What's going on with Dubinsky and Jenner

[major major]

I'll just throw this out. Maybe they're both complacent. I'm not saying that they are, just that it's a possibility.

Dubinsky hasn't been the same since he signed the big deal and Jenner is a 23 year old 2nd round draft pick who probably never realistically envisioned making $6 million over 2 years.

It's human nature to get comfortable once a major goal has been achieved. Both these guys have achieved lifetime financial security.

Only a CBJ insider could make the call on what I've posited. What's really troubling-if this supposition is true- is that they are the two Assistant Captains which supposedly makes them team leaders.

I think there are some guys who are so in to the game and want to win so badly that their income is irrelevant to how hard they work. Jenner and Dubinsky are those kind of guys. They're not struggling because of their paychecks.

 

[major major]

Your attempt failed and Foligno has nothing to do with the other two.

I think it just shows that you misunderstand her point. You could have said last year, as many did, that Foligno was struggling because of his new wealth. I think his play this year should put that theory to bed. He's never been more willing to take a punch to the face for his team.

And you agree that his play last year wasn't due to $, but was because he tried to do too much.

Yeah but Foligno's complacency is why we sucked last year.

Is there a missing "". It doesn't seem like you but I'm used to hearing bizarre anti-Foligno opinions on here.

I don't know how anyone can come to your stated point. What effort did he fail to undertake on behalf of his team?

 

[major major]

I'm not even close to being in the "trade him" boat.. and I have doubts that he would bring back a true bonafide 1C in return.

I wouldn't trade someone because of a rough stretch or slump. But I've argued for a long time that the Jackets have less use for Jenner than many other clubs would. If the return is right, Jackets should listen, of course.

Edit: Whoa, 5 posts. Sorry for spamming everyone. This is why I should read the whole thread before replying.

 

[MAHJ71]

I wouldn't trade someone because of a rough stretch or slump. But I've argued for a long time that the Jackets have less use for Jenner than many other clubs would. If the return is right, Jackets should listen, of course.

Edit: Whoa, 5 posts. Sorry for spamming everyone. This is why I should read the whole thread before replying.

Yeah, of course we should listen if the return is right.

Just stating at this point I don't think it would be and I'm not even close to being ready to give up on him. It's so damn early.

 

[Zarathustra]

I think it just shows that you misunderstand her point. You could have said last year, as many did, that Foligno was struggling because of his new wealth. I think his play this year should put that theory to bed. He's never been more willing to take a punch to the face for his team.

And you agree that his play last year wasn't due to $, but was because he tried to do too much.



Is there a missing "". It doesn't seem like you but I'm used to hearing bizarre anti-Foligno opinions on here.

I don't know how anyone can come to your stated point. What effort did he fail to undertake on behalf of his team?

I remember Foligno getting criticized for not performing to the level of his contract, but I don't remember that ever being a reason for any perceived complacency.

I do remember the arguments generally falling into a few separate categories:

1. The concussion he suffered relatively early (I tend to agree mostly with this one).

2. The pressure of having the "C."

3. He was never as good as his previous year and he regressed back closer to his normal production levels and he wasn't as skilled as his contract implied and just cashed in on a good year.

I don't recall people questioning his effort or calling him complacent (I could be remembering incorrectly, though).

 

[Viqsi]

Your attempt failed and Foligno has nothing to do with the other two.

Would you prefer I just start setting anyone who tries to resurrect said narrative on fire? That would be much simpler and more straightforward, but I'm trying to be a little nicer nowadays.

Because, seriously, it's utter bull**** and it needs to die and stay dead. It's a perennial evidence-free assertion, and I have no tolerance left for folks using it as a cover for "I need catharsis and refuse to internalize the lesson behind 'familiarity breeds contempt', therefore THROW THE BUMS OUT".

* * *​

Yeah but Foligno's complacency is why we sucked last year.

 

[Cyclones Rock]

Would you prefer I just start setting anyone who tries to resurrect said narrative on fire? That would be much simpler and more straightforward, but I'm trying to be a little nicer nowadays.

Because, seriously, it's utter bull**** and it needs to die and stay dead. It's a perennial evidence-free assertion, and I have no tolerance left for folks using it as a cover for "I need catharsis and refuse to internalize the lesson behind 'familiarity breeds contempt', therefore THROW THE BUMS OUT".

* * *​

Relax.

I just tossed it out there. As far as I know you're not Dubinsky or Jenner so you don't have to take it personally

It may not be true. But the notion that "it's just not possible because it doesn't fit into my narrative about the CBJ" is comically absurd.

 

[JacketsDavid]

I wouldn't trade someone because of a rough stretch or slump. But I've argued for a long time that the Jackets have less use for Jenner than many other clubs would. If the return is right, Jackets should listen, of course.

Edit: Whoa, 5 posts. Sorry for spamming everyone. This is why I should read the whole thread before replying.

So you wouldn't have traded Ry-Jo?

 

[Double-Shift Lasse]

Is there a missing "". It doesn't seem like you but I'm used to hearing bizarre anti-Foligno opinions on here.

I don't know how anyone can come to your stated point. What effort did he fail to undertake on behalf of his team?

Not missing - implied/understood/let people figure it out.

We've been attributing sucking to not caring for years. It's kind of our (CBF HF) thing.

 

[CBJx614]

First full offseason of torts system being installed, I'm not extremely worried yet as I think they're both trying to adjust and play to fit the system, not necessarily their style. If they're struggling in another 10 games then I'll start to worry.

 

[Viqsi]

I just tossed it out there. As far as I know you're not Dubinsky or Jenner so you don't have to take it personally

It may not be true. But the notion that "it's just not possible because it doesn't fit into my narrative about the CBJ" is comically absurd.

