Speculation: If Columbus Trades Hartnell's Remaining Cap

[Sawdalite]

Hartnell is a scorer for them, but didn't do much to make them better.
And the fact that they couldn't make a decent deal to dump the last three years of his contract says he's less value than his counting stastics.

Not sure how valuable he'd have been on the Flyers, we needed a solid two way winger, not a guy who primarily scores on the PP (that we had in Simmonds and Schenn). Raffl is too one dimensional but so is Hartnell, so it isn't like that's a huge jump.

It would have been nice if Umberger had turned out to be a decent 3rd line winger, but Hartnell's contract would have squeezed Hextall this offseason, too big to buy out, too big to carry as well - and if he couldn't have pulled off the miracle Vinny trade . . .

FWIW:

Raffl

2014-15 21-7 28
2015-16 13-18 31


Hartnell

2014-15 28-32 60
2015-16 23-26 49

And with the Flyers Hartnell may have scored more with more arguably compatible linemates... and the set-up talent of G and Jake as Top Six Players.


I like Raffl... but he is not the Goal scorer Hartnell is.

Hextall was suggesting that Umberger was to pick up much of the lost goals IIRC... Hextall assumed too much, or was selling us a bunch of bull.

 

[major major]

It's a Flyers thread but many of the points here hinge on what the Jackets can do with his contract going forward and the role he plays for them. So I can clarify some of that. I can tell you in general that Jackets fans generally have a completely different view on Hartnell than outsiders do. I don't think "myths" is too strong of a word.

Hartnell has been the Jackets top scorer in the two years since joining the team. He's a valued player. Comparing him to Tyutin is way off. The Jackets would be hard pressed to replace Hartnell - whereas the D should be helped by Tyutin's subtraction.

This thread exists because you assumed Hartnell with 3 years left would get CBJ a nice return and fix their cap problems. He didn't, and they had to resort to buyouts totaling $7,216,166 in cap penalties over four years.

That doesn't have anything more to do with Hartnell than it does any other well paid Jacket. Why do the Tyutin and Boll buy-outs (two players the Jackets don't want) have anything to do with Hartnell, or have more to do with him than say Dubinsky or Foligno or Saad?

We also have no idea what the return on Hartnell would have been. All we know is that for the team's sake the return better be positive (he's the top scorer) and Jarmo balked at the offers.

Hartnell is a scorer for them, but didn't do much to make them better.

Hartnell had 110 pts, Umberger 26. That translates to more than a few wins. The Jackets might be dead last if not for the trade.

And the fact that they couldn't make a decent deal to dump the last three years of his contract says he's less value than his counting stastics.

Or that he's more valued by Jarmo than other GM's. Hartnell is actually a better playmaker than almost all other Jackets forwards, if you can believe it.

Not sure how valuable he'd have been on the Flyers, we needed a solid two way winger, not a guy who primarily scores on the PP (that we had in Simmonds and Schenn).

At 5 on 5, Hartnell has better than a 2.00 P/60 as a Jacket, which no Flyer has done over the last two years.

 

[Random Forest]

They got the much easier contract to swallow, aren't burdened with having to protect him going into the expansion draft, are better off cap-wise, and turned that fourth into Vorobyov and Salinitri. Those are beneficial things.

And yet, it's not as beneficial as actually having a 20+ goal scoring winger the past two years who still has some game left. The myth that Hartnell is some boat anchor is just not reality. He's still productive and useful, and I still suspect the Blue Jackets could fetch a 5th round pick if they truly were desperate to dump him. But no team is ever desperate to just dump a 20+ scoring LWer, so they have no reason to.

The reality is, we could have kept Hartnell and gotten some some productive years out of him before dumping him. Instead, we got two years of Umberger. For as much as we whined about Lecavalier, Umberger was every bit as bad, for the same price... that negative value to the team mitigated any reward we might have had by getting out of the contract early-- which, as I said above, is a specious claim anyway.

