Salary Cap: Salary Cap + Roster Building | No Hate

[BlindWillyMcHurt]

I mean, I agree 100% I’d be playing Ruh and Riikola over Johnson.

Or Prow... or Trotman... or Melichar...

 

[Empoleon8771]

He was a top 4 staple in LA.

They traded him before, coincidentally, they started winning cups.

You seem to be really implying that they started winning cups because they traded Johnson, not because they added Jeff Carter, not because they got a .946 save% out of Quick in the playoffs and not because they brought in a new coach halfway through the season.

He was a top 4 staple in Columbus, part of their process of becoming a more consistent playoff caliber team included limiting his minutes and how he was used and then scratching him.

Johnson played 29:21 in the first playoff series with the Jackets, where the Jackets lost in 6 games to the Penguins (he had 7 points in 6 games). Johnson played 25:52 in his second playoff series with the Jackets, where the Jackets lost in 5 games to the Penguins. He didn't play in the 3rd playoff series, where the Jackets lost in 6 games.

Again, you seem to be attributing team success or failure due to Johnson, just like with the Kings above. To me, I'd say that getting John Tottorella as head coach, trading for Panarin, getting better goaltending from Bobrovsky (had a .914 in the 2 years the Jackets didn't make the playoffs, had above a .920 save% in each year the Jackets made the playoffs) and acquiring Jones is way more impactful.

He's been a top 4 staple for a decade. Absolutely.

He's never been a top 4 staple on a team with legit cup aspirations.

Justin Schultz wasn't a top-4 caliber defenseman on a cup team until he was. Trevor Daley wasn't a top-4 caliber defenseman on a cup team until he was, either. Same with Hainsey, although including him here makes me gag. This doesn't mean Johnson is good, but to say he's good or bad because of success teams had with him as a top-4 defenseman seems like an incredibly flawed way to judge a player.

This thread is really confirming to me how much of a whipping boy Johnson is among Penguins fans, which is making it just easier and easier to not take any of their opinions of Johnson seriously here.

 

[KIRK]

He has statistically been one of the worst D in the league right every year but one.

But he's been a top 4 staple for almost all of that . . .

 

[Gurglesons]

But he's been a top 4 staple for almost all of that . . .

Ah. You’re right. Good thing we got that term.

 

[BladeRunner66]

He has statistically been one of the worst D in the league right every year but one.

Untrue, 14 pts in 24 gp in 2011-12 with a +5 but stats are also teams related.

+23 in 82 gp in 2016-17 seems strong for me, just like his unlikely match with Letang getting positive results.

Anyway, this is still a small sample size but it's positive so far (with Letang).

Still sounds risky but hey, if a more mature Letang can shelter him and JJ thrives on a 1rst pair then run this 'till it fails, if it does.

What's the risk at this point since JJ has a hard time against lesser opposition? (wtf?)

 

[Empoleon8771]

Can we get back to the original point, which was that if the Penguins wanted to trade Johnson, they could? Since people seem incapable of reading or paying attention enough to read a paragraph, let's just make it nice and short. If the Penguins wanted to move Johnson, they could find a team that viewed him like a top-4 D and trade him.

Untrue, 14 pts in 24 gp in 2011-12 with a +5 but stats are also teams related.

+23 in 82 gp in 2016-17 seems strong for me, just like his unlikely match with Letang getting positive results.

Anyway, this is still a small sample size but it's positive so far (with Letang).

Still sounds risky but hey, if a more mature Letang can shelter him and JJ thrives on a 1rst pair then run this 'till it fails, if it does.

What's the risk at this point since JJ has a hard time against lesser opposition? (wtf?)

I do think he had a strong year in 2016-2017, but using +/- to support that is a bad argument. A better argument is that putting up 20 ES points and -2.5% CF%Rel while getting below 40% offensive zone starts against top end competition is good.

 

[ColePens]

The debate is heated right now, which is fine, but let's stop the smarky comments and be a bit nicer to one another. Let's go.

 

[Gurglesons]

Can we get back to the original point, which was that if the Penguins wanted to trade Johnson, they could? Since people seem incapable of reading or paying attention enough to read a paragraph, let's just make it nice and short. If the Penguins wanted to move Johnson, they could find a team that viewed him like a top-4 D and trade him.

I’m sure a team would gladly take Johnson + 1st for a terrible contract.

 

[Gurglesons]

Untrue, 14 pts in 24 gp in 2011-12 with a +5 but stats are also teams related.

+23 in 82 gp in 2016-17 seems strong for me, just like his unlikely match with Letang getting positive results.

Anyway, this is still a small sample size but it's positive so far (with Letang).

Still sounds risky but hey, if a more mature Letang can shelter him and JJ thrives on a 1rst pair then run this 'till it fails, if it does.

What's the risk at this point since JJ has a hard time against lesser opposition? (wtf?)

16-17 is his good year which I think was on Savard. Go google Worst Jack Johnson.

I’m sure there is some articles that aren’t about Flake.

