Confirmed with Link: Nathan Horton to Toronto for David Clarkson

[Viqsi]

Given the revelation about the insurance issue, I understand the trade. Not crazy about it, but I understand it. I think Clarkson does fit well here, but have major doubts about him justifying his price tag. I hope he arrives with a chip on his shoulder and I hope that chip is massive.

The unforgivable to me is the insurance situation. Even if the CBJ couldn't get insurance for Horton's shoulder (which, if I'm understanding it right, seems to be the issue), he'd always been an injury-prone player, had a concussion history and was signed to a seven-year deal.
Insurance of some sort seems prudent, right?

For that matter, wouldn't/shouldn't all contracts be insured to some degree? Tough sport, injuries happen. I would have thought insurance was standard operating procedure.
I don't know what I don't know, but I know I'm perplexed at what seems to be an really foolish decision by the front office.

This is about where I've been.

That said, I seem to recall reading somewhere that insurance generally is year-to-year and can be added after the fact. If that really is the case (I haven't been able to confirm), then it makes sense. Said insurance would have been utterly valueless in the first year because of that existing injury, so presumably JK was going to go after that starting in the second year. Which would have been a prudent move - bit of a minor potential gamble, but probably more or less safe since really the only thing that could screw it up would be something crazy and rare - like, oh, a career-ending injury in the offseason. I mean, c'mon, how often does something like that happen, right? You'd have to be remarkably unlucky for that to happen, especially after the doctor's checkup revealed no other issues, right? Right?

...whoops.

In hindsight, it would have been better to bite the bullet on the insurance in the first year. Hedge the bet, basically. But hindsight is 20/20, after all. I hate to say it (I want to DESPISE this deal), but it seems like skipping the first year and starting in the second would have been the right call. But of course it backfired in the worst way possible, because Blue Jackets.

Still not happy with the setup, but I'm not exactly calling for his firing. Yet.

and seriously, the hockey gods owe us like a metric ****ton of positive karma or something because SERIOUSLY WHAT THE ****ING HELL GUYS

 

[alphafox]

My biggest gripe/issue/complaint is that we put ourselves in the position of not having insurance. Imagine had we not been able to make this move.... Not the brightest collection of ideas by the FO...

While I agree that the failure to insure is a mistake, it isn't entirely the teams fault. Due to the way insurance works in the league the team made the "intelligent" short term decision to save money and insure Horton the next season, however by then his back was toast and the organization was screwed. It was really just bad luck, IMO.

Per dispatch:

"Horton arrived with a pre-existing condition -- a chronically separated shoulder -- that could not be covered by insurance, and they knew Horton would miss more than half a season as he rehabilitated following surgery.
The club opted not to buy insurance for the rest of Horton's body and appendages because it would have been impossible for any other illness or injury to cost him half a season. The shoulder had already put him over the threshold.
Then, last summer, when it came time to insure Horton's contract, his back had deteriorated so badly that the Blue Jackets couldn't insure his contract."

 

[alphafox]

This is about where I've been.

That said, I seem to recall reading somewhere that insurance generally is year-to-year and can be added after the fact. If that really is the case (I haven't been able to confirm), then it makes sense. Said insurance would have been utterly valueless in the first year because of that existing injury, so presumably JK was going to go after that starting in the second year. Which would have been a prudent move - bit of a minor potential gamble, but probably more or less safe since really the only thing that could screw it up would be something crazy and rare - like, oh, a career-ending injury in the offseason. I mean, c'mon, how often does something like that happen, right? You'd have to be remarkably unlucky for that to happen, especially after the doctor's checkup revealed no other issues, right? Right?

...whoops.

In hindsight, it would have been better to bite the bullet on the insurance in the first year. Hedge the bet, basically. But hindsight is 20/20, after all. I hate to say it (I want to DESPISE this deal), but it seems like skipping the first year and starting in the second would have been the right call. But of course it backfired in the worst way possible, because Blue Jackets.

