Confirmed with Link: Bjorkstrand to Seattle for 2023 3rd & 4th round picks

[Viqsi]

Okay, I'll try and restate your position in a way that works better, but you're not giving me much info.

"We had to clear a couple million in cap (not $4m+) but also clear a long term winger contract (because we have too many). Voracek wasn't moveable and Laine and Gaudreau are core, so Bjorkstrand had to go."

There is still some mystery about the timing of the trade (Did they really think Bjorkstrand would be unmoveable later on?) but leaving that part aside, it seems the above version is closer to plausible for both of us.

Essentially. And I think the timing was less about Bjorkstrand being unmovable and more about cap space being unavailable due to teams with it jerking around the teams without such that the return was more likely to get worse instead of better.

 

[majormajor]

Essentially. And I think the timing was less about Bjorkstrand being unmovable and more about cap space being unavailable due to teams with it jerking around the teams without such that the return was more likely to get worse instead of better.

Okay, makes sense.

I'm more optimistic that the price would improve in the Fall (I think the sell price is higher now than in late July) but I think it's very plausible that the FO wasn't so confident and that makes sense.

This whole explanation could be wrong but it is a very plausible explanation.

 

[Fro]

Okay, makes sense.

I'm more optimistic that the price would improve in the Fall (I think the sell price is higher now than in late July) but I think it's very plausible that the FO wasn't so confident and that makes sense.

This whole explanation could be wrong but it is a very plausible explanation.

That's looking at it with very rose colored glasses imo...but you and I will never see eye to eye on it bc you got too attached to the player...

 

[majormajor]

bc you got too attached to the player...

I'm just going to laugh that one off.

I had the same position as everyone else after the trade before digging in further. It's just an analytical disagreement. We all loved Bjorkstrand and if anything I think I got over the feels before much of the rest of the board did.

Whether the trade return was 2 2nds, a late 1st, or a 3rd+4th rounder, I really have very little emotional feeling about. It's an attractive topic to me because there is a lot unknown here.

 

[ThirdPeriodTurtle]

I'm fairly inclined to believe this latest explanation. I'd also pretty easily believe that the FO really didn't want to send any assets to facilitate a different trade, it could be a big psychological threshold for one reason or another.

But also, wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that the Chychrun rumours, or the "almost a done deal" stuff would mean FO would've liked to have more cap space in case Chychrun becomes available after the draft and there's enough players involved that it could've fit under the cap with Ottawa retaining some salary.

The most optimistic thought would be that trading Bjork to Seattle was the best offer to do right by the player too (versus sending Gus somewhere he's not really primed up for a good spot). Maybe I don't believe that quite as much as I'd like to, but there's so many variables at play here that it could just be a combination of many smaller factors too.

 

[Fro]

I'm just going to laugh that one off.

I had the same position as everyone else after the trade before digging in further. It's just an analytical disagreement. We all loved Bjorkstrand and if anything I think I got over the feels before much of the rest of the board did.

Whether the trade return was 2 2nds, a late 1st, or a 3rd+4th rounder, I really have very little emotional feeling about. It's an attractive topic to me because there is a lot unknown here.

You haven't "got over it" it shows in every post

 

[Double-Shift Lasse]

I’m going to declare myself the undoubtedly biggest Bjorkstrand fan not only on these boards but in the world, his family included. We can have a discussion about it, but there’s really no new information available to the discussion and my contention is unprovable anyway.

I have always bought the “Jarmo didn’t want to move the player, but the combination of the player plus the contract was the most easily movable to solve the team’s cap complications in the wake of the signing of Johnny Gaudreau and that also addressed those complications in more than a short/term manner and that also creates some financial flexibility. But it hurt to do because of the affinity for the player.”

Is that projecting, attributing some of my great fondness for Bjork to Jarmo? Maybe. I don’t care. That was it for me.

 

[JohnnyJacket13]

Essentially. And I think the timing was less about Bjorkstrand being unmovable and more about cap space being unavailable due to teams with it jerking around the teams without such that the return was more likely to get worse instead of better.

Jarmo has publicly said this. Why must people read more into the situation and not take Jarmo's comments at face value?


(the answer is denial)

 

[majormajor]

Jarmo has publicly said this. Why must people read more into the situation and not take Jarmo's comments at face value?


(the answer is denial)

Jarmo gets things wrong sometimes and is also not in a position to be fully honest with the public. I don't expect him or any GM to always put the truth out there. Like if their internal analysis was that Bjorkstrand wasn't as good as the fans thought he was, then no they should not tell us if that contributed to their thinking on the trade.

 

[JacketsDavid]

Okay, I'll try and restate your position in a way that works better, but you're not giving me much info.

"We had to clear a couple million in cap (not $4m+) but also clear a long term winger contract (because we have too many). Voracek wasn't moveable and Laine and Gaudreau are core, so Bjorkstrand had to go."

