State of the Jackets

[JacketsDavid]

Ownership-
Keep in mind after Hitch's playoff run here both ownership and management publicly endorsed him. I vividly remember going to the PSL holder event after the season (could have been before the next season) and listening to Doogie Howser tell us how the CBJ we're playing Hitchcock hockey.

Then a couple months later the players had their little mutiny - and ownership and management fired Hitch and believed in the players (specifically Brassard who thought they could outscore the opposition and they shouldn't have so much defensive responsibility).

That is example one in my mind of where ownership and management ignored the vision of how they should play, and instead trusted the players to let them try to win.

The other examples is every off-season (if we have cash) we try to add a "big-name" via FA or trade. They liked to trot those guys out for the 4th of July parade as the missing piece. Never really trying to add the right piece just to add the "prettiest" piece.

Failure from the top.

 

[Nordique]

Joey will get it together under Torts and have a strong second half, that's my gut feeling on him. I'd hate to move him because it could years before we see raw talent of his level again.

Yeah Blah, I was down on the forwards, B- might not be fair, but B+ is as high as I'd go. The potential for an A group is there, I just don't know where Karlsson and Wennberg's ceilings are, and if they can get near there by next season.d

This is the best group of forwards we've ever had, but that really isn't saying much.

 

[The Jones Zone]

Joey will get it together under Torts and have a strong second half, that's my gut feeling on him. I'd hate to move him because it could years before we see raw talent of his level again.

I sure hope your right

It wasn't that long ago we were talking about him being the key guy in a deep playoff run.

I would hate to give up on him now....I also hope he stays on a line with Foligno

 

[TaketheCannoli]

I read the article and thought maybe this will be good for the long run. I am not a Porty hater and without that bias the article made sense.

I read the article and think it makes sense as well. I actually like Porty and Arace's writing.

There is a sense with this team after a win or two if they play well that everything will be alright. I know I feel it myself.

I thought the franchise turned the corner in 2009 when they made the playoffs. I was sure they turned the corner when they finished strong in 2013 and then made the playoffs in 2014. I believed they were a good team last year - it was just the ridiculous run of injuries that kept them down last year. I just want to believe it's going to be ok.

That article gives me that same sense of ok-ness. History tells me it's not that simple and they are not ok. If this is the beginning of something that will continue and is re-enforced long term for several years its a big deal and a major positive.

 

[major major]

Good discussion about the ownership. I wonder does McConnell current have the same desire to even own the team?

I do believe he made an intelligent decision to hire JD as head of hockey. Hindsight says it may not be working as well as it should but at the time it made sense.

Now I know this next comment will send many into apoplexy but one thing the Jackets organization has never done is a wholesale fire sale of under producing players. Perhaps because there weren't many that others wanted. If this season continues as it has been I would think now would be the time to consider it. Clearly define what the team is supposed to look like and take the necessary steps to at least be in a position to build towards it. Unless the current roster is close without wholesale subtractions there is not the cap space nor the roster space to effect much change.

Do you have any examples of a team doing a fire sale? Any successful examples?

 

[NotWendell]

Ownership-
Keep in mind after Hitch's playoff run here both ownership and management publicly endorsed him. I vividly remember going to the PSL holder event after the season (could have been before the next season) and listening to Doogie Howser tell us how the CBJ we're playing Hitchcock hockey.

Then a couple months later the players had their little mutiny - and ownership and management fired Hitch and believed in the players (specifically Brassard who thought they could outscore the opposition and they shouldn't have so much defensive responsibility).

That is example one in my mind of where ownership and management ignored the vision of how they should play, and instead trusted the players to let them try to win.

The other examples is every off-season (if we have cash) we try to add a "big-name" via FA or trade. They liked to trot those guys out for the 4th of July parade as the missing piece. Never really trying to add the right piece just to add the "prettiest" piece.

Failure from the top.

I'd like to add that defense is almost never the "prettiest piece." There was the one year we got Adam "One" Foote "out the door" and the year they tried to promote Luke Richardson and Scott Lachance.

It's always seemed to be about "marketing" so they could get more sponsorships and butts in seats. Ironically, "winning" is far more effective at doing that (and I say that as a marketing guy). And we need defense just to make it past the first round of the playoffs, let alone win championships. The front office knows this to be true, yet they keep on doing the same things year after year (no matter who occupies the front office)

 

[Mayor Bee]

I posted this as a reply to Skraut in another thread, but really believe it belongs in the State of the Jackets thread. So if the mods don't mind I'm re-posting here:

I believe in the old adage that a fish rots from the head down. I don't have a Mayor Bee baseball story, so I will have to rely on a football story.

