Proposal: Umberger

[blahblah]

I have never understood "trade him for the sake of trading him" deals. It's counterproductive.

Well you could trade him for the sake of 23 million reasons I suppose.

What is RJ worth? He is worth more than Cyclones thinks he is to be sure. His analysis ranks right up there with the Zherdev dude and his analysis of Tyutin.

However, we have a lot of redundancy, I mean a TON of redundancy with that "I play hard, play pretty good in two of the zones, and if someone gets me the puck close to the goalie I might be able to pull out a garbage goal" kind of guy.

So the question is, are we going to try and continue to run with Brassard and RJ in the top six? At 4.6 million, I really don't want to see him on the 3rd line and, at 25, Brassard really isn't developing into the type of second line player that I was hoping for.

We probably need to figure out how to fill either or both of their roster spots with a creative type of play maker. Not sure how we go about doing that, beyond waiting for Johansen to Atkinson to develop. But if you have Johansen and Atkinson on the top line, you have 4 spots left with AA, Foligno, and Dubinsky. You can probably safely move Brassard or RJ without much of an overall impact.

Not sure what the right move is here, but almost 8 million combined with those two just seems like a waste of money. Probably time to find the right player help out those top six players. I'll look at see what is coming up in FA, but maybe we can find a workable trade.

 

[Roadman]

Well you could trade him for the sake of 23 million reasons I suppose.

What is RJ worth? He is worth more than Cyclones thinks he is to be sure. His analysis ranks right up there with the Zherdev dude and his analysis of Tyutin.

However, we have a lot of redundancy, I mean a TON of redundancy with that "I play hard, play pretty good in two of the zones, and if someone gets me the puck close to the goalie I might be able to pull out a garbage goal" kind of guy.

So the question is, are we going to try and continue to run with Brassard and RJ in the top six? At 4.6 million, I really don't want to see him on the 3rd line and, at 25, Brassard really isn't developing into the type of second line player that I was hoping for.

We probably need to figure out how to fill either or both of their roster spots with a creative type of play maker. Not sure how we go about doing that, beyond waiting for Johansen to Atkinson to develop. But if you have Johansen and Atkinson on the top line, you have 4 spots left with AA, Foligno, and Dubinsky. You can probably safely move Brassard or RJ without much of an overall impact.

Not sure what the right move is here, but almost 8 million combined with those two just seems like a waste of money. Probably time to find the right player help out those top six players. I'll look at see what is coming up in FA, but maybe we can find a workable trade.

I would think there are several roster players that we will not see in the CBJ Blue next year.

Prospal & Aucoin come to mind from retirement point of view. Welcome to the front office/bench/?? Vinnie.

Johnson, Johansen, Atkinson, Anisimov, Tyutin, Nikitin, Moore, & Wizniewski are almost certain locks to stay.

The rest are all under a 48 game evaluation (39 and counting); subject to analysis not only on performance but also effort, contract cost, contract term, attitude, and locker room presence.

That would mean there are some 15 jobs up for the taking. Most will be filled by from the roster but figure Murray is probably going to get one, 3 1st round draft picks are going to get a pretty good look, and the Springfield gang is definitely going to show up, Kubalik, Drazenovic, Jenner are very very close.

So as expected this a transition year, there are going to be some favorites that will not be here next year. There is not a lot of time for the guys to determine who's going to be an asset and who's going to be a Jacket.

The trade deadline is going to be very interesting.

 

[blahblah]

I doubt guys like Boll, MacKenzie, Dorse, Dubinsky, and Foligno are going anywhere. Letestu is probably going to earn another contract.

This is why I am starting to wonder if the walls are starting to close in around Brass and/or RJ. If push came to shove between RJ and Dubinsky, I would go with Dubinsky. After a really slow start, Dubinsky's game is really starting to come around.

The other option is that they could continue to go status quo, however we aren't exactly playing the way JD is promising. I still think Brassard is on the shorter list.

 

[Viqsi]

Well you could trade him for the sake of 23 million reasons I suppose.

What is RJ worth? He is worth more than Cyclones thinks he is to be sure. His analysis ranks right up there with the Zherdev dude and his analysis of Tyutin.

However, we have a lot of redundancy, I mean a TON of redundancy with that "I play hard, play pretty good in two of the zones, and if someone gets me the puck close to the goalie I might be able to pull out a garbage goal" kind of guy.

So the question is, are we going to try and continue to run with Brassard and RJ in the top six? At 4.6 million, I really don't want to see him on the 3rd line and, at 25, Brassard really isn't developing into the type of second line player that I was hoping for.

We probably need to figure out how to fill either or both of their roster spots with a creative type of play maker. Not sure how we go about doing that, beyond waiting for Johansen to Atkinson to develop. But if you have Johansen and Atkinson on the top line, you have 4 spots left with AA, Foligno, and Dubinsky. You can probably safely move Brassard or RJ without much of an overall impact.

