Ryan Johansen II (contract etc)

[Sore Loser]

The Achilles injury was in 1993-94 though, and he wasn't traded until early 1996. At the time of the trade, Selanne had 72 points in 51 games and had pretty solidly refuted the idea that he'd lost a step (although he had looked slower in 1994-95).

I think it was just a case of what you'll find too often in poor management situations. Rather than focus on what a young player can do, they tend to focus on what a young player can't do. Selanne couldn't do what Zhamnov could (win faceoffs and anchor the center of a line) or what Tkachuk could (drive to the net, hit everything that moved, and fight). Of course, his offensive talent vastly exceeded theirs, but the league was shifting toward this neo-Lindros type of mindset, which (to a fool) would deflate Selanne's value and inflate Kilger's.

To me, this has been the biggest difference in Columbus since MacLean was canned. A guy like Geoff Sanderson wasn't going to play shutdown defense, he wasn't going to go crashing into the corners, and he could be shut down in physical games. So he got shipped out for hot garbage: Jason Chimera (who had similar skills to Sanderson and nowhere near the mind to actually use them) and Mike Rupp (huge, physical, and the same limitations as Chimera). Deals like that really haven't happened since.

Reasons like this argument are why four line teams are so important to success in today's NHL. Every guy has to buy in and understand their role. You can have a Geoff Sanderson (or perhaps a Marian Gaborik) if there are guys in the lineup that can fill in the areas that are left open by those shortcomings. If you get 20 guys on the same page, understanding that they have to go out and do their job, you're going to have a dangerous team.

 

[Jackets16]

Ok 1 question I have for all of you is how much would you be willing to pay him per year on the NEXT contract??

Frankly I think 3.5 is about as ridiculous as 7. I think 5-5.5 is pretty fair for everybody for the next 2-3 years. But say he does get 5.5 and he continues to advance into the higher tier of guys that we all hope he does the next couple years. Say he hits around 40 and 40 for the next couple. If he REALLY does think he's worth 7 per NOW, what will HE think he's worth then? What do you think he'd be worth? Or how much would you be willing to pay him? I understand the lower term adds to the amount of dollars most of the time, but in this case that's not exactly true. He's attempting to prove that he is worth MORE and that he will continue to be worth MORE. How much more?

I think the Nash stuff is a perfect example. And I wouldn't pay Johansen much more than what we ended up paying Nash. 7.5-8 is the highest I would give him long term, after this bridge contract. Not because I don't think he'd be worth 8+ in the NHL, or as good or important as Nash WAS, just that there's a WAY WAY bigger opportunity for it to come back and hurt the team somehow. The TEAM. Brick by brick. Some bricks may be a little better made, but they're all the same size.

Again, a lot of you thought the same things about Nash as you do about Johansen. It sounds as if Johansen thinks the same things about himself as Nash did. "What are they gonna do without me"? Well, besides score more goals and win more games, I guess nothing.

By simply swapping Rick Nash out of our lineup for Brandon Dubinsky and Artem Anisimov, the Columbus Blue Jackets were instantly a better hockey team. Besides the HIGHEST/TOP tier of guys in the league (maybe 10-15 forwards and defensemen combined) guys like Johansen and Nash really aren't much better(if at all) then guys who are seen by most as lower in importance. My bottom line is that we COULD get an awesome return for Johansen.

$4 million. Maybe $4.5 million. He just hasn't done nearly enough to warrant any more. I'd be okay with AAV being around $6 million on a 5+ year deal where he was making about $4 million to start with. No way I would pay him anything close to $6 million to start with.

 

[Jackets16]

If the season starts without him and the team struggles, does it put pressure on Jarmo to give him his $7 mil/season deal?

Nope.

 

[cbjfaninmo]

If it gets that far, I doubt the Jackets play early in the season will have any influence at all on JK/JD in these negotiations. In my opinion, the only way Joey gets something north of 6 million is through an offer sheet, which would force Jarmo's hand to determine if he is matching.

Agree with you here. JD/JK will force his hand. I highly doubt there will be any offer sheet. Joey will get an "earn your next contact" contract.

 

[Dr. Fire]

Here is the thing. Sports contracts are based on market value. One very good season does not drive your value up to $7 mil in the NHL. Consistently good play does. That is the reason for a bridge contract that pays good money, and allows the player to make a statement in those years to cash in on the big money contract later. That, for the most part, is how it works.

