Post-Trade Deadline Thread

[db2011]

I still wonder if there wasn't another deal that fell through, leaving Jarmo holding the bag. That's going to happen in the hectic craze that is deadline day. That's still on Jarmo, but he may have looked at it as a calculated risk to pull the trigger first on Gabby, figuring that, worse case scenario, the Jackets could still make the playoffs without Gaborik, but they aren't likely to win the Cup this year regardless of what happens with the other hypothetical deal.

That said, I'd take Gabby right now for what we got for him.

Yeah, maybe, but as you say that's still on Jarmo. What's more, I just don't see the sense in trading away a guy like Gabby when you're in the hunt for the playoffs. Especially considering his salary was not going to be a factor after the season. Just don't get it.

As to whether the Jackets are/would be cup contenders, to me you don't make decisions based on your assessment of probabilities in the playoffs. There are plenty of teams that have hoisted the cup who statistically "shouldn't have". Aside from being a world class talent, Gabby is a seasoned veteran who would be very valuable in the playoffs. Oh yeah, and he liked it here and wanted to stay.

It would not surprise me in the least if he turns out to be a beast for the Kings in the playoffs this year. That will be on Jarmo.

 

[pete goegan]

It would not surprise me in the least if he turns out to be a beast for the Kings in the playoffs this year. That will be on Jarmo.

It might also be, at least in part, on his being surrounded by the majority of a Cup winning roster.

 

[db2011]

It might also be, at least in part, on his being surrounded by the majority of a Cup winning roster.

eh, causation is not knowable. That Cup winning roster wasn't one until the year Carter was traded to L.A. (and, it needs to be acknowledged, JJ was sent away from there).

It occurs to me that in the past there has been a premium placed on determining who "won" and "lost" trades. That kind of thinking hasn't been as noticeable this year. Well to bring it back, we are primed to lose on this Gabby trade, and lose big.

 

[bizzz*]

It might also be, at least in part, on his being surrounded by the majority of a Cup winning roster.

That Cup winning roster has scored 20 goals less than than the lowly Jackets.

 

[pete goegan]

eh, causation is not knowable...

Yet all that's being talked about, here, is how the trade of Gabby and failure to replace him caused Arty to stop scoring and the power play to dry up. Maybe, but not necessarily. I was in favor of playing out the string with Gaborik, but it's too soon to judge that move and we may never know all the factors that went into the decision to trade him.

 

[db2011]

Yet all that's being talked about, here, is how the trade of Gabby and failure to replace him caused Arty to stop scoring and the power play to dry up. Maybe, but not necessarily. I was in favor of playing out the string with Gaborik, but it's too soon to judge that move and we may never know all the factors that went into the decision to trade him.

That is being talked about, but I don't think that's all that's being talked about. While I think it's a compelling part of the trade, the people who don't like the trade had me at: all we got was Frattin and a 2nd rounder, and we're eating a significant part of the salary. To me, the takeaway isn't the effect of the trade on Arty, it's the pitiful return on a guy who has already started putting up points for L.A. It's a seller's trade and there's no question about it.

I also don't think it's too soon to judge the move. It would be too soon to judge the move if Frattin was actually a prospect and not a known quantity, or if we'd gotten a first. But nobody expects Frattin to be a difference maker and if we get anything out of the draft pick then we got lucky.

I mean, there really just is not a thing to like about this deal. It is a disaster. JK must have thought he messed up in the original Gabby deal and felt he needed to save face. What a terrible way to go about managing a team.

 

[EspenK]

I mean, there really just is not a thing to like about this deal. It is a disaster. JK must have thought he messed up in the original Gabby deal and felt he needed to save face. What a terrible way to go about managing a team.

I agree the deal sucked and was far below expectations. I think, however, what is being overlooked by most (me included) is I think this was the best offer we got for Gabby, he wasn't scoring and no one else was going to offer more. If we stayed the course who knows? Maybe Gabby got hot, maybe Arty stayed hot, who knows? What we do know is we have a shot at another 2nd rounder in what is supposed to be a deep draft (assuming we opt for the pick in 2015) and maybe a third.

I don't think in any way, shape or form Jarmo realized he screwed up the Gabby deal and he panicked to save face. I think he realized it wasn't working and wouldn't in the future; he wasn't going to re-sign him and took what he could get.

