The Columbus Dispatch: Umberger wants out (Dispatch link post #276)

[Doug19]

http://prohockeytalk.nbcsports.com/...finger-separated-shoulder-and-herniated-disc/

In an interview with the Columbus Dispatch, Umberger revealed he’d been playing with a broken finger, separated shoulder and herniated disc at times season — including all three during the Blue Jackets’ opening-round playoff loss to Pittsburgh.

Oh what do you know, using injuries as an excuse, he must have been injured the past three years.

 

[Cyclones Rock]

Oh, and the 11 fans Umbie brings to the arena (you have to be kidding right?) will be more than offset by the 1000's more who show up to see a better team.

RJU actually brings 17.6 extra fans per game. But, they all sit with me in the Huntington Green Seats for $10 per pop

Many here fail to realize that the extra costs incurred by buyout out RJU could easily be recouped by simply having a better team.

What separated the CBJ from the Penguins wasn't much. What separated the CBJ from a higher seed wasn't much either. Had the Jackets advanced one more round and had 3 more home games, the team would have realized roughly $6 million more in ticket revenues alone, let alone the marketing boost it would have given for additional season tickets.

This is not to say that RJU "cost" the CBJ the series vs. the Penguins or a higher seed. It is to say that the team could have been a better team without him and with a decent replacement player and that a higher seed and a playoff series victory could have been possible.

The risk of the $10 million (spread out over 6 years.....roughly 1.5% of the total CBJ budget per year) which an RJU buyout will cost is possibly far exceeded by the financial benefits which could result from it.

JMAC has watched the red ink flow from this franchise for a long time. He's a bright guy who runs a big company in his real job and understands that sometimes one has to suck up some costs in order to better your bottom line. A fact which seems to escape many of the posters here.

 

[Viqsi]

RJU owed $13.8m over next 3 years.

Bourque has come alive big time in the playoffs. Contract owed $5m over next two years total....No

Shaw is a 22 year old banger who isn't counted on for primary scoring on the Hawks. Owed $4m total over next two years....No

Bickell has a similar contract and had a bad regular season.....17 points in 23 games in last season's SC champion team playoff run, 8 pts in 9 games so far this season......No.

Dwight King is a bottom 6 forward who made $750k this past season....No.

Lewis is another 4th liner who makes just $1.5m per year..No.

Brown makes a lot of money and is a heart and soul guy who was the Captain of the SC winning team two years ago and was part of a historic comeback from an 0-3 deficit in this season's first round of the playoffs.....No

RJ Umberger is a heart and soul leader in the locker room who's used for secondary (or even tertiary) scoring and by and large delivers....No.

See what I did there? It's just as supportable as your assertions, except for the part where you disagree because I'm talking about RJ Umberger and "everybody knows" that RJ Umberger "sucks".

You're accentuating the positive for every example I gave, and accentuating the negative for RJ. Consistently and constantly.

* * *​

Oh what do you know, using injuries as an excuse, he must have been injured the past three years.

The characterization of this being an offered excuse is entirely your invention - it came up because the Dispatch was trying to illustrate just how rough the playoffs can be and just how much people have to soldier on through, not because they were searching for excuses as to how we fell short.

Everybody plays injured. Some probably probably shouldn't (see: Wisniewski, James), but ultimately it's something everybody does. Teams with proper amounts of depth and planning for this sort of thing triumph despite such things. That's where the idea of "injuries are no excuse" comes from - if you don't plan for SOME injuries (because they're inevitable), then you haven't planned your team properly. It is NOT some kind of Axiomatic Truth, permissible for regular use as a thought-terminating cliche (as applied here).

* * *​

RJU actually brings 17.6 extra fans per game. But, they all sit with me in the Huntington Green Seats for $10 per pop

Many here fail to realize that the extra costs incurred by buyout out RJU could easily be recouped by simply having a better team.

What separated the CBJ from the Penguins wasn't much. What separated the CBJ from a higher seed wasn't much either. Had the Jackets advanced one more round and had 3 more home games, the team would have realized roughly $6 million more in ticket revenues alone, let alone the marketing boost it would have given for additional season tickets.

This is not to say that RJU "cost" the CBJ the series vs. the Penguins or a higher seed. It is to say that the team could have been a better team without him and with a decent replacement player and that a higher seed and a playoff series victory could have been possible.

The risk of the $10 million (spread out over 6 years.....roughly 1.5% of the total CBJ budget per year) which an RJU buyout will cost is possibly far exceeded by the financial benefits which could result from it.

JMAC has watched the red ink flow from this franchise for a long time. He's a bright guy who runs a big company in his real job and understands that sometimes one has to suck up some costs in order to better your bottom line. A fact which seems to escape many of the posters here.

Go ahead and name me one - ONE - objectively better player who could realistically be had at a better price than RJ. ONE. Uno, eins, un. One.

I guarantee you you won't be able to do it. Outright flat-out guarantee. Not without bending local space-time such that we suddenly magically get the likes of, say, John Tavares (a known better player on one of the best contracts in the NHL) for nothing or next-to-nothing.

This fantasyland scenario in which Somebody Objectively And Demonstrably Better For Equal Or Less shows up DOES NOT EXIST - as I have repeatedly pointed out, and as y'all have repeatedly failed to refute. The sole responses that have happened have been for hypothetical grass-is-greener Other Guys, with no names mentioned beyond EspenK's suggestion that it might help us get one of the top-6 FAs (which, as has been demonstrated, is completely unnecessary).