Joey has decided that he wants to shoot for the moon now, later be damned. He is wrong. This is a kid who's on an ego trip, or getting bad advice from his agent. I can see the CBJ coming up to maybe $4-$4.5 mil, but doubtful they go higher, and they shouldn't.

Sad that that will effect the team and the fan-base adversely. One players unreasonable demands could have devastating effects on this franchise. That is what Joey hopes everyone is afraid of and acts on.

 

[NotWendell]

I could see Joey getting $4.5-5.5 million, but not if he misses any part of training camp.

 

[thebus2288*]

So basically what you're proposing is that any time we get a star, whether developed, traded for, signed, or whatever. We have to trade them because Rick Nash was a star and when we dealt him we got better? Because that's ridiculous.

Well 1 problem, this "star" we're talking about was ranked 104th in TOI last year for forwards. And the only reasons I'd think about moving a "star" off my team are.. 1) I thought their contract was(or could soon/easily become) a detriment to the teams full potential. 2) If their reputation in the REAL hockey world(scouts/gms) actually exceeded their true value to his current team aka a "good return". 3) If for any reason(personality, lifestyle, known or unknown demands, etc.) just the presence of the player is(or seems to be) holding back the team from their full potential.

Nash was in every one of these categories. Maybe not at the very beginning, but by the end of the "saga", most definitely. How many is Johansen in now? How many do you think he'll be(or very well could be) in 2 years?

I'm trying to get an idea on what you guys would be willing to pay him in the following contract because its not that far down the road and it, well, matters. Anything upwards of 7 mil and definitely 8 and 9 can quickly(or even immediately) hold back a team cap-wise. I don't have any insider info, but what common knowledge we have about Johansen is that he is good at hockey and people in the hockey world know this as he was ranked pretty high since about his draft year. It all depends who and how high they are on him but we COULD get a GREAT return for him.

It NOT that he's NOT a very valuable piece and good fit for our team. BUT I find it very interesting that when talking about Anisimov we hear about how much depth we have up the middle. How Jenner and Wennberg and possibly even Dano, can and will be ready to step up soon. But then in here you see pretty much none of it. Or god forbid we actually talk about the other current "top-3" centers that are actually on the team right now. No way they could fill the holes right?(When did we hear, or when did you guys think that? And how'd it turn out?) I'm not saying Dubi or Anisimov, or any of the prospects will ever be as "valuable" as Johansen, but I find it interesting how "things" can change from thread to thread.

 

[Fro]

answering the above...Joey at 2yrs 11m and if he plays like he thinks he's worth and grows...I'm totally fine with him getting seriously paid...but he needs to earn it and show he's mature enough to play that way...and not play as if he's only motivated by money (and before someone tries, i'm NOT saying that he is/was doing that on his ELC)

 

[Double-Shift Lasse]

Well 1 problem, this "star" we're talking about was ranked 104th in TOI last year for forwards. And the only reasons I'd think about moving a "star" off my team are.. 1) I thought their contract was(or could soon/easily become) a detriment to the teams full potential. 2) If their reputation in the REAL hockey world(scouts/gms) actually exceeded their true value to his current team aka a "good return". 3) If for any reason(personality, lifestyle, known or unknown demands, etc.) just the presence of the player is(or seems to be) holding back the team from their full potential.

Nash was in every one of these categories. Maybe not at the very beginning, but by the end of the "saga", most definitely. How many is Johansen in now? How many do you think he'll be(or very well could be) in 2 years?

I'm trying to get an idea on what you guys would be willing to pay him in the following contract because its not that far down the road and it, well, matters. Anything upwards of 7 mil and definitely 8 and 9 can quickly(or even immediately) hold back a team cap-wise. I don't have any insider info, but what common knowledge we have about Johansen is that he is good at hockey and people in the hockey world know this as he was ranked pretty high since about his draft year. It all depends who and how high they are on him but we COULD get a GREAT return for him.

It NOT that he's NOT a very valuable piece and good fit for our team. BUT I find it very interesting that when talking about Anisimov we hear about how much depth we have up the middle. How Jenner and Wennberg and possibly even Dano, can and will be ready to step up soon. But then in here you see pretty much none of it. Or god forbid we actually talk about the other current "top-3" centers that are actually on the team right now. No way they could fill the holes right?(When did we hear, or when did you guys think that? And how'd it turn out?) I'm not saying Dubi or Anisimov, or any of the prospects will ever be as "valuable" as Johansen, but I find it interesting how "things" can change from thread to thread.

