Proposal: Trade Bob and use the cap space to improve D

[Double-Shift Lasse]

Never mentioned, but a certain possibility - there is no solid backup as of now.
You can't dismiss the possibility of injury either.


And you were right. I didn't refer to your post as a basis for my angry russian act - in fact, quite the opposite.
The thread name itself (and a certain part of posts) suggests trading Bob for someone other than G and not getting another G - that is what I am against.

Nice recovery (even if I'm the only one who thought one was needed).

You can't dismiss the possibility of injury any more than you can assume it. (Although, with Bob, history does give us some indication.) Best you can do is prepare for it. Thus the other point re: backing up/balancing out Korpisalo with another quality netminder.

It probably can't be accomplished, and, in fact, I've argued it's unlikely in the past as regards setting yourself up with a move that is only validated with subsequent moves that aren't guarantees. But it's an interesting exercise (to me anyway) to wonder if [Korpi + quality option at 1B in net + upgrade at D] isn't better than the other possible configurations of the roster and the money.

 

[niflheim]

I never was fan of Bobrovsky (nothing personal against), I was against his crazy contract, he can't stay healthy whole season and we must pay 7.5 mln/ season ( contract from Horton's cohort. Probably not right time to discuss about mythic 10 mln offer from SKA (KHL) as was declared by his russian agent?).
But now is wrong time to trade him when Kid is too young for full season. He can stay and play next season (or two) before expansion draft, we need do nothing ( sure we can trade his hugs with Foligno for something if possible). He simply will be picked and goes to Vegas/Quebec/ somewhere Bettmanland. Anyway we can't protect two keepers.

Ps I'm not keeper coach, but his technique must be adjusted like Varlamov's one in Avs. Varlamov had practically chronic groin problems in Capitals, now he hasn't this problem anymore

 

[Valdiz]

You can't dismiss the possibility of injury any more than you can assume it. (Although, with Bob, history does give us some indication.) Best you can do is prepare for it. Thus the other point re: backing up/balancing out Korpisalo with another quality netminder.

It probably can't be accomplished, and, in fact, I've argued it's unlikely in the past as regards setting yourself up with a move that is only validated with subsequent moves that aren't guarantees. But it's an interesting exercise (to me anyway) to wonder if [Korpi + quality option at 1B in net + upgrade at D] isn't better than the other possible configurations of the roster and the money.

True and true.
In your earlier post you mentioned a trio of Hiller, Khudobin, Reimer. To that i gotta reply "nay", "nay" and "oh Lord, yes". Reimer is arguably one of the best possible options out there, the only problem with is him is the fact that he just got the #1 spot in Toronto - and his willingness to part with it doubltful. Other than that he is solid.

 

[blahblah]

And part of my followup point is that I think there's much less risky ways to achieve similar ends. A Bob trade is just too much of a high-stakes gamble.

I know. Trading an inconsistent and oft-injured, yet brilliant at times, 7+ million dollar goalie is just inconceivable.

After all there is NO possible way that a goalie ready to compete for the starting job could ever come back. There is no way that it could actually work out better for us. There is no way that we'd be able to easily sign our RFA's and maybe free up enough cap space for another upgrade elsewhere.

It's iiiiiiiiiiiiiinnnnnnnnnnnnnnconceivable.

Soooo much drama over a guy that really hasn't done much for the better part of 2 seasons. Let's see; start slow, get injured, play well, get injured, go on a big run and make us look better than we are. Sound familiar?

Frankly I think there is almost no chance anything happens at the deadline or this off season so I find the conversation moot; but this continued paranoia is amusing.

I can see ways that the CBJ could move forward without Bob and provide some protection for the franchise. Honestly the focus for the foreseeable future should be getting the team to play better in front of the goal tender. We're still not very good at that. Thanks Todd.

 

[EspenK]

But it's an interesting exercise (to me anyway) to wonder if [Korpi + quality option at 1B in net + upgrade at D] isn't better than the other possible configurations of the roster and the money.

I think this is the kind of thinking a good GM does. The shortcoming of many posters here, imo, is that they hesitate/refuse to consider alternative approaches. They get too attached to a player (the tree) without looking at the whole team (the forest). If we were a serious contender I could see that more than when, for whatever reasons, we continuously miss out on the playoffs/fail to play to expectations.

 

[Viqsi]

I know. Trading an inconsistent and oft-injured, yet brilliant at times, 7+ million dollar goalie is just inconceivable.

