2013-2014 Columbus Blue Jackets

[Double-Shift Lasse]

Wow, you guys are seriously protective of Jarmo.

More stuff you're saying that I don't understand, but you have yet to help me clarify the others, so I won't ask on this one.

Rather than dither about who means what, I will now offer my macro take on this offseason:

I have no idea what they are going to do. I am prepared to head into the season with the same basic group and see what happens - this past season was exciting, and there's something to be said for chemistry. That said, player movement is a reality, so I'm also prepared to see movement, even some that might include sending away a player I'd like to have stay.

Regardless, I am going to assume that whatever is or is not done is part of a plan that doesn't rely solely on any one aspect of team-building -- i.e. a slow start, a big finish, preconceptions about certain players getting better or stagnating, templates for lines/roles and the like. It will suck if that plan involves something I wouldn't do if I were in the same shoes, but rather than set up the offseason for disappointment or the quick and easy passing of judgment, I'm going to see how it plays out.

Quite frankly, I'm just happy to believe that there is a plan, and that the people who have developed and embraced it have been empowered to and have the capability to execute it.

A lot of folks are happily and ignorantly conflating what they think will happen with what they think should happen. I know I've been guilty of this, too, so instead, I'm just going to watch and see.

This is not a "defense" of anyone, just an acknowledgment that it exists. It's really not a difficult distinction, and it's BS if anyone suggests "Jarmo's got a plan, let's see what it involves" is the same as "in Jarmo we trust."

 

[pete goegan]

...I will now offer my macro take on this offseason:

I have no idea what they are going to do. I am prepared to head into the season with the same basic group and see what happens - this past season was exciting, and there's something to be said for chemistry. That said, player movement is a reality, so I'm also prepared to see movement, even some that might include sending away a player I'd like to have stay.

Regardless, I am going to assume that whatever is or is not done is part of a plan that doesn't rely solely on any one aspect of team-building -- i.e. a slow start, a big finish, preconceptions about certain players getting better or stagnating, templates for lines/roles and the like. It will suck if that plan involves something I wouldn't do if I were in the same shoes, but rather than set up the offseason for disappointment or the quick and easy passing of judgment, I'm going to see how it plays out.

Quite frankly, I'm just happy to believe that there is a plan, and that the people who have developed and embraced it have been empowered to and have the capability to execute it.

A lot of folks are happily and ignorantly conflating what they think will happen with what they think should happen. I know I've been guilty of this, too, so instead, I'm just going to watch and see.

This is not a "defense" of anyone, just an acknowledgment that it exists. It's really not a difficult distinction, and it's BS if anyone suggests "Jarmo's got a plan, let's see what it involves" with "in Jarmo we trust."

Good post, DSL, and I'm with you all the way (particularly the bolded portion!).

 

[blahblah]

Wow, you guys are seriously protective of Jarmo.

I am protective of anyone that is I feel is being treated unfairly. That extends beyond hockey. I'm sure there are some that will find humor in that and "irony" that upon closer inspection doesn't exist, but there you go. I came to Howson's defense on more than one occasion and I hate that guy.

Now for the rest of them, I can't speak for their intentions.

 

[blahblah]

A lot of folks are happily and ignorantly conflating what they think will happen with what they think should happen. I know I've been guilty of this, too, so instead, I'm just going to watch and see.

This is not a "defense" of anyone, just an acknowledgment that it exists. It's really not a difficult distinction, and it's BS if anyone suggests "Jarmo's got a plan, let's see what it involves" is the same as "in Jarmo we trust."

Kind of profound.

Kind of interesting through this whole thing, I never actually said what I think should happen. I only said I like what they've done. That doesn't imply that I think they should do now. What was possible at the trade deadline is now different that what can be and what I think should be done now.

But the possible, perhaps even likely, assertion that JK is simply making moves to make his mark is terribly unfair and there is no basis to suggest that he is doing that. That is suggesting intent and we don't know what is going on in his mind.

 

[Double-Shift Lasse]

But the possible, perhaps even likely, assertion that JK is simply making moves to make his mark is terribly unfair and there is no basis to suggest that he is doing that. That is suggesting intent and we don't know what is going on in his mind.

Still awaiting clarification on this. It would be nice if it came.

 

[blahblah]

Still awaiting clarification on this. It would be nice if it came.

My interpretation is the GM that comes in an makes drastic changes to put his coaching staff and/or players into the team without regard to current performance or consequence in an effort establish himself as the architect of the team in question. I consider it either an ego type of condition so that the previous regime can not accept credit for on-ice performance or simply the GM attempting to control his own destiny by placing people in key positions he is comfortable with.

I tend to consider what Burke did with acquiring Kessell a "make my mark" kind of move. I don't consider Gaborik that kind of move. JD and JK both listed out their reasoning. Although the latter is certainly debatable.

Is that what you were looking for?