I have a family member who is very active in business in Pittsburgh. One of his business deals put him in regular contact with Dan Rooney, the Steelers owner and CEO until a few years ago. I went to a social gathering and was introduced to Mr. Rooney. He is a very nice man- very gracious. Of course I was a bit intimidated and didn't know what to talk about, so I went for football. I'm not a Steeler fan and being a lifelong Browns fan has put me at a point where I just no longer follow the NFL at all. I do follow college football.

I asked Mr. Rooney a question that I've wondered for a long time that seems to extend to all pro sports that have a draft and a salary cap. Why do the Steelers always seem to be competitive and often a shot at a championship when they rarely pick early in the draft? Why do teams who often pick very early and have a chance at the great talent often continue to fail miserably?

...

Based on that brief conversation, I think Mr. Rooney might say that's the key to consistent success or failure.

The late college basketball coach Jack Hartman (Kansas State) used to field teams full of players who weren't exactly blessed with great athleticism and great skill, yet managed to get four of his 16 Wildcats teams into the Elite Eight. Inevitably reporters would ask him how he could win with so little talent, and finally at one point he said, "Talent is just being where you are supposed to be and doing what you are supposed to do." One of those players, Ed Nealy, was an 8th-round pick in the NBA draft who would later play with the Jordan-era Bulls; Phil Jackson said that Nealy was the smartest player he'd ever had.

In the case of the Steelers, what's most interesting is that the franchise was a complete joke for the first 39 years of its existence. Seriously. From their inception in 1933 to 1971, the Steelers:
- Had a winning record just six times
- Played in one postseason game (a tiebreaker, which they lost)
- Had a positive point differential eight times
- Finished with two or fewer wins in a season nine times
- Were merged with other teams twice to avoid collapsing
- Had two HOF quarterbacks as rookies and gave them both away for nothing before they ever broke through (Len Dawson and Johnny Unitas)

What's became of them was what can happen to any team in the right circumstances: someone comes in, has some success, and brings stability. Chuck Noll was 1-13 in his first season with the team, but they got incrementally better. Terry Bradshaw was terrible for his first five seasons, and only got a final chance because Joe Gilliam was suspended shortly after taking the starting job away from Bradshaw. They had one of the greatest draft classes in history, and they began to win.

That said, I do think the idea of "team image" can be overblown, and I don't know that it necessarily carries over into hockey. Football has enough specialists that can fit into enough specific schemes that sustaining excellence like that can be done; baseball has home field effects that alter everything; hockey is too varied. A hockey game is called dramatically differently in the postseason than the regular season, and what it takes to beat a team one series may be completely different than what it takes to beat one the very next series.

Think about team images in football, and it's fairly easy. Pittsburgh is always tough along both sides of the line, Baltimore will have a nasty defense, New England will always somehow find a way by having the highest football IQ in the league. But think about hockey, even the teams that have been successful the last 25 years. What's Detroit's team image, outside of having no enforcers and getting away with more picks than can possibly be imagined? What's Montreal's team image, since it sure isn't what it was in the 1970s as a fast high-scoring team? What's Los Angeles', which is completely different than when Gretzky and Robitaille had them contending? Even Philadelphia looks quite a bit different and has for some time.

 

[Mayor Bee]

Now I know this next comment will send many into apoplexy but one thing the Jackets organization has never done is a wholesale fire sale of under producing players. Perhaps because there weren't many that others wanted. If this season continues as it has been I would think now would be the time to consider it. Clearly define what the team is supposed to look like and take the necessary steps to at least be in a position to build towards it. Unless the current roster is close without wholesale subtractions there is not the cap space nor the roster space to effect much change.

Sure they have. From the trade deadline in 2008 until the beginning of the 2008-09 season:
- Fedorov out
- Foote out
- Westcott out
- Brule out
- Zherdev out
- Fritsche out
- Hainsey out
- Vyborny out

- Umberger in
- Commodore in
- Torres in
- Tyutin in
- Backman in

- Hejda re-signed for three years (he'd been signed for just one year)
- Peca re-signed
- MacKenzie re-signed

The other guys who would prove to be underachievers were still a couple years away from cementing that legacy; it wouldn't have made any sense to trade Brassard or Voracek or Filatov at that point.

 

[Dumais]

Ownership, Management & Coaching : A, C, C

Ownership has backed the team ever since the Arena deal, so yeah. MGT, A for effort; F on presentation. I could forgive last year, ya had a valid excuse. And coaching can only get a A if at the end of the season we have the best shot at Mathews. And so help me god; if they start going on a "historical" run towards the playoffs now...I will move on to another sport.