There's just a bizarre desperation to defend this move when there really isn't any cogent argument in favor of it, especially given the power of hindsight now. I mean, in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't matter since Hextall has more than made up for it, but let's call it what it is-- a bad deal. There's genuinely nothing redeeming about it. Hartnell could have returned more then, and he could still likely return something now. At no point was he a negative asset (ie, the return we got).

 

[Striiker]

Pssst (((It might be cheaper to pay a family member or buddy of yours to slap you in the back of your head when you reach for the mouse to open this thread... You are aware that you can simply not read it..... Right???)))

Or look at it like this...

If they don't lock this one, how will you be able to make a new Hartnell thread next month? You have a quota to meet, don't you?

 

[He Is Knocking]

I hated the trade at the time but have moved to the That the trade was beneficial to Flyers given the result camp.

What Hextall has done with reshaping the Flyers this was a move that had to be done to get where we are. With Hartnall we probably see mediocrity and a slower rebuild. Yeah, looking at Umby-Hartnall in a vacuum it looks like Columbus won the trade but taking everything into account (which is what an NHL GM does) Hextall accomplished exactly what he wanted and possibly more.

 

[Tripod]

Holy crap guys, this shouldn't be hard to understand.

You have the power of hindsight....and Hartnell has played well. But what if the opposite had happened and he played poorly? Well...let's look to see what his trade value was on HF in December 2013:

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1558887&highlight=hartnell

A conditional pick?

Frankie Corrado?

His value?
None really. It's like when someone cuts down a tree and puts up a sign saying "Free Wood."
And I'm a Flyers fan.

The only logical trade is with the Kings.
How about:
To LA: Hartnell
To Philly: Frattin+Stoll+3rd
Philly needs to retain salary this year though

Patrick Wiercioch and Milan Michalek for Hartnell.

you can have him for free he's useless, drag his line down, stupid penalties.
people have to work hard to make 1dollar a day and this guy get 5m for being a clown.
pathetic.

You won't get much for him. Making another contract that isn't as bad and a pick. I'd offer maybe Booth, and a 2nd. Buy out Hartnell this offseason if he sucks. He would waive to play with the Sedins too.

Hartnell for Hansen + Jensen

Only thing of value if you get Hartnell in a trade is that he comes with that babe of a wife...

Etc....


The point is, is that Hartnell showed signs of decline. He did rebound to finish the year, but I bet Hextall was given quite the scare that he could be stuck with that contract for 5 more years. He DID NOT want to take the risk of Hartnell declining and lose the window to move him. Especially when he still had Vinny on the books and he too looked immovable.

Was the return good? No. But the FLEXIBILTY WAS. THAT IS WHAT HE REALLY WANTED IN RETURN. Then as on that he had a NMC so controlled where he went. That of course would affect the return.

And Hartnell, now with 3 years left and still playing like Hartnell. Getting points. But also getting benched for dumb penalties. CBus was willing to trade pick #3 if someone took a bad contact from them....Tutin or Hartnell. If he had good value, why would he be included in this scenario? Because CBus was willing to move him to have cap and expansion draft flexibility.

I said it before, Hartnell's value will go up if he keeps playing well and his contract gets shorter....because the risk becomes less.

Hextall got MOST of what he wanted in the trade. Got a pick. Got cap flexibility for summer of 2016. Got Hartnell off the team. He just did not get a solid 3rd liner for 2 years. Oh well. Time to move on. I am ok with this being Hextall's worst move. He has done so many great ones since then.

Another way to look at it is that for CBus, he has played exactly as they could have hoped....and they have 2 missed playoffs, a benching by the coach, cap hell, expansion issues, and were willing to move him for no return and no one would make an offer. Are they clear winners?

 

[major major]

CBus was willing to trade pick #3 if someone took a bad contact from them....Tutin or Hartnell. If he had good value, why would he be included in this scenario?

He wasn't included. That was a BS rumor.

 

[Sawdalite]

Or look at it like this...

