HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > Carolina Hurricanes
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Jack Johnson's Father Contacts KHL about Contract

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-13-2009, 10:28 PM
  #51
impeach estaalo
Registered User
 
impeach estaalo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 10,901
vCash: 500
Replace Gleason with Johnson on this team and the team doesn't come close to making the playoffs.

How much longer does Gleason need to be better than "JMFJ" in order for the trade to be at least passable? Another year? Two years? Five years when Johnson is a UFA?

Gleason played the toughest minutes on the team and did a very good job at it despite being paired with Joe Corvo most of the time. He's not a legit top-pairing guy, but he's a very good #3 and that's a lot more than you can say about Johnson.

Jack Johnson went -18 in only 41 games despite his regular defensive partner (Matt Greene) being +2. I don't even know how that's possible. The only regular Kings player with a higher 5-on-5 GAA was Tom Preissing.

impeach estaalo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-13-2009, 11:40 PM
  #52
Guerzy
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Guerzy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,551
vCash: 50
Based on what was expected of Johnson and the potential many were led to believe he oozed, as of right now, today, he has been a disappointment for a 3rd overall pick 4 years ago. In my mind, Jack Johnson is hype based on yesterday because he has done squat as of today.

Guerzy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-23-2009, 06:27 PM
  #53
bleedgreen
Moderator
 
bleedgreen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: colorado
Posts: 10,797
vCash: 500
been away for a bit so i couldnt respond to some of the remarks around here.

I will maintain this as the truth to me, as ive watched jj play quite a bit. if you inserted jj into our lineup at the beginning of the year, and he was healthy the whole time, he wouldve been our best d at least 25% of the time. we overate our mediocre defense.

compared to what we have:
skater - only corvo is agrueably in his class, though ill take jj in his lateral quickness, and definitely stronger on his skates than corvo, and obviously he actually hits people. to me jj outskates eveyone we have.

hitting - no comparison here to what we have, timmy has the heart, and if he had the skating im sure he would hit like jj does - but he doesnt and he cant. jj has the ability and desire to crush people, we have nobody that can touch him in this category. not only that but he has the speed to get back when he over does it, timmy gets beat out of the corners quite frequently.

stickhandling - i think he is at least equal to pitts and corvo, and honestly is better as he is more decisive than both. corvo isnt a playmaker, he stickhandles himself to bad ice and dumps it in after losing everyone elses momentum. pitts may be the calmer possesion guy between him and jj, though i think jj is FAR more effective at being aggressive with the puck, he could outrush to the net any of our guys with the puck, and he has the moves to do it - none of our guys really compare.

passing -only pitts may have him here, but pitts waits and waits...which is good if youre detroit, not us. corvo makes some nice ones, but it think jj is at least equal.

shooting - of course babs and corvo have the bombs, but i think jj's is way more accurate and just as hard. one full season of jj getting pp time and his numbers will show it. it took babs 5 years to learn to hit the net, corvo took at least as long.

defensive coverage - while its his weak point, he would still be middle of the pack here. timmy has good coverage but gets beat to spots, babs gets beat to spots AND has no idea where to be AND gets knocked over by little dudes all the time. pitts gets caught watching all day. sometimes corvo is money, other times i have no idea what he is doing. wallin has them all beat for positioning. jj would fit in fine.

jj's biggest problem is keeping calm, and letting the game dictate when to assert himself. this takes long with anyone, but especially with a guy with his expectations,it must be hard to rein him in.

imo he would be a top 4 guy for us, if not a top 2 guy....and i mean today not in the future. i see you guys using stats to back up your arguements when typically you scoff at stats being an indicator of where a guys at. mocking jj for being minus when brindy was minus eleventy-hundred?i think jj would be better than gleason is right now, and his occasional mental gaffe would be made up for by his gamebreaking hits, pssing, and shooting. you need guys who can step up and make amazing plays. gleason does not, jj can.

gleason is not a top pair defenseman. he has few of the attributes. if he could skate better he may be the stay home partner to a pitts, but thats it.

and stormcast. can i assume the term "jj apologist" applies to anyone who doesnt agree with you? if someone cant provide a link to proving you wrong, then they are obviously wrong and youre superior research makes you right? what a crock. how do your links provide proof? the tsn guy saying his dad called the KHL? i read on the la boards that there was never any proof of this, and just because it came from tsn means nothing. that strickland guy is respected as almost anyone from tsn and he got schooled on the jj trade. if it didnt come from mackenzie then it isnt proof to me. i feel there is no proof jj has asked out of la. i was AT the game they were eliminated by toews and N Dakota, and the michigan fans were cheering "one more year", and i remember telling my buddy it would surprise me if he stayed all four years and it was no surprise to me when he said he would stay gain. the "surpise" article you quote is only a surprise because no one believed a kid would turn down a full court press from a pro team and stay in school, even if he said he would stay.

you strike me as a "jj extremist". a character assassin who has to knock him down at all times, take anything negative about him as gospel that needs to be believed and spread around.

