Speculation: 2016 Deadline Sellapaloza Thread | 2/29 3PM | (Proposals, Blog Rumors, etc. here)

[NotWendell]

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!

 

[vertigo1061]

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.

I have more issues with what appears to be blind loyalty to the roster and this stubborn belief that it will work when it isn't working. For that I blame him and JD equally. They are holding fast to what they think will work. If it doesn't work next season you have to think one or both will be gone.

 

[blahblah]

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!

That's false and you know it. Intent is your position; results are what define the success or failure of your intent.

We were sellers, we weren't very good ones. Either there was no market for our wares or we wanted too much for said wares.

 

[Mayor Bee]

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.

Debatable, but I don't think we'll ever agree on this. I've said a few times that I wasn't some blind pro-Howson homer, but that it merely looked that way because my opinion deviated (drastically) from what had become an echo chamber.

And the two had different jobs as well that turned out to be the opposite of what they were hired on as. Howson had to actually build a team after seven years of garbage, but the public mandate was "win now". Kekalainen had to simply not dismantle what was actually a pretty good team, but the public mandate was "build brick by brick".

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.

Atkinson's last contract ($1.15 AAV) was a great value as well, to add another to it.

I'm not pitching a simple Chaput-over-Campbell idea; my preference would have been to keep Letestu, and if that's not doable then to use the fourth line as a proving ground for the younger kids, and if that's not doable then only consider adding someone like a Campbell if this team is so close to contending that you need someone like that.

The other issue is that what Campbell brings to the table (veteran leadership) is what's been systematically dismissed since the regime change. There were plenty of people who blasted Howson for letting Peca and Malhotra go and possibly underestimating the importance of that locker room chemistry, but later moves to bring in guys like Ethan Moreau, Chris Clark, Adrian Aucoin, and Vinny Prospal certainly addressed that. The switch is made in the front office, and Prospal is simply tossed away, MacKenzie isn't offered a contract with any real term, and Letestu gets the same. Three consecutive years of a productive veteran leader being tossed aside, only to add in a pale shadow in Campbell.

 

[Mayor Bee]

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.

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.

 

[blahblah]

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.

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.

 

[blahblah]

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 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.

 

[Hello Johnny]

The problem was not insuring Horton in the first place.

 

[Forepar]

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.

is on the kook

Yes they are!

 

[Mayor Bee]

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.

Oddly enough, it's not specifically spelled out in the CBA whether an injured player can be bought out. It would relate back to the waiver process, but even that's a bit up in the air.

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?

First part, possibly, but unknown.

Second part, highly doubtful. The insurance itself has all sorts of coverage restrictions, no different than if you or I were filing for an insurance policy. In Horton's case, because of pre-existing injuries with his head and one shoulder, those body parts would not be able to be covered because of the high probability of it being either chronic or career-ending. Covering everything else would be an option.

My understanding is that electing to cover a contract is something that has to be done at the beginning of a contract before the player steps on the ice, and that there's no way to go back later mid-contract and apply it. Whether a player who's been on LTIR previously can be covered or not would be up to the insurer itself; if someone is 30 and had been on LTIR when they were 22 with a clean break to the tibia, I'd imagine it being a much different story than insuring someone who missed 3/4 of the previous season with a soft tissue injury of some type.

Third part (policy moving with player), I believe so.

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.

Yeah, I'm not a fan of trying to figure insurance stuff out at all either. And what doesn't help is that while the rest of the CBA is easily accessible, the inner workings of the insurance aren't, so there's a lot of speculation and guesswork.

 

[BluejacketNut]

The Horton/Clarkson duo will go down as one of the biggest blunders, not in Bluejackets history, but NHL history. To not insure damaged goods (and if it wasnt possible to insure him, the decision to actually sign him) is as bad of risk management you can ever have. Then to turn around and think you're making your situation better by trading for the worst contract in the NHL is doubling down on stupidity. Chris Pronger, who isnt even playing anymore was traded to a cap minimum team, there's more of a chance to trade Horton to another team than there ever will be to trade Clarkson to another team. To not blame JK for either of those is wearing the rosiest glasses of all time

 

[CBJSlash]

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.

 

[Mayor Bee]

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.

Pro sports isn't like regular business at all, which is why there are plenty of extremely successful people in team front offices who wouldn't make it into an entry level job in regular business. And it's also why people with regular business experience and success tend to be dismal failures in sports. Now, it's impossible to actually say who made the call on the Horton insurance thing, and I do agree that it's most likely unfair to blame Jarmo for this specifically. None of us know who made the call, none of us know if the person who made the call asked the people in hockey ops about Horton's injury history or current status.

