Johansen2Foligno
CBJ Realest
- Jan 2, 2015
- 9,266
- 4,178
If Dubinsky or Foligno go, that is the clearest sign yet they are tearing this thing down and starting over.
Speculation: Ryan Johansen "Softly in play"
- Thread starter CBJWerenski8
- Start date
- Status
If Dubinsky or Foligno go, that is the clearest sign yet they are tearing this thing down and starting over.
I'd like to be shed of Hartnell and Foligno's contracts as well (not sure why we would be trading Dubi), but the best you could ask for out of those would be a draft pick, maybe a prospect, and we'd be retaining salary and a cap dump in return. Not exciting.
To get something exciting, that is actually useful, we need to trade a piece that other teams would want or overpay for.
Cyclones Rock
Registered User
- Jun 12, 2008
- 10,914
- 7,077
I am opposed to "blowing up" this team.
I am really opposed to blowing up this team and having Jarmo and JD rebuild it.
I am really opposed to blowing up this team and having Jarmo and JD rebuild it.
I am still in favor of getting a top D. Yes we are barely scoring in recent weeks. And we are allowing few goals against. That doesn't imply that the quality of D is less of an issue than the quality of the forwards. If you have a Josi or Klingberg or Ekblad (or even a Spurgeon) back there, you get a lot more scoring. And this goes beyond the points the D themselves get. The forwards get an easier job gaining the zone and finding space when they get the puck.
Short version: it's a five man game and the quality problem is still on the backend, regardless of the gf/ ga.
Short version: it's a five man game and the quality problem is still on the backend, regardless of the gf/ ga.
EspenK
Registered User
- Sep 25, 2011
- 15,842
- 4,446
He is not going to be traded at the deadline. He will either be moved soon or not until the off-season if at all. Teams looking for help at the deadline probably don't need a 1C (well, maybe Nashville might) and if they do they sure aren't giving up any valuable roster guys at that point.
I am in the camp that says Nashville is an ideal trading partner for us in regards to Joey. They get their 1C and we get Jones or one of their other D-men and probably(hopefully) a bit of an add.
His future as a Blue jacket will be determined by the remainder of the season. If he comes alive and is the same guy we saw last year there is a chance he stays. If he meanders to a 60 point season I think he is gone. No way do I see the Jackets going through another contentious negotiation with him and I don't see us being willing to roll the dice on an arbitration season. And I definitely don't see them ponying up 7 or 8 years at 8 mill plus unless they are 100% sold on him.
Mayor Bee
Registered User
- Dec 29, 2008
- 18,087
- 535
The mental gymnastics required to believe this would make both the most dogmatic politician and Nadia Comaneci blush. You'd have to start with a (wrong) baseline of "Howson was afraid to do anything", compound it with the (wrong) idea of "Howson loved certain players", add (more wrong) "Howson needed outside persuasion to take action", then mix in a hearty dose of a (completely wrong) DarkBlueJackets blog entry to even get within a mile of this idea.
I disagree on the trade deadline thing. In addition to late season trades being much easier to pull off (extra cap room), a lot of teams are still waiting to see how the situation unfolds. Nashville doesn't have any rush to make a deal now. They still want to find out what kind of defender Seth Jones will be over the course of the season, and I'm sure they're curious if Joey will pick up his play. All else equal they'd rather have the 1C over Jones, but they don't need that until the playoffs and in the meantime they get to assess the situation.
No Mayor Bee, you just have to look a Howson's record objectively which is something you are incapable of doing.
Mayor Bee
Registered User
- Dec 29, 2008
- 18,087
- 535
Yup, that's it. The person who once said of Howson's tenure in retrospect that "For signings, of new players, of free agent movement, and of internal players in the system, I give a D+" and "(For overall grade) I'll go to a C+, with the caveat that it can trend upward sharply depending on the following factors....I don't see a scenario where Howson ends up above a B+ under any circumstances" is incapable of being objective.
Are you confused about my actual stance, or about the definition of the word "objective"?
