Also Lundell hasnt really stood out to me too much in the NHL, not sure why Im supposed to be jealous there
Also Lundell hasnt really stood out to me too much in the NHL, not sure why Im supposed to be jealous there
Bennett has chemistry with Tkachuk also he was ideal for Florida.Thats not a defense at all. We dont know how those guys would look because we never acquire them. Atleast they tried with Bean but not much else.
And who cares what trades fans want or dont, we dont get paid to make the team better, our management does. They havent been so great at adding veterans around the kids
He scored more before Tkachuk. He'd be ideal here too, we need more grit. Basically your rationale has been "trust me bro"Bennett has chemistry with Tkachuk also he was ideal for Florida.
That into here we can talk as if who played endlessly.
I know it and I very wanted him. But it is question if he played good here. Scouts/staff always have to ask themselves, would he play well on the team? Does the team have the ideal teammates? Will the player sign a new contract or will he want to leave? Etc, etc.He scored more before Tkachuk. He'd be ideal here too, we need more grit. Basically your rationale has been "trust me bro"
The verdict: You really don’t want to be on the hook for nearly $50 million to a 60-point winger on the wrong side of 30. But it still feels like context matters here. The Blue Jackers stink, as always, and while some of that is on Gaudreau, a playmaker can only do so much without scoring talent around him. And at the end of the day, if you’re a Columbus fan … I mean, you do this deal again, right? The best player on the market chose you, and it didn’t even cost as much as it could have. No, it hasn’t worked out, and at this point we have to accept that maybe it never will, but I don’t have the heart to call this a bad contract quite yet.
Well, I do. It's a bad contract.
At least better in the sense of a worse record and a better chance to draft 1OA.Obviously the team would be better without him.
Maybe someday we'll wish we didn't have his contract on the books but it's really hard to argue right now that we have a better use for the money. And this team would be excrement without him.
Does Johnny Gaudreau have a bad contract? Pierre-Luc Dubois? Cap Court returns
It’s time for another round of Cap Court, the feature in which we put NHL contracts on trial. Just how bad are these contracts?theathletic.com
The details: The most shocking UFA deal in recent memory has five years left after this one, with a cap hit of $9.75 million.
The case that it’s a bad contract: Gaudreau was easily the top of the 2022 UFA class, coming off a career year that saw him finish fourth in MVP voting. But his first year in Columbus was disappointing, with just 74 points. And this year is on pace to be even worse; he’ll need a late push to even crack the top 80 in league scoring. For a guy who’ll turn 31 before next season, it sure looks like the Blue Jackets paid top dollar for a player who was on the brink of a sharp decline.
The case that it might be OK: Was it top dollar? As big-name UFA deals go, this one was pretty reasonable given Gaudreau was coming off a 115-point season when he signed it. For comparison, Artemi Panarin had never scored more than 87 points when he got a deal worth nearly $2 million more per season from the New York Rangers in 2019, while John Tavares had never topped 86 when he got a similar contract from the Toronto Maple Leafs in 2018. Tavares is a center and Panarin is younger, and Gaudreau hit free agency when the cap was frozen and would be for years, but that’s still a significant discount for a marquee name.
There’s also the Columbus factor — the Blue Jackets have never exactly been considered a prime destination for talent, and sometimes those teams have to pay a little extra to sign stars. (You could make the case that Zach Werenski makes a bit too much for exactly the same reason.) Still, “we have to be willing to sign bad contracts” isn’t the same as defending those contracts.
Key witnesses: Gaudreau is the third-highest-paid left winger in the league, behind only Panarin and Huberdeau, and it’s fair to say he slots in between those two guys right now. He makes more than Kirill Kaprizov and Filip Forsberg, both of whom are younger. He’s at least outproducing Jamie Benn and Jeff Skinner, who are both just behind him on the cap hit list.
The verdict: You really don’t want to be on the hook for nearly $50 million to a 60-point winger on the wrong side of 30. But it still feels like context matters here. The Blue Jackers stink, as always, and while some of that is on Gaudreau, a playmaker can only do so much without scoring talent around him. And at the end of the day, if you’re a Columbus fan … I mean, you do this deal again, right? The best player on the market chose you, and it didn’t even cost as much as it could have. No, it hasn’t worked out, and at this point we have to accept that maybe it never will, but I don’t have the heart to call this a bad contract quite yet.
Well, I do. It's a bad contract.
I’m genuinely curious how you rank Gaudreau/Severson in the “bad contract” ranking. I’m actually curious how everyone who posts here would rank the entire team and their contracts. I guess a lot to do with JG and DS depends on K Johnson/Jiricek, and what people think of them and their future.Our $9.75 million/year UFA has 11 goals this season. Tied for 7th on the CBJ.