If they don't lock this one, how will you be able to make a new Hartnell thread next month? You have a quota to meet, don't you?

Still stopping by I see... Thanks for your patronage... please come back again soon.

 

[Sawdalite]

Was the return good? No. But the FLEXIBILTY WAS. THAT IS WHAT HE REALLY WANTED IN RETURN. Then as on that he had a NMC so controlled where he went. That of course would affect the return.

Revisionist history... Hextall just made a deal and went to Hartnell who slept on it and said to himself; 'I don't want to stay where I'm not wanted' and waived his Clause, accepting to go where They Flyers had made the deal to... Hextall made the deal he wanted without getting the okay from Hartnell... He was free to get the best no matter the HellHole Team and, as it turned out, Hartnell would have taken it to get away from a place he felt unwanted in. Kind of sad, when you think about it.

 

[Striiker]

Still stopping by I see... Thanks for your patronage... please come back again soon.

Yeah, of course. It's like going to the zoo to watch monkeys fling their **** at the walls. I'm sure as hell not going to participate in the activity but watching the mess is funny.

 

[YEM]

At 5 on 5, Hartnell has better than a 2.00 P/60 as a Jacket, which no Flyer has done over the last two years.

that's unbelievable

 

[deadhead]

FWIW:

Even strength, b/c we have Simmonds and Schenn, so Hartnell doesn't provide a lot of additional PP value.

Raffl

2014-15 18-7 25 +6 CF 55.2% CFrel 6.8%
2015-16 12-17 29 +1 CF 54.0% CFrel 4.4%

Hartnell

2014-15 20-24 44 +1 CF 51.5% CFrel 5.0%
2015-16 13-24 37 -11 CF 49.5% CFrel 1.2%

If we were carrying Hartnell's contract, we'd probably would have let Raffl walk (or had to make a bad trade to dump another contract).
What do you think Hartnell will do the next 3 years?

Corrected, Both players even strength.

 

[Damaged Goods]

Yes, we wouldn't want to suffer from too much even strength goal-scoring around here.

For those saying that the Hartnell trade is clever because it made the Flyers worse at a time when they were mediocre anyway, does that re-color your perception of the JVR, Bobrovsky, Mason, Del Zotto, Raffl, etc. transactions?

 

[Sawdalite]

Yeah, of course. It's like going to the zoo to watch monkeys fling their **** at the walls. I'm sure as hell not going to participate in the activity but watching the mess is funny.

Why don't you tell us more about how you enjoy watching primates tossing their bowel movements as one of your amusements... What are your other ways for passing your time?

 

[Sawdalite]

Corrected, Both players even strength.

Yet the PP was one of the things that let the Flyers down last Seson... Raffl had one and Hartnell 10... so the nine extra goals +/- or any part of that on the Flyers could not have made a difference? Given how Hartnell was a clutch player when he was here, wouldn't he be better then Raffl.

Keep in mind also that that was with Columbus and may have been better playing with the likes of G and Jake as play-makers... Look what they did for Raffl. I'm not taking anything away from Raffl... I just think Hartnell would be better and Raffl cannot replace him... although he is more affordable.

...I do see your even strength point though.

 

[Tripod]

Revisionist history... Hextall just made a deal and went to Hartnell who slept on it and said to himself; 'I don't want to stay where I'm not wanted' and waived his Clause, accepting to go where They Flyers had made the deal to... Hextall made the deal he wanted without getting the okay from Hartnell... He was free to get the best no matter the HellHole Team and, as it turned out, Hartnell would have taken it to get away from a place he felt unwanted in. Kind of sad, when you think about it.

So how did he feel this summer when Columbus asked him to waive his NMC?

http://www.thehockeynews.com/blog/r...-clause-gives-blue-jackets-decent-sized-list/

"Hartnell moving on could have been foreseen given the rumblings about his availability during the past campaign, but his lack of ice time and reduced role made it abundantly clear that if the veteran winger wanted to remain a top-six player, he’d have to find a spot outside of Columbus."