An Umberger buyout (which I hasten to point out I have never actually totally ruled out) should be a means to some other constructive end. So far, though, you've been using the buyout as the end in and of itself, and made vague suggestions of Somebody Else *handwave*handwave* whenever anybody's called you on it. It's yet another twist on the "logic" that got us the Gaborik trade at the deadline. Give us realistic names and scenarios or go play witchhunt elsewhere, because at this point all you're doing is wasting everybody's time.

 

[Cyclones Rock]

RJ Umberger is a heart and soul leader in the locker room who's used for secondary (or even tertiary) scoring and by and large delivers....No.

See what I did there? It's just as supportable as your assertions, except for the part where you disagree because I'm talking about RJ Umberger and "everybody knows" that RJ Umberger "sucks".

You're accentuating the positive for every example I gave, and accentuating the negative for RJ. Consistently and constantly.

* * *​

The characterization of this being an offered excuse is entirely your invention - it came up because the Dispatch was trying to illustrate just how rough the playoffs can be and just how much people have to soldier on through, not because they were searching for excuses as to how we fell short.

Everybody plays injured. Some probably probably shouldn't (see: Wisniewski, James), but ultimately it's something everybody does. Teams with proper amounts of depth and planning for this sort of thing triumph despite such things. That's where the idea of "injuries are no excuse" comes from - if you don't plan for SOME injuries (because they're inevitable), then you haven't planned your team properly. It is NOT some kind of Axiomatic Truth, permissible for regular use as a thought-terminating cliche (as applied here).

* * *​

Go ahead and name me one - ONE - objectively better player who could realistically be had at a better price than RJ. ONE. Uno, eins, un. One.

I guarantee you you won't be able to do it. Outright flat-out guarantee. Not without bending local space-time such that we suddenly magically get the likes of, say, John Tavares (a known better player on one of the best contracts in the NHL) for nothing or next-to-nothing.

This fantasyland scenario in which Somebody Objectively And Demonstrably Better For Equal Or Less shows up DOES NOT EXIST - as I have repeatedly pointed out, and as y'all have repeatedly failed to refute. The sole responses that have happened have been for hypothetical grass-is-greener Other Guys, with no names mentioned beyond EspenK's suggestion that it might help us get one of the top-6 FAs (which, as has been demonstrated, is completely unnecessary).

An Umberger buyout (which I hasten to point out I have never actually totally ruled out) should be a means to some other constructive end. So far, though, you've been using the buyout as the end in and of itself, and made vague suggestions of Somebody Else *handwave*handwave* whenever anybody's called you on it. It's yet another twist on the "logic" that got us the Gaborik trade at the deadline. Give us realistic names and scenarios or go play witchhunt elsewhere, because at this point all you're doing is wasting everybody's time.

Go sell RJU to the Hawks and Kings fans on these boards. Good luck.

RJUs cap money could be used in-house to secure Johansen and/or Dubinski long term. If you really believe that not one single, solitary player exists out there who is better than RJU at similar money than I suggest you quit watching hockey. Or maybe start watching hockey outside of foxsportsohio.

It will be addition by subtraction at the very least. When next year's opening day roster comes out, you'll see whoever it is that JK and JD feel is a better use of resources than RJU would have been. The universe of possibilities for improvement over this stiff would test the bandwith capabilities of this website. Not interested in going through that exercise for you.

I'll decline commenting on anymore of your posts regarding this topic until after RJU is amnestied on the buyout date.

 

[Doug19]

Actually I really don't care about Umberger at this point. His role is so diminished on this team now, that he's really not going to be an impact either way in a game on most nights. He makes a lot, he sucks for what he is paid for, but I"m cool with tossing him on the 4th line/scratching if their isn't anybody who will absorb this bums contract. He sucks, but he can still be useful for 4th line 7 minutes a night. I put him a little above Jared Boll on the depth chart.

 

[EspenK]

Go ahead and name me one - ONE - objectively better player who could realistically be had at a better price than RJ. ONE. Uno, eins, un. One.

I guarantee you you won't be able to do it. Outright flat-out guarantee. Not without bending local space-time such that we suddenly magically get the likes of, say, John Tavares (a known better player on one of the best contracts in the NHL) for nothing or next-to-nothing.

.

How about Jussi Jokinnen, Radim Vrbata or Mason Raymond? All could probably be had for Umbie money or less.

But we're not (or at least I'm not) talking about replacing him with a like player. I am talking about strengthening the team. Subtract Umbie, add a better player and allow us to keep a couple of 1- 1.5 versatile guys like Tropp, Skille, etc.

 

[TaketheCannoli]

After engaging in a number of Online discussions, I was struck by how often people presented, and others accepted, arguments that struck me as absurd. I've done a bit of research and have found that there's a substantial body of scientific literature which tends to indicate that we may not always be led by logic when it comes to issues we feel strongly about. When a person is presented with a stimuli there's an immediate gut response and it appears that oftentimes the mind then comes up with a rational to justify that response. This is known as Motivated Reasoning and the logic is often flawed but it appears perfectly reasonable to people who share the initial gut reaction. It's very difficult to effectively challenge and change these opinions because they are not based on reasoned argument but rather arise out of the initial gut response and if one argument is proven untenable another will be created to defend the cherished belief. This effect is so pronounced that groups of people will literally see events differently when their belief systems are engaged. If one accepts this view of human psychology then engaging in "reasoned" debate seems a fruitless endeavor as neither side will be able to change what the other "sees" under normal circumstance. In fact directly challenging a person's beliefs, veracity, and reasoning skills has been shown to entrench their beliefs even further thus making the attack counterproductive.

