SalarySwishSalarySwish
Avatar

darthsummer

The Usual Suspects
Member Since
Apr. 16, 2019
Favourite Team
Columbus Blue Jackets
2nd Favourite Team
Vegas Golden Knights
Forum Posts
164
Posts per Day
0.1
Forum: NHLSep. 24 at 8:17 p.m.
Forum: NHLSep. 18 at 12:16 p.m.
Forum: NHLSep. 18 at 12:08 p.m.
quote=ricochetii;4412835] That’s not simply making someone "uncomfortable".[/quote]

<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>A_Habs_fan</b></div><div> It really depends how Babcock asked for the photos (which we will never know) and we do know that some <strong>players were uncomfortable</strong> by the demands (whether they said yes or no again, we'll never know).</div></div>


This is clearly going in circles, so I will save my breath after this. You brought in the concept of a job interview, not I. To your point, the GM (or team president / puppet for ownership / John Davidson) already has hired these players, so they should feel even LESS pressure against objecting to his request, as they have the job security.

As for having a choice versus simply feeling uncomfortable, I see it didn’t take you long to come around. If we want to hold Babcock accountable for his choices, we need to recognize that players made choices too and not give them a free pass. Some—many—choices in life can be difficult, and all come with their pros and cons, but we all have free will. I would imagine that as athletes (and as humans) these players would need to develop resolve to get to this point of their careers. Blaming others for your own choices is not an out I am apt to concede to any member of society.

For what it is worth, my stake in this is purely on principle. I never wanted Larsen ousted, and once he was would have much preferred a scrappier, more relatable hire like Andrew Brunette. Yet my malcontent with the Babcock hire does not allow me to simply accept his exit if it’s under such circumstances.
Forum: NHLSep. 18 at 9:40 a.m.
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>ricochetii</b></div><div>Yes, there are supposed to be more professional ways to address a player's concerns. How trusting are people of those systems in light of fairly recent events however?
At least the issue was addressed in a timely fashion before further harm could be done.

If you sat down for a job interview and they demanded access to your personal photos or files, that would be out of line and not much different from what is (allegedly) taking place here.

You choose what you wish to share from your personal life. If you're put into a situation where you don't feel like you have a choice, that's not simply making someone "uncomfortable".</div></div>

There has been zero indication that Babcock “demanded” phones or took them without players’ knowledge. He asked, and by all accounts, nobody refused. If they felt his request put them in a position of an awkward choice, well that’s precisely what “uncomfortable” means.

As for equating it to a job interview (now keep in mind, these athletes already have six-to-eight figure a year contracts), I expect a dive into my personal life to verify my character. While interviewing for my law firm and others, they pored over social media accounts, ran extensive background checks, requested personal writings, held my interview over the course of an entire day, and insisted on having dinner and drinks with not just me but also my fiancée. They contacted references, some whom I had listed and others of their own accord. Plus, the scrutiny to get my Bar license was even more intense and extensive. And that all paled in comparison to the measures taken by a certain government agency with which interviewed years later.

So yeah, I do not see the issue with Babcock’s approach. The prominent players came out supporting his actions; this was just someone using tyranny of the minority, playing off old stories of Babcock to depose him in an unprofessional manner by spinning it to the “media.”
Forum: Trade Machine ProposalsJul. 28 at 8:56 p.m.
Forum: Trade Machine ProposalsJul. 26 at 6:08 p.m.
Without Myers, and then tweaked accordingly, I don’t mind it for the Jackets. Swap Peeke in for Boqvist, push the pick out to ‘25 or ‘26, and ideally sub Bemström, Del Bel Belluz, the rights to Berni, Danforth (to clear a little extra cap space), and Bjørgvik Holm or Svozil in for Sillinger, and the deal works even better. Of course if Petterson signs an extension.

I get that the Canucks supporter wants quality over quantity, but up against a hard cap wall, they’re not in a position of bargaining power. Not saying this is trying to short-change Vancouver:

VAN still gets a recent first rounder (Chinakov) and a future first round pick. Peeke offers an affordable, ready-made NHL defenseman, maybe with a lower ceiling than Boqvist but a much higher floor. With widely varying opinions on Sillinger’s potential, the Canucks instead get a handful of bites at the apple. Del Bel Belluz, Knazko, Svozil/OBH, and Bemström all offer their own levels of risk/reward, with quantity increasing the chances of one or more paying off big. Then utilized correctly, Roslovic brings back a 2nd or 3rd at the deadline, while Danforth and Berni both can contribute this year and yield mid-to-later picks come March.

The elephant in the room, Elvis could catch fire and regain his form where he was reeled off five shutouts in eight game. That would be a bonus. More likely, he plays below the average goaltender, but after absorbing this year’s cap hit, they can then spread out a very reasonable buyout over six years. Perhaps he’s somewhere in the middle and warrants a future roster spot, albeit slightly overpaid. Regardless, this gives VAN a quantity of quality—not elite superstars, but quality.