After all there is NO possible way that a goalie ready to compete for the starting job could ever come back. There is no way that it could actually work out better for us. There is no way that we'd be able to easily sign our RFA's and maybe free up enough cap space for another upgrade elsewhere.

It's iiiiiiiiiiiiiinnnnnnnnnnnnnnconceivable.

You're letting your dislike of Bob's contract blind you to the challenge there. Getting people to take on cap in a lateral move (which the scenario you describe would be) is damn near impossible right now due to salary cap projections (which show it as likely to either stay the same or even go down).

Should it be explored going forward? Heck yeah. Right now? We'll more than likely get ripped off if we try to force it.

 

[Johansen2Foligno]

If they trade Bob, I am never watching another game. I have to draw a line in the sand somewhere after the Johansen trade.

 

[Double-Shift Lasse]

I think this is the kind of thinking a good GM does. The shortcoming of many posters here, imo, is that they hesitate/refuse to consider alternative approaches. They get too attached to a player (the tree) without looking at the whole team (the forest). If we were a serious contender I could see that more than when, for whatever reasons, we continuously miss out on the playoffs/fail to play to expectations.

You're letting your dislike of Bob's contract blind you to the challenge there. Getting people to take on cap in a lateral move (which the scenario you describe would be) is damn near impossible right now due to salary cap projections (which show it as likely to either stay the same or even go down).

Should it be explored going forward? Heck yeah. Right now? We'll more than likely get ripped off if we try to force it.

And here we have two sides of the same coin. The kinds of "thinking a good GM does" in Espen's post is includes not juts pondering alternative roster compositions but also the ability of the various pieces to be moved the way you'd like, as Viqsi's post addresses (my bolding).

 

[CBJWerenski8]

Bob is almost as unmovable as Clarkson is. Goalies have almost no value, especially when they've got term and injury. Bob is going to be a Blue Jacket for his whole contract. And I am OK with that, Korpisalo can push him.

 

[niflheim]

Let's see; start slow, get injured, play well, get injured...

and same technical mistakes and psychical instability from one year to another... Wonder what they are doing with Ian? Last summer they worked hardly on right positioning and more aggressive playing style and this season's start was simply total fiasco.. 27,5 years old is too big age for new successful neuromuscular development, for new reflexes.

Here is huge difference between Kid and Bob. Kid is pupil of Finnish fundamental goalkeeper's school with deep traditions. Bob never had good teacher (coach), he has talent, he worked hardly, but hard working and talent without Master not enough. It's not his guilty, it's simply fate. Fatum nos iunget

 

[blahblah]

You're letting your dislike of Bob's contract blind you to the challenge there. Getting people to take on cap in a lateral move (which the scenario you describe would be) is damn near impossible right now due to salary cap projections (which show it as likely to either stay the same or even go down).

Should it be explored going forward? Heck yeah. Right now? We'll more than likely get ripped off if we try to force it.

No I'm not. Lateral move? Hilarious, you likely aren't going to pull that off in the deal in which you move Bob. You have to pull that trigger first or have another deal ready to go. Let say you could, somehow, get Jake Allen or Elliot from the Blues - that's a completely different story now isn't it? Most of the fans think of trades as I move an asset and I have to get back a certain asset in return. If I trade that goalie, one has to come back. That's two dimensional thinking. The roster is far more fluid than that. Sometimes you have to make preliminary moves or have other moves lined up in the event that you pull off making another move.

As far what is in bold, I have said at least 3 times I expect nothing to happen and I listed why. I also stated what we need to do to get his value increased; part of that is NOT having Korp on the opening night roster next season - that could end up being counter productive.

You are only reading what you want to read. Well that and, per usual around here, you seem to working from a place of total fear. The one that gets you all paranoid about moving anyone you think has value.

For the record, I don't like any contract (Foligno's included, although not as bad) in which I don't think they are earning it and might have a hard time earning that salary moving forward. I understood why we signed Bob's contract, even though I wasn't sold with it at the time. We had no other options. Now it's time to start looking at it because we have an option. We can't pull the trigger until we have more than one other option. I've never proposed going into next season with Korp and C-Mac or Forseberg - that would be idiotic. Even if the front office thinks Korp is for real there is no depth.