Gosh, it's a good thing that that has nothing to do with my CBJ narrative then.

People lean on it as a go-to excuse for why they want to get rid of folks who they've seen a lot of and therefore have lost faith in (not out of any ability issues but more out of "familiarity breeds contempt" phenomena) so damn often that frankly I don't give a **** whether it's ever actually true in a particular case (unlikely) or not. Come up with a provable reason that can be demonstrated, otherwise it's far more likely that said "leadership vacuum" is a thinly veiled rationalization of impulsive action for its own sake - you know, the sorts of move one learns at the Doug MacLean School Of Utter Failure As A General Manager.

 

[Monk]

So you wouldn't have traded Ry-Jo?

lolololololol

 

[major major]

So you wouldn't have traded Ry-Jo?

Well if you'll recall, I had much bigger issues with RyJo than just a slump. My argument for the trade wasn't based on a decline in production.

 

[SuperGenius]

I'll just throw this out. Maybe they're both complacent. I'm not saying that they are, just that it's a possibility.

I'll just throw this out. Maybe they're both human beings. I'm saying they're not robots and that not everything is indicative of a long term trend.

Both of these guys will be fine. We are overthinking it.

 

[Cyclones Rock]

I'll just throw this out. Maybe they're both human beings. I'm saying they're not robots and that not everything is indicative of a long term trend.

Both of these guys will be fine. We are overthinking it.

I'm afraid that Dubinsky might be on a secular decline, independent of motivation-if that's an issue. Jenner, I'd think, is a short term issue. The elephant in the room on this board is that the CBJ don't have a #1C due to the Johansen fiasco and Dubinsky can't serve that role. Nor can anyone else on the roster. Improper slotting may have a lot to do with Dubinsky's issues. If his usage doesn't, then he's probably on the decline, and apparently, a severe one.

Thanks for pointing out that they're both human beings. I was unaware of that.

 

[HtG]

Good good... the humans still haven't noticed we've kidnapped Jenner and Dubinsky and replaced them with our own lizardmen.

Soon the plan shall be complete.

 

[major major]

I'm afraid that Dubinsky might be on a secular decline, independent of motivation-if that's an issue. Jenner, I'd think, is a short term issue. The elephant in the room on this board is that the CBJ don't have a #1C due to the Johansen fiasco and Dubinsky can't serve that role. Nor can anyone else on the roster. Improper slotting may have a lot to do with Dubinsky's issues. If his usage doesn't, then he's probably on the decline, and apparently, a severe one.

I'll admit to expecting a lot more from Dubinsky, and that does bear at least a little relevance on the Johansen-Jones trade. Or rather it would bear relevance, if Johansen was now playing like any more of a #1C than Wennberg is.

 

[Double-Shift Lasse]

I'm afraid that Dubinsky might be on a secular decline, independent of motivation-if that's an issue. Jenner, I'd think, is a short term issue. The elephant in the room on this board is that the CBJ don't have a #1C due to the Johansen fiasco and Dubinsky can't serve that role. Nor can anyone else on the roster. Improper slotting may have a lot to do with Dubinsky's issues. If his usage doesn't, then he's probably on the decline, and apparently, a severe one.

Thanks for pointing out that they're both human beings. I was unaware of that.

LOL fiasco.

 

[ndd17]

As long as we win i deeply spit Dubinsky and Jenner can't score a goals.

 

[Dr. Fire]

I thought both these guys played better last night, particularly Jenner. It looked to me like he was trying to play more the style that made him successful last season.

 

[Tulipunaruusu*]

Little Dub came to the game late. Dub and Jen came across him behind the benches and said "late again". Little Dub answered: "so am I".

 

[NotWendell]

St. Louis would be an excellent time for a Boone Jenner break out game

 

[SuperGenius]

I'm afraid that Dubinsky might be on a secular decline, independent of motivation-if that's an issue. Jenner, I'd think, is a short term issue. The elephant in the room on this board is that the CBJ don't have a #1C due to the Johansen fiasco and Dubinsky can't serve that role. Nor can anyone else on the roster. Improper slotting may have a lot to do with Dubinsky's issues. If his usage doesn't, then he's probably on the decline, and apparently, a severe one.

Wennberg says "Hi."

The #1C nonsense is a fan construct. There are not 30 #1C's in the entire league. Many teams do without the prototypical #1C and many have success. They're not winning cups, sure, but acting as if it were some kind of disaster that is dooming this team doesn't make sense.

Thanks for pointing out that they're both human beings. I was unaware of that.

Sure, no problem.

 

[georgiabluejacket]

The elephant in the room on this board is that the CBJ don't have a #1C due to the Johansen fiasco and Dubinsky can't serve that role.

R. Johansen: 11gp 1g 5a 6pts -1 ($6 million salary)

OR
for $345,000 more

S. Jones: 10gp 3g 3a 6pts +1 ($5.4 million salary)
A. Wennberg: 10g 1g 11a 12pts +3 ($945,000)


Hope we get several more "fiasco's" like this.

 

[Zarathustra]

R. Johansen: 11gp 1g 5a 6pts -1 ($6 million salary)

OR
for $345,000 more

S. Jones: 10gp 3g 3a 6pts +1 ($5.4 million salary)
A. Wennberg: 10g 1g 11a 12pts +3 ($945,000)


Hope we get several more "fiasco's" like this.

false dichotomy. Wennberg has nothing to do with Jones and Johansen.

It could be Johansen & Wennberg or Jones & Wennberg. The Jones for Johansen trade has no bearing on Wennberg, really. We'd have Wennberg regardless of whether or not we traded Johansen.


With that said, I'd still rather have Jones.