There is still some mystery about the timing of the trade (Did they really think Bjorkstrand would be unmoveable later on?) but leaving that part aside, it seems the above version is closer to plausible for both of us.

I do agree with you.
We didn't need to move his contract and it was a good contract.
I question the move - but I'm not one to usually buy what Jarmo is selling.

 

[JohnnyJacket13]

 

[majormajor]

I do agree with you.
We didn't need to move his contract and it was a good contract.
I question the move - but I'm not one to usually buy what Jarmo is selling.

Apparently you also live in Denial Ohio. We're supposed to think Jarmo makes all the right moves all the time.

 

[Double-Shift Lasse]

Apparently you also live in Denial Ohio. We're supposed to think Jarmo makes all the right moves all the time.

This is where you’re at now with this, major? I guess I expect better than “oh, I guess we’re not allowed to have a differing opinion.”

It is possible to believe that Jarmo didn’t want to make the Bjorkstrand move but did so because he believed it was the one thing he could do that addressed several needs and at the same time not believe that Jarmo always does right.

Of course, maybe you’re arguing like a middle-schooler because you know it pushes buttons and you have some thing about keeping this topic alive.

 

[majormajor]

It is possible to believe that Jarmo didn’t want to make the Bjorkstrand move but did so because he believed it was the one thing he could do that addressed several needs and not believe that Jarmo always does right.

It's also possible to believe (I'm sure you wouldn't disagree) that Jarmo made a mistake with this trade, and / or to believe that the reasoning for the trade is somewhat different than what they chose to make public.

The position that we shouldn't second guess or doubt the publicly stated motivations strikes me as naive.

 

[Double-Shift Lasse]

It's also possible to believe (I'm sure you wouldn't disagree) that Jarmo made a mistake with this trade, and / or to believe that the reasoning for the trade is somewhat different than what they chose to make public.

The position that we shouldn't second guess or doubt the publicly stated motivations strikes me as naive.

Speaking for myself, I never suggested you shouldn’t. Only that, in this case, I don’t. Now stop ascribing false positions on people. It’s a crap way to post.

Again, assuming you’re not shitposting on purpose, which I guess you didn’t deny so maybe that’s all this is.

 

[wabagee]

Shh, Truth is Jarmo asked Gaudreau whose house he liked best.

 

[NotCommitted]

It's not that Jarmo makes all the right moves all the time, it's just that Jarmo makes moves all the time. He has a pretty good track record IMO, but more importantly he's shown he's not afraid to make decisions. If anything, the kitchen psychologist in me says he hates a painful decision less than having his hands tied. I believe him when he says it was the best of bad options at the time, but of course that doesn't mean it's not possible better options would've come available later. We also don't know what other moves he was/is potentially hoping to make. I think the bottom line is in the eyes of a lot of fans he's probably earned a pretty long leash.

Could very well be it's a decision he already regrets, but time will tell how things pan out. Then again, he doesn't particularly strike me as a guy who likes to second guess.

 

[MoeBartoli]

I’m going to declare myself the undoubtedly biggest Bjorkstrand fan not only on these boards but in the world, his family included. We can have a discussion about it, but there’s really no new information available to the discussion and my contention is unprovable anyway.

I have always bought the “Jarmo didn’t want to move the player, but the combination of the player plus the contract was the most easily movable to solve the team’s cap complications in the wake of the signing of Johnny Gaudreau and that also addressed those complications in more than a short/term manner and that also creates some financial flexibility. But it hurt to do because of the affinity for the player.”

Is that projecting, attributing some of my great fondness for Bjork to Jarmo? Maybe. I don’t care. That was it for me.

Sorry DSL, but you’re at best the 1B fan.

 

[Double-Shift Lasse]

Sorry DSL, but you’re at best the 1B fan.

Oh so now everyone’s just supposed to believe that someone else is his biggest fan? That seems naive.

 

[MoeBartoli]

Oh so now everyone’s just supposed to believe that someone else is his biggest fan? That seems naive.

Me thinks you took thy post more seriously than intended

 

[Viqsi]

Me thinks you took thy post more seriously than intended

that might be his line

 

[DEF]

What about me? His dad's girlfriend is my wife's niece. We're almost related! Call me uncle D.

 

[Double-Shift Lasse]

Me thinks you took thy post more seriously than intended

Shuckin’ and jivin’, Moe.

 

[MoeBartoli]

Jarmo gets things wrong sometimes and is also not in a position to be fully honest with the public. I don't expect him or any GM to always put the truth out there. Like if their internal analysis was that Bjorkstrand wasn't as good as the fans thought he was, then no they should not tell us if that contributed to their thinking on the trade.

This actually tracks with what Bobby Mac alluded to during one one of the early streamed games when he implied the Jackets gave up on Bjorkstrand though he didn’t elaborate further.

 

[majormajor]

This actually tracks with what Bobby Mac alluded to during one one of the early streamed games when he implied the Jackets gave up on Bjorkstrand though he didn’t elaborate further.

Do you recall how he phrased it?