When does it become too late?

[EspenK]

I think the cap can be worked around unless Bob & Panarin want 10 mill deals. To me a bigger issue is will Panarin want to stay? If he sees a bright future here then I think we can re-sign him; if he doesn't oy vey, we lose the best offensive talent the Jackets have ever had. Push comes to shove I'd take Panarin over Bob.

I see JJ gone after this year. Dubi either traded or bought out by the end of next season. Foligno, Jenner, Calvert are others I think are candidates for leaving to help manage the cap.

 

[MoeBartoli]

I just look at the core group of 25 and under and I am not worried. I think this rocky start is the result of putting all your chips in a young group. It is a younger team than last year, where all of the veterans have played worse than we've seen from them in 5 years - Foligno, Dubinsky, Atkinson, Johnson, Savard. Clearly all of them need to step up, and I'm not quite sure that any of them are at the end of their careers yet.

I do think we could stand to have another center that can complement Dubois and Wennberg, and we have to do everything we can to keep Bread, but I believe in this young group.

The teams best players are 21-23 years old... Outside of old man Panarin, who if we get under contract, could be a great player for 8 years.

25 and under core: Panarin, Dubois, Wennberg, Bjorkstrand, Anderson, Milano, Werenski, Jones, Nutivaara, Murray, Carlsson

It is a good group that is well rounded. One superstar forward (Panarin), two young top-6 centers (Dubois, Wennberg). Three young wings with obvious upside (Bjorkstrand, Anderson, Milano). Two cornerstone first pair defensemen (Jones, Werenski). Two more youngtop four defensemen (Murray, Nutivaara). One that has all the tools to grow into a top 4 guy (Carlsson).

I have plenty of confidence that that group can grow into their roles eventually. It is a lot to ask all of them to do it immediately without much help from the veterans that have led this team for years. A good amount of veteran players need to step up, yeah, but I don't think they can play any worse and that young core group is continuing to improve. If any of the veteran group plays as good as they have in years past, or even if a single one returns to playing like a top 6 / top 4 player, we will be in good shape.

It helps to have the 1-2 punch in goal that we have.

I thought this was a pretty good post....liked it. I agree with most of your comments on the young core. While we can quibble about Carlsson (I'm just not as high on him as some are), I think you're on the mark with the rest.

I'm less optimistic about the vets, especially when contracts are factored in. Assuming Cam recovers without complications, I'm confident he'll bounce back to a mid-20 goal scorer. Dubi has a lot of wear on the tires and IMO his best days were yesterday. The changing style of the NHL does no favors for JJ or Savard. The possible good news for them is the more conservative style since the Safe is Death funeral should favor these two who are slower afoot (or is that askate?). We'll see. That said, I'm afraid JJ, someone who is on my all-time favorite Jacket list, is on the downside of his career.

And then there's Foligno. Oh, Nick. His play is not good right now. Decline? Less comfortable with less Rockem Sockem robot style play? Or is it the weight of the captaincy? I don't know, and for that's reason I don't know if he bounces back or not.

Full circle - I think our young core is good....wish we had more in the pipeline.

 

[CharlotteJacket]

There are going to be some very interesting sets of negotiations going on starting next year. Z, Bread and Bob all have contracts which come due after next season. For 2019-20, the Jackets currently have $37 million of cap to work with. That number will decline as other players get signed. That cap will go up, but who know by how much. Bread and Bob are $8 million per year (or more) players as UFAs. The Jackets could play hardball with Zach, but I'll guess they'll sign him to a 6 year deal at $6.5 million or so. If these guys get signed, there isn't going to be a whole lot more to spend.

I'm going to take as signals that the CBJ want to sign all three of the aforementioned players if Jenner is traded and Calvert is let go. Bob, Bread, Z, Jones, Dubi, Foligno, Wennberg, Savard and Cam- will have roughly $53 million/year between them the so the CBJ are going to have to go with a lot of cost controlled (RFA) players and bargain bin types unless a big contract player gets traded with minimal retention. If they all are signed and the cap goes up to $85 million, that leaves $32 million to buy 15 players. A $4 million Jenner and $2 million Calvert probably wouldn't be good fits. Jack Johnson almost assuredly won't be resigned.

