Sergei Bobrovsky - Top Cop

[CBJWerenski8]

CBJ with Korpisalo > > Bobrovsky

Only you believe this. Even people who want Bob to walk know this isn't true.

 

[thebus88]

Only you believe this. Even people who want Bob to walk know this isn't true.

This is telling.

I am on Team C-B-J not Team B-O-B.

Get it yet?

 

[major major]

This is telling.

I am on Team C-B-J not Team B-O-B.

Get it yet?

We think C-B-J is better with B-O-B as a part of C-B-J, get it yet?

 

[CBJWerenski8]

This is telling.

I am on Team C-B-J not Team B-O-B.

Get it yet?

Yet, B-O-B has been on team C-B-J for 6 going on 7 years and you've made it a personal goal to trash him at every opportunity. This is telling.

 

[JacketsDavid]

We think C-B-J is better with B-O-B as a part of C-B-J, get it yet?

Depends on what BOB costs. At $10M per year and 6+ years,, then I think over term of the deal the CBJ are better off without him. Not in 2018-19 and next 2-3 years yes we are better with Bob even at MAX contract.
Why? Because right now only way we can win is with defense. Even with Panarin we can't outscore many teams. We win because of our defense and goal tending. Take away Panarin in next 3-12 months and it will be very bad offensively.
But I hope we don't sign him to a long term deal, I'm just not in favor of signing any goalie to 7+ years of $10M+. Especially one who is 30 years old.
The league is going more and more to 1A and 1B and Bob is best when he is the #1 and other guy rarely plays. THat doesn't help development and weakens the team long term.
Now if Bob comes and says I want to be here let's get something done for 4-5 years, I want to sign him at about any cost. But he likely wants that huge contract and I wouldn't do it.

 

[major major]

Depends on what BOB costs. At $10M per year and 6+ years,, then I think over term of the deal the CBJ are better off without him. Not in 2018-19 and next 2-3 years yes we are better with Bob even at MAX contract.
Why? Because right now only way we can win is with defense. Even with Panarin we can't outscore many teams. We win because of our defense and goal tending. Take away Panarin in next 3-12 months and it will be very bad offensively.
But I hope we don't sign him to a long term deal, I'm just not in favor of signing any goalie to 7+ years of $10M+. Especially one who is 30 years old.
The league is going more and more to 1A and 1B and Bob is best when he is the #1 and other guy rarely plays. THat doesn't help development and weakens the team long term.
Now if Bob comes and says I want to be here let's get something done for 4-5 years, I want to sign him at about any cost. But he likely wants that huge contract and I wouldn't do it.

No doubt it's risky - I'd go 6 years, maybe more at that price because I don't see a big drop-off anytime soon. Late 30s is more what I'm concerned about, not 30s. 30s can be the best time for an elite goalie. It's frequently better than the 20s.

Look at the elite goalie comparables. Here's a list of goalies from the top end of the career save percentage chart, who played in the last twenty years and are now over 35:

Luongo
Lundqvist
Hasek
Thomas
Vokoun

Adding:

Brodeur
Belfour
Roy

Luongo is 39 and just put up a .929 sv%.
Lundqvist is now roughly average but was elite until 34.
Hasek's ungodly elite run was almost entirely in his 30s.
Thomas' ungodly elite run was entirely in his late 30s.
Vokoun's best years were in his 30s.
Brodeur won multiple Vezinas in his mid-30s.
Belfour's best seasons were in his 30s.
Roy had great seasons on either side of 30, but his entire long run with the Avs was in his 30s.
Rinne, I'll throw in, is 35 and just won the Vezina.

I think it's safe to say that the age to expect a decline at for elite goalies is late 30s, not early 30s as it is for skaters.

I refer you to this post. 30s is usually the best time for elite goalies. If you're willing to go $10m for 4-5 years, don't let his age stop you from wanting him at 7 years at a little less money.

 

[JacketsDavid]

I refer you to this post. 30s is usually the best time for elite goalies. If you're willing to go $10m for 4-5 years, don't let his age stop you from wanting him at 7 years at a little less money.