I don't even know what point you're trying to make here and I'm not sure you do either.

 

[CBJWerenski8]

I don't even know what point you're trying to make here and I'm not sure you do either.

Yeah I'm lost too..

I will say though, we do have great depth up the middle. But Anisimov, Dubinsky, Dano, and Jenner don't have the offensive ceiling Johansen has, nor will they come anywhere close to having a 35-30 season Johansen just did. The only player who IMO could even sniff it is Wennberg, but he's not ready yet. It changes from thread to thread because we're either talking about next year or down the line in a few years. Some of those prospects might make the team, but they will be in complimentary roles until they are ready for prime time. By trading any of our NHL depth right now up the middle would be forcing Wennberg, Dano, Chaput, etc of any of our prospect centers to be over their head or throw them in a role they won't be ready for. As a franchise with some history of that, there's no reason for us to go back to it. Johansen is only 21, you don't just trade those players unless you need to (Trade request). His 'next contract' if he keeps continuing on this path should be what Getzlaf got. I'll take that all day.

 

[joshjoshjosh]

You don't ask for 7 when you want 7. You ask for 7 when you want 5.5-6. You don't offer 4 when you want to pay 4. You offer 4 for similar reasons.

The amount of people who don't understand this blows me away.

 

[EspenK]

You don't ask for 7 when you want 7. You ask for 7 when you want 5.5-6. You don't offer 4 when you want to pay 4. You offer 4 for similar reasons.

The amount of people who don't understand this blows me away.

I don't think many, if any, here don't understand that. To me the issue is there doesn't appear to be any understanding of that by the two sides involved in that there seems to be no discussion/negotiation to get to that middle ground we all fully expect to be achieved. At least one side is playing hardball here and that will lead to a holdout and very likely be a detriment to the team.

 

[Fro]

I don't think many, if any, here don't understand that. To me the issue is there doesn't appear to be any understanding of that by the two sides involved in that there seems to be no discussion/negotiation to get to that middle ground we all fully expect to be achieved. At least one side is playing hardball here and that will lead to a holdout and very likely be a detriment to the team.

they may get it, but I tend to side with Joshx3 b/c its not articulated that way...

 

[DarkandStormy]

I don't quite understanding the reporting.

"CBJ offering $4 million per season (roughly)."

Update: No changes.

Update II: "No changes. CBJ offering $3.5 million per season."

So either Porty is just spit-balling on these figures, or he's saying the Jackets offer is DECREASING? Huh?

 

[WannabeFinn]

I don't quite understanding the reporting.

"CBJ offering $4 million per season (roughly)."

Update: No changes.

Update II: "No changes. CBJ offering $3.5 million per season."

So either Porty is just spit-balling on these figures, or he's saying the Jackets offer is DECREASING? Huh?

It's Porty, dude. That's how he rolls!!

 

[IHeartZherdev*]

I don't quite understanding the reporting.

"CBJ offering $4 million per season (roughly)."

Update: No changes.

Update II: "No changes. CBJ offering $3.5 million per season."

So either Porty is just spit-balling on these figures, or he's saying the Jackets offer is DECREASING? Huh?

You can't refer to what Porty does as "reporting"

 

[IHeartZherdev*]

Question for everyone - Is Johansen the most talented player the team has ever had? Is he better than Nash and/or Voracek?

Yes - absolutely better than Nash and/or Voracek and he plays a much more important position.

 

[IHeartZherdev*]

answering the above...Joey at 2yrs 11m and if he plays like he thinks he's worth and grows...I'm totally fine with him getting seriously paid...but he needs to earn it and show he's mature enough to play that way...and not play as if he's only motivated by money (and before someone tries, i'm NOT saying that he is/was doing that on his ELC)

I don't understand - he showed it/earned it last season and into the spring with his playoff performance. When did he show any "immaturity" last year?

 

[EspenK]

Under the heading of "misery loves company" her is a look at other unsigned RFAs

http://prohockeytalk.nbcsports.com/2014/09/02/with-training-camps-looming-a-look-at-some-key-unsigned-rfas/


Must be something in the air

 

[DarkandStormy]

You can't refer to what Porty does as "reporting"

Touche.

