If Bob & Bread go - then what?

CBJWerenski8

Formerly CBJWennberg10 (RIP Kivi)
Jun 13, 2009
42,085
24,009
Yikes.

If he's unhappy and that's a reason for his slower start, then they need to start Korpisalo and let Bobrovsky get his head together. If that's not possible, they have to trade him for the betterment of both parties. However, that doesn't exactly help Bob's "mentally fragile" reputation he's been given from his postseason woes.
 

major major

Registered User
Feb 18, 2013
14,598
1,669
Yikes.

If he's unhappy and that's a reason for his slower start, then they need to start Korpisalo and let Bobrovsky get his head together. If that's not possible, they have to trade him for the betterment of both parties. However, that doesn't exactly help Bob's "mentally fragile" reputation he's been given from his postseason woes.

The trade return isn't going to be pretty either way, I bet. His reputation isn't so important. I'd sit him for a while, see how he plays after that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CBJWennberg10

major major

Registered User
Feb 18, 2013
14,598
1,669
This is un-possible, I was told all summer that these guys are professionals and wouldn’t be a distraction in the locker room once the season started

You're either mis-remembering or being dishonest. We weren't even having a conversation about Bob's mental state. It was about whether Panarin leaving would be a distraction for the other players (which there is no sign of).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Viqsi

thebus88

19/20 Columbus Blue Jackets: "It Is What It Is"
Sep 27, 2017
5,002
2,659
Michigan
You're either mis-remembering or being dishonest. We weren't even having a conversation about Bob's mental state. It was about whether Panarin leaving would be a distraction for the other players (which there is no sign of).

Bro
 

KallioWeHardlyKnewYe

Hey! We won!
May 30, 2003
15,509
3,330
You're either mis-remembering or being dishonest. We weren't even having a conversation about Bob's mental state. It was about whether Panarin leaving would be a distraction for the other players (which there is no sign of).

I only remember this because it's one of the rare things I chimed in on this offseason. I'm going to come across as a jerk here, but I do recall at least this exchange ...

Neither Bob nor Panarin strike me as malcontents so I will give them the benefit of the doubt that they show up and do their best. They've done nothing to indicate otherwise.

That said, they're human. And I think it's a very human thing to not be fully engaged if you're in a situation where you're feeling slighted in some way by your employer whether that's because you're not being paid what you feel you deserve or they're not facilitating a move you'd like to make.

I don't think either player will be a distraction, per se. But I do wonder if there is a natural ceiling on their best if they're internally unhappy about their situation. Look at Johnson last year — do you think his play was impacted by his issues with coaching/management? I do.

This is just me reiterating my belief that I think it's best to move on from one or both sooner rather than later if they're not part of the future. (not to mention I still believe the market for Panarin is going to be better in the next month or so than at the trade deadline).

Bolded emphasis is mine ...

1. Panarin's up for a contract, and only one year removed from being considered a wingman. He needs to play great to further establish himself.
2. They're obviously willing to pay him, they might even value him more than he's valued elsewhere.
3. He hasn't requested a trade, everything points to him and the team preparing to play as a team.
4. If he wants to go to the Rangers, he has to understand that they're rebuilding and probably not going to pony up for him via trade. That's not on the Jackets FO.

For Bobrovsky, we don't know enough about the situation. But I think #2 might be an issue. I really could see Bobrovsky feeling slighted if they don't offer him something at least starting with a 9.



Johnson's issues with coaching/management were that he was finally getting the ice time he deserved.



I doubt the Rangers give even that much, which is nonetheless a poor return. They're at a position where they're gunning for lottery picks and I bet they'd rather wait until UFA than trade any 1sts.

You might get more from a random team that wants to rent Panarin.

Edit: I don't know if Bob's issues are rust, small pads or frustration with organization (or some combination all that) ... but I do know some of us were concerned about his potential mental state given the contract situation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: thebus88

major major

Registered User
Feb 18, 2013
14,598
1,669
I only remember this because it's one of the rare things I chimed in on this offseason. I'm going to come across as a jerk here, but I do recall at least this exchange ...



Bolded emphasis is mine ...

I appreciate you digging this up. But to my mind, I read that and it clearly shows our mutual concern for Bob's mental state, which has proven to be the one issue. We have zero sign of a Panarin locker room cancer issue.

It's ridiculous that people are like "see! I told you!" when Bob is the problem here, and they were predicting that Panarin's impending departure would cause attitude problems for others in the locker room. So far I have been right 100% on this topic.
 

KallioWeHardlyKnewYe

Hey! We won!
May 30, 2003
15,509
3,330
I appreciate you digging this up. But to my mind, I read that and it clearly shows our mutual concern for Bob's mental state, which has proven to be the one issue. We have zero sign of a Panarin locker room cancer issue.

It's ridiculous that people are like "see! I told you!" when Bob is the problem here, and they were predicting that Panarin's impending departure would cause attitude problems for others in the locker room. So far I have been right 100% on this topic.

I'll agree with you on that. Panarin was definitely the larger collective concern. To say otherwise would be wrong.

Panarin has been aces -- so much so that I think I'm now (somewhat reluctantly) in the "we can't trade this guy" camp, which I definitely wasn't in prior to the first puck drop.
 