 

[Double-Shift Lasse]

My interpretation is the GM that comes in an makes drastic changes to put his coaching staff and/or players into the team without regard to current performance or consequence in an effort establish himself as the architect of the team in question. I consider it either an ego type of condition so that the previous regime can not accept credit for on-ice performance or simply the GM attempting to control his own destiny by placing people in key positions he is comfortable with.

I tend to consider what Burke did with acquiring Kessell a "make my mark" kind of move. I don't consider Gaborik that kind of move. JD and JK both listed out their reasoning. Although the latter is certainly debatable.

Is that what you were looking for?

I want to know what the poster who brought the term to the conversation meant.

 

[Nordique]

I want to know what the poster who brought the term to the conversation meant.

Its pretty straight forward. New bosses sometimes bring their guys in. I'd hate to see that happen here with a team that has shown chemistry and knows how to win. That applies to the staff and the guys on the ice.

 

[Nordique]

My interpretation is the GM that comes in an makes drastic changes to put his coaching staff and/or players into the team without regard to current performance or consequence in an effort establish himself as the architect of the team in question. I consider it either an ego type of condition so that the previous regime can not accept credit for on-ice performance or simply the GM attempting to control his own destiny by placing people in key positions he is comfortable with.

I tend to consider what Burke did with acquiring Kessell a "make my mark" kind of move. I don't consider Gaborik that kind of move. JD and JK both listed out their reasoning. Although the latter is certainly debatable.

Is that what you were looking for?

This.

The Gaborik deal made sense, we needed goal scoring. My fears are about his health next season.

 

[FlaggerX]

My interpretation is the GM that comes in an makes drastic changes to put his coaching staff and/or players into the team without regard to current performance or consequence in an effort establish himself as the architect of the team in question. I consider it either an ego type of condition so that the previous regime can not accept credit for on-ice performance or simply the GM attempting to control his own destiny by placing people in key positions he is comfortable with.

I tend to consider what Burke did with acquiring Kessell a "make my mark" kind of move. I don't consider Gaborik that kind of move. JD and JK both listed out their reasoning. Although the latter is certainly debatable.?

I agree for once, though I think the "make your mork" thing really comes when you take a talented underperformer (say Jeff Carter for us) and dump him to let people know effort is expected. That really wasn't the situation this year. It was handled last year by Howson with the Carter and Nash trades. The team had a predictable rough start, but once they settled in, which was well under way when Jarmo was hired, the issue became more of fine tuning.

It became clear that while this team was low in high level talent, it is rich in mid (NHL) level talent. It was also clear that this team really was a playoffs contender, though we did fall one game short. Getting Gaborik addressed that problem. Really this is more a team-building move. We have, maybe for the first time, a good hockey team. Bob doesn't have to win Vezina for this time to make the playoffs. All we really need is maybe even one more player with Gaborik's offensive talent to make a cup run, provided they continue to buy in and play like they did at the end of last season.

If it ain't broke don't fix it. All we need is a touch more horsepower from people who will play Blue Jackets hockey.

 

[db2011]

I agree for once, though I think the "make your mork" thing really comes when you take a talented underperformer (say Jeff Carter for us) and dump him to let people know effort is expected. That really wasn't the situation this year. It was handled last year by Howson with the Carter and Nash trades. The team had a predictable rough start, but once they settled in, which was well under way when Jarmo was hired, the issue became more of fine tuning.

to your bolded, I don't think that's a making your mark kind of move, that would be more of a move required of a new GM to address issues a fired GM was letting slide.

But I don't think it's unreasonable to fear a "making your mark" kind of move by Jarmo and I don't understand why voicing that is met with what seems like hostility. I think blah laid out a pretty understandable version of what that kind of move would be.

This was a competitive team by the end of the year (understatement). I think it's possible that JK came in with some ideas of players he'd like to get to help the team along. I think it's possible, maybe likely, that he had a coach in mind.

I hope if that's true, he has amended his ideas. I doubt he'll bring in a new coach, but he could, and that to me would be a move made just to gain further control over the team when it's not needed, Richards did a helluva job. If JK is as proficient as I'm hoping and thinking he is, he won't make that kind of move. Trades that he makes to me will have to increase the skill level on the team enough that the risk of messing with chemistry can be overlooked. If he swaps out a player for another player who he has a history with in a trade that doesn't demonstrably improve the roster, I'll be skeptical.

It may seem obvious that he wouldn't do such a thing, but it isn't that obvious really, and GMs make moves to get "their guys" with some regularity. I don't see why that's so hard to understand.

 

[NotWendell]

This is not a "defense" of anyone, just an acknowledgment that it exists. It's really not a difficult distinction, and it's BS if anyone suggests "Jarmo's got a plan, let's see what it involves" is the same as "in Jarmo we trust."

What I think it says is simply "let's give Jarmo a chance."

 

[Hello Johnny]

Hey guys, been away from the boards for a bit (and as I said last time I took time off, I highly suggest it).

Now, this may sound crazy, and I don't know if it has come up in conversation, but with the impending buy-out of Brad Richards, does anyone think that, for the right price, he could be a target? I myself am not sure whether or not it would be a good idea, just thought it would be an interesting topic for debate. I think there would be pros and cons to signing him, and would welcome any and all perspectives.

