Also worth wondering about the thoughts of the other mystery man behind the scenes, Craig Patrick.
Could a potential Carter deal have his fingerprints on it?
Lots of chefs in the kitchen. I have no idea what they're cooking.
My response to blah's post is the same is Kallio's.
I want to know what's been the deal with the whole Carter situation but I'm not sure we'll ever know - even after the fact, I'm sure any answers could be doubted. I don't even want to know so I can have someone to blame - but it can be instructive in watching what happens moving forward.
__________________
"Every game, every point is a necessity." -- Ty Conklin, January 2007
"I'll have a chance to compete for the post of first issue. This is the most important thing." -- Sergei Bobrovsky, June 2012
My response to blah's post is the same is Kallio's.
I want to know what's been the deal with the whole Carter situation but I'm not sure we'll ever know - even after the fact, I'm sure any answers could be doubted. I don't even want to know so I can have someone to blame - but it can be instructive in watching what happens moving forward.
Eventually learning the facts behind this as-of-yet unconsummated deal would be interesting, but I don't know how much debate it would really alleviate.
Eventually learning the facts behind this as-of-yet unconsummated deal would be interesting, but I don't know how much debate it would really alleviate.
Howson haters will still blame Howson.
Carter haters will still blame Carter.
Portzline haters will still blame Portzline.
Since I don't "hate" any of them, I'd settle for just me knowing what happened.
For an organization that's been exposed several times in the last few seasons to negative PR (The now infamous "pot sweetening" about Brad Richards, TThe Foote Fiasco, The Boucher Incident, The Arniel disaster, The Carter trade Moping, Boughner leaving to go back to running a junior league team, etc) I find it hard to believe that nothing concrete has been said that would help connect the dots beyond hearsay.
If Carter's as toxic as we've been hearing, why can we not see some fire if there's all this smoke?
These recent articles point to maybe the Dispatch guys being personally offended by something Carter did or didn't do or something he said to them. Maybe Portzline figured with protest movement drawing some of their strength from his "Howson and Priest Look safe" article and his interviews with Mac Jr. seemingly backing up suspicions, that he could fan the flames of for small fires to whip up more sympathy? I noticed also that the the dispatch really didn't start going after Carter (they did mention he was on the block, but no articles specifically about it since after the protest) until it was obvious Howson and Priest were staying on. Is the Dispatch trying to sway public opinion on one matter since their first targets seem "officially" safe?
I think he's erred if this was the intent, The management failures are broad enough and something all fans (to which extent is based on which fans think) can agree on. This Carter situation is muddy, as we have this terrible season (in which Carter's been injured some and nobody has played well the entire season) to judge.
I wonder if this isn't just because Roster overhaul is not an option if both Carter and Nash remain and the Dispatch would rather see Jeff Carter go....
Last edited by KeithBWhittington: 02-13-2012 at 10:58 AM.
Not sure what that means, but it's not a motivation.
The comment was more addressing what we may or may not know about what is, or is not, going on. We have no idea what is, if there is any, motivation for moving Carter. We will just have to let it play out however it going to play out.
Even if he is moved we will probably never really know what factored into the decision, however we may want to read the tea leaves. Like, if you will forgive another obscure song reference, "Dust in the Wind".
I've been following the Columbus drama for a number of years now.
i noticed a few pages ago someone mentioned the Joe Thornton trade. The reason why that trade was a success for the Bruins was that it gave them the cap space to sign Chara and Savard.
And well, as they say, the rest is history. I know that's an extremely short summary of what happened, but the general belief was that Thornton would not win in Boston.
Which brings me to the Carter/Nash situation. In my opinion, I would keep both and try to upgrade starting from the net out. I know, that sounds kind of obvious, but I really think that this group of forwards can produce if given a chance.
The only way a trade will be accepted is if it's fair for both teams involved. No sense in trying to dump either of these players that have shown in the past they can carry and offense.
I've been following the Columbus drama for a number of years now.
i noticed a few pages ago someone mentioned the Joe Thornton trade. The reason why that trade was a success for the Bruins was that it gave them the cap space to sign Chara and Savard.
And well, as they say, the rest is history. I know that's an extremely short summary of what happened, but the general belief was that Thornton would not win in Boston.
Which brings me to the Carter/Nash situation. In my opinion, I would keep both and try to upgrade starting from the net out. I know, that sounds kind of obvious, but I really think that this group of forwards can produce if given a chance.
The only way a trade will be accepted is if it's fair for both teams involved. No sense in trying to dump either of these players that have shown in the past they can carry and offense.
Just my 2 cents. Good luck with the rebuild!
With Nash, Carter, Wiz and others we don't have any cap space either, speaking of net out if I were GM one of the guys I'd be thinking of right now is Rask... Thomas would be ok short term but Rask would be a good place for us start, agree?
