CBJ Offseason '16 (All FA/trade/roster discussion/blog rumor/proposals/etc here)

[Crede777]

Can't do it. We're already protecting Murray, Jones, and Savard. Can't add a fourth defenseman without subtracting one of those three. Murray and Jones are instant no's. With Savard, it's debateable, but he is a right handed shot which completely defeats the purpose for Winnipeg.

 

[CBJSlash]

Is he better than Savard though? It would cost more to trade for him than we would probably get for Savard and he will cost more in contract than Savard. Why give up more assets (players/picks and money) just to maybe upgrade a position that doesn't need to be upgraded?

Yes, I think Trouba is significantly better than Savard (however his contract will be heftier). Savard may end up being an underappreciated bargain. But the trade doesn't make sense if we plan to keep both. It'd depend on what Savard's value would be (pretty good).

Still, when these sorts of players are on the market, I hope we are in conversations to see if there's something that makes sense. If not, no harm done. I'm sure we'd salivate at the thought of a Werenski-Trouba pair. With Murray - Jones, Werenski - Trouba Jean Luc Grand-Pierre and Deron Quint could get back in the league.

The Clarkson LTIR news and our young depth can help make many deals happen should we think they improve our team.

 

[Jackets16]

We will have to agree to disagree. Also, how do you plan on paying all of these defensemen? It just makes no sense to trade for him. He isn't a need, he isn't worth what it will cost to trade for him, and he probably won't be worth what he wants to be paid.

 

[99 CBJ]

Why would we want a player that demands a trade because he wants to dictate when and where he plays. Did we not just trade a malcontent, we should stay away from these type of players.

 

[CBJx614]

This isn't NHL 16 where you try to get a bunch of potential top pair dmen throughout your lineup. Savard is perfect for the 2nd pair. If we develop someone who can push him down the slot then perfect, otherwise no need to to move him.

 

[Old Guy]

This time last year, Jarmo was asked about his D-corps by writers and pundits. He said he was just fine with what he had and thought he could win with it. I was skeptical and silent. I'm now fine with what the CBJ have on the blue line. I'll be happy when somebody emerges and pushes Jack Johnson down the line up or to Las Vegas.

I'm fine with letting the players already in place percolate and grow. I still think that between Heatherington or Gabe Carlsson there is another very solid 3-4 D-man that will move up in time.

 

[major major]

This time last year, Jarmo was asked about his D-corps by writers and pundits. He said he was just fine with what he had and thought he could win with it. I was skeptical and silent. I'm now fine with what the CBJ have on the blue line. I'll be happy when somebody emerges and pushes Jack Johnson down the line up or to Las Vegas.

I'm fine with letting the players already in place percolate and grow. I still think that between Heatherington or Gabe Carlsson there is another very solid 3-4 D-man that will move up in time.

I don't know if that's a reasonable expectation for those two, but between them AND Kukan AND Siebenaler AND Nutivaara AND Gavrikov, we've got pretty good odds of someone stepping up.

 

[Double-Shift Lasse]

I don't know if that's a reasonable expectation for those two, but between them AND Kukan AND Siebenaler AND Nutivaara AND Gavrikov, we've got pretty good odds of someone stepping up.

Re: Collins/Peeke/etc -- I will admit to not being the most thorough in vetting the prospects, so I look at this situation thusly: it's the wide-net theory. Jarmo doesn't have to hit on all of Carlsson/Collins/Gavrikov/Heatherington/Peeke/(others?), just a couple. So he's keeping the farm well-stocked with young, strong, mobile, defense-first-but-good-first-pass (acknowledging these players possess these traits to varying degrees) players.

The timeline isn't the same for all the mentioned players but I believe the concept is the same. A wide net, if you will.

 

[major major]

The timeline isn't the same for all the mentioned players but I believe the concept is the same. A wide net, if you will.

We can leave out Collins. But I should remember Peeke.

 

[Tulipunaruusu*]

We can leave out Collins.

Unless you mean Collins could potentially do it in other organization it is still 3-4 years too soon to forecast.

 

[Double-Shift Lasse]

We can leave out Collins. But I should remember Peeke.

Perhaps. He was reportedly very bad last season. But it goes to the larger "wide net" point, so he's included.

And my post didn't include some players you mention like Siebenaler and Nutivaara, but the point still stands, regardless of who's all on your "list."

 

[Old Guy]

The timeline isn't the same for all the mentioned players but I believe the concept is the same. A wide net, if you will.

That's the general idea I was hoping to submit without knowing all the names.

This concept goes to a question I would love to see asked of a current/former GM. In an ideal world, where your roster of 23 is configured 14-F/7-D/2-G, how many players should "graduate" each year from your draft and develop pool (AHL-Junior-College) and earn a spot on your NHL club?

I would guess the answer is 2. That means you are turning over your roster every 12 1/2 years. If the answer is 3, that means you are turning over your roster every 7 1/2 years.

 

[major major]

I don't disagree at all with the wide net idea. I'm just grouping the guys in terms of reasonable upside to get a sense of what we can expect. Not all wide-nets are created equal. If our D prospects consisted of 12 guys at Collins' level we wouldn't be so hopeful.

After the obvious Werenski, these guys have some top 4 upside:

Kukan
Heatherington
Siebenaler
Peeke
Gavrikov
Nutivaara
Carlsson

I don't know enough about Vainio, Ruopp is a project with a chance of coming in like Prout. Yevenko I have a hard time taking seriously, and somewhere deep below that we have Collins.

 

[Fro]

IDK about Seibs...I was big on him, and I know still way new to defense...but just not seeing the growth I did from 14->15...and same with Dillon...I think 16-17 are real make or break years for them...

I don't know enough are see enough of Nutivaara and Carlsson to make an educated enough decision...If we get to see them in Cleveland sooner than later...

that leaves Kukan who has filled in ok in spot duty...need to see another step forward from him and Peeke who won't be around for a couple years...

 

[Double-Shift Lasse]

I don't disagree at all with the wide net idea. I'm just grouping the guys in terms of reasonable upside to get a sense of what we can expect. Not all wide-nets are created equal. If our D prospects consisted of 12 guys at Collins' level we wouldn't be so hopeful.

Yes but that only illustrates the point. I'm not subdividing those in the wide net specifically because that will reveal itself in time, as the Collins situation has, for the time being anyway, done. That's literally the reason the wide net exists.

 

[major major]

IDK about Seibs...I was big on him, and I know still way new to defense...but just not seeing the growth I did from 14->15...and same with Dillon...I think 16-17 are real make or break years for them...

I don't know enough are see enough of Nutivaara and Carlsson to make an educated enough decision...If we get to see them in Cleveland sooner than later...

that leaves Kukan who has filled in ok in spot duty...need to see another step forward from him and Peeke who won't be around for a couple years...

I don't really know enough with Nuti or Carlsson either. Nutivaara is in Cleveland this year though, so we will see. Siebenaler's offence hasn't really shown up but his growth has been coming through on the defensive side.

 

[Hello Johnny]

I think Siebenaler, while not going to be an offensive force, has the right tools to be a decent 5/6 guy. Good skater and puckmover, competent defensively. Kind of a Kris Russell. That's the very best I can see for him though.