Not sure what the right move is here, but almost 8 million combined with those two just seems like a waste of money. Probably time to find the right player help out those top six players. I'll look at see what is coming up in FA, but maybe we can find a workable trade.

I get those concerns, but right now moving them seems lateral at best to me. I have no interest in crippling the top-6 (any more than it already is, at any rate) for the sake of draft picks.

 

[Fro]

crippling the top 6? he has what, 2 points? so far this year he's been the crippler...now he may pull out of it...but he's been more of a hindrance than a positive ON the ice...his leadership may be worth it off the ice...

 

[blahblah]

I get those concerns, but right now moving them seems lateral at best to me. I have no interest in crippling the top-6 (any more than it already is, at any rate) for the sake of draft picks.

I think that would be a tactical decision made by the front office based on production, team identity, and finance. If you don't think RJ is part of your future and you get a chance to move him, maybe you look at it.

I would argue that it is far less than certain that moving RJ or Brassard is going to have a noticeable impact to the top six. To be honest, putting Dubinsky in the middle of the ice has had a positive impact and that adding Foligno to his wing as opposed to Brassard probably isn't going to be noticeable in a negative way.

We are now in the evaluate the player mode. If they don't fit what you are looking to do, there is no better time to look at where you want to move them. Leaving those individuals in key roles isn't going to have a positive impact to the team. Also at some point JD is going to have to prove he is serious, if the team doesn't start to play the way that he is demanding.

 

[Roadman]

I doubt guys like Boll, MacKenzie, Dorse, Dubinsky, and Foligno are going anywhere. Letestu is probably going to earn another contract.

This is why I am starting to wonder if the walls are starting to close in around Brass and/or RJ. If push came to shove between RJ and Dubinsky, I would go with Dubinsky. After a really slow start, Dubinsky's game is really starting to come around.

The other option is that they could continue to go status quo, however we aren't exactly playing the way JD is promising. I still think Brassard is on the shorter list.

I agree.

Probably "the going to stay list" is about right but the right offer could pry any of them loose. Not untouchable.

The hottest seats really do belong to Brassard and RJ. This is a performance business and right now they are not, especially vs salary. But there are 23 games between now and the deadline (4/3).

 

[alphafox]

It will be interesting to see what moves we make. When davidson took over in st. Louis he shipped out Guerin and another veteran player to stockpile assets. I anticipate something similar here though the extent of the moves and the assets we get back will likely be less than what happened in st. Louis

 

[Viqsi]

crippling the top 6? he has what, 2 points? so far this year he's been the crippler...now he may pull out of it...but he's been more of a hindrance than a positive ON the ice...his leadership may be worth it off the ice...

I just happen to disagree with that evaluation. I really do think folks are accentuating the negative and paying more attention to errors than to the overall state of his game.

* * *​

I think that would be a tactical decision made by the front office based on production, team identity, and finance. If you don't think RJ is part of your future and you get a chance to move him, maybe you look at it.

Makes sense, but I kind of have the impression that RJ is still being seen as part of the near future. And I still think that's ultimately a good idea, even if it's not necessarily significantly paying off right now.

Brassard, though, is a different story.

I would argue that it is far less than certain that moving RJ or Brassard is going to have a noticeable impact to the top six. To be honest, putting Dubinsky in the middle of the ice has had a positive impact and that adding Foligno to his wing as opposed to Brassard probably isn't going to be noticeable in a negative way.

We are now in the evaluate the player mode. If they don't fit what you are looking to do, there is no better time to look at where you want to move them. Leaving those individuals in key roles isn't going to have a positive impact to the team. Also at some point JD is going to have to prove he is serious, if the team doesn't start to play the way that he is demanding.

Again, I think this argument applies well to Brassard's situation, but not necessarily Umberger's. Mostly because I think Umberger has a better established track record than Brassard, and does more off the ice as well.

I won't be scandalized or outraged if Umby does end up moved as a result of said evaluations. It happens, and he does have his limitations. I just object to this rabid frothing "he sucks, he sucks so bad, omfg trade him trade him RIGHT NOW" mishegaas.

 

[EspenK]

I just happen to disagree with that evaluation. I really do think folks are accentuating the negative and paying more attention to errors than to the overall state of his game.

If the overall state of his game had a name it would be Mississippi or North Dakota, with no offense, (get it?) to those states.

 

[CBJx614]

Give Umberger until the deadline if things don't change by then, move him for a pick.

 

[EDM]

Brass had a good game last nite against the Kings. RJ was what has become the "usual".

 

[blahblah]

I won't be scandalized or outraged if Umby does end up moved as a result of said evaluations. It happens, and he does have his limitations. I just object to this rabid frothing "he sucks, he sucks so bad, omfg trade him trade him RIGHT NOW" mishegaas.