 

[Xoggz22]

I find this thread more and more interesting given the fact that Gaborik did little for the CBJ while here aside from help keep the training staff busy. I've been a huge Gaborik fan and was excited when he was acquired. I was hoping we acquired the 40 goal scorer that would make an impact. Alas, we did not. We acquired what may be considered Ales Hemsky Part II. We don't know what would have happened had he stuck around.

Many of us have strong opinions on how this team should have been impacted on deadline day. I would loved to have seen a significant piece added but not someone that was going to walk at the end of the year. Come July 1st I would want that player to still be here or under our control. Personally, I tend to be a longer term thinker when decisions come and adding assets for a piece I considered a non-impact (my opinion only, i know others think he would have made an impact - fair enough. I respect that) was OK in my book.

Also, I've seen several mention "only a 2nd rd pick and Frattin" as the return. That is not correct. Not that it will make any of you down on the trade happier, but it was for 2 picks and Frattin and all Frattin did was make the numbers work (Kings needed to move a roster contract). The thought he was a target or a big part of the deal is ludicrous. It's a conditional 2nd rd pick(14 or 15 - King's choice) and a conditional 3rd (which according to what I can find hinges on re-signing Gaborik or achieving the 2nd round of the 2014 playoffs.).

What I would have liked to see if we were shuffling assets was could we have moved a 2nd and a pick for Vanek after the Gaborik deal. Collberg was a high 2nd rd pick in 2013 as I recall so it may have required moving someone like Jenner or maybe Dano or Rychel in the eyes of Montreal. Personally, I don't move any of them for a rental. Again, just my opinion but I'm didn't realize how polarizing this would be for some in the fan base.

Carry on....

 

[JacketFanInFL]

We sure should have kept both of them. As the playoff drive continues it seems like Gabby could have been an asset. But I've also started thinking about how nice it would be to have him in the lineup in playoff games, if the Jackets make it.

Man, just a bad, bad move.

He would be our leading scorer in March now. Sigh.

 

[BluejacketNut]

If we werent in a race for the playoffs then 2 picks was fine for Gaborik, but we are in the race and JK didnt get anything to help us out. And the fact that we had to pick up any of the salary is pathetic, at that point we should have kept him. We were better with him, then without him, he at least gave us another person for the team to worry about. Subtracting him moved everyone up a level in terms of defensive assignments for the other team.

 

[Fro]

If we werent in a race for the playoffs then 2 picks was fine for Gaborik, but we are in the race and JK didnt get anything to help us out. And the fact that we had to pick up any of the salary is pathetic, at that point we should have kept him. We were better with him, then without him, he at least gave us another person for the team to worry about. Subtracting him moved everyone up a level in terms of defensive assignments for the other team.

this was the key for me...trade Gaby, fine...just go get us something that will help down the stretch...

 

[Nordique]

Yeah, maybe, but as you say that's still on Jarmo. What's more, I just don't see the sense in trading away a guy like Gabby when you're in the hunt for the playoffs. Especially considering his salary was not going to be a factor after the season. Just don't get it.

As to whether the Jackets are/would be cup contenders, to me you don't make decisions based on your assessment of probabilities in the playoffs. There are plenty of teams that have hoisted the cup who statistically "shouldn't have". Aside from being a world class talent, Gabby is a seasoned veteran who would be very valuable in the playoffs. Oh yeah, and he liked it here and wanted to stay.

It would not surprise me in the least if he turns out to be a beast for the Kings in the playoffs this year. That will be on Jarmo.

We acted like sellers, and got very little in return.

 

[EspenK]

I find this thread more and more interesting given the fact that Gaborik did little for the CBJ while here aside from help keep the training staff busy. I've been a huge Gaborik fan and was excited when he was acquired. I was hoping we acquired the 40 goal scorer that would make an impact. Alas, we did not. We acquired what may be considered Ales Hemsky Part II. We don't know what would have happened had he stuck around.

Many of us have strong opinions on how this team should have been impacted on deadline day. I would loved to have seen a significant piece added but not someone that was going to walk at the end of the year. Come July 1st I would want that player to still be here or under our control. Personally, I tend to be a longer term thinker when decisions come and adding assets for a piece I considered a non-impact (my opinion only, i know others think he would have made an impact - fair enough. I respect that) was OK in my book.

