Should we have moved Nyquist and a 2023 first instead?

[LJ7]

Curious to see which choice is more popular on this board. I'm personally undecided but lean towards keeping Bjorkstrand, although I've been gradually trending towards preferring we kept our 2023 first.

I've seen some speculate the 23 first as top 5 protected, and one suggested top 10, so I split the difference and made it top 8 protected in this hypothetical.

The way we see this trade will change dramatically based on how similar moves look for the rest of this summer but I would like a true headcount to see where we're at the moment at in regards to this move.

Click to read more...

 

[Viqsi]

If those were the actual options, to me there's no contest.

But we're not sure if those were the actual options.

 

[LJ7]

If those were the actual options, to me there's no contest.

But we're not sure if those were the actual options.

I tried to make the margins as close as possible for what the pulse of the board is, I've seen many who think parting with the 1st is more perilous than parting with Bjorkstrand

 

[EspenK]

I want to keep the 1st and hopefully pick up at least a 2nd for Gus at the deadline.

 

[Long Live Lyle]

I want to keep the 1st and hopefully pick up at least a 2nd for Gus at the deadline.

I just don't see how the market would swing for Gus so drastically where a team won't take a 2nd-round pick along with him for free, to the point where 7 months later, teams would willingly give up a 2nd-rounder for him. The only way I could see that is if he played above his head this year, in which case we should probably keep him for the (presumed) playoff run than just add a 2nd-rounder.

 

[CBJWerenski8]

In a hypothetical world where this was an option, with a top 8 protected first, the answer is easy. You keep Bjork.

What if its UNconditional? That's where it gets dicey.

I'd probably still move Bjorkstrand rather than the unconditional first. Our defense is mostly untouched and unchanged, we still have the same goalies too. Will our team D be better? If not, then its going to be another year of the same. The conference and division are extremely tough. I don't see us making the playoffs. If the 2023 first was in the 12 area like our pick this year? Then yeah, you do that and keep Bjork. But if its top 5? Or worse yet, win the lottery and pick 1-2? Bjork is NOT worth that.

I still hate losing Bjorkstrand but I see the rationale in it. I'll get over it in time, but it'll be tough when Bjorky blows up there (Im expecting 30 goals, 60ish points). Laine and the other RWers better spark.

 

[Halberdier]

I just don't see how the market would swing for Gus so drastically where a team won't take a 2nd-round pick along with him for free, to the point where 7 months later, teams would willingly give up a 2nd-rounder for him. The only way I could see that is if he played above his head this year, in which case we should probably keep him for the (presumed) playoff run than just add a 2nd-rounder.

Three reasons:

1) cap dumping is expensive, and Jarmo had zero leverage now.

2) TDL is totally different thing alltogether when there are real contenders in need for nice pieces.

3) since cap dump is out of the way, CBJ can retain some (most?) of the salary / cap hit for the remainder of the season.

 

[Cowumbus]

I want to keep the 1st and hopefully pick up at least a 2nd for Gus at the deadline.

I don’t think the front office is competent enough to do this. I expect them to hold onto him, and give him an extension at seasons end.

If those were the actual options, to me there's no contest.

But we're not sure if those were the actual options.

Funny because I said the same thing in my head, but we voted differently lol

 

[Long Live Lyle]

Three reasons:

1) cap dumping is expensive, and Jarmo had zero leverage now.

2) TDL is totally different thing alltogether when there are real contenders in need for nice pieces.

3) since cap dump is out of the way, CBJ can retain some (most?) of the salary / cap hit for the remainder of the season.

But I feel like for #1, that would still apply. Those other teams are pretty much going to have the same issue then as now (except see #3...).

#2 slightly increases the value, but I don't think it moves the needle to that extent.

#3 I think this is the biggest one and one I hadn't thought of. Teams can't take on 100% of Nyquist contract due to the cap. But the whole point of trading Nyquist in a cap dump move would be that we need them to take on 100%. But now without Bjorkstrand, we'd be able to retain 50% at the deadline on Nyquist, which would hopefully open up more potential suitors.

 

[Viqsi]

Funny because I said the same thing in my head, but we voted differently lol

It's the Universal Comment. It applies regardless of your stance on the issue.

 

[BB88]

You keep the pick.

At the NHL level Columbus is the deepest at W and young rebuilding team shouldn’t be trading high picks.

Rather draft the best C prospect with that

 

[Halberdier]

But I feel like for #1, that would still apply. Those other teams are pretty much going to have the same issue then as now (except see #3...).

#2 slightly increases the value, but I don't think it moves the needle to that extent.

#3 I think this is the biggest one and one I hadn't thought of. Teams can't take on 100% of Nyquist contract due to the cap. But the whole point of trading Nyquist in a cap dump move would be that we need them to take on 100%. But now without Bjorkstrand, we'd be able to retain 50% at the deadline on Nyquist, which would hopefully open up more potential suitors.

#1 does not apply anymore, as the problem with cap is solved for this season so Jarmo is not forced to trade Nyqvist, so it's a level playing field with Jarmo and other GMs.

Now with Bjork cap dump (as would have been with potential Nyqvist cap dump) everyone knew that the CBJ is over the cap and forced to trade a nice piece for pennies. On a perfect world Gaudreau trade would have been known (to Jarmo) months before and Bjork (or Nyqvist) traded proactively when other GMs did not know yet the CBJ is having problems with cap.

 

[Long Live Lyle]

#1 does not apply anymore, as the problem with cap is solved for this season so Jarmo is not forced to trade Nyqvist, so it's a level playing field with Jarmo and other GMs.

