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

[Doug19]

I will form my opinion on Umberger after the playoffs. If he is a gamer in the playoffs keep him, if he sinks, trade him.

 

[CarolinaBlueJacket]

He's a 20 goal scorer with potential for more and leadership thrown in. Plus he fits with this team. Keep him. You will get ripped off in a trade and buying him out is just throwing money out the window.

 

[Robert]

Serious question... Who was our first? I believe we HAVE two compliance buyouts remaining but I don't see any chance in hell they use both. I still don't feel they'll buy out RJ. If so, OK with me. It's not my money or asset management but I think RJ offers value to someone - if not us.

We bought out Westcott and Commodore.... according to the CBA this is the last off season for post lockout compliance buyouts unless I'm mistaken, we do have two.

http://www.capgeek.com/buyouts/

 

[Fro]

catchign up from the last week...would raterh keep Umby at 4.6m vs Cally at anything more...can't believe I actually said taht....

and we do still have both Compliance Buyouts left

 

[cbjfaninmo]

I will form my opinion on Umberger after the playoffs. If he is a gamer in the playoffs keep him, if he sinks, trade him.

I am mostly in this boat too. Let's see what he does in the playoffs. Then he is kept or traded. No buyout.

 

[Curufinwe]

I would love to see him back in Philly on our 3rd line with Couturier and Read if he's bought out, but that seems unlikely.

I hope he has a series against Pittsburgh like his series for us against Montreal back in 2008. He played so well we couldn't afford to keep him.

 

[Viqsi]

Okay, here's a new theory as to why this asinine mishegaas somehow continues to be a thing.

Premises:

• We have compliance buyouts. But they're a "use 'em or lose 'em" asset.
• We do not like to lose assets "for nothing". It is axiomatic that this is bad. (How bad varies according to the asset.)
• Of all the players on the roster, if you absolutely had to identify someone overpaid by a contract signed pre-lockout and thus able to be bought out, the strongest candidate would be Umberger.

Therefore:

• OMG MUST BUY OUT UMBERGER

I'd put that particular strawman on the same level as last year's "we absolutely have to trade Johansen before he inevitably busts". So if this actually reflects legit opinions and motivations of anyone here... we've got problems, folks.

 

[EspenK]

I have on many occasions posted legitimate reasons as to why buying out Umberger makes sense. As have blah and several others. You chose to ignore them and lump all buyout suggestions as being the ravings of lunatics. I find this ironic as you often chastise others for taking this shotgun approach to refute premises they don't agree with.

We'll see what happens but for now I continue to think buying him out is a viable option based on:

Freeing up a roster space for a better player.
Saving 4.6 million dollars.
Improving cash flow.

I also support trading him, either separately or as part of a package, for assets that improve the team.

 

[EspenK]

He's a 20 goal scorer with potential for more and leadership thrown in. Plus he fits with this team. Keep him. You will get ripped off in a trade and buying him out is just throwing money out the window.

At his age the potential ship as sailed.

 

[CarolinaBlueJacket]

I also support trading him, either separately or as part of a package, for assets that improve the team.

As with anyone it depends on what you get back. Hell I would package Bob and Johansen for the right deal. Doesn't mean I would actively pursue it though.

 

[blahblah]

It was said by the Dispatch that we didn't sign Prospal was that we wanted the minutes going to the youth. Does that apply to future youth? Is that enough of a reason, by the front office, to buy out RJ? Is there a FA they would rather give RJ's minutes to?

Okay, here's a new theory as to why this asinine mishegaas somehow continues to be a thing.

Premises:

• We have compliance buyouts. But they're a "use 'em or lose 'em" asset.
• We do not like to lose assets "for nothing". It is axiomatic that this is bad. (How bad varies according to the asset.)
• Of all the players on the roster, if you absolutely had to identify someone overpaid by a contract signed pre-lockout and thus able to be bought out, the strongest candidate would be Umberger.

Therefore:

• OMG MUST BUY OUT UMBERGER

I'd put that particular strawman on the same level as last year's "we absolutely have to trade Johansen before he inevitably busts". So if this actually reflects legit opinions and motivations of anyone here... we've got problems, folks.

Obviously not one I'm making. I'm probably allergic to straw.

 

[Viqsi]

I have on many occasions posted legitimate reasons as to why buying out Umberger makes sense.

I believe I have already described why I do not consider those to be legitimate.

As have blah and several others.