Also, I've seen several mention "only a 2nd rd pick and Frattin" as the return. That is not correct. Not that it will make any of you down on the trade happier, but it was for 2 picks and Frattin and all Frattin did was make the numbers work (Kings needed to move a roster contract). The thought he was a target or a big part of the deal is ludicrous. It's a conditional 2nd rd pick (14 or 15 - King's choice) and a conditional 3rd (which according to what I can find hinges on re-signing Gaborik or achieving the 2nd round of the 2014 playoffs.).

What I would have liked to see if we were shuffling assets was could we have moved a 2nd and a pick for Vanek after the Gaborik deal. Collberg was a high 2nd rd pick in 2013 as I recall so it may have required moving someone like Jenner or maybe Dano or Rychel in the eyes of Montreal. Personally, I don't move any of them for a rental. Again, just my opinion but I'm didn't realize how polarizing this would be for some in the fan base.

Carry on....

That sucks about its being Kings' choice. I thought it was ours. This deal is worse by the minute although if that was all we could get I guess it is still better long term than letting him walk for nothing at FA time.

 

[blahblah]

How does and injury correlate to the trade deadline in the slightest? Injuries happen but you can't plan on them.

We traded away a top six forward and didn't get anything in return; knowing that Horton wasn't playing all that well. They probably knew he wasn't 100%.

Seems obvious to me we should have gotten a top six forward.

 

[blahblah]

That sucks about its being Kings' choice. I thought it was ours. This deal is worse by the minute although if that was all we could get I guess it is still better long term than letting him walk for nothing at FA time.

Was it? Really? Could we have let him play out the season and traded is rights before the draft? Was the return that great in which we couldn't have rolled the dice a bit? Worst case; he gets injured again or just flat our sucks. Best case; he helps us and his value increases to the point his rights are in demand (assuming we still didn't want to keep him).

I guess there is something to be said for missing the playoffs (losing him didn't improve our team) and getting a lottery pick I guess or a slight draft improvement by only being a wildcard instead of a top 3 in the division.

 

[EspenK]

Was it? Really? Could we have let him play out the season and traded is rights before the draft? Was the return that great in which we couldn't have rolled the dice a bit? Worst case; he gets injured again or just flat our sucks. Best case; he helps us and his value increases to the point his rights are in demand (assuming we still didn't want to keep him).

I guess there is something to be said for missing the playoffs (losing him didn't improve our team) and getting a lottery pick I guess or a slight draft improvement by only being a wildcard instead of a top 3 in the division.

If I was the GM, I wouldn't have made the deal. I would have followed your strategy. Maybe they had soured on him enough that he wasn't going to play anyway thereby negating the benefit if keeping him. Who knows. My point was at least we got something, albeit not much.

 

[Kev22]

We traded away a top six forward and didn't get anything in return; knowing that Horton wasn't playing all that well. They probably knew he wasn't 100%.

Seems obvious to me we should have gotten a top six forward.

Actually we did get something in return, just nothing to help us immediately (semantics).

Also, I too would have loved to see a top six forward, but who's to say Jarmo didn't have something else brewing, it just didn't pan out. They said all along that they weren't going after rentals. Most of who was available were rentals (Moulson, Vanek and Cammalleri). At least he stuck to his plan. What if he would have strayed from the plan and got a rental, and traded a piece that he didn't want to, I'm not sure how that would've gone over in the room.

 

[blahblah]

Actually we did get something in return, just nothing to help us immediately (semantics).

Since the point of the deadline deal, when you aren't sellers, is to improve your team for that season it's not really an issue of semantics.

If he tried and failed; he still failed.

 

[Crede777]

Since the point of the deadline deal, when you aren't sellers, is to improve your team for that season it's not really an issue of semantics.

If he tried and failed; he still failed.

Agreed.

Further, I don't put as much stock into 2nd or 3rd rounders as many on here seem to do. Yeah we have gotten Jenner with one, but that doesn't take into account the Petr Strakas and Dalton Smiths of the world. I also found it funny when someone mentioned Bjorkstrand and Dansk as if they were already proven NHL'ers.

Heck, I'd trade our own 2nd round and 3rd round picks this year just for a slightly better chance at making the playoffs right now. Most teams that are in playoff contention would.

 

[ca5150]

Actually we did get something in return, just nothing to help us immediately (semantics).