As long as he structures correctly I'm fine with doing $55M over 7 years instead of $40 over 4 (meaning set it up to be $11M year one, $10M, etc or something that reduces amount on back end).
My fear (and I think) he wants $70M+ for 7 years

 

[KJ Dangler]

Sorry, $7.6 mill is already too much to be paying for a goalie that has shown he doesnt have the mental fortitude to get it done, when it counts, which is the playoffs. As I said, Bob possibly could turn it around , but its not going to be with the jackets. Some team out there will have the ego, that he can do it for them, in the playoffs, and will offer him a 7 yr deal, probably around 10 mill per season, but its not going to be Columbus. And its the absolute right move that Jarmo is making. From age 26, and on ,goalies start to trend down statistically. Couple that with his playoff performances, that put him as one of the worst active goalies in the nhl, , the fact that Bobs goalie coach was replaced, without asking him, and the new goalie coach has come in saying Merzlikins is Nhl ready now, it gives Bob zero leverage, with the jackets . The defense is where it needs to be. The offense is still missing a big piece or 2 (depending on what happens with Panarin), and we will have a ton of flexibility to go out and target those players , with the cap room we will save. For a large market team, like a Toronto, they can afford to sign Bob to a risky deal, because worst case, they can buy him out. For Columbus, we all know thats not a reality.

 

[CBJWerenski8]

Well, we'll see in a year from now because Bob is almost certainly walking. If Korpisalo/Merzlikins/whoever comes in and plays well and the team doesn't miss a beat, then fine, I will admit you were right.

However, if the team treads water and isn't winning because of high GA I will absolutely expect the same thing in return.

We have one full year with Bob left. Debating whether or not its a good move to keep him or not is a debate we can have after the season and going into next, but for now he's our #1 goalie, and I don't think will change this season.

 

[thebus88]

I mean yeah, you guys saying EVERYTHING positive is unsustainable, will eventually be right about SOMETHING.

But, I'll quadruple down..... boiled, baked, or fried?

 

[Viqsi]

I mean yeah, you guys saying EVERYTHING positive is unsustainable, will eventually be right about SOMETHING.

But, I'll quadruple down..... boiled, baked, or fried?

Oh, so that's it - you're anti-Bob because you feel that anything acknowledging how awesome he is somehow constitutes a huge criticism of the rest of the team.

 

[We Want Ten]

Who says lost cause ? Up to this point, you could clearly say, he hasnt shown the mental capacity to handle the pressure in the playoffs. Hence, why you dont cripple your team, paying a goalie 10-11 mill per season, when you can get a goalie thats won actual an actual Stanley Cup, for around $4.5 mill. Not to mention , strapping your team, where if that one player is hurt, your dealing with just a pretty mediocre team on offense, with a great defensive core. Not sure whats so hard about this concept. Can Bob turn it around ? Possibly. But the Cbj wont be stupid enough to pay him 10-11 mill waiting to find out. And yes, Korpi still has potential. In case you didnt notice, the #cbj got rid of Bobs goalie coach, without consulting him. That may give you some insight as to what they felt was Korpis issue, and almost certainly points to the fact they were moving on from Bob.

Serious question: Is our offense bad, or is our bad PP dragging down our scoring average? I'm just curious where our offense ranks vs. where our offense would rank with even an average PP. Even in the PO's, it seems like if we had even an average PP, we would have advanced.

 

[EspenK]

Serious question: Is our offense bad, or is our bad PP dragging down our scoring average? I'm just curious where our offense ranks vs. where our offense would rank with even an average PP. Even in the PO's, it seems like if we had even an average PP, we would have advanced.

If my math is correct, upping our pp % from 17.2 to 20.6 (the 16th ranked %) we would have had 7 more goals resulting in an increase of .08 goals ppg which would kick our rank from 17th to 15th.
My conclusion our offense is average (mediocre?) with or without the pp.

 

[JacketsDavid]

Serious question: Is our offense bad, or is our bad PP dragging down our scoring average? I'm just curious where our offense ranks vs. where our offense would rank with even an average PP. Even in the PO's, it seems like if we had even an average PP, we would have advanced.

With Panarin we are average and our PP is below average.
Without Panarin we will be tough to watch offensively and PP would likely be worse (somehow).

Without Panarin we would have a lack of playmakers - PLD and Atkinson would be it. On most teams they would be 3rd-4th options (Atkinson would be a good complimentary player on a good line and PLD is still growing up but has potential).

 

[KJ Dangler]

Serious question: Is our offense bad, or is our bad PP dragging down our scoring average? I'm just curious where our offense ranks vs. where our offense would rank with even an average PP. Even in the PO's, it seems like if we had even an average PP, we would have advanced.