Here is a good one :

Eye Test: Why Jack Johnson is the NHL's most overrated player

 

[Empoleon8771]

I’m sure a team would gladly take Johnson + 1st for a terrible contract.

Yes, they would. I'm also sure a team would gladly take Johnson for nothing, because it seems really clear for how actual GMs view Johnson.

I'm amazed at how some people can't differentiate between how they view Johnson and how NHL executives view Johnson.

 

[Gurglesons]

Yes, they would. I'm also sure a team would gladly take Johnson for nothing, because it seems really clear for how actual GMs view Johnson.

I'm amazed at how some people can't differentiate between how they view Johnson and how NHL executives view Johnson.

I’m not sure NHL executives view Johnson positively. Didn’t he get ripped in that same article Bobby Ryan did in the 2014 Olympics.

Yes he did. Choice lines “ he needs to get his shit together.”, “his gap is terrible.”, “he’s not a player that is tracking correctly.”, “if he knew where he was on our board it would kill him.”

 

[Empoleon8771]

I’m not sure NHL executives view Johnson positively. Didn’t he get ripped in that same article Bobby Ryan did in the 2014 Olympics.

I don't know what you're referring to, the only article I can find talks about Ryan and Johnson not making the 2014 Olympic team from ESPN. This article isn't showing him getting ripped, it basically progresses from:

1. Everyone agreeing that Johnson is a lock on the team, with Suter and McDonagh being the other 2 locks.
2. Poile raising some concern, but Burke and Lombardi defending Johnson
3. All agreeing that he's having a bad year, and they decide to add a RHD to the team over him

That's not telling me that NHL executives "don't view Johnson positively", that just tells me they thought he was having a poor season in 2013-2014 and decided they had too many LHD on the roster already. Johnson wasn't any more "ripped" in that article than Keith Yandle was.

 

[Tom Hanks]

Remember when JR was going to introduce 'analytics' to the organization?

I guess that introduction doesn't apply to shiny toys who happen to be Sid's BFF.

He’s actually our best D in terms of GF/60 on the PP and our 2nd best D for GA/60 on the PK.
*I feel like Ryan Wilson typing this out lol.

At ES he’s 6th in GF and 7th in GA.
*Thats better lol.

Maatta is similar on special teams 2nd GF on PP and the best in GA on the PK (clearly). Better than JJ at ES 5th GF and 4th GA. You need better for 4mil though.

 

[Gurglesons]

I don't know what you're referring to, the only article I can find talks about Ryan and Johnson not making the 2014 Olympic team from ESPN. This article isn't showing him getting ripped, it basically progresses from:

1. Everyone agreeing that Johnson should be on the team
2. Poile raising some concern, but Burke and Lombardi defending Johnson
3. All agreeing that he's having a bad year, and they decide to add a RHD to the team over him

That's not telling me that NHL executives "don't view Johnson positively", that just tells me they thought he was having a poor season in 2013-2014 and decided they had too many LHD on the roster already. Johnson wasn't any more "ripped" in that article than Keith Yandle was.

I don’t really know what else the comments in that article can lead to. They complete butchered him after they started actually doing some analysis of his game.

 

[Gurglesons]

He’s actually our best D in terms of GF/60 on the PP and our 2nd best D for GA/60 on the PK.
*I feel like Ryan Wilson typing this out lol.

At ES he’s 6th in GF and 7th in GA.
*Thats better lol.

Maatta is similar on special teams 2nd GF on PP and the best in GA on the PK (clearly). Better than JJ at ES 5th GF and 4th GA. You need better for 4mil though.

What is the point of prorating special teams per 60?

 

[Tom Hanks]

What is the point of prorating special teams per 60?

To compare it with other teammates. I didn’t include anyone who had one shift or anything. More the standard time. Like Riikola averages 6 seconds a game on the PK for zero goals against. I did not include that.

 

[Empoleon8771]

I don’t really know what else the comments in that article can lead to. They complete butchered him after they started actually doing some analysis of his game.

No they didn't? This is what was said:

Continuing on the discussion that began on the last call, the dilemma over Jack Johnson continues. "There's something missing with Jack this year," Poile says. "His gap is terrible right now. It's like he's got no confidence," Burke says. "If he knew where he was on this board right now, it would kill him," Dean Lombardi adds. Poile asks if they are being too hard on Jack Johnson, but no one rises to Johnson's rescue. "He's having a bad year. He needs to get his s--- together," Dale Tallon says.

That's not saying "once they actually started to look at his game, they realized he sucked". That's saying that they think Johnson is normally good, but he was having a bad season. Seeing how the quote says stuff like "this year", "right now" and "bad year", that seems really clear to me. In that same meeting, both Burke and Holmgrem still suggest adding Johnson to the team, too:

Holmgren suggests that if Yandle makes the team, ostensibly because of his power-play expertise, then they should balance one of the final spots with a player with more defensive upside, like Erik Johnson or Jack Johnson. Burke notes that both the Johnsons, Erik and Jack, are "no-maintenance" players.

