Free Agency Discussion 2020-21 Part II

[CaliforniaBlues310]

Okay so I’ve been watching highlights of available guys like Hoffman, Granlund, and Pacioretty to see what type of players they succeeded most with, and how they got their goals.

Hoffman: Seems like he’d do best with a Schwartz-Schenn duo, but I don’t know if that would work if Thomas gets a top 6 spot. I’m sure he’d work well with ROR-DP57’s playmaking though. His speed would be a nice asset, and the thought of Krug dishing him one-timer’s on the PP sounds lovely too.

Granlund: I mainly watched Minny highlights, and I think he would absolutely crush it with Schwartz-Thomas on the second line. He also plays more of our style than the others, so I think he’s the best fit out of the 3. He gets to the net, and he’d actually finish Thomas’ great passes. He’d also be the cheapest of the 3 to acquire.

Pacioretty: I’d put him with ROR-DP57 immediately, and watch that line flourish. He really benefited off of Stone and Stastny’s playmaking, so I think he’d be a perfect fit with those two. Plus, I really like his size compared to the other options. Only issue is we’d have to give up guys for him, whereas the other two are UFA’s.

 

[BlueKnight]

I completely agree with you, but I think we are in the minority. This team lost a lot of defense in Steen, Pietrangelo, and Bouwmeester, and newcomers Krug and Faulk are not known for strong defensive play. It would not surprise me at all if a one-dimensional player like Hoffman was signed, because it seems to be the direction the team is headed in.

I agree, I don't like Hoffman because he is one dimensional also because there were locker room issues with his GF/wife or something. I wouldn't be surprised if the Blues signed him, Like you said It seems to be the direction that the Blues are headed in which I absolutely don't like.

 

[Mike Liut]

I haven’t followed Hoffman very close. Is he similar to a Boyes type of player? One dimensional? Does he check? Is he a defensive liability?

 

[BlueKnight]

I haven’t followed Hoffman very close. Is he similar to a Boyes type of player? One dimensional? Does he check? Is he a defensive liability?

Hoffman is one very one dimensional the only thing he is good at is he has a good shot and can score, the rest is very meh and that is me being nice.

 

[Mike Liut]

Hoffman is one very one dimensional the only thing he is good at is he has a good shot and can score, the rest is very meh and that is me being nice.

Does not sound like a Chief and Blues type of player to me. I’d rather have Sanford

 

[Stupendous Yappi]

I agree, I don't like Hoffman because he is one dimensional also because there were locker room issues with his GF/wife or something. I wouldn't be surprised if the Blues signed him, Like you said It seems to be the direction that the Blues are headed in which I absolutely don't like.

I agree about the one-dimensional nature. But I view him as a Tarasenko replacement (at least in the short term) so that’s probably a similar player type into the roster. The Blues could use a 30-goal one-dimensional guy if the rest of his line can function well enough defensively.

I remember the Blues dropped out of the trade discussion when he left Ottawa because of concerns about off-ice stuff. My recollection is that Doug Armstrong asked player leadership about it, which I assume was Pietro and Steen at the time. But a lot has happened since then. Although I’m not an expert on the proceedings, my impression was that he hasn’t been a distraction in the years since. Also more information has come out which painted Karlsson’s wife in a more negative light and made it look like Hoffman’s girlfriend may not have been guilty of what was claimed. Anyway, I think the issues from that time are far enough into the past, and there is not an ongoing issue that would affect the Blues. I don’t thing any of that is a reason to pass on him.

I would think he’s not exactly a Berube type guy, nor an Armstrong guy. But I have to conclude Armstrong was interested in him from a player standpoint if he approached the players about the move. I actually kind of think there is a decent chance the Blues are the team who has quietly had a deal with him.

 

[simon IC]

I am not concerned about the off-ice issues. He is a professional, and there have been a lot of changes to the roster lately, so it is not like he would be disrupting a well-established chemistry. I agree that he doesn't seem like a Berube type, but Armstrong is another matter. I remember rumors about Armstrong being interested in Jordan Eberle, (much to my horror), years back when Eberle was with Edmonton. Armstrong knows we need to replace Tarasenko's scoring to remain competitive, and scoring is something that Hoffman has done consistently over his career. As others have mentioned, Hoffman is also pretty speedy, and that is another element we could improve on. Most importantly, our new defense is built for quick transitioning, and in order for that to be successful, we need forwards who can capitalize on that system. I would not be surprised at all if we offered Hoffman a one, or even a two-year contract. (FWIW, Hoffman is not my kind of player either. I would much rather have a Mark Stone or even a Jakob Silfverberg type, but no one of that nature is available, and I would simply be remiss to discount the improvements that Hoffman would bring to this team).