Jarmo has committed to this group. He's not going to get the equivalent goalie of Bob or forward of Bread's caliber for less than $8 million per year. So, if he lets those guys go, he's going to have to take inferior players or spend just as much for their equivalents.

These negotiations with the Big 3 (Z, Bob and Bread) could easily make the Johansen and Anderson negotiations look like child's play.

They could always sign Z to a bridge contract like RyJo. 3 years, $12M with a payout of $3M, $3M, $6M. The last year would be a starting point for his third contract.

 

[Cyclones Rock]

They could always sign Z to a bridge contract like RyJo. 3 years, $12M with a payout of $3M, $3M, $6M. The last year would be a starting point for his third contract.

I really doubt that Z and his agent will go for that. If he gets a bridge deal, it's going to probably be about as nasty and drawn out of a negotiation as Johansen's or PK Subban's-both of which were really poor decisions (insisting upon a "bridge") by their respective teams in retrospect.

 

[Cyclones Rock]

I think the cap can be worked around unless Bob & Panarin want 10 mill deals. To me a bigger issue is will Panarin want to stay? If he sees a bright future here then I think we can re-sign him; if he doesn't oy vey, we lose the best offensive talent the Jackets have ever had. Push comes to shove I'd take Panarin over Bob.

I see JJ gone after this year. Dubi either traded or bought out by the end of next season. Foligno, Jenner, Calvert are others I think are candidates for leaving to help manage the cap.

I'm with you on all counts.

Bob is going to be a very, very difficult decision. He'll be 32 when his next deal starts. The Canadiens blew the lid off of long term contracts for older goalies when they gave Price (who'll be 31 when his deal starts next season) $10.5 million for 8 years. I just don't think that's a responsible contract for anyone of that age-especially a goalie. But, it's more than likely that if the CBJ don't sign Bob to a long, rich deal that they'll have an inferior goalie starting for them. Jarmo blew it when he didn't go 6 or 7 years for Bob in the previous deal. 7 years is OK for a 29 year old midget winger like Atkinson who has probably peaked, but not OK for a 27 year old Vezina winning goalie (who went on to win another) who can carry a team. Makes sense to me. Not.

Panarin's agent is going to see what Taveres gets and adjust accordingly. If Panarin puts up a 30g 40a season next season, he'll probably have more than a few teams willing to sign him to a Tavares minus $1-1.5 million per year 7 year deal.

Foligno, once he rights his ship, will have some trade value I would think. Jenner and Calvert have some value as well. JJ long term would be silly. Given how bad his stats have been this season and his age, I don't know what kind of market there will be for him. I'll assume he's looking for $30 million over 5 or 6 years. He may have to settle for a short term deal at the rate he wants. Maybe the CBJ would be interested in him for another year or two. Maybe not.

Dubi screams of buyout. I'd dump him for 50% retention (max allowed) which I think could be done. 50% over 2 or 3 years beats a 4-6 year cap hit.

 

[CBJx614]

I'm with you on all counts.

Bob is going to be a very, very difficult decision. He'll be 32 when his next deal starts. The Canadiens blew the lid off of long term contracts for older goalies when they gave Price (who'll be 31 when his deal starts next season) $10.5 million for 8 years. I just don't think that's a responsible contract for anyone of that age-especially a goalie. But, it's more than likely that if the CBJ don't sign Bob to a long, rich deal that they'll have an inferior goalie starting for them. Jarmo blew it when he didn't go 6 or 7 years for Bob in the previous deal. 7 years is OK for a 29 year old midget winger like Atkinson who has probably peaked, but not OK for a 27 year old Vezina winning goalie (who went on to win another) who can carry a team. Makes sense to me. Not.