For a guy that has lots of value, sure seems like mgt of teams are more than willing to move him.

 

[Striiker]

Why don't you tell us more about how you enjoy watching primates tossing their bowl movements as one of your amusements... What are your other ways for passing your time?

Well, in between **** throwing, I sometimes watch them post on HFBoards. They do it because it's relaxing, throwing **** requires more brain power than half of the posts on this site, so I guess they do this to unwind at the end of a long day.

 

[Sawdalite]

Yes, we wouldn't want to suffer from too much even strength goal-scoring around here.

For those saying that the Hartnell trade is clever because it made the Flyers worse at a time when they were mediocre anyway, does that re-color your perception of the JVR, Bobrovsky, Mason, Del Zotto, Raffl, etc. transactions?

Being a Season Ticket Holder... while I'm all for building for the future and legit Cup Runs... I'm sure not against icing the best Team possible.

If I want tanking I'll become a Sixer STH.

 

[Sawdalite]

So how did he feel this summer when Columbus asked him to waive his NMC?

http://www.thehockeynews.com/blog/r...-clause-gives-blue-jackets-decent-sized-list/

"Hartnell moving on could have been foreseen given the rumblings about his availability during the past campaign, but his lack of ice time and reduced role made it abundantly clear that if the veteran winger wanted to remain a top-six player, he’d have to find a spot outside of Columbus."

For a guy that has lots of value, sure seems like mgt of teams are more than willing to move him.

"According to Friedman"... Columbus does not confirm any of that though.

In any case, the point is that Hextall was not hampered by not being able to deal with teams due to the Clause... Hexy wanted that deal... he simply made a crummy deal... he really could/should have done better given Hartnell would have probably accepted any trade to get away from where he was not wanted.

... and BTW... How is Umberger doing with being wanted... at any cost?

 

[Appleyard]

For me the whole Hartnell trade is like this:

1. The idea & reasoning behind trading Hartnell were sound from Hextall.

The contract he has is border-line buy-out proof until closer to it's end, and over the 18 months before he was traded he was looking more and more like a passenger. He had been passed by Voracek & Simmonds in terms of best wingers on the team and Schenn was looking at a not dissimilar level either in his last season given the disparity in quality of minutes. He was looking like going into the 2014-15 season as our 4th best winger at age 32 with a nasty contract that ran until he was 37 years old.

Add into that that at that point we knew Voracek, Schenn & Couturier would need re-signing and the cap was already tight... especially projecting forward to this summer, and at that point it looked like the Pronger contract was un-movable and massively restricted flexibility itself.

Given all this Hartnell being moved really 'had' to happen at some point... and it did look like he was declining... had he not been traded and had a bad year with ~40 points or so he would have been close to un-movable as well barring giving away assets... which would have added to the Pronger/Lecavalier/MacDonald mess of contracts already in place then. The 'gamble' of keeping him and hoping he stayed a ~50 point guy for another few years would have been dangerous to say the least going off what we knew then.

2. He knew he was getting a downgrade in player, and that was part of the price to pay for getting rid of Hartnell's long, hard to buyout deal in return for Umberger's deal that could be easily bought out after 2 years... but he likely thought Umberger would be the ~35-40 point guy he had been for a few years before then for at least a year or two. I think he thought Schenn would step up into Hartnell's role and Umberger would replace Schenn in effect, leaving the team in a ~similar state upfront.

But that did not happen. Schenn; while he did pick up some of the slack in 14-15 with a slightly bigger role, did not mesh with Giroux and therefore relative to Hartnell the year before put up ~5 less points over 82 games. But Umberger did not even come close to replacing Schenn's 40pt production from the year before... and just fell off a cliff. 15-16 Schenn did replace Hartnell of 13-14... but Umberger ofc was even worse, no-where near to the ~40pts Schenn had in 13-14.