 

[Cyclones Rock]

Under the heading of "misery loves company" her is a look at other unsigned RFAs

http://prohockeytalk.nbcsports.com/2014/09/02/with-training-camps-looming-a-look-at-some-key-unsigned-rfas/


Must be something in the air

Big differences in these situations. Boston has 2 very good players who are going to be difficult to sign due to serious salary cap constraints-the team is OVER the cap by $900,000. The Bruins can't sign these guys at this point. A very interesting situation to say the least. The other RFA players aren't comparable to Johansen.

Once again, this appears to confirm my opinion that virtually every other NHL organization with the cap room that the Jackets have would have inked Johansen to a Skinner-type deal (6 years/ $35 million) by now. Kekelainen comes from the skin-flint Blues operation and his negotiating tactics were evidently formed by that penny-pinching, always financially-desperate organization.

Watching the Jackets management team mismanage this Johansen situation isn't reassuring. They could have inked the kid to 6 years at around $5 million at one point. They have taken an opportunity to sign a long term #1 stud center at a discount and turned it into a contentious mess which has already cost them million$ and will cost them significant million$ more when Johansen performs as well as he is reasonably projected to.

Jarmo signed a damaged goods UFA (Horton) to a long term deal, traded an almost Conn Smyth winner (Gaborik) for garbage, missed out on an opportunity to sign a Vezina winner (Bob) at a deep discount, signed Jared Boll to a ridiculous contract and let super bottom sixer DMac walk over peanuts. He paid a premium for Dubinski. At least he has had the good sense to sign Richards....but Richards was undoubtedly cheap. As was Letestu.

The Kekelainen resume with respect to trades and contract negotiations leaves much to be desired. In fact, it's pretty poor when one looks at it objectively.

 

[WannabeFinn]

How have they mismanaged Johansen? Whether they signed him on the first day possible or sign him the day before camp begins, they did their job without losing out on anything of value.

You would want GMJK's head on a platter if he signed Joey to a long term deal and he turned out to be not all that great.

 

[thebus2288*]

I think the phrase "let's cross that bridge when we get there" applies.

Okay, here's where you're going off the rails.

For one thing, Johansen's next contract is the one that's being currently negotiated. It makes zero sense to start seriously planning for anything based off of that..

Does it though? I think its very shortsighted to not think about how much he's gonna ask for or be happy with after the bridge contract. I mean were only talking 2-3 years down the road. We talk all the time on here about the future of the team in 2 to 3 years but it makes ZERO sense if we talk about the affect our best and highest paid player will have on our teams future? You act as if there's no correlation between this contract and the next one, but when we get to it, this contract will be the main thing looked at in order to get that long term deal done.

It seems most of you would be ok giving him close to 9mil long term if he continues any sort of upward trend during these next couple/few year?. If you don't, OK relax, neither do I. But thinking about it, maybe it WOULD be in our best interest to give him 6-7 mil on this bridge deal to "prove" it. If he does continue to grow into what we believe he can, great. The only issue THEN would be if his money demands shot up again(9+). And if he does stall a bit then we offer him about the same long term. Say 6.5-7x6. Just a possible way to save money and keep everybody "happy".

There isn't one person on these boards who knows what Nash thought, or what Johansen thinks..

I mean it might not be their true deep personal feelings, but that's essentially what Nash's trade "demand" meant. Actually worse. It wasn't so much "what will they do without me", but more "they cant do anything WITH me". He was right, but it was for the complete opposite reason that 80% of people thought. Again, it might not be his true feelings, but when "star"/very important players go through long negotiations like this and are asking for more money than what's being offered, what do you think his or his agent's main(only?) leverage is?

 

[thebus2288*]

Nash's contract career is based on a couple of things that no longer exist. First is that his original contract (rookie max) lost a year due to the 2004-05 lockout. Then his RFA contract was five years at $5.4 mil AAV. That was bad enough for a guy who had exactly two years of NHL experience, but even worse since a component of the 2005 CBA was a 24% salary rollback. It blew up the entire salary scale less than one month after a yearlong lockout ended, and therefore also set the table for the $7.8 mil long-term deal he signed. In exchange for one year of UFA status for Nash, MacLean threw a grenade into the league..

OK? Hindsight. I really don't remember what people thought of the RFA contract, but I seem to remember most we're more than ok with the long term deal. And are you saying that 2nd contracts DO affect 3rd contracts?