The only person who said anything bad about Johnson's ability was Stan Bowman (who said they need better puck movers instead of defensive guys like Erik and Jack Johnson), everyone else said he was just having a bad year. I think it's also pretty telling that the discussion here was about how worthy Johnson was at making an Olympic team, not at how bad of a player he is. The discussion wasn't "is Jack Johnson any good?", it was "is Jack Johnson playing Olympic caliber hockey right now?".

 

[AuroraBorealis]

Right thread for this I guess? Idk.

Copy pasta from a reddit comment:

Mackey just now on 93.7 Cook & Starkey said of a possible Sprong trade: "is inevitable", "soon", "maybe by Saturday".

Adios young blood.

 

[BlindWillyMcHurt]

I will concede that Johnson could likely be traded. But I seriously doubt straight up. And I'm certainly not trying to be mean to Empo.

It was an admittedly snarky comment to begin. My real point is only that Jack Johnson is looking like a regrettable deal. Which I don't think is at all unfair and I would wager even JR himself is thinking, right now.

 

[Gurglesons]

No they didn't? This is what was said:



That's not saying "once they actually started to look at his game, they realized he sucked". That's saying that they think Johnson is normally good, but he was having a bad season. Seeing how the quote says stuff like "this year", "right now" and "bad year", that seems really clear to me. In that same meeting, both Burke and Holmgrem still suggest adding Johnson to the team, too:



The only person who said anything bad about Johnson's ability was Stan Bowman (who said they need better puck movers instead of defensive guys like Erik and Jack Johnson), everyone else said he was just having a bad year.

So two of the worst GMs in the league at that time liked him and the GMs that are actually still in the league were saying he sucked.

 

[Empoleon8771]

So two of the worst GMs in the league at that time liked him and the GMs that are actually still in the league were saying he sucked.

So Dean Lombardi, the guy who won the cup in 2014, said he sucked? That's odd, because he actually said this about Johnson:

"This kid's a damn good player," says L.A. GM Dean Lombardi, who acquired Johnson from Carolina before dealing him to Columbus for Jeff Carter. "It's not even close for me on whether this kid should be in our top five," he says. "No question."

You're also ignoring that the discussion is whether Johnson is worthy of making an Olympic team, not whether he sucks. To cling to this as being evidence that GMs think he's terrible is extremely flawed, because no GM said he was terrible (only said he was having a bad year) and the discussion is in the context of making a damn Olympic team. This wasn't a discussion on whether Johnson should make the Columbus Blue Jackets, it was a discussion on whether he should make Team USA. The fact that he was in the discussion at all shows he's viewed as being more than a bottom pair or healthy scratch guy.

 

[billybudd]

"It's not even close for me on whether this kid should be in our top five," he says. "No question."

That's sort of a backhanded compliment. It could have been argued to have been true of Orpik after his game went to Hell because the sixth guy was Scuderi.

 

[Gurglesons]

So Dean Lombardi, the guy who won the cup in 2014, said he sucked? That's odd, because he actually said this about Johnson:



You're also ignoring that the discussion is whether Johnson is worthy of making an Olympic team, not whether he sucks. To cling to this as being evidence that GMs think he's terrible is extremely flawed, because no GM said he was terrible (only said he was having a bad year) and the discussion is in the context of making a damn Olympic team. This wasn't a discussion on whether Johnson should make the Columbus Blue Jackets, it was a discussion on whether he should make Team USA. The fact that he was in the discussion at all shows he's viewed as being more than a bottom pair or healthy scratch guy.

Obviously you forget Dean and his comments about Johnson and Michigan.

 

[Empoleon8771]

Now back to an actual relevant discussion, because this isn't 2014 anymore. I proposed moving Maatta, Sprong and Rust to LA for Pearson and Muzzin, the feedback I've gotten has been good. Does anyone have any more opinions to offer on that? I personally feel like it's a pretty good offer, it's a deal that addresses struggling players and the needs of the Penguins and shakes the team up.

That's sort of a backhanded compliment. It could have been argued to have been true of Orpik after his game went to Hell because the sixth guy was Scuderi.

The context was that they decided the locks on the team were Suter, McDonagh, Martin and Orpik. Lombardi said the "5th guy" because they had identified 4 locks already.

Obviously you forget Dean and his comments about Johnson and Michigan.

Now you're just reaching. Here's an article with the comments, it's really clear that Lombardi is taking a shot at the coaching staff of Michigan. It means a hell of a lot more for Lombardi to be saying "Johnson is great, he's definitely in my top-5" in 2014 than to say that Johnson was terrible in college because his coach was terrible.

 

[Turin]

Right thread for this I guess? Idk.

Copy pasta from a reddit comment:

Mackey just now on 93.7 Cook & Starkey said of a possible Sprong trade: "is inevitable", "soon", "maybe by Saturday".

Adios young blood.

Part of me would rather trade Phil for young pieces than trade Sprong before we know what he is.