Panarin's agent is going to see what Taveres gets and adjust accordingly. If Panarin puts up a 30g 40a season next season, he'll probably have more than a few teams willing to sign him to a Tavares minus $1-1.5 million per year 7 year deal.

Foligno, once he rights his ship, will have some trade value I would think. Jenner and Calvert have some value as well. JJ long term would be silly. Given how bad his stats have been this season and his age, I don't know what kind of market there will be for him. I'll assume he's looking for $30 million over 5 or 6 years. He may have to settle for a short term deal at the rate he wants. Maybe the CBJ would be interested in him for another year or two. Maybe not.

Dubi screams of buyout. I'd dump him for 50% retention (max allowed) which I think could be done. 50% over 2 or 3 years beats a 4-6 year cap hit.

You also have to remember that before Bobrovsky was signed that they had to worry about Johansen wanting like 6 or 7M before he got his bridge on top of the Clarkson/Horton fiasco.

I don't think we could have fit both of Johansen and Bobrovsky if we had given them what they wanted. So since Joey got a prove it contract, Bobrovsky got a prove it contract. Jarmo was very adamant about making a point to make players prove themselves with consistency before handing out anything long term with high dollars

 

[Cyclones Rock]

You also have to remember that before Bobrovsky was signed that they had to worry about Johansen wanting like 6 or 7M before he got his bridge on top of the Clarkson/Horton fiasco.

I don't think we could have fit both of Johansen and Bobrovsky if we had given them what they wanted. So since Joey got a prove it contract, Bobrovsky got a prove it contract. Jarmo was very adamant about making a point to make players prove themselves with consistency before handing out anything long term with high dollars

A "prove it" contract to a Vezina winner is absurd. Beyond absurd. Did Jarmo really say that during that negotiation? I'd hope not.

I doubt that Bob at 7 years would have cost much more than Bob at 4 years. He may have come at a lesser price.

I'll leave the Johansen side of the equation alone. LOL

I had forgotten about the Horton fiasco (thanks for reminding me), but the CBJ could have LTIR'd that contract at any time. It had no impact, except an internally mandated one, on the CBJ ability to sign Bob or anyone else at that time.

 

[CBJx614]

A "prove it" contract to a Vezina winner is absurd. Beyond absurd.

I doubt that Bob at 7 years would have cost much more than Bob at 4 years. He may have come at a lesser price.

I had forgotten about the Horton fiasco (thanks for reminding me), but the CBJ could have LTIR'd that contract at any time. It had no impact, except an internally mandated one, on the CBJ ability to sign Bob or anyone else at that time.

I agree, it's just things are always easier in hindsight.

If Bob gets his long term deal does he still get his second vezina? And is he still in vezina talks for this season? I do agree though, they should have gone long term with him and taken the risk back then.

 

[Maylo]

I'm with you on all counts.

Bob is going to be a very, very difficult decision. He'll be 32 when his next deal starts.

31

 

[Viqsi]

A "prove it" contract to a Vezina winner is absurd. Beyond absurd. Did Jarmo really say that during that negotiation? I'd hope not.

He'd won that Vezina during a lockout-shortened season, so there were still plenty of folks concerned about his full-season ability (and when he was having serious groin injury issues, those concerns were looking increasingly justifiable). Four years was defensible, even if it's not ideal for us now.

 

[Cyclones Rock]

I agree, it's just things are always easier in hindsight.

If Bob gets his long term deal does he still get his second vezina? And is he still in vezina talks for this season? I do agree though, they should have gone long term with him and taken the risk back then.

Athletes like Bob are driven. He's a perfectionist. Independent of contractual status in my estimation.

Yes, they should have taken the risk. There's a lot of upside (or probable long term stability is probably a better way of looking at it) in a 27yo Vezina winner. Or a 22 year old who has a breakout season (Johansen) or a 23 year old who scores 17 goals in limited minutes (Anderson). Not so much in a 29yo undersized winger (Cam) or a slow-as-molasses center (Dubi) in a league which was getting progressively more speed oriented.