Most of those have been about why it might be plausible, not why it's sensible. I still am not seeing why paying a whole bunch of extra money to get rid of a guy who's producing so that we can pay tons more money to someone who will likely perform at the same or lower level to somehow be sensible. Unless folks somehow think that an Umberger buyout is all that stands between this team and Thomas Vanek at $4m/year or something.

I see a lot about "let's get somebody better", and zero-zip-zilch-nada-NOTHING about who would actually represent someone better, at a better value. Here's a hint: there ain't nobody.

 

[Fro]

I see a lot about "let's get somebody better", and zero-zip-zilch-nada-NOTHING about who would actually represent someone better, at a better value. Here's a hint: there ain't nobody.

we don't know that...who knows, someone could slip thru, sign for 4m late in offseason, and then suddenly pot 25g...we have no way of saying absolutely "there ain't nobody"

 

[EDM]

There has been some pretty specific talk that the "something better" is Callahan. Is he really better? I am not sure. But the talk on this board has been pretty specific about the option being Callahan.

 

[Viqsi]

we don't know that...who knows, someone could slip thru, sign for 4m late in offseason, and then suddenly pot 25g...we have no way of saying absolutely "there ain't nobody"

In that case, we don't need an upgrade on offense because Cam could score 30+ goals next year. "The answer is in the room."

We have the cap space to try for that sort of thing without buying out some of our proven scoring.

* * *​

There has been some pretty specific talk that the "something better" is Callahan. Is he really better? I am not sure. But the talk on this board has been pretty specific about the option being Callahan.

And even if he drops his asking price by $1.5m/year, he'd still be move overpaid than Umberger and producing at about the same rate.

 

[blahblah]

I believe I have already described why I do not consider those to be legitimate.

I've said since day one; if he's bought out it's a roster spot issue. Are you saying that isn't "legitimate"? If so, I think you'll be hard pressed to justify that position.

If they are considering buying him out; down the line. It could very well make more sense this year than waiting for another year to pass.

In addition there is some evidence to suggest that RJ received a less than stellar exit interview at the end of last season. I guess they question would be; is a sub-20 goal season a large enough improvement? Let's consider that RJ was out-produced by Foligno and Atkinson and a rookie came close (Jenner). Is a 35 minute PROD acceptable? How about 10 ES goals? Let's also consider that his production was in-line with Letestu - who played most of the season on the 4th line.

I'm not in the RJ sucks camp; but it seems to be it's easier to justify reasons to buy him out than it is to justify his salary and ice-time. It would be one thing if he was paid as a role-player. He's paid to produce.

 

[Viqsi]

I've said since day one; if he's bought out it's a roster spot issue. Are you saying that isn't "legitimate"? If so, I think you'll be hard pressed to justify that position.

If they are considering buying him out; down the line. It could very well make more sense this year than waiting for another year to pass.

In addition there is some evidence to suggest that RJ received a less than stellar exit interview at the end of last season. I guess they question would be; is a sub-20 goal season a large enough improvement? Let's consider that RJ was out-produced by Foligno and Atkinson and a rookie came close (Jenner). Is a 35 minute PROD acceptable? How about 10 ES goals? Let's also consider that his production was in-line with Letestu - who played most of the season on the 4th line.

I'm not in the RJ sucks camp; but it seems to be it's easier to justify reasons to buy him out than it is to justify his salary and ice-time. It would be one thing if he was paid as a role-player. He's paid to produce.

I get that, but, again, I'm not seeing where the better-value alternatives are. If we take it as given that we're going to have someone 1/3 to 1/2-again overpaid on the roster, then, yeah, there's better alternatives than Umberger out there that we might be able to try for. I just fear that we're not likely to get anybody who's measurably better than him, and may end up spending more not just on the new guy but on the buyout in an attempt to do so.

If I thought we had a fair chance at someone who'd be significantly better on-ice, then I'd go for it and to hell with the contract implications. But it looks to me like the most likely outcome is "lateral move at best", and so I don't see why the move should be made. In particular, it seems like right now the argument being made is less "We should go for guy X or Y; that's made possible if we buy out Umberger", and more "I have the solution! Buy out Umberger! What was your problem again?" The buyout seems to be the focus and the goal, rather than as a possible means to an end - and I disagree with that move for the same reasons that I found the Gaborik trade puzzling and unnecessary.

 

[blahblah]

I've said since day one; if he's bought out it's a roster spot issue. Are you saying that isn't "legitimate"? If so, I think you'll be hard pressed to justify that position.

