Proposal: Derrick Brassard

[Fro]

Slightly OT but apparently I hung out with Brass's cousin last night here in Orlando...pretty fun guy and said brass is happy in cbus...

 

[Mayor Bee]

OP must be thinking we owe them one after the Leclaire +2nd / Vermette deal.

The 2nd was Robin Lehner, so I don't think anyone owes anyone anything else.

 

[Cyclones Rock]

At the risk of being ridiculed by the experts on the board, I am still mystified as to how we solve our goaiie problems. We don't want to trade for the Bishops, Schneiders, Berniers, of the world because they aren't established #1 goalies.



To me we either resign ourselves to a life of Bob's & Mase's or we roll the dice intelligently on a guy like Bishop if he is available.

if it costs Brass so be it. He will be an RFA after next season and i don't see him in the long range plans.

Don't bother to tell me I'm all wet; I figure I am, But i would love to hear how we solve the goalie situation without giving up assets and before we all grow old waiting for the prospects to develop.

And lets not forget that Brass is burning it up right now- projects out to 12 goals-40 pts and a whopping -32 over 82 games. Why give that up for a guy who could potentially be a goalie in the NHL for a long time to come?

All valid points.

I don't know much about Bishop, but your points seem to bring out three concepts which the fanboys on this board fail to see:

1) You have to give up something to get something.

2) Most perceive CBJ players to be significantly worth more than they really are.

3) Derek Brassard ain't much of an "asset". Someone called him a "4th liner" and the fanboys went crazy. Well, he wouldn't even be a 4rth liner on the non-elite Montreal Canadiens (Plekanec, Desharnais, Galchenyuk and Eller) and Brassard would be hard pressed to be a 3rd liner on most decent teams. That is the reality of Derek Brassard whether the Blue Jacket HFBoard "intelligentsia" think so or not.

If Brassard AND a few second round picks could be shipped for a goalie with reasonable #lG upside, then JK would have to be drunk not to make that move. It's more than #16 is realistically worth. Much more.

 

[Double-Shift Lasse]

All valid points.

Read: "All points that I agree with."

I don't know much about Bishop,

Mmm-hmm.

but your points seem to bring out to concepts which the fanboys on this board fail to see:

That is the reality of Derek Brassard whether the Blue Jacket HFBoard "intelligentsia" think so or not.

Feel free to point out where in this thread this board's "fanboys" are singing the praises of Derrick Brassard to the exclusion of trading him for something of value. (As opposed to something NOT of value, i.e. a goalie about whom you admit to not knowing much.)

 

[Mayor Bee]

All valid points.

I don't know much about Bishop, but your points seem to bring out three concepts which the fanboys on this board fail to see:

1) You have to give up something to get something.

I don't think that's ever been in doubt.

2) Most perceive CBJ players to be significantly worth more than they really are.

Don't agree one bit.

3) Derek Brassard ain't much of an "asset". Someone called him a "4th liner" and the fanboys went crazy. Well, he wouldn't even be a 4rth liner on the non-elite Montreal Canadiens (Plekanec, Desharnais, Galchenyuk and Eller) and Brassard would be hard pressed to be a 3rd liner on most decent teams. That is the reality of Derek Brassard whether the Blue Jacket HFBoard "intelligentsia" think so or not.

And yet he would be on the second line in clearly elite Chicago, ahead of Marcus Kruger, Dave Bolland, and Andrew Shaw. Unless you're arguing that non-elite Montreal is better than elite Chicago on the basis of players up the middle.

If Brassard AND a few second round picks could be shipped for a goalie with reasonable #lG upside, then JK would have to be drunk not to make that move. It's more than #16 is realistically worth. Much more.

That's absolutely absurd. Barring the goalie return being someone like a 20-year-old Roberto Luongo (actual franchise upside and playing well in the NHL behind a poor team), moving Brassard and "a few" 2nd-round picks for someone like Ben Bishop goes right up there with the worst trade proposals that you'll find on that board.

 

[major major]

We should keep looking at acquiring potential #1's goaltenders through trade. Drafting goalies is good, but its still a crapshoot. Yes, many great goalies were drafted by their teams. But they had no idea what they were getting. You are much, much more likely to end up with a guy who does nothing than get Pekka Rinne in the draft. You could spend half your draft choices on goalies for years and still end up with nothing.

Many more goalies are tweeners who show great promise, and are then acquired and foisted into the #1 role. Some bust (Lindback, maybe), some play Vezina worthy hockey (Anderson).

Personally I would do this deal:

Brassard and Foligno for Schneider.

 

[major major]

All valid points.

I don't know much about Bishop, but your points seem to bring out three concepts which the fanboys on this board fail to see:

1) You have to give up something to get something.

2) Most perceive CBJ players to be significantly worth more than they really are.

3) Derek Brassard ain't much of an "asset". Someone called him a "4th liner" and the fanboys went crazy. Well, he wouldn't even be a 4rth liner on the non-elite Montreal Canadiens (Plekanec, Desharnais, Galchenyuk and Eller) and Brassard would be hard pressed to be a 3rd liner on most decent teams. That is the reality of Derek Brassard whether the Blue Jacket HFBoard "intelligentsia" think so or not.