I think pros include buying low, possible chemistry with Gaborik, and giving Richards a low-pressure environment to bring his game back. Cons obviously would include taking a big gamble and, well, I'm not sure what other negatives there are, but it would be a big risk to take and that alone is enough to cause for hesitation.

What do you guys think?

 

[Fro]

think i'd do it for the right price...but think at the price i am guessing he'd say no thanks...

 

[Nordique]

Hey guys, been away from the boards for a bit (and as I said last time I took time off, I highly suggest it).

Now, this may sound crazy, and I don't know if it has come up in conversation, but with the impending buy-out of Brad Richards, does anyone think that, for the right price, he could be a target? I myself am not sure whether or not it would be a good idea, just thought it would be an interesting topic for debate. I think there would be pros and cons to signing him, and would welcome any and all perspectives.

I think pros include buying low, possible chemistry with Gaborik, and giving Richards a low-pressure environment to bring his game back. Cons obviously would include taking a big gamble and, well, I'm not sure what other negatives there are, but it would be a big risk to take and that alone is enough to cause for hesitation.

What do you guys think?

If I were in the market to upgrade my top 6, I would shop the UFA's rather than work another trader with Sather.

Some high scoring under-40 UFA's that would bolster your top 6 in the present:

Ribero (13 goals, 49 points)
Dupuis (20 goals, 38 points)
Elias (14 goals, 36 points)
Ryder (16 goals, 35 points)
Boyes (10 goals, 35 points)
Iginla (14 goals, 33 points)

fyi...Prospal is 7th on that list with 30 points this past season.

I would look to this list before trading anymore players, prospects, or picks.

 

[Hello Johnny]

If I were in the market to upgrade my top 6, I would shop the UFA's rather than work another trader with Sather.

If Richards is bought out he would become an UFA...

 

[grindline]

I wonder what the going rate for Richards would be. Scott Gomez and Wade Redden took six figure salaries but surely they had a much more toxic reputation for relative under performance than Richards. I would definitely make enquiries though.

 

[Iron Balls McGinty]

If I were in the market to upgrade my top 6, I would shop the UFA's rather than work another trader with Sather.

Some high scoring under-40 UFA's that would bolster your top 6 in the present:

Ribero (13 goals, 49 points)
Dupuis (20 goals, 38 points)
Elias (14 goals, 36 points)
Ryder (16 goals, 35 points)
Boyes (10 goals, 35 points)
Iginla (14 goals, 33 points)

fyi...Prospal is 7th on that list with 30 points this past season.

I would look to this list before trading anymore players, prospects, or picks.

As a Devils fan, I'm a big Elias fan but he is in his upper 30's as well and will never play for another team than NJ. I'm pretty sure he'll be re-signed and if not, he'll retire. Lou is very loyal to players who produce and are team guys. Patty is one of those guys in NJ even though his best years are behind him.

 

[Nordique]

If Richards is bought out he would become an UFA...

Ahhh, I understand now. I knew he had a bad year, but is it really that bad?

 

[Matt]

From what I read, Richards has had it. Lost his speed and also his shot. Having him is a waste of good money.

 

[EspenK]

Ahhh, I understand now. I knew he had a bad year, but is it really that bad?

He played 4th line minutes yesterday. No thanks.

From the above list I guess I'd like a shot at Ryder during UFA but I see him staying with the Habs.

 

[CBJx614]

I've always liked Ribero, don't know if we can pry him away though.

 

[Hello Johnny]

He played 4th line minutes yesterday. No thanks.

Gaborik was playing on the fourth line for the NYR earlier in the year. I understand if signing Richards isn't everyone's cup of tea, I don't even know if I would be interested, but I don't believe him being demoted is a good enough reason. To me it really comes down to how much his market value is.

 

[Robert]

Gaborik was playing on the fourth line for the NYR earlier in the year. I understand if signing Richards isn't everyone's cup of tea, I don't even know if I would be interested, but I don't believe him being demoted is a good enough reason. To me it really comes down to how much his market value is.

Richards still has a few seasons left but I'd rather trade our way into the Cup playoffs NOW with new players peaking or at their peak instead of wanning.... I say nyt....

 

[blahblah]

To answer the question raised, if Richards were to be bought out could he help out this team with the correct dollars and term? Yes. Would I look at it? Yes. Do I think we could get the right dollars and term with the competition from the rest of the league? No. Having said that we are becoming a bit of a home for wayward Rangers.

I've never considered what a player does, or specifically doesn't do, for the Rangers an indictment on his career trajectory.

On one hand people like to rip Torts and they will point out how difficult a market NY is to play in, then they tend to rip players that don't perform in those conditions.

So how long will it be before there is a calling to buy out Nash? I figure he has another year or two if he doesn't start putting up 40 goal seasons and becoming a real force in the playoffs.

The Rangers seem to do better when they develop their players from scratch, they should probably focus more on that and less on buying championships.