I think Jarmo has a horrendous sense of risk/reward. At least in his contractual negotiations.

 

[Cyclones Rock]

31

My bad.

So he'll only be 39, not 40, when the contract ends. LOL

 

[Viqsi]

Athletes like Bob are driven. He's a perfectionist. Independent of contractual status in my estimation.

Yes, they should have taken the risk. There's a lot of upside (or probable long term stability is probably a better way of looking at it) in a 27yo Vezina winner. Or a 22 year old who has a breakout season (Johansen) or a 23 year old who scores 17 goals in limited minutes (Anderson). Not so much in a 29yo undersized winger (Cam) or a slow-as-molasses center (Dubi) in a league which was getting progressively more speed oriented.

I think Jarmo has a horrendous sense of risk/reward. At least in his contractual negotiations.

...and I think this is putting on a clinic of selection bias since other things like, oh, say, contracts for Savard and Jones and Jenner and Wennberg and even Saad aren't coming up in this assessment of JK's ability, but, hey, you do you.

 

[Cyclones Rock]

He'd won that Vezina during a lockout-shortened season, so there were still plenty of folks concerned about his full-season ability (and when he was having serious groin injury issues, those concerns were looking increasingly justifiable). Four years was defensible, even if it's not ideal for us now.

He'd come back with a 2.38 GAA and .923 save percentage the following year (13-14). I don't know what his mid term stats were when the deal was signed (Jan of 15).

A 6 or 7 year deal was a no brainer. If he went sour, then a quick trade -even with a bit of retention-could have probably been done.

I'd love to be a fly-on-the-wall of a Jarmo conversation involving trading Dubi or Foligno (whose contract I think wasn't a terrible idea) now. I wonder how badly he stammers.

 

[Cyclones Rock]

...and I think this is putting on a clinic of selection bias since other things like, oh, say, contracts for Savard and Jones and Jenner and Wennberg and even Saad aren't coming up in this assessment of JK's ability, but, hey, you do you.

Jones was a no brainer. 30 other NHL GMs would have done the same thing.

Saad's wasn't difficult. Close to being as much of a no brainer as Jones' deal. Young and tradeable.

Savard' s isn't looking that great right now. Cheap, but so what if he's playing awful.

Long terming Jenner would have been silly. He can't pass and is a mediocre skater. He was a wait and see type.

Wennberg? That for sure is a good deal? Was crap most of this year and now has back issues. If that's good, then I don't know how low a bar you set for a "good" contract.

 

[Viqsi]

Jones was a no brainer. 30 other NHL GMs would have done the same thing.

Saad's wasn't difficult. Close to being as much of a no brainer as Jones' deal. Young and tradeable.

Savard' s isn't looking that great right now. Cheap, but so what if he's playing awful.

Long terming Jenner would have been silly. He can't pass and is a mediocre skater. He was a wait and see type.

Wennberg? That for sure is a good deal? Was crap most of this year and now has back issues. If that's good, then I don't know how low a bar you set for a "good" contract.

Once again, you're giving him zero credit for "good" or reasonable moves and lots of demerits for "bad" or otherwise inconvenient moves.

 

[Double-Shift Lasse]

Jones was a no brainer. 30 other NHL GMs would have done the same thing.

Saad's wasn't difficult. Close to being as much of a no brainer as Jones' deal. Young and tradeable.

Savard' s isn't looking that great right now. Cheap, but so what if he's playing awful.

Long terming Jenner would have been silly. He can't pass and is a mediocre skater. He was a wait and see type.

Wennberg? That for sure is a good deal? Was crap most of this year and now has back issues. If that's good, then I don't know how low a bar you set for a "good" contract.

You've changed your tune on the Wennberg deal. Jones too (or maybe you were just bitter since he got a deal that Johansen didn't get?). The rest seem consistent.