Viqsi
"that chick from Ohio"
CBJSlash
Registered User
I disagree. As opposed to the more common gripping the stick too tight, I think Johansen tries to slow the play down and be more deliberate. Obviously that looks like he is less engaged. It's just a different reaction to a slump.
Bucci is just adding 1 + 1 and getting 3.
Not to say it's impossible that we'd move Johansen, I do think it's near impossible that in the middle of the year a contending team would part with the types of players we'd ask for.
I'd love one of our reporters to ask JK and get some sort of quote on this.
Bucci is just adding 1 + 1 and getting 3.
Not to say it's impossible that we'd move Johansen, I do think it's near impossible that in the middle of the year a contending team would part with the types of players we'd ask for.
I'd love one of our reporters to ask JK and get some sort of quote on this.
I don't know how you didn't mention the Markus Naslund for Alek Stojanov trade.
I have no problem with a guy slowing the play down when he has the puck. That's the part about Joey we like. But when he slows the play down on his way back to the bench
, or slows the play down going for a loose puck , or slows the play down when he could have taken the body...Howson could draft, other than that his resume wasn't all that good... What he did in that off season before Hitch was let go was an absolute abomination and JK actually had a better defense that he stood with than Howson did coming out of that season.
I'm still grading JK. He's had some good and bad, but that Saad trade was solid.
I know you loved Howson, but frankly he wasn't as good a GM as Richards was a head coach. Howson really hasn't received another chance, I know I wouldn't give it to him if I was an owner.
Now on to other things. Like Johansen. Still not sure I want the franchise spending the type of money that he and his agent will want. Wasn't good spending that type of cash on Nash.
I wonder about that. Nash fit in our salary structure, there wasn't a better player we were going to get for that $, and the return for Nash was good, if not great. It's hard to see how the Jackets would have been better letting Nash walk for nothing.
The issue with Joey is that we already have an insane $40m+ being spent on forwards.
That and he has a much more serious attitude issue than Nash ever did, IMO. Am I forgetting something Nash did?
Mayor Bee
Registered User
- Dec 29, 2008
- 18,087
- 535
In 2008-09, Columbus allowed the 9th-fewest goals in the NHL, had a big piece (Klesla) missing the majority of the season, and had up-and-coming defensemen who were expected to continue developing. Klesla had erupted under Hitchcock and finally looked like he was going to amount to something. And they appeared good enough that two actual NHL defensemen (Martin Skoula and Doug Lynch) were training camp invites and neither one of them warranted a contract offer.
In 2014-15, Columbus allowed the 6th-most goals in the NHL.
He was a finalist for Vancouver's GM position a couple years ago.
True, however...
At the time, the NHL was still actively telling teams not to attempt any type of cap circumvention under threat of dire punishments. Of course, about two weeks after Nash was re-signed, that was all forgotten. The end result is that the free agent or pending FA contracts that were signed between July 1 2006 and about July 15 2009 all carried hideously disproportionate cap hits. At one time in 2012, Eric Staal had the 4th-highest cap hit, Nash 5th, Lecavalier 6th, Heatley 7th, Gaborik 8th, Scott Gomez 11th, and Brian Campbell 12th. All were signed during that time period, and quite a few whose extensions came later had much lower hits due to the extremely long-term contracts that had allegedly been forbidden.
I think the big unanswered questions about Johansen isn't going to involve his own play necessarily, but will be entirely on the business and financial ends (namely what kind of contract terms the upcoming RFAs are looking at). But the biggest question of all is going to be whether players with NTCs and/or NMCs can be left unprotected in an upcoming expansion draft. If yes, there may be short-term belt tightening until something can be done that can get Clarkson sent on his way. If no...well, some very bad things may end up happening.
EspenK
Registered User
- Sep 25, 2011
- 15,842
- 4,446
I think the business end is critical in any analysis of the Joey situation. I've been pretty consistent in saying paying him 8+ for 7 or 8 years is not what I want to do. Pay him 8 and our F total will be in the neighborhood of 50 mill for the last 2 years of Hartnell's deal. Throw in 2 goalies and we're at 58-59, leaving under 20 to pay 7 or 8 D.