 

[pete goegan]

...engaging in "reasoned" debate seems a fruitless endeavor as neither side will be able to change what the other "sees" under normal circumstance. In fact directly challenging a person's beliefs, veracity, and reasoning skills has been shown to entrench their beliefs even further thus making the attack counterproductive.

Hmmm, I may have noticed.

 

[Mayor Bee]

Go ahead and name me one - ONE - objectively better player who could realistically be had at a better price than RJ. ONE. Uno, eins, un. One.

I guarantee you you won't be able to do it. Outright flat-out guarantee. Not without bending local space-time such that we suddenly magically get the likes of, say, John Tavares (a known better player on one of the best contracts in the NHL) for nothing or next-to-nothing.

This fantasyland scenario in which Somebody Objectively And Demonstrably Better For Equal Or Less shows up DOES NOT EXIST - as I have repeatedly pointed out, and as y'all have repeatedly failed to refute. The sole responses that have happened have been for hypothetical grass-is-greener Other Guys, with no names mentioned beyond EspenK's suggestion that it might help us get one of the top-6 FAs (which, as has been demonstrated, is completely unnecessary).

Clarke MacArthur. First of a two-year deal, $3.25 mil cap hit. He's outproduced Umberger not only over the totality of the last four seasons, but in each one of those seasons individually as well despite substantially less ice time in the first three of those seasons.

In 2010-11, MacArthur spent the overwhelming majority of ice time on a line with Nikolai Kulemin and Mikhail Grabovski. That line made up a plurality of his ice time in 2011-12, but he was shuffled a lot among multiple lines; he spent a lot of time paired with Tim Connolly and a random player. In 2012-13, most of his time was with a combination of Kulemin, Grabovski, Nazem Kadri, Leo Komarov, Tyler Bozak, and Colton Orr. And this year was with Bobby Ryan and Kyle Turris, with Mark Stone getting decent time as well.

The last two seasons have seen Umberger largely out there with scoring lines; it was mostly Johansen and Foligno each of the last two years, with Nash and Brassard the year before that, and on a multitude of scoring pairings before that.

The two seem to have gone in opposite directions. MacArthur began as a 10-15 goal guy and is creeping up toward 25, Umberger began as 20-25 and seems to be creeping down toward 15.

 

[Mayor Bee]

After engaging in a number of Online discussions, I was struck by how often people presented, and others accepted, arguments that struck me as absurd. I've done a bit of research and have found that there's a substantial body of scientific literature which tends to indicate that we may not always be led by logic when it comes to issues we feel strongly about. When a person is presented with a stimuli there's an immediate gut response and it appears that oftentimes the mind then comes up with a rational to justify that response. This is known as Motivated Reasoning and the logic is often flawed but it appears perfectly reasonable to people who share the initial gut reaction. It's very difficult to effectively challenge and change these opinions because they are not based on reasoned argument but rather arise out of the initial gut response and if one argument is proven untenable another will be created to defend the cherished belief. This effect is so pronounced that groups of people will literally see events differently when their belief systems are engaged. If one accepts this view of human psychology then engaging in "reasoned" debate seems a fruitless endeavor as neither side will be able to change what the other "sees" under normal circumstance. In fact directly challenging a person's beliefs, veracity, and reasoning skills has been shown to entrench their beliefs even further thus making the attack counterproductive.

Highly illogical behavior, I must say.

 

[Double-Shift Lasse]

Highly illogical behavior, I must say.

 

[Double-Shift Lasse]

After engaging in a number of Online discussions, I was struck by how often people presented, and others accepted, arguments that struck me as absurd. I've done a bit of research and have found that there's a substantial body of scientific literature which tends to indicate that we may not always be led by logic when it comes to issues we feel strongly about. When a person is presented with a stimuli there's an immediate gut response and it appears that oftentimes the mind then comes up with a rational to justify that response. This is known as Motivated Reasoning and the logic is often flawed but it appears perfectly reasonable to people who share the initial gut reaction. It's very difficult to effectively challenge and change these opinions because they are not based on reasoned argument but rather arise out of the initial gut response and if one argument is proven untenable another will be created to defend the cherished belief. This effect is so pronounced that groups of people will literally see events differently when their belief systems are engaged. If one accepts this view of human psychology then engaging in "reasoned" debate seems a fruitless endeavor as neither side will be able to change what the other "sees" under normal circumstance. In fact directly challenging a person's beliefs, veracity, and reasoning skills has been shown to entrench their beliefs even further thus making the attack counterproductive.

 

[Viqsi]

Go sell RJU to the Hawks and Kings fans on these boards. Good luck.

RJUs cap money could be used in-house to secure Johansen and/or Dubinski long term. If you really believe that not one single, solitary player exists out there who is better than RJU at similar money than I suggest you quit watching hockey. Or maybe start watching hockey outside of foxsportsohio.

It will be addition by subtraction at the very least. When next year's opening day roster comes out, you'll see whoever it is that JK and JD feel is a better use of resources than RJU would have been. The universe of possibilities for improvement over this stiff would test the bandwith capabilities of this website. Not interested in going through that exercise for you.

I'll decline commenting on anymore of your posts regarding this topic until after RJU is amnestied on the buyout date.

So, more unsupported assertions, a cocksure assertion that Your Way WILL happen, and no actual responses to the actual topic. About what one would expect from someone on a hate crusade without any other actual goal in mind beyond Attack The Object Of Hate.