This is real simple. We have over 20 million on the books left with Bob and he hasn't come close to earning this contract. He's been through multiple injuries and been inconsistent. That doesn't sound, at all, like a core player. That sounds like someone you hope puts it all together but there is, at least, a 50/50 chance he'll never, or inconsistently, earn that paycheck. Bob is the true definition of high risk/high reward.

I am all for dumping as much salary as we can, try and get another goalie that can compete for the starting gig, and put in a viable exit strategy for Bob if you need to use it.

 

[blahblah]

and same technical mistakes and psychical instability from one year to another... Wonder what they are doing with Ian? Last summer they worked hardly on right positioning and more aggressive playing style and this season's start was simply total fiasco.. 27,5 years old is too big age for new successful neuromuscular development, for new reflexes.

Here is huge difference between Kid and Bob. Kid is pupil of Finnish fundamental goalkeeper's school with deep traditions. Bob never had good teacher (coach), he has talent, he worked hardly, but hard working and talent without Master not enough. It's not his guilty, it's simply fate. Fatum nos iunget

Yeah, I see nothing of value here. You don't like the goalie coach, oh well. That and I see some Euro bias. That assumes I am understanding what you are saying.

 

[Viqsi]

No I'm not. Lateral move? Hilarious, you likely aren't going to pull that off in the deal in which you move Bob. You have to pull that trigger first or have another deal ready to go. Let say you could, somehow, get Jake Allen or Elliot from the Blues - that's a completely different story now isn't it? Most of the fans think of trades as I move an asset and I have to get back a certain asset in return. If I trade that goalie, one has to come back. That's two dimensional thinking. The roster is far more fluid than that. Sometimes you have to make preliminary moves or have other moves lined up in the event that you pull off making another move.

That disadvantageously changes the circumstances of your followup move, tho. Say you trade for a replacement starter first and foremost. Now the whole NHL knows you're trying to move Bob for cap space, because you just acquired a starting goaltender with less cap - the next move is pretty blatantly obvious. Better hope that whoever you were negotiating the Bob deal with is still receptive to the deal as agreed, because that somebody now knows he's your escape valve and could easily ask for more now. Trade value immediately goes down as a result, and you potentially end up in an even worse cap situation if nobody ends up biting. And that would put us in a desperation situation in which we accept a ripoff deal just to be able to keep our own RFAs.

Oh, and making the negotiations work would be really tricky, seeing as though GMs leverage each other's status all the time ("well, this guy said he'd give me X" and so forth). So eventually folks are likely going to suss out that you're looking to dump Bob in favor of an equivalent replacement anyways. That stands a good chance of killing any decent return before they begin and thereby removing nearly all benefit to making it a two-part trade.

End result: we likely don't get much of anything from exploring the idea, and if we try to force it anyways we probably end up ripped off. Is it still worth exploring? Sure - just in case the above turns out to be inaccurate or someone turns out to be more needy than anticipated. Is a trade something that should absolutely be done now? No - not unless that kind of good fortune strikes.

As far what is in bold, I have said at least 3 times I expect nothing to happen and I listed why.

Went through the thread and I saw those assertions, but not their justification.

I'm beginning to think, incidentally, that the disconnect here is that when I say it shouldn't be a "now" thing is that I'm referring to "making a trade" rather than "investigating the possibility", and you seem to presume he's on a "no way no how never" list. I just consider the scenario you describe (a starter swap, be it by one trade or multiple, in which we lose significant cap) as being as plausible and likely as dumping Clarkson.

You are only reading what you want to read. Well that and, per usual around here, you seem to working from a place of total fear. The one that gets you all paranoid about moving anyone you think has value.

Please stop attributing to me those qualities observed in Bizarro Viqsi. I don't care for it.

 

[MoeBartoli]

Bob is almost as unmovable as Clarkson is. Goalies have almost no value, especially when they've got term and injury. Bob is going to be a Blue Jacket for his whole contract. And I am OK with that, Korpisalo can push him.

Huh? No value? Ten have average contracts of $6M or more. Male it 15 at over $5.75M. So teams are willing to pay to mind the net. Agree that Injuries are an issue on Bob's value, but your base premise on value isn't true.

 

[blahblah]

Trade value immediately goes down as a result, and you potentially end up in an even worse cap situation if nobody ends up biting. And that would put us in a desperation situation in which we accept a ripoff deal just to be able to keep our own RFAs.