Although this point is largely true, it doesn't make any sense.

But the idea that Johansen = Nash is completely absurd. When Nash was traded, we all knew what he was and that he wasn't getting any better. We knew that there's no real precedent for building a team around a goal-scoring wing who's not HOF-caliber. Johansen is still unknown..

Now you're comparing a 21 yr old Johansen to a 28 yr old Nash. I think you forget how highly thought of Nash really was. Or even how good of a player he was at 23-25. And my main point and comparison of the 2 is that signing Johansen to a huge(8-9mil for 6-8 years) contract, even after him progressing during the bridge, can QUICKLY and EASILY come back to bite us.

You know who else loved the idea of getting "awesome returns for young players"? Every small-market team in the 1990s. They'd develop a guy, look ahead and realize that there might be a contract issue down the road, and trade him for picks and prospects. Inevitably they'd be left holding the bag, since prospects aren't exactly a guarantee to develop.

Look at Winnipeg, who traded Teemu Selanne for Chad Kilger and Oleg Tverdovsky. Tverdovsky was serviceable, and Kilger didn't exactly develop into a dominant power forward. Winnipeg got almost nothing out of that "awesome return", and Selanne only scored about another 500 goals after being traded.

Ya know, most of the time I enjoy your history lessons/stories. Most of the time they're full of info and interesting tidbits that are honestly just nice to read. The only issue I ever have with them, as I do in this case, is that sometimes they are just absolutely TERRIBLE comparisons to what is being talked about. Comparing the Johansen situation to Nash is absurd, but you comparing Johansen and a hypothetical Johansen trade to Selanne and a trade 20 years ago is completely fine and relevant. The Nash-Dubi-Arty trade makes way more sense to compare to, but it doesn't fit what your trying to say.

I'm trying to remember situations to go back to and look myself because I'm sure there's plenty of examples that could be shown to prove that trading away the better player or "potential superstar prospect" didn't always come back to hurt a team. Other than the trade that got us to where we are today of course.

 

[Cyclones Rock]

How have they mismanaged Johansen? Whether they signed him on the first day possible or sign him the day before camp begins, they did their job without losing out on anything of value.

You would want GMJK's head on a platter if he signed Joey to a long term deal and he turned out to be not all that great.

I thought that it was abundantly clear by February that Johansen was an outstanding player who was worthy of a longer term deal. This is coming from somebody who had previously (and very erroneously) thought he was a bust and was very worried about his attitude as a result of his tanking in the AHL playoffs the previous season.

Before the regular season ended, the comparable contracts for Johansen wouldn't have yielded him much more than $5 million per year (or so) for 5 or 6 years. While I can't be certain about this, I'm confident that Johansen would have been happy to sign for this amount/term at any point during the February to just after the playoffs window. Now, I don't think that he would even if Jarmo offered him this type of deal. I think he's easily worth $5.5-6 million over the next six years, so that's why I categorize the handling of this situation as mismanagement.

An interesting comparison to Johansen is Max Pacioretty of the Montreal Canadiens. He got off to a very slow start in his NHL career. He signed a bridge deal (which was appropriate) after his ELC concluded. His first season on his "bridge", he scored 65 points (33g 32a) and the Canadiens signed him to a 6 year extension at $4.5 million per year during the summer before the second and final year of his bridge deal. He scored 39 goals last season (3rd in the NHL), the first year of the extension. The Canadiens were able to see that Pacioretty was worth a long term deal based on one breakout season. His previous year (to his breakout year) he had split time between the minors and the NHL registering 24 points in 37 NHL games. So, the Canadiens took the risk and were rewarded by it. They still have Pacioretty locked up for 5 more years at a SIGNIFICANT DISCOUNT because they took his breakout season performance at face value.

http://www.capgeek.com/player/95

From my perspective, Johansen brings a lot more to the plate overall than Pacioretty, although Pacioretty has superior skating speed and perhaps a bit more velocity on his shot.

Should Johansen regress from last season, he would be very tradeable at a $5.5-6 million cap hit. He'd only be 23 years old and more than a few teams would be willing to bank on him returning to 60 points in the future. The risk to signing him long term is minimal.

A very long-winded explanation to the original question as to how I believe the CBJ management team has mismanaged this situation, but that's what I got