 

[The Note]

The team is chock full of two way, defensively responsible forwards. The team is decidedly not full of consistent 30 goal scorers (with Tarasenko on the shelf no one on the team has ever scored 30 goals, though a number of guys have come close at various times). Sticking Hoffman next to ROR or with Schenn-Schwartz would be a big boost to the top 6, and should be able to mask whatever defensive shortcomings there are.

 

[WeWentBlues]

Pacioretty would fit the best but I dont want him at 3 years and 7M.

Granlund and Hoffman could possibly take 1-year deals in the hopes for a bigger payday next off-season.

 

[Bobby Orrtuzzo]

If we miss out/can’t afford Hoffman and Granlund, what would you guys think about Haula? IIRC he can’t play wing or center and isn’t a defensive black hole

 

[Majorityof1]

I remember the Blues dropped out of the trade discussion when he left Ottawa because of concerns about off-ice stuff. My recollection is that Doug Armstrong asked player leadership about it, which I assume was Pietro and Steen at the time. But a lot has happened since then. Although I’m not an expert on the proceedings, my impression was that he hasn’t been a distraction in the years since. Also more information has come out which painted Karlsson’s wife in a more negative light and made it look like Hoffman’s girlfriend may not have been guilty of what was claimed. Anyway, I think the issues from that time are far enough into the past, and there is not an ongoing issue that would affect the Blues. I don’t thing any of that is a reason to pass on him.

He had no off-ice issues. Karlsson's wife had off-ice issues and dragged his girlfriend into it. There was zero proof Hoffman or his girlfriend were involved in anyway. This is the problem with accusations in the internet era. Even if there is nothing to them, they can still haunt the person. You may have ultimately decided that the issues shouldn't prevent a signing, but you at least considered them when no proof has ever been shown that they were legitimate. I am sure others would make the opposite decision. There may even be some teams that won't sign him because of it, despite the fact that he had 0 issues in Florida or anywhere else outside of the one unfounded accusation.

I am hoping we sign Hoffman. He is the best scorer available without trade. We need guys who can put the puck in the back of the net. Even if both Thomas and Kyrou take majors steps forward, they are play-makers first and foremost. Without Tarasenko, I would like someone who looks to shoot first to go with all our passers.

 

[Stupendous Yappi]

He had no off-ice issues. Karlsson's wife had off-ice issues and dragged his girlfriend into it. There was zero proof Hoffman or his girlfriend were involved in anyway. This is the problem with accusations in the internet era. Even if there is nothing to them, they can still haunt the person. You may have ultimately decided that the issues shouldn't prevent a signing, but you at least considered them when no proof has ever been shown that they were legitimate. I am sure others would make the opposite decision. There may even be some teams that won't sign him because of it, despite the fact that he had 0 issues in Florida or anywhere else outside of the one unfounded accusation.

I am hoping we sign Hoffman. He is the best scorer available without trade. We need guys who can put the puck in the back of the net. Even if both Thomas and Kyrou take majors steps forward, they are play-makers first and foremost. Without Tarasenko, I would like someone who looks to shoot first to go with all our passers.

I agree with the facts you mention (which I think is pretty much what I said) but I disagree with your opinion that Hoffman had no off-ice issues. What I’m referring to is the drama. He (through his girlfriend) was sucked into drama which impacted Ottawa’s locker room. He may have been an innocent party to the mess, but the media scrutiny and negative consequences of that were stapled to him regardless. It’s not fair, but it is certainly something a team should consider when entertaining acquiring a player.

What I’m trying to convey is that the drama has subsided enough to be a nonfactor now.

 

[Majorityof1]

I agree with the facts you mention (which I think is pretty much what I said) but I disagree with your opinion that Hoffman had no off-ice issues. What I’m referring to is the drama. He (through his girlfriend) was sucked into drama which impacted Ottawa’s locker room. He may have been an innocent party to the mess, but the media scrutiny and negative consequences of that were stapled to him regardless. It’s not fair, but it is certainly something a team should consider when entertaining acquiring a player.

What I’m trying to convey is that the drama has subsided enough to be a nonfactor now.

I think there is a distinction from the term "off-ice issues" which imply an issue with the character of the player that causes recurring incidents vs being caught up in drama that wasn't that player's fault. It might be semantics to differentiate the two, but I think it an important semantic. When someone has a character defect or even a mental issue that causes drama to repeatedly flair up, you can expect those problems to persist absent a ton of work by the player. But if it was a one-time thing that the player wasn't even at fault for, why even consider it? What are the chances it happens again? So yes, he was involved in drama which negatively impacted the locker room, but it was not due to an persistent off-ice issue that makes it likely to recur (at least from the facts that have been reported).