Worst case you move the guy that you traded for. You can always move goalies; it's just harder to move ones making 7.5 million. But hey, if you want to go into next season with Bob and our farm system again....

Yay, we're back to our pending RFA situation again! Woot! Things should be a lot more clear at the end of the month. We'll see if JK wants to make things a little more challenging or not. I'll be honest, we can make this real easy. There is nothing dire here.

This team had over 20 million in under performing contracts this season. Really hard to see the problem isn't it? You know about 30% of your overall cap commitment? That is the dire part.

This team needs multiple changes; an exit strategy for Bob needs to exist even if it never needs to be executed on. If it's me, I'm looking to move him as soon as his value increases.

 

[niflheim]

You don't like the goalie coach, oh well.

Not at all. I know that Ian Clark is very experienced coach with high IQ and very innovative specialist. I've read his articles about keeper techniques development and modern trends, guy is very clever. I wonder that he can do nothing with Bob. Maybe Bob is ineducable anymore

 

[CBJWerenski8]

Huh? No value? Ten have average contracts of $6M or more. Male it 15 at over $5.75M. So teams are willing to pay to mind the net. Agree that Injuries are an issue on Bob's value, but your base premise on value isn't true.

No value in trades, is what I meant. When's the last time a big ticket (with term) goalie got traded? I can't remember.

 

[punk_o_holic]

No value in trades, is what I meant. When's the last time a big ticket (with term) goalie got traded? I can't remember.

Luongo is the only one I can think of but that took forever and the whole thing was a mess.

Looking at the trade, it proves your point. It was Luongo and a nobody for Markstrom and Matthias. Markstrom is one of my favorite players but at the time he was a bust. Matthias had a decent season a year earlier(or it was the season he got traded) but he was nothing but a 3rd liner.

Mind you Lu had a ntc. Not sure if the Leafs had a better offer. But perhaps Bob's injury issues off set Lu's ntc. Also, I think Lu's contract was/is worse then Bob's.

 

[EspenK]

This team needs multiple changes; an exit strategy for Bob needs to exist even if it never needs to be executed on. If it's me, I'm looking to move him as soon as his value increases.

Although it appears that JD doesn't agree with you (http://bluejacketsxtra.dispatch.com/content/stories/2016/02/16/no-major-trade-plans-davidson-says.html) I agree with you.

 

[Viqsi]

You can always move goalies

No. No you can't. The goaltender market is voodoo. And, again, if folks notice that you're trying to flip the guy so soon after acquiring him, they're not exactly going to lend a hand. And we're in real trouble if we took on cap to acquire the guy, because right now very few teams want to take on cap, and most of the ones that do already have starters. You have to hope that there's a team out there that has both the need for a starter and the cap space to take the guy on, and at the moment that's a rare combination. Maybe Arizona, if you can make the case that the guy you're offering is an upgrade on Smith and that it's okay to be spending upwards of $10-12m/year on a goaltending duo (based on your suggestion of $4m-$5m/year being acceptable for a starter).

This team had over 20 million in under performing contracts this season. Really hard to see the problem isn't it? You know about 30% of your overall cap commitment? That is the dire part.

Everybody has underperforming contracts. Nashville's in the $19-20 million range this year, for example. (Rinne, Wilson, Smith, and Fisher.) The Rangers have at least ~$15m (Boyle, Staal, and Girardi) and possibly more (McDonagh's having a bad year).

Go compare that figure with the rest of the league and then get back to me w/r/t whether or not our situation is truly exceptional.

 

[JacketsDavid]

I think this is the kind of thinking a good GM does. The shortcoming of many posters here, imo, is that they hesitate/refuse to consider alternative approaches. They get too attached to a player (the tree) without looking at the whole team (the forest). If we were a serious contender I could see that more than when, for whatever reasons, we continuously miss out on the playoffs/fail to play to expectations.

That's a great point.

You wonder if we keep $1M of Bobs contract and can trade him for a Jack Johnson like player (signed for 3-4 years at less than $5M per) AND could trade JJ for a 1st round pick if we would be better? Again it's chemistry you don't really know but essentially would the young goalies plus a legit NHL backup + new JJ + 1st round pick - $1M in salary would compare vs. Bob and JJ?