I've got a not insignificant emotional investment in my position here too, but at least I try to allow for that in my arguments and also try to own up to it when I screw that up.

Speaking of which...

* * *​

How about Jussi Jokinnen, Radim Vrbata or Mason Raymond? All could probably be had for Umbie money or less.

I'll concede Jokinen - he's due a raise, but to get Umby money his salary would literally have to double. Dunno if he'd fit here, but he might be worth a try. He's had just as may playoff gaffes, though - it was his "stellar defense" that directly led to Calvert's 2OT winner, for example. But, okay, sure, he'd be worth trying.

Vrbata gives Phoenix hometown discounts, and I'm honestly not convinced that he's actually available. Fair point, though.

Raymond is not better. His peak is about at the same level RJ's declining years are at.

So, yeah, I probably let my frustration get the better of me with that one. But I still maintain that buying out RJ is not a prerequisite for trying any of those guys.

But we're not (or at least I'm not) talking about replacing him with a like player. I am talking about strengthening the team. Subtract Umbie, add a better player and allow us to keep a couple of 1- 1.5 versatile guys like Tropp, Skille, etc.

And as has already been pointed out, buying him out is not a prerequisite.

* * *​

Clarke MacArthur. First of a two-year deal, $3.25 mil cap hit. He's outproduced Umberger not only over the totality of the last four seasons, but in each one of those seasons individually as well despite substantially less ice time in the first three of those seasons.

In 2010-11, MacArthur spent the overwhelming majority of ice time on a line with Nikolai Kulemin and Mikhail Grabovski. That line made up a plurality of his ice time in 2011-12, but he was shuffled a lot among multiple lines; he spent a lot of time paired with Tim Connolly and a random player. In 2012-13, most of his time was with a combination of Kulemin, Grabovski, Nazem Kadri, Leo Komarov, Tyler Bozak, and Colton Orr. And this year was with Bobby Ryan and Kyle Turris, with Mark Stone getting decent time as well.

The last two seasons have seen Umberger largely out there with scoring lines; it was mostly Johansen and Foligno each of the last two years, with Nash and Brassard the year before that, and on a multitude of scoring pairings before that.

The two seem to have gone in opposite directions. MacArthur began as a 10-15 goal guy and is creeping up toward 25, Umberger began as 20-25 and seems to be creeping down toward 15.

The idea was for Cyclones Rock to go out and do the research. I have no doubt you can.

Nonetheless, yeah, I overextended on that one. I'll try to do better next time.

 

[Cyclones Rock]

I will present the numbers which make the amnesty buyout a virtual no brainer.

The first are numbers which evaluate a player's production per unit of ice time. In this case per 60 minutes of 5 vs. 5 play (even strength).

These numbers are from the past 2 seasons with the past season (2013-14) being first:

http://www.behindthenet.ca/nhl_stat...+RW&f5=CBJ&f7=50-&c=0+1+3+5+4+6+7+17+18+19+20

RJU ranked last among all 12 CBJ forwards who played at least 50 games in points produced per 60 minutes 5 on 5. Keep in mind that he played with Johansen and Foligno for roughly half a season. That makes his performance even more pathetic.

http://www.behindthenet.ca/nhl_stat...+RW&f5=CBJ&f7=30-&c=0+1+3+5+4+6+7+17+18+19+20

In the lockout shortened 2012-13 season, RJU eclipsed only Jared Boll in 5 vs. 5 production per 60 minutes. But it wasn't by much

The second group of numbers will show that Umberger's PP production gave an illusion of him having a passable season with his 18 goals. His numbers of PP production per 60 minutes 5 vs. 4 will demonstrate that this past season was simply a fluke/statistical outlier which has little to no chance of being replicated.

http://www.behindthenet.ca/nhl_stat...+RW&f5=CBJ&f7=50-&c=0+1+3+5+4+6+7+17+18+19+20

2013-14 3.22 goals/60min 5 vs 4

http://www.behindthenet.ca/nhl_stat...+RW&f5=CBJ&f7=30-&c=0+1+3+5+4+6+7+17+18+19+20

2012-13 1.00 goals/60min 5 vs 4

http://www.behindthenet.ca/nhl_stat...+RW&f5=CBJ&f7=50-&c=0+1+3+5+4+6+7+17+18+19+20

2011-12 1.28 goals/60 min 5 vs 4

http://www.behindthenet.ca/nhl_stat...+RW&f5=CBJ&f7=50-&c=0+1+3+5+4+6+7+17+18+19+20

2010-11 1.70 goals/60 min 5 vs. 4

http://www.behindthenet.ca/nhl_stat...+RW&f5=CBJ&f7=50-&c=0+1+3+5+4+6+7+17+18+19+20

2009-10 1.60 goals/60 minutes 5 vs. 4

In the four seasons prior to this past season, RJU averaged 1.40 goals per 60 minutes 5 vs 4. His 3.22 goals per 60 minutes 5 vs 4 this past season was 230% (2.3 times) his previous 4 year average. Put simply, if RJU had scored at his previous 4 season average rate on the PP this past season, he would have had 3.48 PP goals instead of 8. Rounding that number to 4 and adding in his 9 ES and 1 SH goal, RJU would have scored 14 goals this past season had he produced at his norm on the PP. Once again, he played with Johansen for the first half of the year which padded his 5 vs. 5 numbers.