 

[Cyclones Rock]

You've changed your tune on the Wennberg deal. Jones too (or maybe you were just bitter since he got a deal that Johansen didn't get?). The rest seem consistent.

I don't believe that I ever was gung ho about Wennberg. I expected a long term deal but thought that the team would be best served by a bridge. Did I think it was an awful deal? No. Good younger players signing longer term deals are something I am generally for. They can be traded very easily. Assuming Wennberg doesn't have a bad back, he could be moved without any difficulty-though I wouldn't see why the Jackets would do that.

Can't say that I honestly recall saying much about the Jones contract. My view of him WAS probably tarnished a bit by the Johansen linkage.

 

[Cyclones Rock]

Once again, you're giving him zero credit for "good" or reasonable moves and lots of demerits for "bad" or otherwise inconvenient moves.

His 'good' moves on contracts have been ez pea z. He's a well paid NHL GM. Picking low hanging fruit deserves no applause.

It's the harder decisions which define a GM. In terms of longer term contracts, he's not acquitted himself well at all. Poile in Nashville has shown what to do with the Anderson's of the world. Jarmo is stuck in a bad model, although JD probably has a lot to do with that. And, no, I'm not at all impressed with JD. I think that he's the proverbial "empty suit". 20 years of blathering on TV doesn't equate to managerial expertise. The Blues found that out.

 

[Viqsi]

His 'good' moves on contracts have been ez pea z. He's a well paid NHL GM. Picking low hanging fruit deserves no applause.

..."low hanging fruit"? Maybe for a giraffe.

I also find it amusing how you cite Poile contracts, given that they're generally high-risk and can backfire just as awkwardly. See: Colin Wilson, Eric Nystrom, Nick Bonino, Viktor Stalberg, and for quite some time Craig Smith (altho he's turning things around this year). Looks a lot like JK's hit-and-miss record, only apparently somehow JK is a loser and Poile is proven. It's almost as though it's that whole "familiarity breeds contempt" thing going on rather than an actual sober assessment.

You're crediting certain moves as "no-brainers" that deserve no credit without giving any thought whatsoever to what it took to make them happen with one team, and with another citing exactly the same kinds of moves as evidence of a good GM who's "shown what to do".

 

[Cyclones Rock]

..."low hanging fruit"? Maybe for a giraffe.

I also find it amusing how you cite Poile contracts, given that they're generally high-risk and can backfire just as awkwardly. See: Colin Wilson, Eric Nystrom, Nick Bonino, Viktor Stalberg, and for quite some time Craig Smith (altho he's turning things around this year). Looks a lot like JK's hit-and-miss record, only apparently somehow JK is a loser and Poile is proven. It's almost as though it's that whole "familiarity breeds contempt" thing going on rather than an actual sober assessment.

You're crediting certain moves as "no-brainers" that deserve no credit without giving any thought whatsoever to what it took to make them happen with one team, and with another citing exactly the same kinds of moves as evidence of a good GM who's "shown what to do".

Wison was a 4 year, $3.9 million per that was traded with no retention after 2 years.

Nystrom was 4 year $2.5 per deal that was bought out after 3 years. It looks like he delivered in year 1 of the deal.

Smith looks real good right now.

Stalberg was a 4 year $10m $2.5 AAv deal. Bought out after 2.

Bonino is too early to tell.

Poile escaped all of his bad deals with minimal cap damage. The three deals were for $35 million cumulative. The Preds got out of approximately $12-13 million of those deals anyway. They were small deals.

Smith and Wilson's deals were the only RFA deals-that's what Poile's strength has been contractually. Wilson's ended up not costing much. Smith's production was fine in year 1, off in year 2, and very good to date in year 3. Hardly failures.

Josi, Ardvisson, Forsberg, Jankrok, Ekholm and Ellis all look like home runs. How many of those has Jarmo hit where he signed an RFA player before they had played a couple hundred NHL games to a long term, lower money deals? Jones had 3 full seasons and Saad had 2 Cups on his resume in addition to two seasons averaging 50 points prior to his signing.