Also, I too would have loved to see a top six forward, but who's to say Jarmo didn't have something else brewing, it just didn't pan out. They said all along that they weren't going after rentals. Most of who was available were rentals (Moulson, Vanek and Cammalleri). At least he stuck to his plan. What if he would have strayed from the plan and got a rental, and traded a piece that he didn't want to, I'm not sure how that would've gone over in the room.

I agree. I'm OK with how Jarmo handled the deadline, we got a second rounder for a guy we weren't, and shouldn't, going to resign. That's going to turn into a solid player possibly in a few years, see Boone. We need to rebuild our defense, not keep trying to get forwards that don't pan out. Now we have some cash to sign a D or 2. And we need spots for incoming players, Wennberg, Rychel, Dano, Skille. A couple of them could be here next year!

 

[blahblah]

If I was the GM, I wouldn't have made the deal. I would have followed your strategy. Maybe they had soured on him enough that he wasn't going to play anyway thereby negating the benefit if keeping him. Who knows. My point was at least we got something, albeit not much.

Yeah, I was just commenting on the who "I guess it is still better" part. Not the whole "we got something" part.

Those picks can be used or flipped in another deal; hopefully the latter. So they are definitely "something"; even if that is kind of minimal in my mind.

 

[Iron Balls McGinty]

We traded away a top six forward and didn't get anything in return; knowing that Horton wasn't playing all that well. They probably knew he wasn't 100%.

Seems obvious to me we should have gotten a top six forward.

But is it worth giving up a ton for such a player to simply make the playoffs. The Blues made the playoffs 1 time in JD's 1st 4 years there before becoming they powerhouse of home grown talent they are now. The year they made the playoffs, there was no blockbuster talent acquisition that paved the way for them to make it.

Do you sacrifice bricks right now to make the playoffs that could hinder you 4 years down the road?

I think the team does need to make the playoffs but I also think Gaborik leaving is addition via subtraction. He didn't help the team get to where they were.

Its also debatable Horton has helped the team get to where they are. he has 4 goals, has taken a ton of bad penalties, and has been dry for a few weeks now.

The core of the players have gotten this team to the position they are in. Let Horton sit because he's injured and let the rest of the team dance with who brought them and revisit other trade options after the season.

 

[blahblah]

But is it worth giving up a ton for such a player to simply make the playoffs.

Looking over this years deadline deals; a "ton" doesn't exactly come to mind. We could have flipped the picks we received from the Kings as well; making it almost a wash.

Hemsky went for a 3rd and 5th; as an example. While the Sens have faded, it's certainly not because of Hemsky and his 11 points in 12 games.

There were other top six forward rentals that went for reasonable prices as well. For the most part all of the did. A couple a bit different because of circumstances.

 

[Iron Balls McGinty]

Looking over this years deadline deals; a "ton" doesn't exactly come to mind. We could have flipped the picks we received from the Kings as well; making it almost a wash.

Hemsky went for a 3rd and 5th; as an example. While the Sens have faded, it's certainly not because of Hemsky and his 11 points in 12 games.

There were other top six forward rentals that went for reasonable prices as well. For the most part all of the did. A couple a bit different because of circumstances.

And maybe they could have scored one of those people but Gaborik had to go first to clear cap room and then they also had a dilemma of a D shortage at that moment that also needed to be addressed.

Maybe Jarmo sat on Gaborik too long waiting for a better deal to come along and ran out of time. As pointed out, there is no guarantee any of those additions would have help the team either. This team has a very specific make up and not just anybody will play they style they have been playing.

Regardless, I don't think Horton's injury after the fact has any impact on how the trade deadline went down,

 

[blahblah]

Regardless, I don't think Horton's injury after the fact has any impact on how the trade deadline went down,

There is no direct correlation. Not sure why you think there would be. It's simple; we lost depth in the top six (top line actually). We didn't replace it. We have been paying or it and it becomes more obvious by one injury at forward. This is what happens during the playoff push; the intensity goes up. We're not able to generate offense like we were in the middle of the year.

You are talking of "guarantees". There are none. It's one thing to make the move and not work out. Subtracting from the room with a team firmly in a playoff position when the rest of teams around you add to the room is a mistake. As I said a week or two ago. What would this team have looked like with Cammalleri?

Teams around us addressed holes and needs (where is Washington without their goaltending move?

We can make excuses all day long for the front office; they didn't play this well. This isn't 20/20 on my part; I was critical from the start. We relied too much on Horton being able to pick up the slack and we didn't have an answer if he wasn't able to.