It is supremely unfair that Hoffman has been labeled with this "off-ice issue" when Karlsson who was equally involved in the drama does not have the same label. Nobody questioned off-ice issues when he signed with SJ (they should have questioned his knees). Further, the Blues are obviously able to look past actual off-ice issues as we have signed multiple coaches with drinking problems. ROR ran his car through a Tim Horton's due to alcohol. Alcohol problems are much worse than Hoffman, who just has a girlfriend that didn't fit into the prevailing clique of player's WAGs in Ottawa.

BTW, your post did mostly agree with me. I was merely trying to reinforce the point that this should not be a consideration while also arguing semantics. I have no problem with what you said. I have a larger societal problem with how unsubstantiated accusations can permanently stick to some people because of the internet, how terrible the media is, and people's love of drama.

 

[Blueston]

I think there is a distinction from the term "off-ice issues" which imply an issue with the character of the player that causes recurring incidents vs being caught up in drama that wasn't that player's fault. It might be semantics to differentiate the two, but I think it an important semantic. When someone has a character defect or even a mental issue that causes drama to repeatedly flair up, you can expect those problems to persist absent a ton of work by the player. But if it was a one-time thing that the player wasn't even at fault for, why even consider it? What are the chances it happens again? So yes, he was involved in drama which negatively impacted the locker room, but it was not due to an persistent off-ice issue that makes it likely to recur (at least from the facts that have been reported).

It is supremely unfair that Hoffman has been labeled with this "off-ice issue" when Karlsson who was equally involved in the drama does not have the same label. Nobody questioned off-ice issues when he signed with SJ (they should have questioned his knees). Further, the Blues are obviously able to look past actual off-ice issues as we have signed multiple coaches with drinking problems. ROR ran his car through a Tim Horton's due to alcohol. Alcohol problems are much worse than Hoffman, who just has a girlfriend that didn't fit into the prevailing clique of player's WAGs in Ottawa.

BTW, your post did mostly agree with me. I was merely trying to reinforce the point that this should not be a consideration while also arguing semantics. I have no problem with what you said. I have a larger societal problem with how unsubstantiated accusations can permanently stick to some people because of the internet, how terrible the media is, and people's love of drama.

You think the victims husband is equally at fault as the harassers?

 

[Majorityof1]

You think the victims husband is equally at fault as the harassers?

I think the false accusers are more at fault than the falsely accused, absolutely. Hoffman and his girlfriend bear no fault,unless the accusers can provide some evidence to the contrary. However, they failed to do so at every opportunity. Mrs. Karlsson should not have received hateful messages on social media. At that point she was the victim. But Hoffman and GF had zero to do with that. When Mrs. Karlsson falsely accused Hoffman's girlfriend and had her husband escalate the tensions in the locker room over nothing, then yes, she ceased to be a victim and she became the problem. Being a victim of online harassment is no excuse to lash out at am innocent person just because you don't like that person. Two wrongs do not make a right.

 

[Blueston]

I think the false accusers are more at fault than the falsely accused, absolutely. Hoffman and his girlfriend bear no fault,unless the accusers can provide some evidence to the contrary. However, they failed to do so at every opportunity. Mrs. Karlsson should not have received hateful messages on social media. At that point she was the victim. But Hoffman and GF had zero to do with that. When Mrs. Karlsson falsely accused Hoffman's girlfriend and had her husband escalate the tensions in the locker room over nothing, then yes, she ceased to be a victim and she became the problem. Being a victim of online harassment is no excuse to lash out at am innocent person just because you don't like that person. Two wrongs do not make a right.

What makes you so confident that was false accusation?

 

[simon IC]

The team is chock full of two way, defensively responsible forwards. The team is decidedly not full of consistent 30 goal scorers (with Tarasenko on the shelf no one on the team has ever scored 30 goals, though a number of guys have come close at various times). Sticking Hoffman next to ROR or with Schenn-Schwartz would be a big boost to the top 6, and should be able to mask whatever defensive shortcomings there are.

I agree completely up until the bolded. I am not against signing Hoffman, his offensive contributions will undoubtedly improve the team. I disagree, however, that his scoring will compensate for our loss of defense. It might help in the regular season, (or semblance thereof), but it won't return us to contender status, and I don't think it will make much of a difference in the playoffs.

 

[Stupendous Yappi]

I don’t think “off-ice issues” insinuates the player has a character problem. It means there are non-hockey issues to consider. Pietro had off-ice issues when he had newborn triplet infants. Subban has off-ice issues because of his commitment to monetizing social media branding.

I’m not terribly confident the publicly available information is adequate to fairly assign blame in that whole ordeal. There is certainly no way to fault Hoffman for any of it. If you told me to pick one, I’d take Hoffman over Karlsson...but I just dislike Karlsson. He also turned out to be a salary albatross.

Anyway, I think Majority and I are in agreement...just some different assumptions about whether euphemisms are being used.