Still not happy with the setup, but I'm not exactly calling for his firing. Yet.

and seriously, the hockey gods owe us like a metric ****ton of positive karma or something because SERIOUSLY WHAT THE ****ING HELL GUYS

Exactly, especially the last part. As irrational as it is I'm going to be angry if we don't win the lottery given the year we have had to deal with.

 

[MAHJ71]

While I agree that the failure to insure is a mistake, it isn't entirely the teams fault. Due to the way insurance works in the league the team made the "intelligent" short term decision to save money and insure Horton the next season, however by then his back was toast and the organization was screwed. It was really just bad luck, IMO.

Per dispatch:

"Horton arrived with a pre-existing condition -- a chronically separated shoulder -- that could not be covered by insurance, and they knew Horton would miss more than half a season as he rehabilitated following surgery.
The club opted not to buy insurance for the rest of Horton's body and appendages because it would have been impossible for any other illness or injury to cost him half a season. The shoulder had already put him over the threshold.
Then, last summer, when it came time to insure Horton's contract, his back had deteriorated so badly that the Blue Jackets couldn't insure his contract."

Fair enough, I get it. I guess for me it just doesn't really matter whether it's completely the FO fault or only partially lol - I'm still very "meh" that they took that type of gamble.

 

[JacketsDavid]

The longer I think about this the more ticked I get:

1. The CBJ chose not to insure the contract - I get not insuring league minimum contracts, but your biggest FA contract ever? If you're not going to insure your $5.4M home and it burns down, then don't cry about how you couldn't afford to make the house payment on the burned piece of land.

2. Then in typical CBJ fashion they trade a bad contract for a worse one (it's not about salary cap hit, it's about the $7M per year we have to pay him). So we'll have a guy making $7M on our third line (maybe even 4th)?

I know Davidson and Jarmo are a step above the original clown show we had here in Columbus (Doug's PEI Mafia) but the bad moves just keep coming.

 

[We Want Ten]

While I agree that the failure to insure is a mistake, it isn't entirely the teams fault. Due to the way insurance works in the league the team made the "intelligent" short term decision to save money and insure Horton the next season, however by then his back was toast and the organization was screwed. It was really just bad luck, IMO.

Per dispatch:

"Horton arrived with a pre-existing condition -- a chronically separated shoulder -- that could not be covered by insurance, and they knew Horton would miss more than half a season as he rehabilitated following surgery.
The club opted not to buy insurance for the rest of Horton's body and appendages because it would have been impossible for any other illness or injury to cost him half a season. The shoulder had already put him over the threshold.
Then, last summer, when it came time to insure Horton's contract, his back had deteriorated so badly that the Blue Jackets couldn't insure his contract."

37 million reason to cover your ass would seem to be at the top of a to-do list, instead saving on an insurance policy was more important.

The guy arrived here with a pre existing condition and they couldn't get insurance to cover it so they elected to go with no coverage for the rest of him? LOL. At no point the idea of him maybe hurting something else and repeating the cycle occurred to anybody with a brain in the FO?

This reeks of the FO covering their ***** for dropping the ball badly.

 

[CBJWerenski8]

This reeks of the FO covering their ***** for dropping the ball badly.

That's because it is. Watch Jarmo's presser. Not once did he mention Clarkson being a trade target for the Jackets. He starts it off by saying "this trade was all about financials for us."

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

and seriously, the hockey gods owe us like a metric ****ton of positive karma or something because SERIOUSLY WHAT THE ****ING HELL GUYS

I'll say it again -- McConnell needs to hold a press conference and admit the name and whole Civil War theme is a lie. Apologize to Blue Jacket. Curse lifted.

 

[CBJWerenski8]

NHL Blue Jackets ‏@BlueJacketsNHL 19s20 seconds ago

UPDATE: Newly-acquired #CBJ F David Clarkson will wear No. 18.