Players : F

I could go through the entire roster and pick individuals who have improved, who hasn't and judge each one of them fairly, accurately and with stats to back it all up. Fact of the matter is, the team has taken two steps back since making the playoffs. And that whole locker room is filled with a bunch of losers. Biggest collection of losers in the NHL.

 

[EspenK]

Do you have any examples of a team doing a fire sale? Any successful examples?

Buffalo I believe conducted one over a couple of years to stockpile draft choices and lose games to make their own picks higher up. Whether it will be successful remains to be seen.

And I can think of a lot of teams that maybe should have tried.

From my perspective a Jackets fire sale would entail moving Johnson & Tyutin. Buying out Boll & Campbell - I can't imagine anyone taking them in trade. Trading Johansen if he continues to wallow. Possibly moving Hartnell if the return is good.

That strategy would free up cap room and roster space for prospects to move into.

Would it bring an instantaneous improvement? Most likely not.

The thing is if the team continues to play poorly and winds up with 70-75 points this season the question that has to be asked is was this season a fluke and the 2nd half of last year what this team is really like? I don't know the answer but if no moves are made we are stuck with essentially the same roster for the next 2-4 years. Is that something management wants? If they think this year was an outlier then no "fire sale". If the team is destined to be an 80-95 point team missing playoffs more than making them then why not make a big move now?

I'm not really advocating one way or the other at this point except to say that if the team doesn't show some real improvement in the second half I'd seriously consider the moves I suggested above.

 

[TaketheCannoli]

The late college basketball coach Jack Hartman (Kansas State) used to field teams full of players who weren't exactly blessed with great athleticism and great skill, yet managed to get four of his 16 Wildcats teams into the Elite Eight. Inevitably reporters would ask him how he could win with so little talent, and finally at one point he said, "Talent is just being where you are supposed to be and doing what you are supposed to do." One of those players, Ed Nealy, was an 8th-round pick in the NBA draft who would later play with the Jordan-era Bulls; Phil Jackson said that Nealy was the smartest player he'd ever had.

In the case of the Steelers, what's most interesting is that the franchise was a complete joke for the first 39 years of its existence. Seriously. From their inception in 1933 to 1971, the Steelers:
- Had a winning record just six times
- Played in one postseason game (a tiebreaker, which they lost)
- Had a positive point differential eight times
- Finished with two or fewer wins in a season nine times
- Were merged with other teams twice to avoid collapsing
- Had two HOF quarterbacks as rookies and gave them both away for nothing before they ever broke through (Len Dawson and Johnny Unitas)

What's became of them was what can happen to any team in the right circumstances: someone comes in, has some success, and brings stability. Chuck Noll was 1-13 in his first season with the team, but they got incrementally better. Terry Bradshaw was terrible for his first five seasons, and only got a final chance because Joe Gilliam was suspended shortly after taking the starting job away from Bradshaw. They had one of the greatest draft classes in history, and they began to win.

That said, I do think the idea of "team image" can be overblown, and I don't know that it necessarily carries over into hockey. Football has enough specialists that can fit into enough specific schemes that sustaining excellence like that can be done; baseball has home field effects that alter everything; hockey is too varied. A hockey game is called dramatically differently in the postseason than the regular season, and what it takes to beat a team one series may be completely different than what it takes to beat one the very next series.

Think about team images in football, and it's fairly easy. Pittsburgh is always tough along both sides of the line, Baltimore will have a nasty defense, New England will always somehow find a way by having the highest football IQ in the league. But think about hockey, even the teams that have been successful the last 25 years. What's Detroit's team image, outside of having no enforcers and getting away with more picks than can possibly be imagined? What's Montreal's team image, since it sure isn't what it was in the 1970s as a fast high-scoring team? What's Los Angeles', which is completely different than when Gretzky and Robitaille had them contending? Even Philadelphia looks quite a bit different and has for some time.

Yes of course I remember the bad old Steelers when the only really impressive player on the team was John Henry Johnson. You seem to have forgotten the two consecutive years they merged, one with the Eagles and the second with the Chicago Cardinals were during WWII. I can't imagine why it would be a financial challenge to make a profit during pro football's early years while many players and fans were fighting a World War.

I remember when Noll was hired, and the 1-13 season. Terry Hanratty, Joe Gilliam, Terry Bradshaw, no one knew which one would be the long term answer at QB. I remember Frenchy Fuqua, Ray Mansfield, Mike Wagner, Larry Brown etc.etc. I hated them. I'm a lifelong Browns fan and they were fading as a contender as the Steelers were growing until it came to a head in 1974. The late 60's was when Art Rooney began handed over control of the team to his son Dan, who became chairman in the mid 70s. I don't know, maybe it's all a coincidence? No- DAN Rooney hired Chuck Noll in 1969. Dan was performing the owner's role.

