Vegas Expansion Thread - How did Jarmo do?

Grade Jarmo's work managing the Vegas Expansion Draft


  • Total voters
    53

Old Guy

Just waitin' on my medication.
Aug 30, 2015
1,847
1,645
Numerous articles grade GM draft performances. Most immediate articles are complete BS.

But now we are two years past the VGK Expansion Draft. Jarmo cut his deal early to ship off Wild Bill and David Clarkson and to protect Josh Anderson and create some cap space. This time last year Will Bill scored 43 and ran with Vegas to the SCF. This year the NHL saw what Jarmo protected in Anderson and the CBJ went one round deeper than VGK. Now Jarmo has a ton of cap space and Vegas is tapped out of cap space.

So ............ with the benefit of hind sight, what grade do you give to Jarmo' s work on the Vegas Expansion Draft? (please limit your response to this topic - there are other places to Fire Jarmo)
 

EspenK

Registered User
Sep 25, 2011
15,583
4,150
I gave him a C because if I remember correctly he waited to buy out Hartnell until after the draft. If he done it before he could have protected Karlsson. Although at the time WK hadn't done much.
 

Cyclones Rock

Registered User
Jun 12, 2008
10,484
6,370
The Karlsson miss is a huge black mark on the coaching staff and FO. Having to use the expansion draft as a means of cleaning up the Horton/Clarkson fiasco impacts the grade as well.

Signing players like Dubinsky and Foligno to full NTC/NMCs created problems with players who should have been protected without wheeling and dealing.

D. Only because I'm nice and general grade inflation.
 

majormajor

Registered User
Jun 23, 2018
24,196
28,667
I gave him a C because if I remember correctly he waited to buy out Hartnell until after the draft. If he done it before he could have protected Karlsson. Although at the time WK hadn't done much.

The Jackets had a deal worked out with Vegas prior to that Spring's playoffs where they'd take a 2nd in exchange for not picking Anderson, Korpisalo, or Johnson. I have no idea but I think there might have been a condition, or at least an understanding, that Columbus was not going to go about protecting more of it's young players beyond that. For all we know the teams might have had Karlsson in mind when the deal was struck.

The Karlsson miss is a huge black mark on the coaching staff and FO. Having to use the expansion draft as a means of cleaning up the Horton/Clarkson fiasco impacts the grade as well.

Signing players like Dubinsky and Foligno to full NTC/NMCs created problems with players who should have been protected without wheeling and dealing.

D. Only because I'm nice and general grade inflation.

You do know that the Clarkson move was separate from the expansion selection, right? The price for moving Clarkson was a 1st round pick. It was agreed separately from the deal that gave Vegas a 2nd rounder for not taking Anderson et. al.
 

majormajor

Registered User
Jun 23, 2018
24,196
28,667
I don't know enough to grade Jarmo on this one. What was Vegas thinking when they made the agreement for the 2nd round pick - was Karlsson their target at that point, and his availability is why they agreed not to take Anderson et. al.? Or did they just get lucky when the Jackets didn't bother to protect Karlsson?

It might not have been possible to protect both Josh Anderson and William Karlsson. If it was possible then Jarmo gets a bad grade.
 

MoeBartoli

Checkers-to-Jackets
Jan 12, 2011
13,954
10,153
Hit the mark -
Andy - They recognized the value of Andy and sought to protect him.

Missed the mark -
Karlsson- He obviously exceeded expectations thus losing a 1C/2C we so desperately seek (Yes, who could see this coming, but this is a hindsight thread).
Korpisalo - The other player we sought to protect who today may not even be part of our goaltending future.
Hartnell - The buyout, if done much earlier, would changed the list of protected forwards, possibly allowing us to keep Wild Bill.

Hit or Miss? -
The cost of dumping the Clarkson contract. Both sides could likely be effectively argued.

Conclusion -
In hindsight, we lost the trades by betting on the wrong side of too many parts of the equation.

Final grade -
C- or D+ which I registered as a C as I'm glad to have Andy and am unsure of the Clarkson value.
 

Viqsi

"that chick from Ohio"
Oct 5, 2007
53,660
30,952
40N 83W (approx)
I don't know enough to grade Jarmo on this one. What was Vegas thinking when they made the agreement for the 2nd round pick - was Karlsson their target at that point, and his availability is why they agreed not to take Anderson et. al.? Or did they just get lucky when the Jackets didn't bother to protect Karlsson?

It might not have been possible to protect both Josh Anderson and William Karlsson. If it was possible then Jarmo gets a bad grade.
I was given to understand that it was not possible, and that's why I'm forgiving. But I don't have confirmation of that anywhere.
 

