could have still been shitty playing Bjorkstrand too many minutes and drafting in the teens this year too. Or maybe we would have had to give up this year's #1 pick in order for someone to take money off the roster. We just don't know.

We had about 6-7 individual contracts we could have moved. But we likely took the 2nd best player (Zach was tops then Bjork) and dumped him for little value. Lot of ovrpaid bottom line players we could have packaged up - it's not like we had to move Bjork (although the CBJ will try to convince you of that)

Also reminder - we were shitty with the better player Johnny.

 

[Monk]

We had about 6-7 individual contracts we could have moved. But we likely took the 2nd best player (Zach was tops then Bjork) and dumped him for little value. Lot of ovrpaid bottom line players we could have packaged up - it's not like we had to move Bjork (although the CBJ will try to convince you of that)

Also reminder - we were shitty with the better player Johnny.

This is exactly what I'm talking about.

"It's so easy, what an idiot!"

I'm not buying it.

 

[Double-Shift Lasse]

We had about 6-7 individual contracts we could have moved. But we likely took the 2nd best player (Zach was tops then Bjork) and dumped him for little value. Lot of ovrpaid bottom line players we could have packaged up - it's not like we had to move Bjork (although the CBJ will try to convince you of that)

Also reminder - we were shitty with the better player Johnny.

Seems like if you absolutely must make a move to shed salary, moving your “second best player” might be more appealing to other teams versus “overpaid bottom line players.”

 

[squashmaple]

We had about 6-7 individual contracts we could have moved. But we likely took the 2nd best player (Zach was tops then Bjork) and dumped him for little value. Lot of ovrpaid bottom line players we could have packaged up - it's not like we had to move Bjork (although the CBJ will try to convince you of that)

Also reminder - we were shitty with the better player Johnny.

Jarmo took the deal where he actually got a return rather than having to pay to move a lesser player. I don't see the problem with that. Moving Bjorkstrand also opened up more money over more years than paying someone to take Jake Bean.