Meanwhile, CBJ thins its logjam at both the NHL and AHL, adds an elite piece, and at least gives itself options down the road at G. As them, I’d make the deal. But neither side will, because massive deals like this are simply too complicated to consider.
Forum: Trade Machine ProposalsJul. 23 at 1:49 p.m.
Forum: Trade Machine ProposalsJul. 17 at 7:17 a.m.
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>dk325</b></div><div>Common, I wanna hear players that you think those teams have that they'd be willing to part with and match up to a Fantilli + Johnson or Jiricek + a 1st package. Also remember, this is a scenario where Pettersson is refusing to sign next summer so the Canucks desire to trade him is inconsequential. This team is also gonna need to be able to fit an $11M+ extension in and need a 1C so cross teams like Dallas, LA, Minnesota, Buffalo, and NJ off the list.</div></div>

If Petterson was on an ELC, then MAYBE you could get two of Johnson, Fantilli, Jiricek, ‘24 1st rounder. But with a cap hit of $7.8M, and moreover an upcoming QO of nearly $9M and all the leverage, his “value” is diminished in the current world where cap space is king, and will be even when escrow is paid off and the cap finally jumps.

Honestly, I don’t think the Jackets would do Fantilli straight up for Petterson, just given the economics. Jiricek or Kent Johnson 1-for-1 would give them pause. Now move past top 6 overall picks, or to guys where the clock has ticked further, and you have a discussion.

Sillinger fits the fabric of the team, but for Petterson, he’d be on the table. Teixier and Foudy, Peeke and Bean. Obviously Bemström—less proven, not going to build a trade around him, but upside in the right environment. Even guys with more term like Chinakov and Boqvist or even Coulemans and Mateychuk (likely not both together). Any of the youngsters with promise drafted in the third round or later (Svozil, Knazko, and OB Holm; Dumais, Malatesta, etc.). Quantity—and quantity with quality and degrees of upside—for Petterson would be the offer. And CBJ would be more apt to include their ‘25 or ‘26 first round pick than next year’s (and/or again quantity of later picks), but that wouldn’t be the deal-breaker.

Point is, in the NHL, the quality of the target player (in this case Petterson) is indeed the most important factor, but by no means the only one. Cap hit and remaining term are always in tue equation, significantly. DeBrincat and Dubois are the most recent of myriad examples. It’s on full display when the Coyotes (and now Flyers) get a still capable player and a second round pick for “future considerations,” but relevant among even top talent.

Think, what clubs—in a vacuum—wouldn’t want Ovechkin or Letang? Sure the “hang on and win now” teams would find a way and worry about the consequences later. But I’d wager that plenty of teams built for the future as much as the present would pass on both Ovi and Letang, even if they were on the waiver wire, simply due to the cost/hit on the back end of those deals as each approaches 40.

I am a huge fan of Petterson and as a clear CBJ supporter, I would love him on the squad. The franchise has a long history of getting the most out of guys with a slighter build, so that wouldn’t scare me away. I just know to compete—and compete well—they will need not just inexpensive role players but also a few elite pieces on ELCs or still under RFA contract control.
Forum: NHL TradesJun. 9 at 5:20 p.m.
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>TheRealisticGuy</b></div><div>I don't think Jiricek will make the team next year
No rush for him, let him and Mateychuk develop

Werenski-Severson
Provorov-Boqvist
Bean-Peeke
Blakenburg</div></div>

Maybe you’re right, but it makes no sense to burn contract years while not using Jiricek. He doesn’t have much to prove in Cleveland.

Injuries notwithstanding, I’m expecting CBJ to target a lineup something like:
Werenski-Boqvist
Provorov-Severson
Jiricek-Gudbranson
Blankenburg+2nd defender (hopefully Bean)

Too much spent on Gudbranson to not use him. Yes, I know that puts two RD in the third pairing, but that’s how most of the last two years were spent. If they have a trade lined up, then great. Not so much of they’re trading Bean. Injuries have robbed him of playing a full season of games; they’d get pennies on the dollar. Bjork/Berni are backup plans, but the past has proven treating Europeans so disposable will lead to at least one of them returning home to play. My gut tells me Peeke will be traded back home as well, but that’s stateside. The Panthers’ surprise run cooled talk of their weaknesses, but Jarmo and his old protégé Bill Zito will swing something. (In my dreams, it’s an epic deal reuniting Laine with Barkov in Columbus, but as capital goes out the door, I realize the unrealistic nature. Still, it’s Tkachuk’s team now…maybe time for Barkov to get a fresh start?)

Mateychuk, Ceulemans, and Svozil all need another year of seasoning, but I would like to see one moved before desperation hits and while valuation is still at a peak. The rest project to be fillers (Knazko) or AHL talent (Christiansen, Bjørgvik Holm, Sweezey).

All of that said, I’m not overly fond of the trade for CBJ, and not just because they were paying for UFA rights. These are the types of middling moves that keeps a middling team forever at the middle of the pack, hoping to make the playoffs, hoping to win one series.

Instead, look at the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd they just sent out the door. Now add Mateychuk or Ceuelmans. You have a starting point for an Erik Karlsson trade. Better yet, include Gudbranson and Merzlikins and tell SJS they don’t have to retain a dime on Karlsson. Not saying it’s all the way there—I’d try to include maybe three more 2nds/3rds and Bemström before conceding another 1st—but the framework is there. That (and/or Barkov) would actually move the needle.

Okay, I’ve said (almost) all I have to say. As long as CBJ/NJD were dealing, some form of Roslovic &amp; Robinson for the other Boqvist would have made sense. Okay, now I’m done. For now.
Forum: NHL TradesJun. 6 at 7:24 p.m.