Dubi and Foligno are in year 3 of 6 year deals. How are those looking to you? Wennberg and Atkinson are huge question marks as of right now. If the Bonino deal goes sour for Poile, it's chump change relative to these four. It's about risk/return and Jarmo hasn't shown himself to be anything but mediocre to poor in this area.

 

[Double-Shift Lasse]

I don't believe that I ever was gung ho about Wennberg. I expected a long term deal but thought that the team would be best served by a bridge. Did I think it was an awful deal? No. Good younger players signing longer term deals are something I am generally for. They can be traded very easily. Assuming Wennberg doesn't have a bad back, he could be moved without any difficulty-though I wouldn't see why the Jackets would do that.

Can't say that I honestly recall saying much about the Jones contract. My view of him WAS probably tarnished a bit by the Johansen linkage.

FWIW here is your post in the ‘Wennberg signs’ thread:

Sounds about right. Hopefully there aren't any NMC/NTCs involved.

I thought Jarmo was going to get taken to the cleaners (6x6 or more) on this one. Glad to be wrong.

 

[Cyclones Rock]

FWIW here is your post in the ‘Wennberg signs’ thread:

In the context of "if he were to be signed to a long term deal". I'm sure you could find multiple posts by me calling for a bridge.

 

[Viqsi]

Wison was a 4 year, $3.9 million per that was traded with no retention after 2 years.

Nystrom was 4 year $2.5 per deal that was bought out after 3 years. It looks like he delivered in year 1 of the deal.

Smith looks real good right now.

Stalberg was a 4 year $10m $2.5 AAv deal. Bought out after 2.

Bonino is too early to tell.

Poile escaped all of his bad deals with minimal cap damage. The three deals were for $35 million cumulative. The Preds got out of approximately $12-13 million of those deals anyway. They were small deals.

Smith and Wilson's deals were the only RFA deals-that's what Poile's strength has been contractually. Wilson's ended up not costing much. Smith's production was fine in year 1, off in year 2, and very good to date in year 3. Hardly failures.

Josi, Ardvisson, Forsberg, Jankrok, Ekholm and Ellis all look like home runs. How many of those has Jarmo hit where he signed an RFA player before they had played a couple hundred NHL games to a long term, lower money deals? Jones had 3 full seasons and Saad had 2 Cups on his resume in addition to two seasons averaging 50 points prior to his signing.

Dubi and Foligno are in year 3 of 6 year deals. How are those looking to you? Wennberg and Atkinson are huge question marks as of right now. If the Bonino deal goes sour for Poile, it's chump change relative to these four. It's about risk/return and Jarmo hasn't shown himself to be anything but mediocre to poor in this area.

So whether or not deals are OK has everything to do with whether or not they were fine in earlier years and if the buyout hit is low. Okay. So Dubinsky and Foligno are nonissues. Good to hear.

And I love how you dismiss Bonino as "too early to tell" yet immediately go back to Wennberg and Atkinson as "huge question marks".

 

[Cyclones Rock]

So whether or not deals are OK has everything to do with whether or not they were fine in earlier years and if the buyout hit is low. Okay. So Dubinsky and Foligno are nonissues. Good to hear.

And I love how you dismiss Bonino as "too early to tell" yet immediately go back to Wennberg and Atkinson as "huge question marks".

Dubinsky and Foligno aren't low cap hits. Dubi is $6 million/year and Foligno $5.5. There's been value received, but not this year. If the last 4 years of a $35 million deal are bad, then the deal is bad.

"too early to tell" can be taken as = to "huge question marks". Bonino is a 4 year $16 million deal. It could turn out to be a (roughly) $8 million mistake if he's bought out after this year. Atkinson (41m)/7yr and Wennberg 6yr/$29 million have a combined $70 million worth of risk vs. $16 million.

Thanks for making my case stronger.