3. The buy-out we foresaw when the trade went down happened... and helped us be able to re-sign Schenn. (though as Pronger & Vinny were shipped off in miracle deals in the mean-time we were not 'as' tight as we all envisaged back when Hartnell was traded... but still quite tight.)



Overall it did not play out like Hextall probably expected/hoped it would. If Umberger had been the ~35-40 point player he was before the trade over the last two years it would have... but that did not happen as we all now know.

However... the worst case scenario with Hartnell over the last two years for the Flyers would have been that we kept him, he fell off a cliff and was then un-tradeable with a caphit through to 2019. If that had happened it would have ****ed us quite hard and caused problems for the vision of what is being built.

As we saw pretty much the worse case scenario happened with Umberger and it really did not cause too much of a 'problem' for the organisation itself, re-signing players etc... barring ofc having a worse forward group... as the contract was so buy-out friendly after 2 years.


In conclusion:

Was the value of the deal good in hindsight: No. We lost value wise.

Was the deal 'risky': No. It was a pretty safe move that gave the organisation far more flex going forward and probably lifted a big worry off Hextall's shoulders.

Did the move help the organisation long-term: Yes.

Did the move help the organisation short-term: Mixed bag. On ice? Not at all. In the front office... probably yes.



Would I undo the deal even knowing what I know now? No.

Why? Because in all likelihood what would have happened differently?

Hartnell would have helped the team on ice the last two years. They would maybe have scraped into the playoffs last season but not had the D or depth to do much... and this year maybe make it another round if they avoided the Caps & Pens in 1st round. But on the flip-side we would likely not have Provorov now... and we would be getting pretty itchy right now about Hartnell, his deal and future decline and hoping we could move him ASAP.



I mean... if we could go back and say get a 2nd rounder instead of a 4th I would ofc be all for it... or take back a player with some salary who we know now would have held up better over last few years than Umberger did... ofc I would. (we had to take back some salary and term for sure at the time given the Hartnell contract.)

But if Hartnell had not been traded 2 summers ago and stayed a Flyer we would be all logically wanting him traded right now anyway.

 

[Appleyard]

As a result of my reasoning in above post I voted 'OTHER' in the poll as I believe:

The Flyers needed to trade Hartnell.

The trade itself was beneficial to the Flyers organisation going forward. The Hartnell contract was a ticking timebomb that could have gone off quite easily and caused a myriad of problems for the Flyers. He had to be moved at some point and the sooner he was moved the less risk the Flyers had going forward.

However it was not beneficial for the on ice product in the last two years. And in a perfect world they would have got more value.

The Flyers would be satisfied with the result of the move given that they no longer had to worry about an imminent Hartnell decline and looking for deals constantly to try and move him... as that is what would have happened if he was not traded in the deal he was.

However the Flyers would not be satisfied with the value knowing what they now know.

That being said I think the result/flexibility/weight off shoulders the trade gave > the value lost in it.

 

[Striiker]

As a result of my reasoning in above post I voted 'OTHER' in the poll as I believe:

The Flyers needed to trade Hartnell.

The trade itself was beneficial to the Flyers organisation going forward. The Hartnell contract was a ticking timebomb that could have gone off quite easily and caused a myriad of problems for the Flyers. He had to be moved at some point and the sooner he was moved the less risk the Flyers had going forward.

However it was not beneficial for the on ice product in the last two years. And in a perfect world they would have got more value.

The Flyers would be satisfied with the result of the move given that they no longer had to worry about an imminent Hartnell decline and looking for deals constantly to try and move him... as that is what would have happened if he was not traded in the deal he was.

However the Flyers would not be satisfied with the value knowing what they now know.

That being said I think the result/flexibility/weight off shoulders the trade gave > the value lost in it.

Bingo.

This has been my point the whole time.

Would I rather get more in return? Obviously.

Would I do the exact same trade all over again if given a choice? Absolutely.