RJUs raw production numbers (standard goals, assists, points)-which haven't been good for 3 years-actually mask how poor his offensive production really has been. JK, JD and Todd Richards are well aware of the numbers which I've posted and it's hard to conceive of a scenario where they would see fit not to take advantage of a one time amnesty buyout to rid themselves of a completely underperforming "asset". The hockey decision is a very easy one to make. Only JMAC or Priest or monetary considerations can save RJUs CBJ career. No sound hockey analysis can.

 

[Viqsi]

RJU ranked last among all 12 CBJ forwards who played at least 50 games in points produced per 60 minutes 5 on 5. Keep in mind that he played with Johansen and Foligno for roughly half a season. That makes his performance even more pathetic.

Do we have any way of checking whether or not the numbers support those two making as big a difference as you're suggesting, compared to other linemates? I grant that intuition suggests as much, but data would be better if we're going to keep up this debate. I've never been able to find that sort of thing on behindthenet.ca or extraskater.com. (Half-tempted to email one of the site maintainers and say "hey, could you add this? We can worry about sample size considerations on our own, thx" )

The second group of numbers will show that Umberger's PP production gave an illusion of him having a passable season with his 18 goals. His numbers of PP production per 60 minutes 5 vs. 4 will demonstrate that this past season was simply a fluke/statistical outlier which has little to no chance of being replicated.

Have seen those before as you've presented them before. I'd be curious to know if there's any similarly sudden trends in his 5-on-5 scoring - y'know, the core of the first part of your argument.

Also, a possible issue - with 5-on-5, you're analyzing points per 60 minutes, which is fine. But on 5-on-4, you seem to have switched to goals only. Not that I think that would reveal some sort of Earth-Changing Secret, but strange gaps like that are why I've been rather distrustful of your research work (to put it mildly).

JK, JD and Todd Richards are well aware of the numbers which I've posted and it's hard to conceive of a scenario where they would see fit not to take advantage of a one time amnesty buyout to rid themselves of a completely underperforming "asset".

This, I think, is the core of the disagreement here. I count this as speculation. You've been describing it as an inevitability - so much so that it feels like this conclusion was reached before the research was done. (Can't be sure of that, so I really don't want to make the accusation, but it keeps looking like that.) You make a good case illustrating that he legitimately is underperforming and overpaid, but, well, we kind of intuitively knew that already.

It's going from that abruptly to "...therefore, WHEN he gets bought out" that's the issue. There's a difference between confidence in one's research and just being annoyed and pushy (as I helpfully demonstrated earlier with that "name JUST ONE" mishegaas ).

For the record, my countercontention remains that while in a vacuum removing Umberger (or, if we could, reducing his contract - if only ) would potentially make sense, current UFA and contract trends are such that a direct replacement has a very low chance of doing better in terms of value for our money (contract cost has gone up while player value has stayed relatively constant), and that therefore if we want to take such a move, it should be as the means to some other constructive end rather than an end in and of itself. I haven't seen a response to that so far from you beyond repeating what I think of as a jump to conclusions, and I'm kind of legitimately curious if there's any other reasoned angle that could be taken. Like, if you (or anyone else) can think of some way of demonstrating that RJ's regression has outpaced that global contract value-for-dollars regression or something. (I can't find one that I fully trust.)


(and for the record, this is much, much nicer than throwing acromonious statements back and forth. )

 

[TaketheCannoli]

I will present the numbers which make the amnesty buyout a virtual no brainer.

The first are numbers which evaluate a player's production per unit of ice time. In this case per 60 minutes of 5 vs. 5 play (even strength).

These numbers are from the past 2 seasons with the past season (2013-14) being first:

http://www.behindthenet.ca/nhl_stat...+RW&f5=CBJ&f7=50-&c=0+1+3+5+4+6+7+17+18+19+20

RJU ranked last among all 12 CBJ forwards who played at least 50 games in points produced per 60 minutes 5 on 5. Keep in mind that he played with Johansen and Foligno for roughly half a season. That makes his performance even more pathetic.

http://www.behindthenet.ca/nhl_stat...+RW&f5=CBJ&f7=30-&c=0+1+3+5+4+6+7+17+18+19+20

In the lockout shortened 2012-13 season, RJU eclipsed only Jared Boll in 5 vs. 5 production per 60 minutes. But it wasn't by much

The second group of numbers will show that Umberger's PP production gave an illusion of him having a passable season with his 18 goals. His numbers of PP production per 60 minutes 5 vs. 4 will demonstrate that this past season was simply a fluke/statistical outlier which has little to no chance of being replicated.

http://www.behindthenet.ca/nhl_stat...+RW&f5=CBJ&f7=50-&c=0+1+3+5+4+6+7+17+18+19+20

2013-14 3.22 goals/60min 5 vs 4

http://www.behindthenet.ca/nhl_stat...+RW&f5=CBJ&f7=30-&c=0+1+3+5+4+6+7+17+18+19+20

2012-13 1.00 goals/60min 5 vs 4

http://www.behindthenet.ca/nhl_stat...+RW&f5=CBJ&f7=50-&c=0+1+3+5+4+6+7+17+18+19+20

2011-12 1.28 goals/60 min 5 vs 4

http://www.behindthenet.ca/nhl_stat...+RW&f5=CBJ&f7=50-&c=0+1+3+5+4+6+7+17+18+19+20

2010-11 1.70 goals/60 min 5 vs. 4

http://www.behindthenet.ca/nhl_stat...+RW&f5=CBJ&f7=50-&c=0+1+3+5+4+6+7+17+18+19+20

2009-10 1.60 goals/60 minutes 5 vs. 4

In the four seasons prior to this past season, RJU averaged 1.40 goals per 60 minutes 5 vs 4. His 3.22 goals per 60 minutes 5 vs 4 this past season was 230% (2.3 times) his previous 4 year average. Put simply, if RJU had scored at his previous 4 season average rate on the PP this past season, he would have had 3.48 PP goals instead of 8. Rounding that number to 4 and adding in his 9 ES and 1 SH goal, RJU would have scored 14 goals this past season had he produced at his norm on the PP. Once again, he played with Johansen for the first half of the year which padded his 5 vs. 5 numbers.