Now with Bjork cap dump (as would have been with potential Nyqvist cap dump) everyone knew that the CBJ is over the cap and forced to trade a nice piece for pennies. On a perfect world Gaudreau trade would have been known (to Jarmo) months before and Bjork (or Nyqvist) traded proactively when other GMs did not know yet the CBJ is having problems with cap.

My apologies, I thought by #1 you were referring to other teams's cap problems. Misread it.

 

[GoJackets1]

If these really were the only options, and I’m inclined to believe they were, then the Bjorkstrand trade is essentially:

Bjorkstrand for 1st + 3rd + 4th + potential Gus TDL assets

Considering the fact that one of these trades had to happen, and other GMs knew this, this isn’t terrible.

 

[AirSox]

I can't vote on the poll for whatever reason, and as much as it hurts I'm voting moving Bjork.

EDIT: Vote Casted

 

[MissADD]

Giving up next year's first at this point of the year is out of the question. Next year is supposed to be a deep draft and this team isn't a playoff lock(or as close to a playoff lock as team can be) especially in the Metro division. Would much rather have the 1st and add another D prospect in the draft. It still does suck losing Ollie, but that's unfortunately the business

 

[majormajor]

I would probably sooner give up the 1st, and certainly if it was top 8 protected. The pick is between 9 and 20 probably, and you're still thrilled if that turns into a Bjorkstrand caliber player.

In any case I don't believe it literally had to be a 1st attached to Gus. My guess is that two or three 2nd rounders would have done it, or attaching a decent prospect like Chinakhov instead of picks, or moving Boqvist instead of Gus and running something like a 20 or 21 man roster like the Leafs do.

So I don't believe it had to be Bjorkstrand, I just don't think Jarmo likes his game as much as I do. He didn't want to part with him but it is within the acceptable range for him. Bjorkstrand wasn't as effective in the last year or so at driving play. A big part of that is that he can't cycle by himself, and the team isn't doing that much anymore. We've swung hard towards being a rush team and Bjorkstrand isn't good at that. I would have kept Bjorkstrand to run two lines that focus on possession and cycle play, but Jarmo's vision - judging by his personnel choices - is more of an unmixed rush oriented squad. The models are Colorado and Florida, not Boston or St. Louis.

 

[Viqsi]

#1 does not apply anymore, as the problem with cap is solved for this season so Jarmo is not forced to trade Nyqvist, so it's a level playing field with Jarmo and other GMs.

Wouldn't know that from some of the garbage I just went through with some other folks on the mains. I swear to G-d, some people have no business being anywhere near the trade mains when they can't get simple basic concepts like "you don't get to use our cap compliance status against us anymore because we're under the cap now."

 

[DarkandStormy]

Would be interested to know the value of trying to cap dump Pacioretty (one year @ $7m left) vs trying to cap dump Nyquist (one year @ $5.5m left).

It cost Vegas another decent-ish young Dman with Pacioretty for nothing in return.

Would Carolina (or another team) have taken Nyquist + Bean?

 

[Marioesque]

Yes, and if it had been an option I bet they would have went that way

 

[NotWendell]

Yes, we should have IF the deal was there to be made. Frankly, I don't think that is was.

 

[ViD]

No way we should move a first in a great draft year just to get cap space. Bjorkstrand is not THAT much better than Nyquist

 

[majormajor]

No way we should move a first in a great draft year just to get cap space. Bjorkstrand is not THAT much better than Nyquist

I don't think he is either. But it stings to give up a guy that is still young enough to be a part of the future core (he'll be Gus's age when KJ is 24), a guy with a history of clutch goals in big games, and a player that gave us cycling and grinding qualities that we are otherwise badly missing in our top six.

 

[TaketheCannoli]

I hate moving Bjorkstrand, but I also hate losing more assets to get cap compliant. The Jackets have a lot of wing assets and losing a really good one hurts less than many of the other options.

GMs around the league are waiting to take advantage of a situation like this one. I think the only somewhat painless way out would have been to put some players on LTIR. Maybe Gus have a phantom injury? Maybe two players with smaller cap hits? Do we really want to play that game? I remember how I felt when the Blackhawks did that. I wanted the loophole closed.

Keep in mind, while almost all Jackets fans would have preferred to find a way to ship Nyquist to get some cap relief, it's because of his lack of value compared to other options, like Bjorkstrand. Other GMs certainly see the same thing. I wouldn't be surprised if under these circumstances, it would have taken more than the 2023 1st to move Gus, maybe a decent defenseman or another good wing - maybe Robinson?

 

[koteka]

The whole salary cap situation reminds me of the beginnings Great Recession. It was really easy to borrow money until it wasn’t. People and companies were buying things (other companies, houses, etc.) they couldn’t afford. Then, almost overnight, it was impossible for companies to borrow money. And then a bunch of people were laid off. And the housing bubble burst. And we were in a global recession.

It has been relatively easy for teams to get cap compliant. Maybe a little painful - like Vegas missed the playoffs or Tampa played a season without Kucherov - but teams have found work arounds. But now we are in a new world. The salary cap is not growing. Teams over the last several years have signed a bunch of long term contracts that they knew would age badly. They had assumed the cap would go always up and they would be able to work things out. At some point the whole system could freeze up, and it will be nearly impossible to dump salary. And the few teams with space will really capitalize. We might be near that point. Jarmo moved before the whole system freezes up. It might be later this summer. It might be next summer. It might be never because the NHL does something to help clubs like Toronto and Tampa. But if it does freeze up, we’ll all be happy Jarmo had the foresight to get cap compliant.