 

[BlueKnight]

I'm sorry for opening a can of worms, I just said Hoffman's locker room issues as a reason why i didn't want him but the Blues room has changed in the past couple months so it doesn't matter anyways. I wouldn't be opposed to the Blues signing him, he can shoot and can score so he would be a perfect replacement for Tarasenko.

 

[Majorityof1]

What makes you so confident that was false accusation?

1) Mrs. Karlsson filed for an order of protection but then didn't have it served or finalized in court. She claimed she had proof but refused to offer it. If she was really harassed and had proof, why did she stop the process? Why not share the evidence?

2) The police, based on the order of protection and using whatever evidence Karlsson had, performed an investigation. No charges were filed. If Karlsson had proof and if Hoffman's GF was guilty, why wasn't she charged. A deliberate harassment campaign as was alleged would be illegal, and Karlsson had supposedly already found all the proof.

3) Hoffman's girlfriend made a motion in court to compel Mrs. Karlsson to produce the evidence she claimed to have. Hoffman's girlfriend wanted to clear her name. Why would you pay good money in legal fees to seek to have evidence released if you were guilty?

4) Celebrities get all sorts of horrendous horrible things said about them on social media. A lot of people hide behind anonymity to be the worst version of themselves. To me it is far more believable that there were hundreds of assholes saying rude things off-hand then one person created hundreds of difficult-to-trace back aliases. That is a lot of work to do, especially if the accounts were so well hidden the police could not trace them back to Hoffman's GF.

5) I believe people are innocent until proven guilty. Hoffman's GF was far, far from proven guilty. Now Mrs. Karlsson is also innocent until proven guilty. But there is proof she made the accusation, claimed evidence and then refused to provide evidence. She is at least guilty of not following through with he accusation and creating the ambiguity. The lack of evidence is what led to the locker room drama. Hoffman defended his GF, because of course he did. IF they would have given him iron-clad evidence, he may have broken up with her or gotten her help for whatever issues she has. That wouldn't have solved the harassment issue, but it would have ameliorated the locker room drama.

 

[simon IC]

I know Hoffman is more of what we need, but is anyone else here interested in Carl Soderberg? I think he would be a useful addition on a one-year contract.

 

[LetsGoBooze]

With Tarasenko a huge question mark all season (even if he plays, prolly wont be fully back to 100% for a year), Hoffman is an easy yes for me. We could plug and play him on any of the top 2 lines, and he adds what this team lacks, scoring, and more importantly a deadly one-timer for the PP.

 

[BlueDream]

I’d love Hoffman. I’m in the corner that has zero concerns about him being in the locker room, by the way.

The Karlssons handled that horribly. If you’re gonna drag someone’s name through the mud publicly, you better have stone cold evidence to back it up and they didn’t have any.

He’s a good player. I didn’t hear of any issues in Florida. I’d be happy with him.

 

[Blueston]

1) Mrs. Karlsson filed for an order of protection but then didn't have it served or finalized in court. She claimed she had proof but refused to offer it. If she was really harassed and had proof, why did she stop the process? Why not share the evidence?

2) The police, based on the order of protection and using whatever evidence Karlsson had, performed an investigation. No charges were filed. If Karlsson had proof and if Hoffman's GF was guilty, why wasn't she charged. A deliberate harassment campaign as was alleged would be illegal, and Karlsson had supposedly already found all the proof.

3) Hoffman's girlfriend made a motion in court to compel Mrs. Karlsson to produce the evidence she claimed to have. Hoffman's girlfriend wanted to clear her name. Why would you pay good money in legal fees to seek to have evidence released if you were guilty?

4) Celebrities get all sorts of horrendous horrible things said about them on social media. A lot of people hide behind anonymity to be the worst version of themselves. To me it is far more believable that there were hundreds of assholes saying rude things off-hand then one person created hundreds of difficult-to-trace back aliases. That is a lot of work to do, especially if the accounts were so well hidden the police could not trace them back to Hoffman's GF.

5) I believe people are innocent until proven guilty. Hoffman's GF was far, far from proven guilty. Now Mrs. Karlsson is also innocent until proven guilty. But there is proof she made the accusation, claimed evidence and then refused to provide evidence. She is at least guilty of not following through with he accusation and creating the ambiguity. The lack of evidence is what led to the locker room drama. Hoffman defended his GF, because of course he did. IF they would have given him iron-clad evidence, he may have broken up with her or gotten her help for whatever issues she has. That wouldn't have solved the harassment issue, but it would have ameliorated the locker room drama.

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. You have actually swayed me that it is at least uncertain Hoffmann’s wife was behind this and perhaps even unlikely.

 

[BlueOil]

I know Hoffman is more of what we need, but is anyone else here interested in Carl Soderberg? I think he would be a useful addition on a one-year contract.

if we had not signed clifford and moved bozak, i would have been interested. he'll probably take a salary cut from the $4.75 million he was making, but he's a premium third liner for sure.