RJUs raw production numbers (standard goals, assists, points)-which haven't been good for 3 years-actually mask how poor his offensive production really has been. JK, JD and Todd Richards are well aware of the numbers which I've posted and it's hard to conceive of a scenario where they would see fit not to take advantage of a one time amnesty buyout to rid themselves of a completely underperforming "asset". The hockey decision is a very easy one to make. Only JMAC or Priest or monetary considerations can save RJUs CBJ career. No sound hockey analysis can.

I can't wait until the press conference.

Jarmo, "Well we are protecting the future of the franchise. Mr. McConnell didn't really want to pay RJ not to play, but when we consulted our pro scouting staff led by Behind the Net . CA, Jim Corsi, and Matt Fenwick, it became clear we had to make a change. Corsi and Fenwick demonstrated to me that only 5 on 5 scoring matters.Now that we know this, I have also accepted a trade offer from the Toronto Maple Laughs for a conditional 7th round pick for James Wisniewski. The conditions are if Toronto wins three Cups in a row, and Wisniewski doesn't gain any points 5 on 5, we receive the Laughs 2018 7th round pick."

 

[Viqsi]

Okay, here's an additional thought - and a large part of why I've refused to assert "he absolutely won't be bought out":

If we were going to want to take advantage of a possible compliance buyout for Umby, the reasonable way to do that IMO would have been to evaluate potential replacements by picking them up LAST offseason and seeing how they do so now. And, in fact, one can reasonably argue that we made an effort to do exactly that by adding the likes of Horton and Skille.

Unfortunately, Horton was injured so frequently that we couldn't get a reasonable evaluation, and Skille... well, he's a very welcome addition to be sure, but he's not a 1-for-1 Umby replacement. Not at this juncture.

So, if that was really was the plan, would we still proceed with the Umby buyout? I'd think "no" so as to hedge bets and just chalk that up to an unfortunate missed opportunity (such things happen, after all)... but then again, JK did do the "protect the future of the franchise" Gaborik trade, so it's hard to predict fairly.

 

[Cyclones Rock]

I've done a bit of research and have found that there's a substantial body of scientific literature which tends to indicate that we may not always be led by logic when it comes to issues we feel strongly about. If one accepts this view of human psychology then engaging in "reasoned" debate seems a fruitless endeavor as neither side will be able to change what the other "sees" under normal circumstance. In fact directly challenging a person's beliefs, veracity, and reasoning skills has been shown to entrench their beliefs even further thus making the attack counterproductive.

This appears to be the case....In your case

I can't wait until the press conference.

Jarmo, "Well we are protecting the future of the franchise. Mr. McConnell didn't really want to pay RJ not to play, but when we consulted our pro scouting staff led by Behind the Net . CA, Jim Corsi, and Matt Fenwick, it became clear we had to make a change. Corsi and Fenwick demonstrated to me that only 5 on 5 scoring matters.Now that we know this, I have also accepted a trade offer from the Toronto Maple Laughs for a conditional 7th round pick for James Wisniewski. The conditions are if Toronto wins three Cups in a row, and Wisniewski doesn't gain any points 5 on 5, we receive the Laughs 2018 7th round pick."

Why don't you show some objective evidence which supports RJU?

Something about a needle in haystack comes to mind. Good luck......I think I'll have a Snickers Bar whilst I wait.

 

[thebus2288*]

Do we have any way of checking whether or not the numbers support those two making as big a difference as you're suggesting, compared to other linemates? I grant that intuition suggests as much, but data would be better if we're going to keep up this debate.

Watch the hockey games. The NHL isn't some computer simulation where you type in numbers and watch things play out.

 

[Doug19]

It feels like a arguing to just argue, the fact is, is that all the number show that Umberger wasn't good despite playing with our best offensive player for half the year. He picked up a few garbage powerplay goals, but apparently wasn't seen good enough for the powerplay where he saw little to no time after he was benched and through the playoffs. it's okay though, he won't be on the team next year so we won't have to worry about that problem anymore.

 

[Cyclones Rock]

[QUOTE=Viqsi;84786721]

Do we have any way of checking whether or not the numbers support those two making as big a difference as you're suggesting, compared to other linemates? I grant that intuition suggests as much, but data would be better if we're going to keep up this debate. I've never been able to find that sort of thing on behindthenet.ca or extraskater.com. (Half-tempted to email one of the site maintainers and say "hey, could you add this? We can worry about sample size considerations on our own, thx" )

His last on the team performances over the past two seasons are ample enough evidence that he was the weakest link on any line. I wouldn't be inclined to look any further.

Have seen those before as you've presented them before. I'd be curious to know if there's any similarly sudden trends in his 5-on-5 scoring - y'know, the core of the first part of your argument.

5 vs. 5 point production/60 minutes:

13-14.....1.28
12-13.....1.16
11-12.......1.68
10-11......2.15
09-10.......1.90
08-09......1.71

5 on 5 production/60 min. last 3 years vs. previous 3 years has fallen 29%.

Last 2 years vs. previous 4 years, it has fallen 34%.