There, you guys have your new Umberger.

 

[Fro]

NHL Blue Jackets ‏@BlueJacketsNHL 40s40 seconds ago
UPDATE: Newly-acquired #CBJ F David Clarkson will wear No. 18.

*JINX*

 

[We Want Ten]

NHL Blue Jackets ‏@BlueJacketsNHL 19s20 seconds ago

UPDATE: Newly-acquired #CBJ F David Clarkson will wear No. 18.

There, you guys have your new Umberger.

The hockey gods are really kicking us now...

 

[Tony Quinn]

Yes, anything coming out of CBJ headquarters at this point is just spin and trying to cover their collective butts. The reasoning of 41 games and no other injury being able to cause him to miss half a season is somewhat insulting to any reasonably thinking person.

Guys getting injured in the off season is not some new occurrence. Look at the NBA's Paul George last off season. Also, once he put the skates on for a regular season game last year, the long term injury risk increased to the point where his contract should have been insured.

It was really an un-excusable blunder by the front office.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

37 million reason to cover your ass would seem to be at the top of a to-do list, instead saving on an insurance policy was more important.

The guy arrived here with a pre existing condition and they couldn't get insurance to cover it so they elected to go with no coverage for the rest of him? LOL. At no point the idea of him maybe hurting something else and repeating the cycle occurred to anybody with a brain in the FO?

I just can't shake this feeling too. This isn't a hindsight/act of god/flukey/bad luck/poor Blue Jackets thing to me.

This is just common sense -- you make a major investment, you insure it (or in this case, you insure what you can).
We all do this in our everyday life.
Again, I would have thought there would be insurance on ALL contracts even regardless of injury histories, but I guess that isn't the case.

 

[BluejacketNut]

What sucks even more is that the idiots who made these decisions have a chance to screw things up even worse on Monday

 

[Orfieus]

The longer I think about this the more ticked I get:

1. The CBJ chose not to insure the contract - I get not insuring league minimum contracts, but your biggest FA contract ever? If you're not going to insure your $5.4M home and it burns down, then don't cry about how you couldn't afford to make the house payment on the burned piece of land.

2. Then in typical CBJ fashion they trade a bad contract for a worse one (it's not about salary cap hit, it's about the $7M per year we have to pay him). So we'll have a guy making $7M on our third line (maybe even 4th)?

I know Davidson and Jarmo are a step above the original clown show we had here in Columbus (Doug's PEI Mafia) but the bad moves just keep coming.

1) It was really, really bad luck.

2) I've explained how Columbus wins this trade, hands down. http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1843401

 

[BluejacketNut]

I just can't shake this feeling too. This isn't a hindsight/act of god/flukey/bad luck/poor Blue Jackets thing to me.

This is just common sense -- you make a major investment, you insure it (or in this case, what you insure what you can).
We all do this in our everyday life.
Again, I would have thought there would be insurance on ALL contracts even regardless of injury histories, but I guess that isn't the case.

This is like buying a $100k car thats a salvage and then not buying a warranty. You would think no body is that stupid.....

 

[Tony Quinn]

1) It was really, really bad luck.

2) I've explained how Columbus wins this trade, hands down. http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1843401

I agree they made the best of a bad situation but it's their own doing. I wouldn't call it a win, hands down. Unless you think buying a $80000 Porsche and driving around in a Ford Focus all the time because you Porsche was in the shop for 5 years is a good deal.

Or worse, you bought the Porsche but didn't spring for the insurance, totaled it, and are now paying for it while driving the Focus.

 

[Stretch Factor]

2 questions for the board-

1. I'm trying to find the actual money (salary and bonuses) owed to Clarkson year by year. How much has already been paid to him in salary and bonuses? I looked at spotrac.com, but I'm not sure it's accurate since I read that Clarkson got a pile of money up front in signing bonuses.