When you go 40 games struggling to score 2 goals, which we did last season, with Panarin, yes I would say that we need more players that can be a gamebreaker as needed. To go out and get Panarin, was just a start. Nearly every cup winner in memory has atleast 2 elite offensive players , on their roster. No doubt we have a solid 4 line team, with very little high end talent. Contrast that with our group of defenseman..... As Bob Mcgelliott said recently on the air, when asked if he was troubled about Bob leaving, you dont win games in the nhl anymore, 1-0 for 2-1, most games your winning 4-3, 5-4 type games. You have to have an offense that can put up goals.

 

[CBJFan827]

When you go 40 games struggling to score 2 goals, which we did last season, with Panarin, yes I would say that we need more players that can be a gamebreaker as needed. To go out and get Panarin, was just a start. Nearly every cup winner in memory has atleast 2 elite offensive players , on their roster. No doubt we have a solid 4 line team, with very little high end talent. Contrast that with our group of defenseman..... As Bob Mcgelliott said recently on the air, when asked if he was troubled about Bob leaving, you dont win games in the nhl anymore, 1-0 for 2-1, most games your winning 4-3, 5-4 type games. You have to have an offense that can put up goals.

And yet, you really don't get those sorts of players in free agency, which several people have advocated for. JVR isn't a gamebreaker. Ladd isn't a gamebreaker. Wayne Simmonds certainly isn't now nor will continue to be a gamebreaker. They are nice players, but that's about it.

Our best hope in that regard is hoping some of the young guys grow into such a player, which isn't ideal.

 

[brianhatesu]

As Bob Mcgelliott said recently on the air, when asked if he was troubled about Bob leaving, you dont win games in the nhl anymore, 1-0 for 2-1, most games your winning 4-3, 5-4 type games. You have to have an offense that can put up goals.

But this team is winning games 1-0, 2-1. There is more than one way to win in the NHL. This team doesn't have the skill to win games 4-3, 5-4 type games. Not to mention that the players this team needs to pull that off are not available or have little interest in coming here. In almost 2o years of watching this team, it's always trying to catch up to the latest trend. Originally it was about size. Then were going to be tough defensive team. Then fast and skilled, and so on. By the time they get the players to play that way, the rest of the NHL was on to something else. They need to stop trying to play catch up and utilize the players they have and build around that.

 

[KJ Dangler]

And yet, you really don't get those sorts of players in free agency, which several people have advocated for. JVR isn't a gamebreaker. Ladd isn't a gamebreaker. Wayne Simmonds certainly isn't now nor will continue to be a gamebreaker. They are nice players, but that's about it.

Our best hope in that regard is hoping some of the young guys grow into such a player, which isn't ideal.

Who said you have to aquire talent thru free agents ? Jarmo has excelled in the hockey trade(good for both sides), and brought in Jones, and Panarin. Thats 2 elite players. They break thru in the playoffs one year, and that stigma disappears around Columbus, similiar to Nashville. There are plenty of players we could target, that would make this team noticeably better. Usually its a matter of which team flops, and starts a rebuild. Ottawa still has Stone, and Duchene. Will either want to go back there ? If Edmonton flops again, what changes do they look to make. Columbus is a great city, has one of the best young cores in hockey, and Jarmo, and Jd give us a very strong front office. Lately I've started to see the rationale that we should sign Bob to a bad contract, because what good is cap room ? No good players would want to come here. Yet we saw how we had to dig out of a bad contract in offloading Karlsson to Vegas, and many here complaining about Dubi's contract.

 

[KJ Dangler]

But this team is winning games 1-0, 2-1. There is more than one way to win in the NHL. This team doesn't have the skill to win games 4-3, 5-4 type games. Not to mention that the players this team needs to pull that off are not available or have little interest in coming here. In almost 2o years of watching this team, it's always trying to catch up to the latest trend. Originally it was about size. Then were going to be tough defensive team. Then fast and skilled, and so on. By the time they get the players to play that way, the rest of the NHL was on to something else. They need to stop trying to play catch up and utilize the players they have and build around that.