I'm going to give Jarmo an F on cap management up to this point. Individually it was hard to disagree with any of the deals he gave out or the Hartnell & Saad trades but collectively he missed the boat imo.
Something has to give. Hopefully it is the right thing.
Why did you bother MB. I know you think he's some awesome dude. He's not. Really, he's not. Not even close. Not even remotely. Not in the same zip code as an awesome GM. He's in the bottom tier of potential (read: serious) GM candidates.
That defensive group wore down big time at the end of the season. I stated it as did others. We knew we needed help there. It was a conversation during the off season. That was a rag tag group that put up a good season with the help of a hot goalie. Most of those guys were playing more minutes than they should have. Up and coming? Good grief I have to look at that again. Those upcoming D were the midget and Methot. Buwahahahhaha. Maybe you were thinking of OKT? We played 50 some games with whipping boy Backman of all people and Tyutin was running 23 minutes a night. Far more potential with the group. None of those guys were in the discussion of a Murray. Golo is better or as good as most of those old up and comers.
Now let's talk about Johansen. They will find the money if they want to. The big question isn't that. The big question is if the franchise wants to put itself in cap hell and, potentially, lose top prospects to keep him. I'm not even remotely concerned about an expansion draft. Most of the league will be dealing with the same questions. Baring divine intervention Clarkson is here until the end of his contract. There little to no point to consider a buy out and what team wants to actually eat his salary and give him a roster spot with the exception of us? Are you hoping that some expansion team would want him to reach the cap floor? I am will to bet that NMC and NTC's will be honored during an expansion draft. That's contractual and I doubt there is anything in the contracts to allow for that. Maybe they can find some wording to get around NTC's, but I highly doubt it with the NMC.
That defensive group wore down big time at the end of the season. I stated it as did others. We knew we needed help there. It was a conversation during the off season. That was a rag tag group that put up a good season with the help of a hot goalie. Most of those guys were playing more minutes than they should have. Up and coming? Good grief I have to look at that again. Those upcoming D were the midget and Methot. Buwahahahhaha. Maybe you were thinking of OKT? We played 50 some games with whipping boy Backman of all people and Tyutin was running 23 minutes a night. Far more potential with the group. None of those guys were in the discussion of a Murray. Golo is better or as good as most of those old up and comers.
Now let's talk about Johansen. They will find the money if they want to. The big question isn't that. The big question is if the franchise wants to put itself in cap hell and, potentially, lose top prospects to keep him. I'm not even remotely concerned about an expansion draft. Most of the league will be dealing with the same questions. Baring divine intervention Clarkson is here until the end of his contract. There little to no point to consider a buy out and what team wants to actually eat his salary and give him a roster spot with the exception of us? Are you hoping that some expansion team would want him to reach the cap floor? I am will to bet that NMC and NTC's will be honored during an expansion draft. That's contractual and I doubt there is anything in the contracts to allow for that. Maybe they can find some wording to get around NTC's, but I highly doubt it with the NMC.
Last edited:
Johanson may be our best opportunity to get rid of Clarkson as well.
Package him and Clarkson for an expensive d-man and picks/prospects.
Again it would not maximize the return we could get for RyJo alone, but would be our best opportunity to move the horrible contract of Clarkson.
Package him and Clarkson for an expensive d-man and picks/prospects.
Again it would not maximize the return we could get for RyJo alone, but would be our best opportunity to move the horrible contract of Clarkson.
This doesn't make sense to me. I don't know why we'd want to bring Clarkson into it. Think of it as two Venn diagrams that don't overlap. It'll just reduce the number of teams interested in a deal down towards zero.
That you Blah for making all of those obvious points about our former GM's handling of the team.
Mayor Bee
Registered User
- Dec 29, 2008
- 18,087
- 535
Here, I'll save everyone (both of us included) a lot of time and effort by summing up how the next several posts spanning at least two days would go.
