Proposal: New Jersey - Columbus

[ghdi]

Devils need a defensemen who could put up points, why would they move assets for a forward.

Because Boone Jenner is a stud and arguably becomes the 2nd most talented forward in the organization from day one. Thats our first line center for the foreseeable future. Clarkson doesn't even matter in this deal other than the contract which completely sucks but the positive gain of Jenner outweighs it completely. Shero would have to get really creative in trying to get out from under it, but with the cap room it gives us time. The more immediate issue is the fact he'd have to be protected in the ED.

It would be extremely enticing to do this. Hall and Jenner on the first PP unit, thats ridiculous. Having Hall, Jenner, Palmieri, Zacha, and Henrique all under 26. That's not even counting what McLeod and/or Quenneville may be. It also creates more possibilities for trading for defense since our 1st in 2017 definitely becomes more expendable.

We're likely not getting a "defenseman who can put up points" for any of the pieces going back to Columbus in this deal. Or at least not one with merit or without adding significantly. The 2nd would be tougher to swallow than either of the players.

Boucher and Blandisi are easily given up if getting Jenner back.

Total pipedream, but yea, this would almost have to be done.

 

[cslebn]

Because Boone Jenner is a stud and arguably becomes the 2nd most talented forward in the organization from day one. Thats our first line center for the foreseeable future. Clarkson doesn't even matter in this deal other than the contract which completely sucks but the positive gain of Jenner outweighs it completely. Shero would have to get really creative in trying to get out from under it, but with the cap room it gives us time. The more immediate issue is the fact he'd have to be protected in the ED.

It would be extremely enticing to do this. Hall and Jenner on the first PP unit, thats ridiculous. Having Hall, Jenner, Palmieri, Zacha, and Henrique all under 26. That's not even counting what McLeod and/or Quenneville may be. It also creates more possibilities for trading for defense since our 1st in 2017 definitely becomes more expendable.

We're likely not getting a "defenseman who can put up points" for any of the pieces going back to Columbus in this deal. Or at least not one with merit or without adding significantly. The 2nd would be tougher to swallow than either of the players.

Boucher and Blandisi are easily given up if getting Jenner back.

Total pipedream, but yea, this would almost have to be done.

Jenner is not a future 1C. I doubt any CBJ fan will say that.

However, D with the potential for points if used appropriately - maybe we could work something out around Johnson.

 

[One Winged Angel]

How does this always become a thing? It's combined the most pointless and condescending comment in discussions such as this.

No, Jackets fans don't "enjoy having Clarkson". But we do know that in keeping him at this point, the worst-case scenario is still better than whatever would have to be done to move him. While at the same time you eliminate possible better-case scenarios. The Clarkson situation is not new to CBJ fans. Why do people assume it is?

As a Ranger fan, I deal with the same comments about Staal and Girardi. Don't let it get to you.

 

[Eric Sachs]

Bit of a difference between Hossa and Clarkson. Hossa almost played triple the games last season. Clarkson, since becoming a Blue Jacket, has only played in 26 games (possible 104).

That said, I agree about the fighting LTIR. Clarkson still seems to have the bug unlike someone like Pronger or Horton (who stepped away from their teams while injured); he's stuck with the team and tried to remain as active as possible.

I never meant to compare Hossa and Clarkson, just the idea that LTIR is an easy solution. Like you said, the biggest obstacle is the player's willingness to keep trying.

Can't play hockey due to a back injury

=

Seriously injured.



Again, if his back hasn't improved any...And he still can't play (which is assumed, not reported, so this could all be moot) that's still just a "back problem"? The Columbus Dispatch is doing a write-up on Clarkson tomorrow, and we should know more about his future then..But as of now he is a very likely candidate for LTIR...whether you disagree with or not.

The issue isn't really whether he'd qualify for LTIR currently.. because he would if he has a back injury that means he can't play.. but whether he'd be able to be a permanent LTIR player like Pronger, Horton, et al. That's not really something ANYONE can assess at this time so I'm not sure it should be assumed one way or another.

If Clarkson is able and willing to even play 1 second of NHL time down the line, he doesn't fit the LTIR exception. He doesn't need to play a full game, season or shift.. so it's hard to tell who qualifies for permanent LTIR until it actually happens. Very well could happen but banking on it or assuming it will happen is probably a foolish move here.

Again, the key being that once the player gives up, permanent LTIR becomes a bona fide option. Until then, they can come off LTIR at any moment. If Horton wanted to try and still play, he may be able to qualify to be taken off LTIR as per a physician's assessment.. but that's not happening because he no longer wants to play hockey, so he can permanently take his place on the LTIR. Right now, doesn't sound like Clarkson fits that criteria.

Here's the actual clause if anyone is interested.

(d) Bona-Fide Long-Term Injury/Illness Exception to the Upper Limit. In the event that a Player on a Club becomes unfit to play (i.e., is injured, ill or disabled and unable to perform his duties as a hockey Player) such that the Club's physician believes, in his or her opinion, that the Player, owing to either an injury or an illness, will be unfit to play for at least (i) twenty-four (24) calendar days and (ii) ten (10) NHL Regular Season games, and such Club desires to replace such Player, the Club may add an additional Player or Players to its Active Roster, and the replacement Player Salary and Bonuses of such additional Player(s) may increase the Club's Averaged Club Salary to an amount up to and exceeding the Upper Limit, solely as, and to the extent and for the duration, set forth below. If, however, the League wishes to challenge the determination of a Club physician that a Player is unfit to play for purposes of the Bona-Fide Long-Term Injury/Illness Exception, the League and the NHLPA shall promptly confer and jointly select a neutral physician, who shall review the Club physician's determination regarding the Player's fitness to play.