It's taken him 76 games to reach this epic number of goals. Throwaway pick up Nylander has 10 in 19 games. Kuraly is only 2 behind Johnny G despite playing in 19 fewer games.
This deal is aging like a case of MD 20/20.
Alex Nylander has 19,2 %SH and many goals thanks to Johnny.Our $9.75 million/year UFA has 11 goals this season. Tied for 7th on the CBJ.
It's taken him 76 games to reach this epic number of goals. Throwaway pick up Nylander has 10 in 19 games. Kuraly is only 2 behind Johnny G despite playing in 19 fewer games.
This deal is aging like a case of MD 20/20.
1) At this point, Gaudreau would have to be considered the worst of the two. By far.I’m genuinely curious how you rank Gaudreau/Severson in the “bad contract” ranking. I’m actually curious how everyone who posts here would rank the entire team and their contracts. I guess a lot to do with JG and DS depends on K Johnson/Jiricek, and what people think of them and their future.
Gaudreau obviously isn’t used as and shouldn’t be looked at as a “goal scorer”. That said, and with how goals/points are nowadays, you still want him to be getting close to 20-25 goals playing nearly an entire season. He has the same problem the majority of both our high paid veterans and young players have, he lacks intensity.
I always hate the "Bad contracts" discussion because it almost always devolves into "What have you done for me lately?" Remember this one with JT Miller: Down Goes Brown: Putting J.T. Miller's contract on trial in the return of NHL cap courtI’m genuinely curious how you rank Gaudreau/Severson in the “bad contract” ranking. I’m actually curious how everyone who posts here would rank the entire team and their contracts. I guess a lot to do with JG and DS depends on K Johnson/Jiricek, and what people think of them and their future.
Gaudreau obviously isn’t used as and shouldn’t be looked at as a “goal scorer”. That said, and with how goals/points are nowadays, you still want him to be getting close to 20-25 goals playing nearly an entire season. He has the same problem the majority of both our high paid veterans and young players have, he lacks intensity.
The problem isn’t the popular answer in Jenner, it’s that we don’t have a another winger that is a great fit to go ALONG with Jenner, as we also don’t have a better option at C than him.
Gaudreau-Fantilli-Chinakhov, maybe as soon as next year works.
But, I look at this as a line that would need a defensive Jenner line to supplement it.
Voronkov-Jenner-Texier
His contract is terrible because of where the rest of the team is ill constructed for a player of his type. If he were on TB or Edmonton for examples with that kind of deal it wouldn't be so bad.I always hate the "Bad contracts" discussion because it almost always devolves into "What have you done for me lately?" Remember this one with JT Miller: Down Goes Brown: Putting J.T. Miller's contract on trial in the return of NHL cap court
Remember how everyone said Miller's contract was an anchor, his bad attitude was killing the team and its completely immovable but until it is the Canucks were a dead team? Yeah...the same people are saying the same thing about Johnny right now.
I find it best to compare him and his contract status to Panarin when he first joined the Rangers whenever discussions of the state of the team and timing of acquisition come up.His contract is terrible because of where the rest of the team is ill constructed for a player of his type. If he were on TB or Edmonton for examples with that kind of deal it wouldn't be so bad.
there are three ways you can define "positive overall impact" here:the Laine-Gaudreau combo has been a disaster and has NEVER been an overall positive impact on the team,
Player 1 | Player 2 | 5v5 GF% |
Laine on ice | Gaudreau on ice | 51.12% |
Laine on ice | w/o Gaudreau | 53.85% |
Gaudreau on ice | w/o Laine | 39.02% |
No Laine | No Gaudreau | 33.63% |
there are three ways you can define "positive overall impact" here:
you also said "NEVER" (in all caps). so your claim is that, under no circumstances have laine and gaudreau together won their minutes or outperformed their teammates.
- winning their minutes (positive goal share)
- outperforming their teammates (relative stats)
Player 1 Player 2 5v5 GF% Laine on ice Gaudreau on ice 51.12% Laine on ice w/o Gaudreau 53.85% Gaudreau on ice w/o Laine 39.02% No Laine No Gaudreau 33.63%
when laine and gaudreau were both on the ice in 22-23 at 5v5, they had a positive goal share. when neither were out there, they were outscored nearly 2-to-1 at 5v5.
laine was slightly better without gaudreau, but gaudreau was significantly worse without laine.
so, not only did that combination objectively create a positive overall impact (by both definitions), but it was also the optimal usage for gaudreau.
factually speaking, it was far from being a 'disaster' even if, at times, it looked clunky.