I get that, but, again, I'm not seeing where the better-value alternatives are.

It may simply be organic. It may having nothing to do with FA.

If it does mean bringing in a FA is value the consideration or is improving a slot (production)? Would I rather have RJ or Stastny (with the assumption that both are overpaid)? I know what may answer is and I can tell you that is hardly a lateral move. Obviously trades are a consideration; but that potentially removes the need for a buy-out.

If it's organic, is there more value in giving more ice-time to a younger player?

I think there could be a lot of moving parts if the front office and ownership can get past the idea of paying someone not to play.

I'm not going to give me opinion on what I think they are going to do. It's all idle speculation. I don't know what they think of RJ. There is no value to what the fans think of RJ, beyond, potentially, interesting conversation.

One thing that we do know; this group in the front office doesn't like to sit idle and they are always looking to improve. There are needs with this team and it would see that they will seek any avenue to improve. It will be difficult to eliminate a buy-out of an under-performing player as a line they wouldn't cross.

There are a host of other things that need to be considered by the front office; including chemistry and leadership. Things that a great deal of the fan base likes to simply discount at a whim. Fans like to assume they are actually qualified to know what goes on in the locker room and the impact that has on the team.

 

[cbjfaninmo]

I see a lot about "let's get somebody better", and zero-zip-zilch-nada-NOTHING about who would actually represent someone better, at a better value. Here's a hint: there ain't nobody.

Vinny Prospal and give him the "C".

 

[Cyclones Rock]

I believe I have already described why I do not consider those to be legitimate.



Most of those have been about why it might be plausible, not why it's sensible. I still am not seeing why paying a whole bunch of extra money to get rid of a guy who's producing so that we can pay tons more money to someone who will likely perform at the same or lower level to somehow be sensible. Unless folks somehow think that an Umberger buyout is all that stands between this team and Thomas Vanek at $4m/year or something.

I see a lot about "let's get somebody better", and zero-zip-zilch-nada-NOTHING about who would actually represent someone better, at a better value. Here's a hint: there ain't nobody.

http://www.behindthenet.ca/nhl_stat...+RW&f7=60-&c=0+1+3+5+4+6+7+17+18+19+20#snip=f

Umberger ranked 171st (1.39 pts/60 min) among NHL forwards who played 60 games in ES 5 vs. 5 production this season. That's with a lot of first line minutes with Foligno and Johansen. Foligno ranked 52nd (2.10) and Johansen ranked 22nd (2.38). That's an amazing differential given the amount of shared minutes.

Without first line opportunities, Umberger would have been dead last among Jackets forwards (50 GP min.)-and by a significant margin:

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

His PP stats were an obvious statistical outlier and are extraordinarily unlikely to repeat.

HINT: Money notwithstanding, the even strength production of RJ Umberger could be easily replaced by any forward on the CBJ roster who played 54 or more games this past season if he were given the same opportunities. His PP luck this past season is irrelevant to a serious discussion.

The notion that if Umberger's cap space could not be applied toward a better option is patently absurd.

 

[99 CBJ]

I don't see this team spending the money to pay Umberger not to play, just to go out and pay someone else to fill the spot, we are not the Flyer's. What I could see is the FO asking Umberger during his exit interview for a list of teams he would be willing to play for in a trade. This FO has no ties to him and has allowed him to be scratched multiple times, with the change in his NTC Jarmo could trade him at the draft for whatever he could get.

 

[grindline]

Does anyone have any inkling of what we might get in a trade? The thread I posted in the main board wasn't much use.

 

[EspenK]

Does anyone have any inkling of what we might get in a trade? The thread I posted in the main board wasn't much use.

Depends on who you ask. Some who will remain nameless will say Taylor Hall and the next top 3 pick of the Oilers others like me will say depends on the type of deal. Straight up I don't see much, maybe a couple of picks or prospects, no one player that will make an immediate impact. If included in a package deal then who knows. Will depend on who is involved.

But then again, GM's are a strange bunch you get a MacLean type involved we could come out okay.

 

[grindline]

But then again, GM's are a strange bunch you get a MacLean type involved we could come out okay.

Surely George McPhee has one 'blockbuster' trade left inside him before he gets sacked?

 

[Kev22]

If Umberger comes back in this series, makes a Herculean effort and we win the series, then I will change my opinion on him. Until then, I'll stick to buying him out or trading him.