I hope you read this before judging…

This consists two segments A) and B) - here we go!

A)
Davidson, Kekäläinen and Larsen have said that the goals against problem needs to be solved. That being said they are going to grow from within and that means that they wont blow up the whole roster which still basically over achieved last season. They will make some targeted few changes to improve the teams shortcomings. Goalies will be the same because of the latest re-signings of Korpi and Tarasov. The offense is not a problem because they scored a ton of goals, they just need to improve the powerplay and maybe Kent Johnson can already help with that next season?

The area that they will target and try to improve is the defence. Werenski and Gavrikov are the backbone of D-core and Peeke played a heck of a season so they 3 will stick around. That leaves the other three Boqvist, Bean and Blankenburg. All still growing and getting stronger and learning and adjusting… I think the problem is that you cant have 3 students in a 6 man defence. It is too much and it shows on the scoreboard in a bad way. Ideally you would have 1, but I guess 2 is okay as well in a retool situation. So if we really want to solve the goals against problem, one young soft defenceman needs to be moved either by trade or by sending him to AHL.

We havent seen Blankenburg enough though to call him soft right? He is better defensively than Bean or Boqvist and I cant wait to see him play next year so I would not move him.

So to me, it comes down to Bean or Boqvist. Boqvist has higher upside when it comes to offence and pure skill and he is younger and he is a RHD which are harder to replace. On the other hand I suspect he might be soft in the future too even if he gets some muscles. Soft playing style doesnt automatically disappear.. But he might learn right?

Bean is a puckmoving LHD who is okay but I dont see him significally growing his game in the near future.. I just dont see it. I think he is already close to his sealing. And in Columbus he will be stuck behind Werenski and Gavrikov on the third pair. And there are other a bit similar LHD in the organisation waiting for their chance to play for CBJ such as Christiansen and prospects Svozil, Knazko and Richard..

So I would move Bean and replace him with a more defensive minded, probably veteran D. Werenski, Boqvist and Blankenburg would be the puck movers and Gavrikov, Peeke and X would be the more defensive minded defenders. In this scenario that D is UFA defenceman Ian Cole but it can be someone else too. Whoever the organisation think can play a shutdown role in the third pair.

B)
We have a lot of wingers especially those who are or are projected to be top6 wingers. Before the Dubois-Laine+Rosie trade our ”shooting first wingers” were Bjorky and Atkinson. Now we have Laine, Bjorky, Chinakhov and probably Marchenko too. Ofcourse Chinakhov and Marchenko are not in there prime yet, they are still growing but they both are 21y old and they should not play in the fourth line.. we need to get these guys going with the scoring chances.. so i think that If and when Laine gets that big new contract I think that bumps out Bjorkstrand.. Especially if we want to make room for young talents. Either Chinakhov or Marcenko would take his place and veterans Gus and Voracek are there to guide them. Many of you might disagree with this but if the right trade comes up, they should consider it!

Other winger who just dont have the room anymore is Bemström. That is a cheap depth piece to some franchise that doesnt have a million wingers like we do.

Basically that A) segment is what I think should absolutely happend. Segment B) is a wild card which should happend if a trade juicy enough presents itself!

Look at the roster here without Bjorky, Bemström and Bean. It is not that bad and this doesnt even include whatever we could get by trading them..

Go easy!

Honestly, I can see Bjorkstrand getting moved but he's incredibly valuable to the Blue Jackets so it's not a trivial decision. He is our best defensive forward by quite a lot and his absence would be felt throughout our lineup. If we have a Cirelli, Eriksson-Ek or Danault type forward and/or Val Nichuskin on the roster I would feel more comfortable about moving Bjorkstrand. If Bjorkstrand+ gets us a superstar I think we can pull that trigger too (Meier, Kyrou) but I think in this case Voracek probably has to go unless he plays in a 3rd line role.

I agree with the having too many students on the blue line bit, but I'd love to trade a combo for a straight upgrade. Chychrun is the piece in the rumor mill and I think he'd be great. If we can't get an upgrade that makes sense for the future, I am ok waiting on these guys. I know we had a lot of students, but I thought our coaching and system left a lot to be desired in the D zone. There's no reason players like Bean, Gavirkov and Boqvist should be that bad at exiting the zone. (This could also be due to having bad defensive players like Laine, Voracek, Roslovic, Chinakov and Sillinger playing, despite some of their improvements).

Bemstrom definitely does seem like surplus at the moment but he's got a great shot and made great strides on the other side of the ice. He feels primed if he gets playing time and a consistent role. Maybe the best case for development is to find time for Johnson and Chinakov in the AHL and give Bemstrom, Tex, Foudy and Marchenko a year in the NHL so we can clarify what these guys are.

A pretty good assessment, now time to put your stones on the line and pick out trades you would make!

Thank you @pocke for the feed back. Maybe I will take a guess at the potential trades with this scenario, will see.

I do realise the Bjorkstrand is the kind of winger that is working hard in our own zone too. Something that Laine and Voracek for example are not so great at. Then again, if we dont make room and opportunities for the likes of Chinakhov and Marchenko, the alternative is to bury them in the AHL and wait until Gus and Voracek have run out of contracts. Is that better? Does that serve the retool the best? Because they shouldnt play 9min per game in the NHL. That is 4th line minutes. Young guys need to play!

Something has to be changed because we have too many wingers.

Agreed. I think it was a massive mistake to have Sillinger and Chinakov in the NHL this past year. They are promising but I worry that rushing them too early will lower their ceiling and make them more standard type NHL players when they could both use experience at the top of a lineup. I'm sure there are plenty of reason's behind the scenes (No Russians in Cleveland, instability with coaches retirement) but still. We have a lot to recover from the damage that Torts did to young players' games. We'll see if Larsen can make a difference but I am not sure I see it after this past year.