If Brassard AND a few second round picks could be shipped for a goalie with reasonable #lG upside, then JK would have to be drunk not to make that move. It's more than #16 is realistically worth. Much more.

Ignoring your insulting language, I agree with your general point that Brassard and a few second rounders for a goalie with #1 upside is a deal we have to take. Though I'll presume you're talking about someone better than Bishop.

 

[Mayor Bee]

We should keep looking at acquiring potential #1's goaltenders through trade. Drafting goalies is good, but its still a crapshoot. Yes, many great goalies were drafted by their teams. But they had no idea what they were getting. You are much, much more likely to end up with a guy who does nothing than get Pekka Rinne in the draft. You could spend half your draft choices on goalies for years and still end up with nothing.

True enough, but when you find that elite goalie, you don't need to replace him for a dozen years or so. And laying out significant assets to acquire a goalie who may be better than someone who was drafted a couple years ago and then ending up in a Vancouver-type situation isn't something that strikes me as desirable.

Personally, I ascribe to what Detroit did in the 1990s. Draft goalies and hope that one of them breaks through. But in the meantime, get a succession of guys who still have a couple of productive years left and churn through them while waiting to see what you have in the system. They had Osgood but never seemed to be sold on him...they went through Bob Essensa, Mike Vernon, Bill Ranford, Ken Wregget, Dominik Hasek, and Curtis Joseph in less than 10 years. The latter three all came after digging Manny Legace out of the IHL.

Detroit's been successful for 20 years despite lacking two things that everyone knows you have to have to be successful: a franchise goalie and an enforcer.

 

[Roadman]

We should keep looking at acquiring potential #1's goaltenders through trade. Drafting goalies is good, but its still a crapshoot. Yes, many great goalies were drafted by their teams. But they had no idea what they were getting. You are much, much more likely to end up with a guy who does nothing than get Pekka Rinne in the draft. You could spend half your draft choices on goalies for years and still end up with nothing.

Many more goalies are tweeners who show great promise, and are then acquired and foisted into the #1 role. Some bust (Lindback, maybe), some play Vezina worthy hockey (Anderson).

Personally I would do this deal:

Brassard and Foligno for Schneider.

Really??

Schneider GP 12 2.58 .912

Bob GP 14 2.59 .907

I don't see much difference much less at the cost of those two.

 

[major major]

Really??

Schneider GP 12 2.58 .912

Bob GP 14 2.59 .907

I don't see much difference much less at the cost of those two.

Is this a joke? You really didn't look at more than 12 games of stats?

In the last few years, Schneider's SP averages about .930, and .940 in 8 playoff games. If you want to be tough on him and subtract .01 for playing in front of Vancouver's defence, he would still have great numbers, much better than Bob even in Bob's best year.

 

[Xoggz22]

I still think Brassard has played much better since around the 10 g mark. He appears to be engaged and his vision is still outstanding (not just the simple pass to JMFJ last night). He certainly struggles in the faceoff circle but his back checking has improved as well as his positioning. His offensive awareness remains a plus trait - in my opinion. Maybe I'm one of those "fanboys" but I don't subscribe to the theory that Brassard is not an asset.

 

[Robert]

We should keep looking at acquiring potential #1's goaltenders through trade. Drafting goalies is good, but its still a crapshoot. Yes, many great goalies were drafted by their teams. But they had no idea what they were getting. You are much, much more likely to end up with a guy who does nothing than get Pekka Rinne in the draft. You could spend half your draft choices on goalies for years and still end up with nothing.

Many more goalies are tweeners who show great promise, and are then acquired and foisted into the #1 role. Some bust (Lindback, maybe), some play Vezina worthy hockey (Anderson).

Personally I would do this deal:

Brassard and Foligno for Schneider.

That deal for Schneider would be a coup... never happen (never in the sense that it simply makes no sense for Vancouver to do so, Brass is the reason)...

That said, trading for a goalie that has some degree of recorded success at the NHL level is the way to go.. I like Bobby for our future tandem but I'm not yet convinced he's a franchise starter.

 

[Roadman]

Is this a joke? You really didn't look at more than 12 games of stats?

In the last few years, Schneider's SP averages about .930, and .940 in 8 playoff games. If you want to be tough on him and subtract .01 for playing in front of Vancouver's defence, he would still have great numbers, much better than Bob even in Bob's best year.

All I was doing is putting up this years stats. Just as anyone else, it's what have you done for me lately.

Everyone seems to think we need to be out there spending assets on projections that may or may not step forward. My point is Schneider is one of those projected #1's, but at this particular point, this year, it doesn't look like it. I agree a snapshot of current performance is not necessarily a guarantee of future performance, it works both ways. Until such time as one of these projected solutions proves himself to be a true starter over a period of time, that's all he is, a projected solution. That holds true for Schneider, Bernier, Bishop or Bobrovsky or any other flavor of the month.