Rask would be an amazing start, but the problem is, is that he's Boston's goaltender of the future. I have a hard time believing that they would choose to keep Thomas over Rask if they had to choose. Rask would be an amazing pick up by Columbus though, but until we prove the defense even Rask won't be affective most likely. Years ago we were clamoring for puck moving defenders that could get up and down the ice, now we seem to have 10 guys that can get up the ice quick but only about 2 that can be relied upon to play in the defensive zone and neither of those 2 are good enough defensively to go head to head with the best in the West. Thought Methot could be part of the answer, doesn't look to be the case, we need an intimidating force on the blue line badly.
With Nash, Carter, Wiz and others we don't have any cap space either, speaking of net out if I were GM one of the guys I'd be thinking of right now is Rask... Thomas would be ok short term but Rask would be a good place for us start, agree?
Haha I do agree, and I know for a fact that CBJ inquired about Rask... but it just doesn't seem likely.
Do you guys spend to the cap or do you work on an internal cap?
I guess we could pray Boston goes New Jersey's route and trades Rask, but even so, I don't think we have the capability to get Rask via personnel. It's pointless to really even consider Rask or talk about him frankly, but if they did decide to trade him, I doubt they are going to be looking at trading him for a guy like Carter or Nash, they are probably going to want younger guys that are cheap and can grow, guys like Johansen, Moore, 1st round pick, all of the things we can't afford to give up for a goalie. I don't know where we will go as far as the goalie position is concerned, I just hope that Howson doesn't trade part of our "core" for guys like Schneider and Bernier who haven't proven anything in this league. I'd like to keep Sanford as the backup but I hope they think about bringing in an established veteran goaltender over some young guy that hasn't shown that he has the ability to carry a suspect defense which also leads to my desire to trade either Nash or Carter, because we need to greatly improve the defensive core more than we need Carter or Nash.
Quote:
Originally Posted by corporate_Z
Haha I do agree, and I know for a fact that CBJ inquired about Rask... but it just doesn't seem likely.
Do you guys spend to the cap or do you work on an internal cap?
We are a cap team this season, but with the way things have gone this season, I wouldn't be surprised if ownership doesn't limit spending going forward.
Eventually learning the facts behind this as-of-yet unconsummated deal would be interesting, but I don't know how much debate it would really alleviate.
Howson haters will still blame Howson.
Carter haters will still blame Carter.
Portzline haters will still blame Portzline.
Because the circumstances are so strange, one would think that there has to be a juicy reason IF Carter gets shipped out after just one year for less than what Howson paid. But you're right that we will likely never know although there will be lines drawn in the sand between the Carter/Howson/Nash/Arniel camps.
It was weird for Carter to get shipped out of Philly after Holmgren signed him to a 10-year extension a few months earlier. Depending on who you ask it was because:
1) Richards and Carter were party animals who's antics pissed off Laviolette and Holmgren (the dry island story).
2) Richards and Pronger hated each other. Pronger won the leadership battle and they shipped out Richards and his first mate.
3) Snider told Holmgren he needed a marquee goalie or he was fired. He then moved his most movable assets to free up cap space.
4) With a pretty talent-heavy group of forwards, Holmgren thought Carter was a luxury they could do without.
There are probably other takes. Despite some people claiming one of the above as the 'truth', I don't think there was any definitive evidence that emerged in the aftermath to support one over the other.
I imagine the same thing will happen here. It's good fodder for HfBoards speculation, I guess.
Because the circumstances are so strange, one would think that there has to be a juicy reason IF Carter gets shipped out after just one year for less than what Howson paid. But you're right that we will likely never know although there will be lines drawn in the sand between the Carter/Howson/Nash/Arniel camps.
It was weird for Carter to get shipped out of Philly after Holmgren signed him to a 10-year extension a few months earlier. Depending on who you ask it was because:
1) Richards and Carter were party animals who's antics pissed off Laviolette and Holmgren (the dry island story).
2) Richards and Pronger hated each other. Pronger won the leadership battle and they shipped out Richards and his first mate.
3) Snider told Holmgren he needed a marquee goalie or he was fired. He then moved his most movable assets to free up cap space.
4) With a pretty talent-heavy group of forwards, Holmgren thought Carter was a luxury they could do without.
There are probably other takes. Despite some people claiming one of the above as the 'truth', I don't think there was any definitive evidence that emerged in the aftermath to support one over the other.
I imagine the same thing will happen here. It's good fodder for HfBoards speculation, I guess.
I have worked two 12+ hour days in a row now, I'm exhausted and my feet stink and I haven't been able to follow like I'd like. LOVE that we beat St. Louis tonight!! Regarding this thread: to me, it will only confirm why you all protested in the cold if Carter gets traded without significant return. People with the trigger fingers don't know what they're doing, and have managed to devalue an important asset. I'm not against any trade at this point provided we get good return, but as has been stated when it comes to Blue Jacket Jeff Carter we're not likely to get a good return. If there's a good reason, we sure don't know what it is, so it's staring us in the face: Love the team, Hate the management.