Perfect reasonable. That is were I am. I guess my point is, we have 23 million left on that contract and even though it is only 10 games in this season he had a down year last year as well.

The front office better be evaluating this hard. The last thing we need is to left holding the bag if this decline doesn't correct itself. A poor year this year and a slow start next year and you suddenly shift from a, potentially, hard to trade asset to a difficult to trade liability. We aren't the Rangers or the Canadians that would just use the amnesty buy out. Cap space doesn't mean much to us at this point, but salary does. We won't add salary to compensate for a non productive top six player making 4.5 million a year.

I appreciate the back and forth. I agree on Brassard. Having said that, RJ is potentially a bigger risk if he really is on the decline.

 

[candyman82]

I say don't trade him until he starts scoring, which I think we all know eventually will come. No point in trading him yet.

 

[blahblah]

Brass had a good game last nite against the Kings. RJ was what has become the "usual".

I would say that our bar is so low with some of these player average play has morphed into good play. While Brassard has improved he is no where near "playing good" or even "had a good game". His game last night is what we should see as the floor for every game. Not scoring the goal, but the level of play and number of chances.

I did see at least a couple of shifts in which RJ was far more engaged and had chances. The big difference was that Brassard converted and he was a decent experiment on the point on the PP.

Brassard has improved over the last few games to the point that if he plays that way for 82 game a season he is almost worth keeping around. What I am waiting for is the guy from the rookie season that took over games and was, truly, a dynamic player. He is not that now. He just looks more dynamic because we don't have much in the way of dynamic players. If things keep up the way they are Johansen is going to pass him like he is standing still, despite his game last night.

 

[blahblah]

I say don't trade him until he starts scoring, which I think we all know eventually will come. No point in trading him yet.

Yeah, that is pretty much what everyone thinks/says before they lose their shorts in the stock market. It is a $9 a share, it couldn't possibly go down anymore!

You are assuming that RJ will return to a 20 goal scorer. He barely did that last season and hasn't done anything this season to suggest that was a fluke. What you are asking for may never come. While I don't find it likely, we could very well be looking at the new 12-15 goal RJ grinder.

The front office better be looking at this situation very closely and not using the "I have faith" method we have used in the past.

 

[Nordique]

I think he looks much better the last 3 games. If he doesn't hit the post vs Stl, and the goal goes in, that could have been the turning point in the game. I think he's going to be fine now, the goals will come, his shifts look much better.

Trading him just doesn't make sense to me either. I think the return would be low, and its not like we have to free up salary due to the cap. Worse case scenario, RJ is a solid 3rd liner that can be used in front of the net on the PP. Best case, he's a top 6 forward that will get you 20+ goals a season. Either way I think in the long run we're a better team with him than without.

 

[candyman82]

Yeah, that is pretty much what everyone thinks/says before they lose their shorts in the stock market. It is a $9 a share, it couldn't possibly go down anymore!

You are assuming that RJ will return to a 20 goal scorer. He barely did that last season and hasn't done anything this season to suggest that was a fluke. What you are asking for may never come. While I don't find it likely, we could very well be looking at the new 12-15 goal RJ grinder.

The front office better be looking at this situation very closely and not using the "I have faith" method we have used in the past.

I recognize that he may never be that player again. However, I would wait until he actually breaks out of his slump before trading him. He may not return to his previous level of play, but at the very least we should wait to see his play improve somewhat before moving him.

 

[Doug19]

I just happen to disagree with that evaluation. I really do think folks are accentuating the negative and paying more attention to errors than to the overall state of his game.

hahhahahahhahahahhhahhahahahaahahahha thanks for the laugh, you almost got me fired.

 

[EspenK]

Yeah, that is pretty much what everyone thinks/says before they lose their shorts in the stock market. It is a $9 a share, it couldn't possibly go down anymore!

You are assuming that RJ will return to a 20 goal scorer. He barely did that last season and hasn't done anything this season to suggest that was a fluke. What you are asking for may never come. While I don't find it likely, we could very well be looking at the new 12-15 goal RJ grinder.

The front office better be looking at this situation very closely and not using the "I have faith" method we have used in the past.

This about sums it up very nicely.

 

[blahblah]

I recognize that he may never be that player again. However, I would wait until he actually breaks out of his slump before trading him. He may not return to his previous level of play, but at the very least we should wait to see his play improve somewhat before moving him.

I am not sure it makes any difference at all. If he "breaks out" it will succeed in making you second guess yourself. I suspect that nothing is going to happen till around the deadline, so I am not sure why you are worried about it. It is not like we are actively shopping him now. You would still have to have the talk with him because of the NTC as well.

Ultimately I don't think it would impact potential deals all that much if he suddenly had 3 goals in 7 games.