As far as the Red Wings, through multiple coaches the playing style has changed a bit, but they have been a team that relies on puck possession is very good at faceoffs , and seems to highly value so-called "hockey-sense." For as long as the Ilitch family has been involved, they have invested a lot in scouting and signing European players. The Habs? They seem to have the same approach today as in the 70s - fast and skilled. That was not so true during the Gillette years. Perhaps it's also a coincidence their fortunes changed when Geoff Molson took over a few years ago. The Molson family owned the Habs during their greatness of the 50s-70s. In fact, Molson's was so closely identified with the Habs that when the Canadiens fought putting an NHL team in Vancouver, fans organized a boycott of Molson's product.

The Kings? Big, fast and physical. They were built by two guys who learned from the Flyers organization - Dean Lombardi and Ron Hextall.

Philly? They are a mess. I think Ed Snider may have lost touch, but what did he do to clean up Bobby Clarke/Paul Holmgren's mess? He hired a guy I consider a quintessential Flyer arguably the most physical goalie, and arguably the dirtiest goalie of all time - Ron Hextall. A true Flyer if there ever was one, talented and mean.

Until recently, the current day Jack Hartman? Bo Ryan at Wisconsin. Multiple runs in the NCAA with few players that teams like Kansas, Kentucky or Duke would offer. Lots of role players and a role for each of them.

 

[EspenK]

Add team conditioning to the list of issues:

http://bluejacketsxtra.dispatch.com/content/stories/2016/01/01/0101-jackets-conditioning.html

Tortorella often talks about wanting his teams to play with swagger. But that’s hard to do if you’re gasping for air after long shifts.

“(Conditioning) is a huge part of it,†he said. “I’m not going to say we’re there. This team is not there.

“I don’t want to be negative about it, but I want to be honest with you. I’m looking short term here, but I also look long term at what I think are some of the improvements we need to make.â€

Also read the comments by Dubi & Foligno. Maybe its just that Dubi has been through it before but to me one sounded more captain like.

 

[TaketheCannoli]

Add team conditioning to the list of issues:

http://bluejacketsxtra.dispatch.com/content/stories/2016/01/01/0101-jackets-conditioning.html




Also read the comments by Dubi & Foligno. Maybe its just that Dubi has been through it before but to me one sounded more captain like.

Good find. I wonder why we have heard that so regularly over the years not only from coaches but from other teams' sources after a Blue Jacket was traded to them? IIRC someone in Anaheim even called Beuchemin fat after he was part of the trade for Fedorov.

 

[Dr. Fire]

Add team conditioning to the list of issues:

http://bluejacketsxtra.dispatch.com/content/stories/2016/01/01/0101-jackets-conditioning.html




Also read the comments by Dubi & Foligno. Maybe its just that Dubi has been through it before but to me one sounded more captain like.

The difference now will be that Torts won't put up with that crap. Yea, maybe there weren't red flags, but you can still meet minimal requirements and not raise red flags.

Kind of like when the City of Columbus sets minimum staffing requirements for Engine and Ladder trucks on the Fire Dept. They will never actually go over the minimum requirements, even though it would enhance safety, reduce fire ground injuries, and make fire companies more efficient. As long as minimum standards are met, it's all good!

Torts will look for these guys to come in far above what the minimum requirements might be.

 

[major major]

Add team conditioning to the list of issues:

http://bluejacketsxtra.dispatch.com/content/stories/2016/01/01/0101-jackets-conditioning.html




Also read the comments by Dubi & Foligno. Maybe its just that Dubi has been through it before but to me one sounded more captain like.

It could be that both Dubi and Foligno are right here. The Blue Jackets were a very hard working team the last few years. I watch enough different hockey teams to know this. TR was not a softy, despite the revisionism. And if their tests were even better this camp than previous camps then they the conditioning couldn't have been bad. It is surely correct that they were mentally and physically drained by losing.

But then that's not to say that Torts couldn't take them to a higher level.

 

[Jackets16]

To me, conditioning and playing hard two different things. Obviously, it is easier to play hard if you are in great condition, but playing hard can be done if you aren't.

 

[EspenK]

Current take of the State of the Jackets:

Positive:

Penalty kill
Blocking shots
Improvement of Wennberg
Promising young guys in Rychel, Anderson,Korpi, Karlsson,Golo
Good prospects still in the pipeline
Seth Jones
<Ryan Johansen>
Torts
Probably pretty good draft choice

Negative:

Give up too many shots
Still in last place
Stupid penalties
Lack of a F who can be (is) a dominant scorer
Bob's groin and inconsistency
Slow starts/lapses during games
Lack of a true 1C
Power play most of the time