Me: Here's ten paragraphs about that time period.
You: I didn't bother reading any of that, and Hitchcock was screwed by poor management.
Me: Here's five more paragraphs about why that's wrong, and why Hitchcock has no room to talk.
You: This has nothing to do with Hitchcock, who's been an excellent head coach during his entire career. And I'm not responding to anything that says otherwise.
Me: Here's a thinly-veiled jab at Hitchcock anyway.
You: What did I just say?
Me: Here's a thinly-veiled jab at Hitchcock again, just because.
You: Seriously, are you blind? Also, I'll phrase it in a way that throws a Howson jab in there, but this is all pointless.
Moderator: Will you two knock it off and stay on topic?
Me: I'll respond anyway, because I have a compelling need to get the last word.
There, it's all right there, and I've saved everyone.
Moving on.
It's a 50:50 shot on the expansion draft; we tried to discuss in on the business board with no consensus being reached. It's not particularly clear in the CBA, nor is it clear in what we've seen as far as the actual language in a player contract. There's a possibility that because leaving a player unprotected is a passive action (not putting someone on a protected list), rather than an active action as required with waiving, demoting, or trading someone, that an expansion draft may be exempt from needing to protect even someone with an NMC. Our resident lawyers will tell you that vague or ambiguous language in a contract will be decided against the party that drafted it in the event of a dispute, but the expansion draft possibility isn't even brought up in even a vague manner.
But past history involving expansion drafts is that the parameters are established in the boardrooms and are basically foisted on the players, so it may not matter anyway. Since something like 20 teams have more than five players with an NTC or NMC, there's a very strong possibility that the owners will decide that such players don't need to be protected. Never underestimate the motivating factor of self-interest. The NHLPA may well object and could (theoretically) litigate against forcing players that they believe to be protected against unwilling movement from being left unprotected. I don't think either side in this plausible scenario has a particularly strong case, so I'd expect there to be some type of joint arrangement. After all, there are a few guys with NTCs who are buried in the AHL who undoubtedly would welcome the opportunity to move on; we may see something about a one-time expansion draft waiver for certain players with certain conditions being met.
Now, back to Johansen.
The big contractual knock on Johansen isn't the same as it was with Nash, which is having a cap hit out of skew with the rest of the league and similar players. Obviously the team would need an escape in the event that everything goes to hell and he needs to be moved. Would a $7 mil/season cap hit be particularly onerous for a team on the other end and preclude making a move? I'd say no, and the other side is that, unlike the previous CBA, retention of salary and/or bonus money by the trading team is now allowed. There are definitely a lot of moving pieces that could make a possible move down the road possible if it comes to that.
I don't necessarily see losing prospects to keep Johansen, I see losing prospects to keep Clarkson. Or to dump him. Either way, it'll be costly no matter what. The best case scenario for this team would be to find a way to trade him with nothing but draft picks to someone who basically needs him for cap floor purposes. It keeps the prospects in the system, it keeps the current roster together, it opens up a spot.
I actually agree with the OP - moving Johansen is an opportunity to try and get Clarkson gone.
If we start with a concept of Johansen for a d-man with upside but unrealized potential, the sketch of that trade would be:
Johansen for d-man+, and I don't think many people would disagree about the + requirement.
So then the plus becomes "you have to take Clarkson off our hands".
The other team would probably then think we needed some + coming their way, so ultimately we'd end up with
Johansen, Clarkson and maybe someone like Josh Anderson, or Forsberg or TJ Tynan
for
D-man
It's probably a pipe dream because Clarkson's contract was already far and away the worst in the league in every conceivable way, and now he's got health issues. But it's worth a hard sell attempt.
Johansen2Foligno
CBJ Realest
- Jan 2, 2015
- 9,266
- 4,178
It would be extremely fitting for this franchise to trade it's first #1C to rid itself of Clarkson
Won't matter - we're going to win the draft lottery and get Matthews to replace him.
- Status