It's a pretty steep decline by any measure. Also, his last place performance on the CBJ by this measure this season despite playing with Johansen really brings home the extent of his decline.

Also, a possible issue - with 5-on-5, you're analyzing points per 60 minutes, which is fine. But on 5-on-4, you seem to have switched to goals only. Not that I think that would reveal some sort of Earth-Changing Secret, but strange gaps like that are why I've been rather distrustful of your research work (to put it mildly).

I used the goals measure because he led the team in PP goals this season which I thought was odd given that his PP time had been cut fairly ramatically over the past few years...from roughly 3+ minutes per game to 2 minutes per game. Also, RJU has been referred to as a "20-25 goal scorer" in most discussions on this board and his point total not mentioned as frequently. Do feel free to do an analysis which includes assists. I'm retired on RJU number crunching for the day

This, I think, is the core of the disagreement here. I count this as speculation. You've been describing it as an inevitability - so much so that it feels like this conclusion was reached before the research was done. (Can't be sure of that, so I really don't want to make the accusation, but it keeps looking like that.) You make a good case illustrating that he legitimately is underperforming and overpaid, but, well, we kind of intuitively knew that already.

I've mentioned that I've become a serious CBJ fan about 3 years ago. When I started coming regularly to games at NWA at first, I remember focusing on RJU because in the limited games which I'd seen in person before, I'd been impressed by RJUs grit and tenacity.
The point is that I wasn't in the "he's a bum camp" from way back when. I am now firmly entrenched in it, however

After his performances in the two seasons prior to this (in 2011-12, his points were end of the season loaded), I had come to the conclusion that RJU would be a prime candidate for amnesty buyout when he became eligible (this June). I don't feel that I jumped the gun on this judgement, but even if I did, then his performance this past season just supported my amnesty buyout perspective.

For the record, my countercontention remains that while in a vacuum removing Umberger (or, if we could, reducing his contract - if only ) would potentially make sense, current UFA and contract trends are such that a direct replacement has a very low chance of doing better in terms of value for our money (contract cost has gone up while player value has stayed relatively constant), and that therefore if we want to take such a move, it should be as the means to some other constructive end rather than an end in and of itself. I haven't seen a response to that so far from you beyond repeating what I think of as a jump to conclusions, and I'm kind of legitimately curious if there's any other reasoned angle that could be taken. Like, if you (or anyone else) can think of some way of demonstrating that RJ's regression has outpaced that global contract value-for-dollars regression or something. (I can't find one that I fully trust.)

Simply put, finding a "replacement" for your least productive 5 on 5 player is almost the entire universe of possibilities. After all, the worst the replacement could finish is dead last. Which would be an exact replacement of RJU over the past 2 seasons. The cost of finding an NHLer who produces at his rate of 5 vs. 5 scoring wouldn't be much.

Feel free to peruse this list:http://www.behindthenet.ca/nhl_stat...+RW&f7=40-&c=0+1+3+5+4+6+7+17+18+19+20#snip=f Any above # 264 will do. You can research their cost and availibility.

 

[thebus2288*]

and that therefore if we want to take such a move, it should be as the means to some other constructive end rather than an end in and of itself. I haven't seen a response to that so far from you beyond repeating what I think of as a jump to conclusions, and I'm kind of legitimately curious if there's any other reasoned angle that could be taken.

Its pretty simple. We're a better team without Umberger. Him off the team is constructive. I don't know how you cant see this. Sure, if he made 1 mil a year we could just throw him on the 4th line, but he doesn't. This team needs to improve, and could use the money being paid to him to do that. Constructive right?

 

[EspenK]

[QUOTE=Viqsi;84786721]

His last on the team performances over the past two seasons are ample enough evidence that he was the weakest link on any line. I wouldn't be inclined to look any further.





5 vs. 5 point production/60 minutes:

13-14.....1.28
12-13.....1.16
11-12.......1.68
10-11......2.15
09-10.......1.90
08-09......1.71

5 on 5 production/60 min. last 3 years vs. previous 3 years has fallen 29%.

Last 2 years vs. previous 4 years, it has fallen 34%.

It's a pretty steep decline by any measure. Also, his last place performance on the CBJ by this measure this season despite playing with Johansen really brings home the extent of his decline.



I used the goals measure because he led the team in PP goals this season which I thought was odd given that his PP time had been cut fairly ramatically over the past few years...from roughly 3+ minutes per game to 2 minutes per game. Also, RJU has been referred to as a "20-25 goal scorer" in most discussions on this board and his point total not mentioned as frequently. Do feel free to do an analysis which includes assists. I'm retired on RJU number crunching for the day





I've mentioned that I've become a serious CBJ fan about 3 years ago. When I started coming regularly to games at NWA at first, I remember focusing on RJU because in the limited games which I'd seen in person before, I'd been impressed by RJUs grit and tenacity.
The point is that I wasn't in the "he's a bum camp" from way back when. I am now firmly entrenched in it, however

After his performances in the two seasons prior to this (in 2011-12, his points were end of the season loaded), I had come to the conclusion that RJU would be a prime candidate for amnesty buyout when he became eligible (this June). I don't feel that I jumped the gun on this judgement, but even if I did, then his performance this past season just supported my amnesty buyout perspective.



Simply put, finding a "replacement" for your least productive 5 on 5 player is almost the entire universe of possibilities. After all, the worst the replacement could finish is dead last. Which would be an exact replacement of RJU over the past 2 seasons. The cost of finding an NHLer who produces at his rate of 5 vs. 5 scoring wouldn't be much.

