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

[cbjthrowaway]

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)

this is real life, not chel franchise mode where you can just throw a bunch of contracts into a trade and get a fourth round pick back.

it's not like the jackets just woke up nine days after signing gaudreau and thought "oh shit, we're gonna be over the cap if laine signs his QO, better trade someone… let's move bjorkstrand!"

the notion that they didn't even try to move anyone else is hilarious to me. of course they did! but there were market factors that led to the potential (and few) suitors being able to play hardball and force the jackets to either put bjorkstrand on the table or their 2023 first.

vegas fell victim to the same market factors and ended up having to give away a good young defenseman (coghlan) just to get an even better player than bjorkstrand (pacioretty) off the books for free.

bjorky was one of my favorite jackets of all-time, but what's done is done. the only other way it could've unfolded after the gaudreau signing would've been laine leaving via an offer sheet, which would have required:
1. a team to pony up a large offer sheet (few had the cap)
2. laine to sign the offer sheet (he wanted to stay here)

that would've had to happen between the jackets tendering the QO and his QO expiring. they waited to trade bjorkstrand and signed laine the day before his QO was going to expire, so it's pretty clear that they were keeping that option on the table as well.

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

i mean, i shouldn't even have to say this, but there were some other significant differences between the last two blue jacket squads lol. such as:

	21-22 GP	22-23 GP	Difference
Voracek	79	11	-68
Werenski	68	13	-55
Texier	36	0	-36
Nyquist	82	48	-34
Gavrikov	80	52	-28
Bean	67	14	-53

 

[Monk]

Pronman did a little piece applying "lessons" from the 2018 draft to the upcoming 2023 draft. Here's a snippet re: Marchenko.

Wait for Kirill Marchenko​

A fair number of NHL scouts at the time of the 2018 draft thought Marchenko was a first-round pick on pure ability, a later first that is. He had a rare combination of traits between his size, speed, skill and scoring ability. They also all thought there were signability issues with him out of Russia. Sure enough, he ended up signing a two-year KHL extension with SKA at one point after his NHL Draft. It went well at times for him with SKA, but not always, as he was demoted to the VHL in his final year over.

But then he came over to North America, and since he arrived in Columbus, it’s been all positive. He tore up the AHL in the first half of the season and was one of the best rookies in the NHL in the second half.

Marchenko went 49th. In looking at the five immediate players picked before him — Jonny Tychonick, Kody Clark, Martin Fehervary, Scott Perunovich and Albin Eriksson — Fehervary is the only one who looks like he’ll have an NHL career.

This is worth keeping in mind when the hand-wringing happens over top Russian prospects like Daniil But, Dmitri Simashev and Mikhail Gulyayev, with Matvei Michkov being his own unique case. Obviously, there was no invasion of Ukraine at the time, and that is a significant new variable at play. With Russian prospects though, the good ones usually come and the wait tends to be worth it if they are good. I get the argument that if it’s close you take the other guy, but some of the players selected near 49 weren’t close to Marchenko in terms of skill. His toolkit has a lot of rhymes to But and Simashev in terms of mobility, size and puck game.

Pronman: What we can learn for the 2023 NHL Draft from the 2018 NHL Draft

How the 2018 draft played out can provide a blueprint for teams in this upcoming draft in many different ways.

theathletic.com

 

[cbjthrowaway]

Pronman did a little piece applying "lessons" from the 2018 draft to the upcoming 2023 draft. Here's a snippet re: Marchenko.

i'd love simashev with the LAK pick if they don't trade it. would be surprised if he or daniil but is still there at 34, but i guess you never know.

 

[JacketsDavid]

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.”

Point being if you're going to make a bad deal don't give up a good player.
Take a bad player and attach assets and retain salary as necessary.

Phoenix was more than happy to accumulate assets for contracts last year as an example.
Send Nyquist and a 4th round pick and get a 6th round pick back. Nyquist had ZERO future with the CBJ long term. That is much better than getting a 3rd and 4th round pick for Bjork.