CharlotteJacket

Registered User
Apr 11, 2013
2,015
891
Charlotte, NC
I guess we have to talk about this every few years to refresh our memories, but the FO, (whomever that may be from Jarmo, JD to Priest or McConnell) didn't want to pay the insurance on Horton's contract. That decision put us in a choking bind that was painful to remove ourselves from. Enter Clarkson and his limited ability to erase the Horton contract, but Clarkson turned into his own debacle and led to all of the moves with Vegas. Hindsight is always 20/20, but the moral of the story is take out insurance on your high dollar players because you never know how truly expensive they can become.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cslebn

Long Live Lyle

Registered User
Feb 10, 2019
1,692
2,038
Chicago, IL
I went with D. Have no idea how B is winning when we traded a 2nd round pick for them to take a 40-goal scorer. The Clarkson deal was whatever. Don’t know how it impacted our situation the last two seasons, but I’d definitely rather have his contract (on LTIR) for this upcoming season and still have had that 1st round pick. (Does anyone know if keeping Clarkson on LTIR would’ve prevented us from making any moves we made the past two years?)

About the only positive was protecting Anderson.
 

majormajor

Registered User
Jun 23, 2018
24,196
28,667
The Clarkson deal was separate from that draft, but if folks want to talk about it here, here's a happy thought.

The pick we traded was #24OA. Vegas flipped it to Winnipeg, who used it to pick Vesalainen. Jarmo said that they were going to take Texier at #24. As it happened Texier went unpicked into mid-2nd. Jarmo traded Kolesar for the Texier pick. I happen to like Texier more than Vesalainen, and just about all the players picked after #24 (Morgan Frost looks like a possible exception). Here's the draft record. So the Clarkson move might ultimately only have cost us Kolesar, who I'll reserve judgment on, he's still only 22.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GoJackets1

majormajor

Registered User
Jun 23, 2018
24,196
28,667
I was given to understand that it was not possible, and that's why I'm forgiving. But I don't have confirmation of that anywhere.

It was just a handshake with Vegas. If the Jackets looked at Karlsson's impressive playoffs that Spring and decided to buyout Hartnell to protect Karlsson, Vegas could have easily backed out of the deal and picked Anderson. We were changing who was available last minute, which affected the purpose of the deal, so they could justifiably back out. That's one possible read on it. Or perhaps the Vegas team didn't have any care about who was available and were happy to just get a 2nd rounder and whoever was there.
 

CBJWerenski8

Formerly CBJWennberg10 (RIP Kivi)
Jun 13, 2009
42,085
24,009
C. Keeping Anderson was really important. And if he works out, so was Korpisalo. I just don't get why they bent over backwards to keep Jack Johnson.

Karlsson wouldn't have blossomed here, and that's annoying, but that's more of a Torts thing than Jarmo. We're fine. We got out from under the Clarkson deal which was supposed to help us keep our stars, but it cost us a first and our prospect pool is showing that. We'll see what happens with Seattle.
 

CBJWerenski8

Formerly CBJWennberg10 (RIP Kivi)
Jun 13, 2009
42,085
24,009
How so? It only ended up costing us Kolesar, not even a top 5 prospect.

What? That was a completely separate transaction. In order to entice them to take the contract we had to give up two picks rather than just the one to protect Anderson et al.

We will have to agree to disagree on the prospects list. We just had this conversation a few days ago too.
 

majormajor

Registered User
Jun 23, 2018
24,196
28,667
What? That was a completely separate transaction. In order to entice them to take the contract we had to give up two picks rather than just the one to protect Anderson et al.

The Kolesar trade? Yes, a completely separate transaction to get the #45OA so Jarmo could get the player he said he would have picked at #24OA. If that's the case then the Clarkson trade cost us Kolesar, which regardless of what you think of our prospect pool, can't have swung things that much.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mikeyp24

CBJWerenski8

Formerly CBJWennberg10 (RIP Kivi)
Jun 13, 2009
42,085
24,009
The Kolesar trade? Yes, a completely separate transaction to get the #45OA so Jarmo could get the player he said he would have picked at #24OA. If that's the case then the Clarkson trade cost us Kolesar, which regardless of what you think of our prospect pool, can't have swung things that much.

tenor.gif
 

majormajor

Registered User
Jun 23, 2018
24,196
28,667

What did the Clarkson trade cost us? - the #24OA.

Who was Jarmo going to pick at #24OA? - Alexandre Texier.

What team does Alexandre Texier now play for? - The Columbus Blue Jackets.