 

[Cyclones Rock]

Who actually believes that this guy can be traded? Why would any team possibly want him?

Do some people not understand a salary cap? $4.5 million/yr. for 4 more years after this season for a guy whose production went down 30% last year-despite playing a lot with Rick Nash and getting loads of PP time-and whose "production" this year is laughable. His trend line is downright scary. It's Scott Gomez-like.

http://www.didgomezscore.com/

He plays soft as a baby's bottom. He does not play the game one would expect of a 6'2" 220 lbs. "power forward". He avoids contact and often times makes a very weak presence in front of the net. His only checking is done at the bank.

He's not particularly fast and his shot isn't effective from much past the slot. His passing is nothing more than pedestrian.

He seems to have all of the enthusiasm of an embalmer to boot. It's hard to believe he'd bring much to a locker room in terms of spirit.

Umberger needs to play a grinding, tough and energetic game to be effective. He doesn't do that anymore. Why would anyone have any realistic expectation for him to regain form?

He's untradeable. It's fantasy to believe otherwise. The only scenario would be to "trade" him for another declining underperformer with a huge contract. So, that's really not trading. It's exchanging problems.

He's tailor made for the amnesty buyout. That is the CBJs most reasoned option with this disaster. Suck it up and move on.

 

[NotWendell]

Who actually believes that this guy can be traded? Why would any team possibly want him?

Do some people not understand a salary cap? $4.5 million/yr. for 4 more years after this season for a guy whose production went down 30% last year-despite playing a lot with Rick Nash and getting loads of PP time-and whose "production" this year is laughable. His trend line is downright scary. It's Scott Gomez-like.

http://www.didgomezscore.com/

He plays soft as a baby's bottom. He does not play the game one would expect of a 6'2" 220 lbs. "power forward". He avoids contact and often times makes a very weak presence in front of the net. His only checking is done at the bank.

He's not particularly fast and his shot isn't effective from much past the slot. His passing is nothing more than pedestrian.

He seems to have all of the enthusiasm of an embalmer to boot. It's hard to believe he'd bring much to a locker room in terms of spirit.

Umberger needs to play a grinding, tough and energetic game to be effective. He doesn't do that anymore. Why would anyone have any realistic expectation for him to regain form?

He's untradeable. It's fantasy to believe otherwise. The only scenario would be to "trade" him for another declining underperformer with a huge contract. So, that's really not trading. It's exchanging problems.

He's tailor made for the amnesty buyout. That is the CBJs most reasoned option with this disaster. Suck it up and move on.

Hmmm, amnesty buyout. Interesting. (rubbing chin)

 

[EspenK]

only checking is done at the bank.


He's tailor made for the amnesty buyout. That is the CBJs most reasoned option with this disaster. Suck it up and move on.

I was thinking the other day if we traded him and took back half his salary, it would be cheaper than the amnesty buyout by about 3 mill over the 4 years. Probably isn't going to happen but its an interesting thought.

 

[blahblah]

Who actually believes that this guy can be traded? Why would any team possibly want him?

Do some people not understand a salary cap? $4.5 million/yr. for 4 more years after this season for a guy whose production went down 30% last year-despite playing a lot with Rick Nash and getting loads of PP time-and whose "production" this year is laughable. His trend line is downright scary. It's Scott Gomez-like.

http://www.didgomezscore.com/

He plays soft as a baby's bottom. He does not play the game one would expect of a 6'2" 220 lbs. "power forward". He avoids contact and often times makes a very weak presence in front of the net. His only checking is done at the bank.

He's not particularly fast and his shot isn't effective from much past the slot. His passing is nothing more than pedestrian.

He seems to have all of the enthusiasm of an embalmer to boot. It's hard to believe he'd bring much to a locker room in terms of spirit.

Umberger needs to play a grinding, tough and energetic game to be effective. He doesn't do that anymore. Why would anyone have any realistic expectation for him to regain form?

He's untradeable. It's fantasy to believe otherwise. The only scenario would be to "trade" him for another declining underperformer with a huge contract. So, that's really not trading. It's exchanging problems.

He's tailor made for the amnesty buyout. That is the CBJs most reasoned option with this disaster. Suck it up and move on.

Regardless if whether you think he can be traded or not, your overall analysis from top to bottom is severely lacking. First off, we aren't going to amnesty buy out this guy, but thank you for wanting to blow the owners money like that. You do have a couple of decent points but it's almost impossible to notice with the hyperbole and melodrama.

A trade is far more likely than an amnesty buy out. I'm not saying the former is likely, just more likely.

I was thinking the other day if we traded him and took back half his salary, it would be cheaper than the amnesty buyout by about 3 mill over the 4 years. Probably isn't going to happen but its an interesting thought.

That wasn't allowed in the old CBA, almost certain it's not allowed in the new CBA.