 

[Tulipunaruusu*]

Here is huge difference between Kid and Bob. Kid is pupil of Finnish fundamental goalkeeper's school with deep traditions. Bob never had good teacher (coach), he has talent, he worked hardly, but hard working and talent without Master not enough. It's not his guilty, it's simply fate. Fatum nos iunget

Bobrovski found his Vezina-game while working in the KHL with Finnish goalkeeping coach who have become prominent team members in the KHL. Likewise to Finnish head coaches who are headhunted by the big money league.

Not that Ian Clark is an amateur or anything but in the context of goalie goaching in the NHL and especially the AHL it is bit underwhelming that this department either hasn't been yet enforced by hiring from where some of the world class coaching talent reside.

 

[Viqsi]

That's a great point.

You wonder if we keep $1M of Bobs contract and can trade him for a Jack Johnson like player (signed for 3-4 years at less than $5M per) AND could trade JJ for a 1st round pick if we would be better? Again it's chemistry you don't really know but essentially would the young goalies plus a legit NHL backup + new JJ + 1st round pick - $1M in salary would compare vs. Bob and JJ?

Presuming this is even possible, we'd be saving about $5m ($10m from Bob-$1m and JJ, less $5m for replacement JJ), but would be going in with a goaltending duo of Korpi and McElhinney. Getting another established starter to push Korpi would cost us additional assets (potentially even that 1st we just picked up in your scenario) and probably most of that cap space. In effect, we put in a lot of effort to end up right back where we started, only with Different Guys This Time. That doesn't actually achieve any objectives beyond "OMG MUST DO SOMETHING".

EDIT: Oh, and there's also the issue of whether or not there actually is anybody who'd take JJ for a 1st without sending any cap back. I haven't actually looked at that all that closely, but given how cap space is THE hot market commodity right now, that might be hoping for a bit much.

 

[Viqsi]

"Blueliner change" possibilities along the lines of JacketsDavid's idea (presuming that folks aren't going to willingly go over $10m/year with their goaltending duo):

• Buffalo - The only likely "replacement blueliner" would be Bogosian. That's IMO a downgrade in on-ice ability, and he's got a $5.1+/year cap hit.
• Calgary - They don't have a blueliner in that price and ability range that they'd give up. TJ Brodie is in the price range, but they're not about to give him up any more than we'd casually give up Seth Jones.
• Winnipeg - We'd also have to take back and buy out Pavelec. And all the possible blueliners we'd target are either in the $5.5 and higher range (Enstrom, Myers) or will be soon (Trouba with his next RFA contract). And that's assuming they'd go for such a swap - they seem to really like how Hutchinson is doing. But it's potentially worth inquiring.

Possibilities that emerge if we want to do an at-the-time starter swap, per blahblah's initial suggestion:

• NYI - Halak is a decent enough starter at $4.5m/year. Unfortunately, they're in-division - making that deal happen would be touchy.
• Ottawa - Anderson's bringing in $4.2m/year. He's also 34 years old - we'd better hope Korpi's ready Real Soon and that he doesn't regress.
• Toronto - Probably the best option out of all of these here, if we take back Bernier's $4.15m/year (for next year only); this is the Most Likely Scenario I've been basing my judgment calls on. Given that they're building for the future, tho, don't expect to get all that many helpful assets above and beyond same. The cap savings thus created (and the resulting downgrade) is why I think we'd be better off buying out Tyutin or something - it gets us the same savings without downgrading in net AND it lets us come back to this idea later when the market is less dubious. Or, heck, it could be a useful followup approach to save even more cap if we really think we can make use of it now (say, by locking up Jones long-term).

Folks who probably aren't possibilities:

• Anaheim, Boston, Chicago, Colorado, Dallas, Detroit, Florida, LA, Montreal, New Jersey, NYR, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Tampa Bay, Vancouver, Washington - These guys have established starters already and no need to swap.
• Carolina, Edmonton, San Jose, Minnesota - Have recently made moves to get starters and seem content with them for now.
• Arizona, Nashville - Both have underperforming starters, but ones that already cost absurd amounts. We would not be achieving our objectives going in this direction, and they would not be happy paying over $10-12m/year for a goaltending duo.
• St. Louis - They don't have the cap space, and in any case they're leaning on Allen. (And Elliott is even more inconsistent than Bob!)

TLDR: This is a neat idea, and one worth investigating, but the market probably isn't there right now.

 

[EDM]

I think it is much more likely that the cap space issue will be addressed in the far more conventional manner of trading Hartnell, Tyutin and, hopefully, Campbell.