 

[Crede777]

Point being if you're going to make a bad deal don't give up a good player.
Take a bad player and attach assets and retain salary as necessary.

Phoenix was more than happy to accumulate assets for contracts last year as an example.
Send Nyquist and a 4th round pick and get a 6th round pick back. Nyquist had ZERO future with the CBJ long term. That is much better than getting a 3rd and 4th round pick for Bjork.

You're assuming that move was available at the time. First, reports at the time indicated that cap space was an extremely hot commodity and nobody was adding cap to their team last summer - that's likely why Gaudreau came to Columbus in the first place.

Second, if it seems like an obvious move, I think we can safely assume that the front office would have tried it.

 

[Iron Balls McGinty]

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.

The key of 6-7 expiring contracts is somebody actually has to want them and few teams had cap space to take them.

So would you have rather kept Bjorkstrand, not signed Johnny and drafted somewhere in the 12-15 range and probably still had Larsen as coach?

Maybe just maybe bottoming out this team is exactly what is needed to enact change. Cap space is a commodity an for anyone to take on our 2nd hand slop on an expiring contact would have cost us more than that, perhaps that coveted first rounder we have with the 3rd overall pick. 1st round picks were rumored as being floated around in exchange for salary dumps in the past.

You're assuming that move was available at the time. First, reports at the time indicated that cap space was an extremely hot commodity and nobody was adding cap to their team last summer - that's likely why Gaudreau came to Columbus in the first place.

Second, if it seems like an obvious move, I think we can safely assume that the front office would have tried it.

People seem to have trouble grasping that both sides actually have to agree to the move in order for it to actually happen. We don't live in an EA Sports world of video game trades.

 

[Monk]

So would you have rather kept Bjorkstrand, not signed Johnny and drafted somewhere in the 12-15 range and probably still had Larsen as coach?

Now you're swinging the pendulum too far the other way, as much as I generally agree with the point you're making

 

[cbjthrowaway]

Point being if you're going to make a bad deal don't give up a good player.
Take a bad player and attach assets and retain salary as necessary.

question: at what point of 'attaching assets' would the scales tip toward the alternative of moving out a better player and getting a little in return? would you have given up this year's first to keep bjorkstrand?

your answer may be the same as the jackets answer there. it may not be. either way, the jackets hit that tipping point, hence trading bjorkstrand.

Phoenix was more than happy to accumulate assets for contracts last year as an example.

but arizona's reasons for taking on those contracts is the same as cbj's reason for needing to shed payroll last year: to remain cap compliant.

rather than maximizing assets in return, they're instead maximizing the gap between imaginary money and real money at their owner's behest so they can minimize expenses.

completely different situations.

Send Nyquist and a 4th round pick and get a 6th round pick back. Nyquist had ZERO future with the CBJ long term. That is much better than getting a 3rd and 4th round pick for Bjork.

if that was on the table they would have done it. i don't get how this is so hard to understand nearly a full year later.

 

[Iron Balls McGinty]

Now you're swinging the pendulum too far the other way, as much as I generally agree with the point you're making

If the butterfly flaps its wings, the entire outlook could change.

Every decision (or non decision) impacts what happens after it. We don't know what would have happened but one could make an educated guess the team would be basically the same as it was with a similar outcome.

 

[majormajor]

if that was on the table they would have done it. i don't get how this is so hard to understand nearly a full year later.

I don't think we know that.

One - Nyquist was a good player, coming off a 53 pt season. Jarmo probably didn't want to trade him either. And the Jackets had a surfeit of long term winger contracts, so Jarmo may have preferred to move a long term guy. That was actually the conclusion that many on this board came to later last summer after some wingers with similar or worse value than Nyquist were able to be traded without any cost attached. Flexibility became the word of the day.

 

[Xoggz22]

Oh goodie... came back to this thread too and thought it was July 2022 all over again! Bjorkstrand how we miss thee....

ugh

 

[Monk]

I don't think we know that.

