We were sellers of goods that the buyers didn't want for the price.
A seller than doesn't sell is not a seller - he's a spectator. Then again, a seller who sells for magic beans doesn't know Jack!
We were sellers of goods that the buyers didn't want for the price.
A seller than doesn't sell is not a seller - he's a spectator. Then again, a seller who sells for magic beans doesn't know Jack!
I don't think you are. From my position it looks like you are looking at everything from "Nearly everything JK does is wrong" position. You almost never say the good and over emphasize the bad.
I treated Howson far more fairly than you have JK by a huge margin. It's not an important conversation, but I ask you to work on this.
The Campbell analysis is back seat GM'ing over the small stuff. There are quite a few things he's done well in cap management as well, Jenner and Murray being the latest two. The Saad trade was great. We know why he brought in Campbell, it was because of his Cup experience, you wanted to pencil in someone that didn't do crap the previous season. Your objectives didn't align. I wouldn't have been happy penciling in Chaput and I thought he could be "serviceable" the previous season. I saw enough in three game to know that I want Chaput resigned, I didn't need this massively long look you are talking about (assuming that the 23 year old you were talking about)- by the way what you described isn't a long look. It's giving him a roster spot.
I can see both sides of all of this; there is plenty to be critical of JK about. Getting worked up that Campbell getting a spot of Chaput isn't one of them.
It's hard to get too angry with JK about Clarkson because the reality is he turned a bad situation into a possibility for some positives. Horton was never going to play again and the organization couldn't afford to pay a player that much to do nothing. It was a reality that Columbus does not have the same financial situation of Toronto. I get that. I also get that in acquiring Clarkson they got a player who might actually play and contribute. Now, would everybody prefer if he was staying healthy? Of course. And I still think it's possible. I've seen crazier things happen. He could score 25 goals next year.
So in that regard I don't blame JK at all for Clarkson. He tried to turn a hopeless situation into a positive and there's still time for it to become one even if it hasn't so far.
It's hard to get too angry with JK about Clarkson because the reality is he turned a bad situation into a possibility for some positives.
Horton was an asset. He did not occupy a roster spot at all, his contract could have been bought out, any cap team would love to have him because of the LTIR benefit, and any salary floor team (which, by nature, tend to be loaded with young players) would love to have him to keep them in cap compliance without throwing away a roster spot.
The FO screwed themselves when they let Horton play uninsured. They doubled down on that screw up with a contract that couldn't do anything with. They can't trade it, they can't buy it out.
Yes, I can blame them for that contract; negligence lead to that move.
I'm not seeing anything to suggest that Clarkson will ever return to a 20 goal scorer. Let's hope that happens. The team is on the kook for 14 million over the next 2 seasons. Unless he drop down 60 goals in the next two years, he will never come close to earning that money. Even at 60 goals he doesn't.
There is truth to that; but I keep asking some question. First off, I don't think you can buy out an injured player, almost certain you can't.
Also, is there some complication with insurance? Can a team buy insurance for a player on LTIR if they weren't insured before? Does the policy move with the player?
I'm not completely sure how all that works out. It may be a bit more complicated than some of the other players with career ending injuries.
To not blame JK for either of those is wearing the rosiest glasses of all time
I'm not sure what kind of experience you have in business, but from where I sit I think it is very likely that a GM of an NHL team doesn't decide who to insure. Signing him and knowing he wasn't insurable at that point is an okay that goes above his head -- probably to the owner.
We had a window where he was healthy, for some reason they didn't seize it. This is a business operations decision more than a GM decision. Although, I certainly would say that a proactive GM should have pushed for it. For all we know, he did.
Perfectly correct to blame the front office for Horton/Clarkson. Just not fair to only blame Jarmo in my opinion.
I'm not sure what kind of experience you have in business, but from where I sit I think it is very likely that a GM of an NHL team doesn't decide who to insure. Signing him and knowing he wasn't insurable at that point is an okay that goes above his head -- probably to the owner.
We had a window where he was healthy, for some reason they didn't seize it. This is a business operations decision more than a GM decision. Although, I certainly would say that a proactive GM should have pushed for it. For all we know, he did.
Perfectly correct to blame the front office for Horton/Clarkson. Just not fair to only blame Jarmo in my opinion.
I agree 100% - too many people passing judgement with little facts. Plus, how many contracts can you insure? Maybe they already had insured other contracts?
The $37.1 million represented nearly 20% of the team's value (roughly $200 million).
And Mike Milbury really tried to turn what he thought were bad situations into some positives, but it doesn't make his moves any less hideous.
There are no positives to getting Clarkson. He occupies a roster spot in perpetuity, he takes up a disproportionate chunk of the salary cap, he contributes nothing on the ice except a chance for the PK to get some additional time, there is no way to get out of his contract via buyout because of the way it's structured, he directly inhibits the ability of this team to get its own pending free agents signed, and it will cost significant assets to convince someone else to take him on.
Horton was an asset. He did not occupy a roster spot at all, his contract could have been bought out, any cap team would love to have him because of the LTIR benefit, and any salary floor team (which, by nature, tend to be loaded with young players) would love to have him to keep them in cap compliance without throwing away a roster spot.
There is no defending the move at all. And the damage won't be known for years, either when players within the system now are forced to walk to accommodate Clarkson's contract or when the draft picks and prospects that are packaged to get rid of him become known.
The FO screwed themselves when they let Horton play uninsured. They doubled down on that screw up with a contract that couldn't do anything with. They can't trade it, they can't buy it out.
Yes, I can blame them for that contract; negligence lead to that move.
I'm not seeing anything to suggest that Clarkson will ever return to a 20 goal scorer. Let's hope that happens. The team is on the kook for 14 million over the next 2 seasons. Unless he drop down 60 goals in the next two years, he will never come close to earning that money. Even at 60 goals he doesn't.
At this point I'd pay him to sit in the press box and use his spot on the 4th line to cycle up and coming AHL talent through (Rychel, Zaar, Anderson, etc, etc). At least that way we get some benefit.
If the team does that they basically said that we should have kept Horton; at least he wasn't taking up a roster spot. Won't happen.