They squeaked in the playoffs, coming down to the last game, and last time I checked, that formula isnt working out real well in the playoffs. Meanwhile Toronto has added more firepower. Florida added more firepower, Philly added more firepower, and San Jose added more firepower. I think its pretty clear that Jarmo is rapidly changing this teams identity, in targeting players that can skate. And for the existing players, the message was received that they needed to rework their bodies, and get faster (Dubi, Boone)

 

[CBJFan827]

Who said you have to aquire talent thru free agents ? Jarmo has excelled in the hockey trade(good for both sides), and brought in Jones, and Panarin. Thats 2 elite players. They break thru in the playoffs one year, and that stigma disappears around Columbus, similiar to Nashville. There are plenty of players we could target, that would make this team noticeably better. Usually its a matter of which team flops, and starts a rebuild. Ottawa still has Stone, and Duchene. Will either want to go back there ? If Edmonton flops again, what changes do they look to make. Columbus is a great city, has one of the best young cores in hockey, and Jarmo, and Jd give us a very strong front office. Lately I've started to see the rationale that we should sign Bob to a bad contract, because what good is cap room ? No good players would want to come here. Yet we saw how we had to dig out of a bad contract in offloading Karlsson to Vegas, and many here complaining about Dubi's contract.

Mark Stone would be a great add.

I agree on the hockey trade route, though I don't see how he'd make it with the current makeup of the team. Would any combination of picks, prospects like Carlsson/Texier/JD/Tarasov or VV, and Milano/Bjorkstrand/Murray/Anderson/etc move the needle to get a gamebreaker? I'm not sure, though I'm open to it.

For a year of Stone, would Bjorkstrand (young RW cost controlled on a pretty darn good deal), our 2019 1st, Gabe Carlsson, and a 2020 conditional pick based on if Stone resigns, get it done? Would Bjorkstrand, Texier, Carlsson, 2019 1st, and conditional pick (3rd/4th upgraded to 2020 2nd) based on resigning?

I love Bjorkstrand, but I think he or Anderson would have to be involved in such a deal, and Anderson brings a skillset that contrasts with Stone/Atkinson on the Jackets.

 

[major major]

If my math is correct, upping our pp % from 17.2 to 20.6 (the 16th ranked %) we would have had 7 more goals resulting in an increase of .08 goals ppg which would kick our rank from 17th to 15th.
My conclusion our offense is average (mediocre?) with or without the pp.

This is accurate regarding last year in general. It's kind of foolish though to bet on last year being the standard. There was so much month to month variation. The club was #1 in scoring from the deadline on, and was near the top of the league in scoring a year prior. I honestly don't know what to expect, but I think in the 5-15th rank is a reasonable expectation. Without Panarin it's more like 10th-20th.

Here's an exercise: list the scorers who you think will score more this year, and list the scorers who you think will score less. Almost everyone is either coming off an awful drop in scoring, or moving closer to their prime years, or both. It paints the picture of a team that has the potential to score a lot of goals by committee. The club has potential 20 or 30 goal scorers all over the lineup.

 

[major major]

Yet we saw how we had to dig out of a bad contract in offloading Karlsson to Vegas.

That didn't happen.

 

[major major]

Mark Stone would be a great add.

I agree on the hockey trade route, though I don't see how he'd make it with the current makeup of the team. Would any combination of picks, prospects like Carlsson/Texier/JD/Tarasov or VV, and Milano/Bjorkstrand/Murray/Anderson/etc move the needle to get a gamebreaker? I'm not sure, though I'm open to it.

For a year of Stone, would Bjorkstrand (young RW cost controlled on a pretty darn good deal), our 2019 1st, Gabe Carlsson, and a 2020 conditional pick based on if Stone resigns, get it done? Would Bjorkstrand, Texier, Carlsson, 2019 1st, and conditional pick (3rd/4th upgraded to 2020 2nd) based on resigning?

I love Bjorkstrand, but I think he or Anderson would have to be involved in such a deal, and Anderson brings a skillset that contrasts with Stone/Atkinson on the Jackets.

I think Stone is the ideal add, short term and long run. And we ought to be adding him regardless of what happens with Panarin. Mark Stone is one of the best defensive wings in the league, him and Artemi are both at the top of the takeaways list so putting them together would be unstoppable. He's also at or near a point per game player. The only issue with Stone is the concussion history. I don't think this club can afford to be scared off by that if we want players on that level.

As far as the return, you're right that Bjorkstrand + picks is the model for it. It can't be Anderson, he's the only RW who isn't tiny. I don't think it would cost multiple prospects. Possibly just Bjorkstrand, a middling prospect, and a 1st for a signed Mark Stone. If it costs a little more, I would do it though, Stone would be such a good add.

 

[major major]

Mark Stone would be a great add.
.

I just put the proposal up on the trade boards, just to see what Ottawa fans say.

 

[GoJackets1]

For an unsigned Stone, I would do Bjork+2nd and nothing more. I've always wanted Stone, I think he would fit in with our play style exceedingly well. Anyway, I thought this was the Bob thread.