Feel free to peruse this list:http://www.behindthenet.ca/nhl_stat...+RW&f7=40-&c=0+1+3+5+4+6+7+17+18+19+20#snip=f Any above # 264 will do. You can research their cost and availibility.

Man, is that all you got?

 

[Viqsi]

Watch the hockey games. The NHL isn't some computer simulation where you type in numbers and watch things play out.

The funny thing is, I have been. I'm not blind to RJ's regression. I remain, however, skeptical about the ease of getting someone who's better without getting just as ripped off if not more.

* * *​

His last on the team performances over the past two seasons are ample enough evidence that he was the weakest link on any line. I wouldn't be inclined to look any further.

Some of us try to make an effort to see if all the evidence supports our assertions, not just the parts we found that look the most damning...

5 vs. 5 point production/60 minutes:

13-14.....1.28
12-13.....1.16
11-12.......1.68
10-11......2.15
09-10.......1.90
08-09......1.71

5 on 5 production/60 min. last 3 years vs. previous 3 years has fallen 29%.

Um. I see a small ramp up, a brief return to equilibrium, a major drop, and then a bit of a bounce-back. I do not see a Gigantic Drop Into The Abyss as suggested.

I used the goals measure because he led the team in PP goals this season which I thought was odd given that his PP time had been cut fairly ramatically over the past few years...from roughly 3+ minutes per game to 2 minutes per game. Also, RJU has been referred to as a "20-25 goal scorer" in most discussions on this board and his point total not mentioned as frequently. Do feel free to do an analysis which includes assists. I'm retired on RJU number crunching for the day

You're the one who wants to take additional action. Burden of proof's on you.

I get the motivation as to why that would catch your attention. I'm looking for efforts that suggest that you tried to prove yourself wrong before you concluded you were right.

I've mentioned that I've become a serious CBJ fan about 3 years ago. When I started coming regularly to games at NWA at first, I remember focusing on RJU because in the limited games which I'd seen in person before, I'd been impressed by RJUs grit and tenacity.
The point is that I wasn't in the "he's a bum camp" from way back when. I am now firmly entrenched in it, however

After his performances in the two seasons prior to this (in 2011-12, his points were end of the season loaded), I had come to the conclusion that RJU would be a prime candidate for amnesty buyout when he became eligible (this June). I don't feel that I jumped the gun on this judgement, but even if I did, then his performance this past season just supported my amnesty buyout perspective.

Enh. Fair enough. That also, though, makes me worry about your thoroughness w/r/t checking things that could suggest a poor conclusion.

Simply put, finding a "replacement" for your least productive 5 on 5 player is almost the entire universe of possibilities. After all, the worst the replacement could finish is dead last. Which would be an exact replacement of RJU over the past 2 seasons. The cost of finding an NHLer who produces at his rate of 5 vs. 5 scoring wouldn't be much.

Oh, wow. Well, now we've both had our moments of blatant crazy.

There's two really big flaws with this one:

• Points per 60 does not stay constant as minutes played changes. Some players do even better with additional opportunity above and beyond this metric. Others can end up wearing themselves out and doing worse, and so forth. Therefore, one has to also look at comparable TOI. (I may consider trying that sometime, as I don't see a way to pull that automatically from behindthenet. Another feature request to put in. ) Therefore, the suggestion that "all we need is someone with a similar P/60" is flawed.
• There are many, MANY players out there objectively worse than RJ Umberger. We've had a few on this team. Many of them are on other NHL teams elsewhere. Worst on team X is not 1-to-1 comparable to worst on team Y any more than best X/best Y are. This is like suggesting that replacing Ryan Johansen with Sidney Crosby would make absolutely no difference because they're both the best on their respective teams.

Sorry, but ultimately I still kind of question your dedication to trying to find data that could potentially disprove your position. I sincerely appreciate the effort made, tho!

* * *​

Its pretty simple. We're a better team without Umberger.

If we have, say, John Scott taking Umberger's minutes instead, then I would not say we have a better team.

Obviously that's an extreme example, but my point is that I frankly don't see it as somehow self-evident and infallable.

Sure, if he made 1 mil a year we could just throw him on the 4th line, but he doesn't.

I submit his contract would become more acceptable at about the $2-3m mark. $1m/year would be a ridiculous steal given current market rates, especially at the current remaining term.

This team needs to improve, and could use the money being paid to him to do that. Constructive right?

Potentially, yes. But only if an actual improvement is acquired as a result of doing so. I don't see plans to do that being made here by anybody except EspenK, and I've already described why I don't think the ones he's made are all that compelling w/r/t justifying the buyout.
Although some are compelling independent of this debate. Jussi Jokinen looks like a better option than I'd first presumed, for example. So at least I'm getting SOME value out of my ****up earlier.

The point is, you don't buy him out first and look for improvements later. You try for improvements first, and buy him out if it turns out that's needed to make the improvement happen.

 

[TaketheCannoli]

This appears to be the case....In your case






Why don't you show some objective evidence which supports RJU?

Something about a needle in haystack comes to mind. Good luck......I think I'll have a Snickers Bar whilst I wait.

I already gave it. Like it or not, the Jackets are a budget team. Buying Umberger out deepens the team's losses. Please if you disagree that it doesn't deepen the losses, you are welcome to provide proof that paying a player not to play saves money.

I'll even get you started...The Jackets can save money by buying Umberger out and running with a roster of 21 players....for SIX years.

As stated before, I don't give a damn whether he is bought out or not.

Why do you care whether he is bought out so much?