I am not saying any one of these is any better than any other one, and indeed any of them may be "the one". But since we already have one of those why do we need to be spending assets to get another one.

 

[major major]

True enough, but when you find that elite goalie, you don't need to replace him for a dozen years or so. And laying out significant assets to acquire a goalie who may be better than someone who was drafted a couple years ago and then ending up in a Vancouver-type situation isn't something that strikes me as desirable.

Personally, I ascribe to what Detroit did in the 1990s. Draft goalies and hope that one of them breaks through. But in the meantime, get a succession of guys who still have a couple of productive years left and churn through them while waiting to see what you have in the system. They had Osgood but never seemed to be sold on him...they went through Bob Essensa, Mike Vernon, Bill Ranford, Ken Wregget, Dominik Hasek, and Curtis Joseph in less than 10 years. The latter three all came after digging Manny Legace out of the IHL.

Detroit's been successful for 20 years despite lacking two things that everyone knows you have to have to be successful: a franchise goalie and an enforcer.

Ohh, the horror of a Vancouver type situation
What am I missing here? It is obvious to me that they have a very enviable goalie situation.

Also, I don't feel comfortable trying a Detroit Red Wings goalie strategy. First I should say I'm not sure if we are even going to have an Osgood level goalie out of one of Bob, Mason and the rest of the pipeline. Second, Osgood wasn't that good, and the Red Wings could have won even more cups with a top netminder (it is that simple). Third, Columbus isn't going to be the destination that allows us to have our pick of free agents.

Just so I'm clear: try the pipeline, and try free agency. But the odds aren't good. The odds of getting a #1 are better through trade.

 

[major major]

Until such time as one of these projected solutions proves himself to be a true starter over a period of time, that's all he is, a projected solution. That holds true for Schneider, Bernier, Bishop or Bobrovsky or any other flavor of the month.

I am not saying any one of these is any better than any other one, and indeed any of them may be "the one". But since we already have one of those why do we need to be spending assets to get another one.

I'll try and make my analysis of the tweener goalies as clear as possible. To start with, their odds of becoming legit #1's are not equal.

Bobrovsky:

2012-13 Columbus 14 gp .907
2011-12 Philadelphia 29 gp .899
2010-11 Philadelphia 54 gp .915
playoffs: 7 gp .848

Odds of playing at .920+ in front of Columbus level defence next year: 10%

Bishop:

2013 Ottawa 7gp .938
2011-12 Ottawa 10gp .909

Odds of playing at .920+ in front of Columbus level defence next year: 20%

Bernier:

2013 LA 7gp .916
2011-2012 LA 16gp .909
2010-2011 LA 25gp .913

Odds of playing at .920+ in front of Columbus level defence next year: 10%

Schneider:

2013 VAN 12gp .912
2011-2012 VAN 33gp .937
2010-2011 VAN 25gp .929
playoffs VAN 8gp .940

Odds of playing at .920+ in front of Columbus level defence next year: 55%

 

[Roadman]

I'll try and make my analysis of the tweener goalies as clear as possible.

Bobrovsky:

2012-13 Columbus .907 GP 14
2011-12 Philadelphia .899 29
2010-11 Philadelphia .915 54 Total 97

let me add

Bernier

12-13 .916 GP 7
11-12 .909 16
10-11 .913 25 Total 48

Bishop

12-13 .938 GP 7
11-12 .909 10
10-11 .899 7 Total 24

Schneider

12-13 .912 GP 12
11-12 .937 33
10-11 .929 25 Total 70


Just not convinced that Schneider is such a huge upgrade worth the required worth the required expenditure of assets.

EDIT:Typing this as you were yours.

Concern for any tweener is the ability to sustain over a full season.

 

[Cyclones Rock]

originally posted byMayor Bee

And yet he would be on the second line in clearly elite Chicago, ahead of Marcus Kruger, Dave Bolland, and Andrew Shaw. Unless you're arguing that non-elite Montreal is better than elite Chicago on the basis of players up the middle.

Bolland has registered 37 points in 49 career playoff games. He's a proven playoff performer. While his regular season stats are similar to Brassard's, he' not on the first line power play like Brassard is.

Do you think Stan Bowman should be calling Jarmo K and offering Brassard for Bolland in a straight up deal? Evidently so. Why wouldn't Chicago want to "upgrade"?

That's absolutely absurd. Barring the goalie return being someone like a 20-year-old Roberto Luongo (actual franchise upside and playing well in the NHL behind a poor team), moving Brassard and "a few" 2nd-round picks for someone like Ben Bishop goes right up there with the worst trade proposals that you'll find on that board.

I stated that I didn't know much about Bishop. However, a couple of seconds plus Brassard for a goalie with starting potential is hardly "absurd". 2nd rounders are crapshots, good goaltending is a necessity and Brassard is a middling "talent" at best.

Having Brassard as a top line center is what I would label absurd. Absolutely so.