One - Nyquist was a good player, coming off a 53 pt season. Jarmo probably didn't want to trade him either. And the Jackets had a surfeit of long term winger contracts, so Jarmo may have preferred to move a long term guy. That was actually the conclusion that many on this board came to later last summer after some wingers with similar or worse value than Nyquist were able to be traded without any cost attached. Flexibility became the word of the day.

It's funny because now you're me and cbjthrowaway is you.

 

[Iron Balls McGinty]

Oh goodie... came back to this thread too and thought it was July 2022 all over again! Bjorkstrand how we miss thee....

ugh

 

[JacketsDavid]

You're assuming that move was available at the time. First, reports at the time indicated that cap space was an extremely hot commodity and nobody was adding cap to their team last summer - that's likely why Gaudreau came to Columbus in the first place.

Second, if it seems like an obvious move, I think we can safely assume that the front office would have tried it.

I don't trust the front office. So let me put that out there. So I don't believe when Jarmo says no other deals were available. To me if you just blindly believe Jarmo then yep you're right there 100% was no other options.
To me I would have signed Johnny G - no doubt. We could have made that cap work with a couple minor tweaks.
We had an issue where contracts needed moved when Laine was signed.
That is ultimately the decision point - sign Laine and trade Bjork (for 3rd and 4th) or find another way.

 

[CBJx614]

I don't trust the front office. So let me put that out there. So I don't believe when Jarmo says no other deals were available. To me if you just blindly believe Jarmo then yep you're right there 100% was no other options.
To me I would have signed Johnny G - no doubt. We could have made that cap work with a couple minor tweaks.
We had an issue where contracts needed moved when Laine was signed.
That is ultimately the decision point - sign Laine and trade Bjork (for 3rd and 4th) or find another way.

If there were other deals available and that was the one he choose, why would he turn down better deals just to get bent over?

 

[JacketsDavid]

If there were other deals available and that was the one he choose, why would he turn down better deals just to get bent over?

Because he's not a very good GM.

 

[Monk]

Because he's not a very good GM.

 

[majormajor]

If there were other deals available and that was the one he choose, why would he turn down better deals just to get bent over?

It's funny because Friedman heard from a team that was giving the Jackets a better offer, his interpretation was that the Jackets got upset that the negotations weren't straightforward or were taking too long.

It was probably just a better pick deal so who cares. I'm going to be pissed either way because I think he traded the wrong player.

 

[Double-Shift Lasse]

Because he's not a very good GM.

This is a nice world to live in.

 

[VT]

Bjorkie is ideal for the style of the Krakens. In addition, he had great chemistry with Gourde and Tolvanen, his line role was perfect for him. Also, let's not forget that Seattle has a good coach, a healthy team, and a quality defense that can pass, support forwards better than our.

 

[CBJWerenski8]

 

[AndBoomGoesTheCannon]

If there were other deals available and that was the one he choose, why would he turn down better deals just to get bent over?

There were some rumors that they went easy on us in the expansion draft after the Kivi situation. If that’s true, perhaps we returned the favor with the Bjorky trade if there wasn’t too much difference in trade compensation.

 

[Monk]

There were some rumors that they went easy on us in the expansion draft after the Kivi situation. If that’s true, perhaps we returned the favor with the Bjorky trade if there wasn’t too much difference in trade compensation.

And maybe opted to send Bjorkstrand to a better situation for a slightly lesser package of picks.

 

[cbjthrowaway]

It's funny because Friedman heard from a team that was giving the Jackets a better offer, his interpretation was that the Jackets got upset that the negotations weren't straightforward or were taking too long.

key context here is that they proceeded with the seattle deal the day before laine's QO would expire. meaning that they presumably waited for that supposed 'better offer' as long as they could.

 

[majormajor]

key context here is that they proceeded with the seattle deal the day before laine's QO would expire. meaning that they presumably waited for that supposed 'better offer' as long as they could.

As long as they could would be waiting until the season starts. You can be 10% over the salary cap in the offseason.