2. On the insurance issue, I don't know enough about the specifics of NHL insurance. How much does it cost, what does it cover, how many players can you cover, when does it need to be purchased, do any of our other players have insurance, etc. I suspect we're not going to find many of those answers. The BIG question I have is when did we find out Horton had a degenerative back issue, in addition to groin issues, in addition to a chronic shoulder.

How in the world did we not know about those things prior to signing him long term?

 

[PlietscherDassel]

I think Clarkson will do well with you guys. His contract is ugly but he is not as useless as some other Leafs fans say. The main reason why it didn't work out for him in Toronto was too much pressure because of insane expectations (the media compared him to Wendel Clark at some point). Just let him do his thing and he will be decent top 9 froward plus he is a good person off the ice.

 

[CBJSlash]

I'll reserve judgement until I see Clarkson play for a month or so, but even factoring in insurance, is Clarkson literally the only player in the league we could have made a play for?

Mike Richards? Vinny Lecavalier? RJ Umberger? Bryan Bickell?

The length of term on Clarkson makes this a trainwreck. There are more than a handful of teams that would pay for 5 million for 5 million of cap space. Even packaging a quality asset with Horton for someone not so awful would have been better in my book.

If he can regain some form and pot 15+ goals a year and be a glorified Blake Comeau, I'll be more okay with it, but he is one of the dumbest, no sense hockey players in the league. When we talk constantly about upping our thinking, this is about as far the other direction you can go.

 

[CapnCornelius]

I just can't shake this feeling too. This isn't a hindsight/act of god/flukey/bad luck/poor Blue Jackets thing to me.

This is just common sense -- you make a major investment, you insure it (or in this case, you insure what you can).
We all do this in our everyday life.
Again, I would have thought there would be insurance on ALL contracts even regardless of injury histories, but I guess that isn't the case.

Go back and look at my comments concurrent with the acquisition. This is not about hindsight. The only way the deal made sense to me is if we insured Horton to the extent possible. Again, Horton's situation was comparable to Brian Berard's in this respect and I remembered well how Doug insured Berard and ultimately collected when he had a problem not related to his previously existing eye. Yes, you still take a risk on the shoulder at that time if you insure Horton. But the guy had other bangs and scrapes at that point from his style of play. If you can't or don't want to insure him, you simply cannot make the deal we made with him as a small market team. Its not worth the risk. Either you get the insurance to preserve the right to have it in future years or you don't sign Horton, its that simple.

And, why take that risk given where we thought we were at that point? The team was in the midst of a rebuild. The last thing to do when you are allegedly playing the long game is to sign a huge contract with this much risk attached to it especially if you don't think you are a cap team but are on a tight budget.

The ultimate irony is that Clarkson was signed around the same time and I felt like we dodged a bullet in getting a presumably insured Horton over Clarkson and his contract. We managed to start with an uninsured Horton and get the overpaid Clarkson.

Right now we have what amounts to a press release from the Jackets about what happened. It would be nice if someone would bother to ask the most important question--who made the ultimate decision not to insure Horton?

 

[CBJSlash]

This isn't making the best of a bad situation. It is taking the second worst option in a bad situation.

 

[CBJWerenski8]

http://espn.go.com/blog/nhl/post/_/id/34837/senators-had-talks-with-leafs-about-obtaining-clarkson

Ottawa wanted Clarkson

 

[Johansen2Foligno]

http://espn.go.com/blog/nhl/post/_/id/34837/senators-had-talks-with-leafs-about-obtaining-clarkson

Ottawa wanted Clarkson

Really rooting for him to get back into past form.

 

[JacketsDavid]

1) It was really, really bad luck.

2) I've explained how Columbus wins this trade, hands down. http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1843401

Bad luck is what happens to a person, not to a $5.4M/year investment. That is stupidity or negligence.

No matter how you spin it a guy making $5.4-7M per year playing on a 3rd/4th line is not a winning situation. You can argue that's it's making a **** sandwich out a pile of **** but it's not a good situation.