KJ Dangler

Registered User
Oct 21, 2006
8,277
4,943
Columbus
We might have a better chance keeping bread , if we move Bobrovsky sooner rather than later . They may be friends , but I’m absolutely convinced he’s behind Breads 180 in the offseason , and the position we now face with Panarin .

Also , did anyone catch Werenski yesterday calling out how terrible the marketing is for the bluejackets . He said him and Seth would love to sell the city and want to stay here , but don’t think they don’t notice the stagnant environment at Nationwide , 11,500 showing up for a game . This front office is so out of touch with Today’s game , and need to fix this ASAP .
 
  • Like
Reactions: thebus88

GoJackets1

Someday.
Aug 21, 2008
6,771
3,287
Montana
We might have a better chance keeping bread , if we move Bobrovsky sooner rather than later . They may be friends , but I’m absolutely convinced he’s behind Breads 180 in the offseason , and the position we now face with Panarin .

Also , did anyone catch Werenski yesterday calling out how terrible the marketing is for the bluejackets . He said him and Seth would love to sell the city and want to stay here , but don’t think they don’t notice the stagnant environment at Nationwide , 11,500 showing up for a game . This front office is so out of touch with Today’s game , and need to fix this ASAP .
Link?
 

thebus88

19/20 Columbus Blue Jackets: "It Is What It Is"
Sep 27, 2017
5,002
2,659
Michigan
I appreciate you digging this up. But to my mind, I read that and it clearly shows our mutual concern for Bob's mental state, which has proven to be the one issue. We have zero sign of a Panarin locker room cancer issue.

It's ridiculous that people are like "see! I told you!" when Bob is the problem here, and they were predicting that Panarin's impending departure would cause attitude problems for others in the locker room. So far I have been right 100% on this topic.

No, you are just "moving the goalposts", like you have been.

AT FIRST, just bringing up the idea of Bob being gone after this year or before, for whatever reason, was criticized HEAVILY. Then, it changed to any "comparison" of the 'Panarin and Bob issue' was criticized, because supposedly there wasn't a "Bob issue". Then quickly, it was realized there WAS (absolutely possibly) a "Bob issue".

But the reason (most) people didn't "predict" this "Bob issue" right away, is because people weren't ALLOWED to. That all changed AFTER the now "infamous" interview.
 

thebus88

19/20 Columbus Blue Jackets: "It Is What It Is"
Sep 27, 2017
5,002
2,659
Michigan
I'll agree with you on that. Panarin was definitely the larger collective concern. To say otherwise would be wrong.

He was the larger concern, because he was "seen" and passed off, AS the ONLY POSSIBLE CONCERN.

If you said there was a "Bob issue", BEFORE, you would be called wrong. Now, people are being called wrong for not claiming there was a "Bob issue", BEFORE. :scared: :pullhair:

:soap:

What has changed?

:surrender
 

KallioWeHardlyKnewYe

Hey! We won!
May 30, 2003
15,509
3,330
He was the larger concern, because he was "seen" and passed off, AS the ONLY POSSIBLE CONCERN.

If you said there was a "Bob issue", BEFORE, you would be called wrong. Now, people are being called wrong for not claiming there was a "Bob issue", BEFORE. :scared: :pullhair:

:soap:

What has changed?

:surrender

My initial point was that I have always though there could be issues with BOTH Bob and Panarin.

My response to major was agreeing with him that I think the bigger concern in the offseason around these parts was Panarin. But at no point did I say Bob wasn't a concern. Thought it was pretty clear I said the opposite.

:huh:
 

thebus88

19/20 Columbus Blue Jackets: "It Is What It Is"
Sep 27, 2017
5,002
2,659
Michigan
My initial point was that I have always though there could be issues with BOTH Bob and Panarin.

My response to major was agreeing with him that I think the bigger concern in the offseason around these parts was Panarin. But at no point did I say Bob wasn't a concern. Thought it was pretty clear I said the opposite.

:huh:

OK, what I am doing is attempting to explain to you WHY Panarin was seen as the "bigger (only) concern".

Its because people (like Major) wouldn't ALLOW people to discuss ANY sort of "anti Bob" topics.

That ALL CHANGED after he gave his, "they know my plans", interview.

There was supposedly ZERO CHANCE of any "Bob issue" before that. But, it somehow existed AFTER?

Did the "issue" happen because of the interview? Or, did the interview happen because of the "issue"?
 

Double-Shift Lasse

Just post better
Dec 22, 2004
33,356
14,031
Exurban Cbus
I appreciate you digging this up. But to my mind, I read that and it clearly shows our mutual concern for Bob's mental state, which has proven to be the one issue. We have zero sign of a Panarin locker room cancer issue.

It's ridiculous that people are like "see! I told you!" when Bob is the problem here, and they were predicting that Panarin's impending departure would cause attitude problems for others in the locker room. So far I have been right 100% on this topic.

To the bolded... YES!

The greater concern for most of the offseason was whether the contract situation with Panarin would be a distraction to the rest of the roster, not whether an individual player would have his play impacted. As the summer went on, the discussion naturally morphed but to suggest the initial and larger topic wasn't "distraction of the entire team" is moving the goalposts.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->