However, to the other part...the trade.

Let's present a scenario. You are an NHL GM. Someone above you comes in and says, "You have to get rid of this guy right now, for reasons not related to legal or off-ice issues and for reasons that simply apply to a vague notion of 'we're not paying him to not play'."

The following are a list of possible responses. Pick the right one.
1) "Get the **** out of my office."
2) "I'll trade him, but you'll have to wait because I'm not going to **** up this team because you ****ed up in the first place."
3) "Oh, of course, sir. While you're making moronic demands, should I also launch a satellite to scratch your *** from space with a laser?"
4) "No, seriously, get the **** out of my office."
5) "Oh, yes sir. I'll do it right away, and the only person I can make a move for on such short notice will saddle our franchise with something even worse for years to come."

It's kind of a trick question, since 1-4 are all correct answers. They might not be the most tactful thing and may well result in you being shown the door, but at least you'll be known as the guy who didn't make that trade!

 

[Light the Lamp]

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?

 

[BluejacketNut]

Fair enough, but Jarmo is part of the Front Office and no matter how you slice it, the whole signing and trade would a total F up

 

[CBJSlash]

Jarmo's involvement with dollars is likely only to stay under the cap imposed by the team on salaries.

Can you imagine team GMs, who are often former players, listening to actuarial calculations, understanding liability AND making a decision on this? Not to mention, while his English is great, it's his second language -- I can't imagine listening or reading that info in Spanish and making a decision. Not for a second do I think he has any say in insurance matters.

This is why there are such things as Mike Priests in sports. It was likely his decision with input from JD.

To get him signed in the first place probably went to owner approval.

Jarmo's job is to ice the best possible team given the dollars he is allowed.

To date, Jarmo's biggest failures are Gaborik, the development of Johansen, our handling of Letestu/MacKenzie, inability to acquire a d before Jones and Boll's contract. Most everything else has been good, most notably Saad's trade, Hartnell's trade, Wiz's trade, Savard's, Murray's and Jenner's extensions and our drafting -- but he did walk into 3 1sts. Jones for Joey we'll see, but shows steel balls.

 

[We Want Ten]

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?

I don't know how or what the contract situation was . Don't really care to be honest. They goofed badly, its been covered to death. But here is why you cover Horton at all costs, not to mention he had an injury history anyways.

http://www.jacketscannon.com/2015/3/8/8161469/the-37-million-gamble

The $37.1 million represented nearly 20% of the team's value (roughly $200 million).

http://www.forbes.com/teams/columbus-blue-jackets/

If you can't cover him, you don't sign him.

 

[JacketsDavid]

I would suspect Jarmo was part of the decision on insurance.
If the teams controls allows some random staff attorney to sign off on that then that's a separate issue (and inexcusable).
But I would assume at the time of a signing that several folks (including the GM) review the contract and terms and likely there is correspondence on major clauses.

My guess (as others said in the past) is the CBJ knew they couldn't insure him fully (because of shoulder issue) and they decided to wait until camp started when he was healed to apply for insurance then. Unfortunately his back went crazy in off-season so by the time he came in he was uninsurable.
Plain and simple it could have been covered if they wanted to, but they chose not to because of pre-existing shoulder issue (which would not have been covered at time of signing). it was a business decision but a terrible one. The reason anyone has insurance is to pay for things that they can't afford to lose, and the signing was so large and so long it needed to be insured. The CBJ said as much when they said they couldn't afford to pay Horton to not play.

 

[CBJfan4evr]

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.

 

[CBJfan4evr]

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.

My only other hope is finding a way to dump in through NHL expansion. IT's a longshot and not even sure we could expose him given his NMC

 

[Xoggz22]

Ah yes.... Clarkson and Horton. The gift that keeps on giving.

 

[robbyjr04]

Question:

If for some reason neither Campbell or Boll are trade-able this summer, come next year, if they are sent to LEM, only $950K counts towards the cap (though they get paid their full salary).

That would free up an additional $1.3M (by my math) towards a serviceable player, right?

Then in 2017-18, they are off the books.

 

[aRussian]

I don't know about you, but I'm more pissed at the damn penguin for selling the city to Horton in the first place at this point

 

[blahblah]

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.

 

[CBJfan4evr]

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.

It's that or have the fan base bash the FO repeatedly for his morbid play. They screwed up and everybody knows it.