 

[Crede777]

do Columbus owners have a budget? How wealthy are they

Currently there is no internal budget. There are just two requests. First, the team needs to try to be competitive (they might impose an internal budget if the team decides to rebuild), and second that the players they're paying for actually pay. So, since Horton wasn't insured, the owners didn't want to pay him to not play. So they traded him for Clarkson. If Clarkson were to hypothetically go on LTIR, the owners would be OK with it because his contract is insured.

As for LTIR, yes it would be an issue if Clarkson kept insisting he could play. But the Jackets aren't fabricating his issues just to have an easy out.

Further, even if he wasn't on permanent LTIR, there is still a good chance he is NOT healthy enough to play in 30 or more games this season... which means he will be exempt from the Expansion Draft.

 

[major major]

Currently there is no internal budget. There are just two requests. First, the team needs to try to be competitive (they might impose an internal budget if the team decides to rebuild), and second that the players they're paying for actually pay. So, since Horton wasn't insured, the owners didn't want to pay him to not play. So they traded him for Clarkson. If Clarkson were to hypothetically go on LTIR, the owners would be OK with it because his contract is insured.

Do we have this from the owners, or is it just something off-handed that Jarmo said? I'm not sure if this is a real principle or not - I mean everyone wants what they pay for to do something (it's called loss aversion ).

 

[Crede777]

Do we have this from the owners, or is it just something off-handed that Jarmo said? I'm not sure if this is a real principle or not - I mean everyone wants what they pay for to do something (it's called loss aversion ).

The quote from the Puck Rakers trade article is from Jarmo, who said the trade was financial considerations, that the owner would be the one paying Horton to not play.

Additionally, it is often mentioned in regards to buy outs, that there is a general mandate against paying players not to play.

 

[VoidCreature]

dude

what

Is it such an inaccurate thing to say? They had almost the same statline this year, and Jenner was on the team with the better offense. He's 2 years younger, true, but that doesn't make it a certainty he'll improve.

If there's something I'm missing feel free to let me know. But Boucher is a 40 point, 20 goal guy going forward, and Blandisi has a lot of upside. Add in Clarkson's contract and I don't see a reason to do it.

What am I missing?

 

[major major]

The quote from the Puck Rakers trade article is from Jarmo, who said the trade was financial considerations, that the owner would be the one paying Horton to not play.

Additionally, it is often mentioned in regards to buy outs, that there is a general mandate against paying players not to play.

It seems to me to be something that people don't like, but not a general mandate. The Blue Jackets have paid many players to not play.

 

[major major]

Is it such an inaccurate thing to say? They had almost the same statline this year, and Jenner was on the team with the better offense. He's 2 years younger, true, but that doesn't make it a certainty he'll improve.
.

Not speaking about any trade proposal, but just the Henrique = Jenner comparison:

I think that's a legit comparison - similar statline, with Jenner being the dominant physical player and Henrique the better playmaking pivot. I could see teams picking between them based on team need.

FYI, Jenner is actually 3 and half years younger, so though not certain, he has a much better chance of improving than Henrique, and will be more than a million cheaper.

 

[cslebn]

Further, even if he wasn't on permanent LTIR, there is still a good chance he is NOT healthy enough to play in 30 or more games this season... which means he will be exempt from the Expansion Draft.

That's a really good catch and very interesting but is that right?

I see

Players with potential career-ending injuries who have missed more than the previous 60 consecutive games (or who otherwise have been confirmed to have a career-threatening injury) may not be used to satisfy a club's player exposure requirements, unless approval is received from the NHL. Such players also may be deemed exempt from selection by the League.

The other requirement is just an exposure. So we would need to expose 2 other forwards and then could still expose Clarkson if he is not ruled out by the above

 

[Zajacs Bowl Cut]

What am I missing?

you're overrating the hell out of Boucher and Blandisi is what you're missing

 

[WhiskeyYerTheDevils]

you're overrating the hell out of Boucher and Blandisi is what you're missing

I don't think he is. Boucher is proving to be a fine top 6 winger. I could definitely see him going 20+20 over a full season, maybe even more - he was pacing for around that last year and was pacing at a 46 goal pace in the AHL. He's an excellent goal scorer. Giving up him and Blandisi (who has shown promise) and a 2nd? I wouldn't do that for Jenner by himself, let alone for Jenner + Clarkson's awful contract.

 

[Zajacs Bowl Cut]

I don't think he is. Boucher is proving to be a fine top 6 winger. I could definitely see him going 20+20 over a full season, maybe even more - he was pacing for around that last year and was pacing at a 46 goal pace in the AHL. He's an excellent goal scorer. Giving up him and Blandisi (who has shown promise) and a 2nd? I wouldn't do that for Jenner by himself, let alone for Jenner + Clarkson's awful contract.

Boucher has 27 career points, he hasn't proven a darn thing yet. Is he on the upswing? sure, but still.

of course you'd give that up for Jenner, because we are ripping Columbus off in that deal

 

[goonybird]

Columbus is a division rival now, and I'd be elated to make that boucher blandisi trade. There should always be a tinge of sadness when a trade goes through, for it to be considered somewhat 'fair'

 

[Xoggz22]

'So clueless' yet you folks think a 'back problem' gets you on LTIR longer than a few months

Bryce Salvador being put on LTIR was a problem and the guy was never going to return. Yet folks think Clarkson easily hits LTIR for something that just came about last year and has had almost a year to recover from.

Get real - Columbus isnt getting off of his cap that easy

Nathan Horton says hello. Unless you've seen his medical records I don't think you can offer an opinion on what is or isn't LTIR worthy.