 

[Garbage Goal]

And yet, it's not as beneficial as actually having a 20+ goal scoring winger the past two years who still has some game left. The myth that Hartnell is some boat anchor is just not reality. He's still productive and useful, and I still suspect the Blue Jackets could fetch a 5th round pick if they truly were desperate to dump him. But no team is ever desperate to just dump a 20+ scoring LWer, so they have no reason to.

The reality is, we could have kept Hartnell and gotten some some productive years out of him before dumping him. Instead, we got two years of Umberger. For as much as we whined about Lecavalier, Umberger was every bit as bad, for the same price... that negative value to the team mitigated any reward we might have had by getting out of the contract early-- which, as I said above, is a specious claim anyway.

There's just a bizarre desperation to defend this move when there really isn't any cogent argument in favor of it, especially given the power of hindsight now. I mean, in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't matter since Hextall has more than made up for it, but let's call it what it is-- a bad deal. There's genuinely nothing redeeming about it. Hartnell could have returned more then, and he could still likely return something now. At no point was he a negative asset (ie, the return we got).

Yeah, for all those Cup contending great teams the Flyers have put together since the Hartnell trade we could have really sure used his scoring, one-dimensional play, and bad penalties to push us over the top for the Cup. You're right, what an awful and ill-timed trade just when we were poised for a Cup run.

I outlined my thoughts on the deal earlier in the topic and it's essentially exactly the same sentiments Appleyard echoed just a couple posts ago. It's pure silliness to call it a bad trade because Umberger unexpectedly declined and for no other reason. If you want to completely ignore cap flexibility, the key re-signings that we needed that space for the last couple of years (namely, Schenn this year and Voracek last year), the couple of prospects we got out of it, the fact that Umberger's buyout is minimal and not going to hurt us any, Hartnell's one-dimensional play and bad penalties, the fact that neither team were good enough to contend and thus have use for Hartnell since the trade happened, and the looming expansion draft then fine go for it. I'm not interested in talking to someone who's just going to flat-out ignore every single one of those realities to suit their viewpoint though.

Believe we could have gotten a better return like I've said before, fine. The notion that there was zero benefit, let alone a negative return, that came from the deal is just pure stupidity though so I'm not going to deal with it.

 

[Random Forest]

Yeah, for all those Cup contending great teams the Flyers have put together since the Hartnell trade we could have really sure used his scoring, one-dimensional play, and bad penalties to push us over the top for the Cup. You're right, what an awful and ill-timed trade just when we were poised for a Cup run.

Oh, right, I forgot that if you're not poised to be a Cup favorite, then there's no use making your team better.

It's pure silliness to call it a bad trade because Umberger unexpectedly declined and for no other reason.

Oh good god, I don't even know how to respond to a comment like this.

If you want to completely ignore cap flexibility, the key re-signings that we needed that space for the last couple of years (namely, Schenn this year and Voracek last year), the couple of prospects we got out of it, the fact that Umberger's buyout is minimal and not going to hurt us any, Hartnell's one-dimensional play and bad penalties, the fact that neither team were good enough to contend and thus have use for Hartnell since the trade happened, and the looming expansion draft then fine go for it. I'm not interested in talking to someone who's just going to flat-out ignore every single one of those realities to suit their viewpoint though.

I have ignored literally none of those things, and I have already addressed them. If you would like to continue this discussion, make an honest effort to read my posts. Until then, I'm out.


Appleyard-- good post. I don't agree with all of it, but you've constructed a cogent argument for the trade which is more than anyone else since the thread's been bumped. I find myself saying this all the time, but I have no problem with a dissenting view as long as its presented with reason and consistent logic. But when people come in here rehashing tired and misleading arguments about why this trade was secretly a win, I find it a bit frustrating.

 

[Rebels57]

The only rationalization needed for being okay with the Hartnell trade is the following:

We wouldn't have won the Cup with him, nor would we have ended up with the amazing prospects that we currently have, which may directly lead to us finally winning a Cup.