Then what is the ultimate cost of the Clarkson trade to the prospect pool? - Whatever we paid to get Texier (Kolesar).
 

Old Guy

Just waitin' on my medication.
Aug 30, 2015
1,847
1,645
I started this thread with the question in my own mind, not necessarily having MY answer and wondering what everyone else's answer was. I had to think on it for just a bit.

I applaud Jarmo for getting his deal done first. From the VGK view, it probably set the market. I applaud Jarmo for getting David Clarkson off the books. Some argue that Wild Bill blossomed once he was "used right". I don't know that to be the case, but I can't offer evidence to argue the counter-point.

One thing Vegas did which was brilliant; they went after RFA. It was like a team of mercenaries. My guess is it was the first or second team event when they most likely said; "you guys almost all are playing for contracts and your old team didn't want you". "You have the opportunity to stick it to them". The flip side of that strategy is now they are up against the cap ceiling after only two seasons.

But back to the CBJ - Jarmo had to give up a good player. He made a couple mistakes but I think he did a pretty good job. Yes, he was hamstrung by the Dubinsky and Foligno NMC contracts. When Seattle rolls around and calls for their deal, I would guess the response would be; " yea...you are getting one of my players - take whomever is not protected. You get one player....nothing else"
 
  • Like
Reactions: majormajor

Long Live Lyle

Registered User
Feb 10, 2019
1,692
2,038
Chicago, IL
I still can't believe Anaheim would trade WK to the CBJ. I mean he's a 40 goal scorer and he was a throw in for Wiz right? geesh...

1) Um... yeah? It was a bad deal on Anaheim’s end.

2) We also had him for 2 full years closer to his prime (right before he broke out); we have less of an excuse than Anaheim does.

I love Jarmo. There are very few (if any) GMs I’d take over him. That doesn’t mean he’s never made mistakes or didn’t do a bad job with the expansion draft, because he did. Could’ve bought out Hartnell, could’ve asked for Karlsson to not be taken instead of Johnson, could’ve left Wennberg unprotected instead of Anderson and not made any trade, could’ve asked Karlsson to also not be taken for probably minimal (if any) additional compensation. Yeah, most of those (besides Hartnell buyout, which I still don’t understand why that wasn’t done at the time) are hindsight, but that’s, fairly or not, how GMs are evaluated.

I still get confused about LTIR and how it impacts the cap (seems like it doesn’t. But it does. But it doesn’t. But it does. But it doesn’t...) Would keeping Clarkson have prevented us from making any moves we ended up making? Yeah, maybe we would’ve drafted Texier at 24 anyway. But maybe there was another guy at 45 we would’ve really liked we could’ve traded Kolesar for. Maybe Kolesar could’ve been used as an asset in another trade (either one that was never completed or, for example, in the Duchene trade in place of Abramov). Maybe we’d have kept Kolesar and he emerges as a bona fide NHLer.
 

Old Guy

Just waitin' on my medication.
Aug 30, 2015
1,847
1,645
I still get confused about LTIR and how it impacts the cap (seems like it doesn’t. But it does. But it doesn’t. But it does. But it doesn’t...)
I believe that all active NHL Roster players (23 players) must fit under the cap on opening day. Then, teams can designate LTIR players and create cap room. This is what creates the condition you describe (causes a problem, doesn't cause a problem).

Vegas would have to fit Clarkson's contract for one day. That would cause them to trade or waive somebody they don't want to.

I think two years ago Jarmo faced a similar problem. But he had the ability to send somebody (Bjorkstrand, I think) down to Cleveland because he was waiver exempt. That allowed him to fit under the cap for the requisite period of time. Then he designated somebody LTIR, which created the space to re call that somebody. I do remember that the somebody never left Columbus and went to Cleveland because they had the movements all mapped out to achieve cap compliance.
 

Long Live Lyle

Registered User
Feb 10, 2019
1,692
2,038
Chicago, IL
I believe that all active NHL Roster players (23 players) must fit under the cap on opening day. Then, teams can designate LTIR players and create cap room. This is what creates the condition you describe (causes a problem, doesn't cause a problem).

Vegas would have to fit Clarkson's contract for one day. That would cause them to trade or waive somebody they don't want to.

I think two years ago Jarmo faced a similar problem. But he had the ability to send somebody (Bjorkstrand, I think) down to Cleveland because he was waiver exempt. That allowed him to fit under the cap for the requisite period of time. Then he designated somebody LTIR, which created the space to re call that somebody. I do remember that the somebody never left Columbus and went to Cleveland because they had the movements all mapped out to achieve cap compliance.

Ok, that clarified a bit, thanks. I remember that happening (it was Wennberg).
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->