I dont make excuses for jj, i dont need to apologize for him, ive sat here and watched all that love him around here turn it to hate and gobble up everything negative they can and then come off as desperate sour grape types on the main board. in my opinion he did nothing wrong, and we should be wishing him the best instead of mocking his supposed "lack of progress". i dont think he asked to be traded, the situation speaks fir itself. jr was desperate to keep cup momentum going, and coughed up jj for a bandaid. much like trading williams for renting cole.
http://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog/Matth...HHOF/125/21694

there is the first post that i believe, that mentions jj's dad, and it sounds like lombardi could care less about it, and that dad likes being part of the negotiations at times - and says he has only been there sometimes. says his dad called the khl, but even lombardi calls it a negotiation ploy. sounds like jj is doing just fine in la, and even if he is moved to land a star player that they arent eager to lose him in any way. much ado about nothing, id trade gleason to get him back in a heartbeat.


Last edited by bleedgreen: 06-23-2009 at 08:09 PM.
bleedgreen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-23-2009, 10:50 PM
  #54
Cory Lavalette
Hockey's Future Staff
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Raleigh
Posts: 255
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Cory Lavalette
The one thing you left out is JJ's a headcase, whereas Gleason has always been considered captain/alternate material (and still is).

__________________
Read more Canes news and opinions at http://canescountry.com/ and follow me on Twitter @corylav.
Cory Lavalette is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-23-2009, 11:29 PM
  #55
bleedgreen
Moderator
 
bleedgreen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: colorado
Posts: 10,797
vCash: 500
How's he a headcase?

bleedgreen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2009, 08:27 AM
  #56
AcidQueen
Joe, Lord of Evil
 
AcidQueen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Raleigh, NC
Country: Italy
Posts: 1,040
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to AcidQueen Send a message via MSN to AcidQueen Send a message via Yahoo to AcidQueen
Not a headcase so much as a bonehead.

AcidQueen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2009, 08:40 AM
  #57
dmonk
doughberle
 
dmonk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Raleigh, NC
Country: Azerbaijan
Posts: 7,982
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to dmonk
Quote:
Originally Posted by AcidQueen View Post
Not a headcase so much as a bonehead.
she speaks da troofz

dmonk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2009, 09:09 AM
  #58
Cory Lavalette
Hockey's Future Staff
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Raleigh
Posts: 255
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Cory Lavalette
Quote:
Originally Posted by bleedgreen View Post
How's he a headcase?
Maybe headcase isn't fair. He's not a headcase as much as he's pushed and pulled so many diff. ways by certain people. I think he was rushed, overwhelmed by expectations and hasn't had the chance to form an identity as a player or person. Personally, I'd take what Gleason brings before I'd take what Jack does.

Cory Lavalette is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2009, 09:48 AM
  #59
StormCast
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Raleigh, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 2,980
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bleedgreen View Post
and stormcast. can i assume the term "jj apologist" applies to anyone who doesnt agree with you? if someone cant provide a link to proving you wrong, then they are obviously wrong and youre superior research makes you right? what a crock. how do your links provide proof? the tsn guy saying his dad called the KHL? i read on the la boards that there was never any proof of this, and just because it came from tsn means nothing. that strickland guy is respected as almost anyone from tsn and he got schooled on the jj trade. if it didnt come from mackenzie then it isnt proof to me. i feel there is no proof jj has asked out of la. i was AT the game they were eliminated by toews and N Dakota, and the michigan fans were cheering "one more year", and i remember telling my buddy it would surprise me if he stayed all four years and it was no surprise to me when he said he would stay gain. the "surpise" article you quote is only a surprise because no one believed a kid would turn down a full court press from a pro team and stay in school, even if he said he would stay.

you strike me as a "jj extremist". a character assassin who has to knock him down at all times, take anything negative about him as gospel that needs to be believed and spread around.
No and the comment wasn't even directed at you if you'd care to retrace the posts here. The simple point was, as I already outlined, that I initially thought the Canes blew it with the trade after finally having a potential star Dman in the system. I decided to learn as much as I could because it didn't make a lot of sense on the surface. As mentioned, I listened to all the interviews and podcasts and did some research, all quite simple.

It was pretty apparent what had happened but if you had actually read what I'd written (which by the way was very little about the KHL situation), I consistently blamed the father and the Johnson camp, stating several times that JJ was just a kid who was getting bad advice. There simply was no two-year promise to Berenson which was the tipping point. Again, if you'd look at most of the links, they were direct quotes from Johnson himself, not some insider sources reporting. Big distinction.

Many times on this board someone with a predisposed way of thinking immediately comes to a preformed conclusion which is stated as fact. They then selectively support it and conveniently ignore whatever doesn't. That has happened quite a bit on this topic and I've consistently provided the actual backdrop. It is pretty ironic that you jumped into the middle of it all. If the roles were reversed, I would certainly expect someone who had clearly done their homework to challenge me on a counterpoint if all I had to offer was my recollections, especially if I am predisposed on a topic.

Based on your comments, that all seems to rub you the wrong way but I really don't care in all candor. I'll call things the way I see them.

StormCast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2009, 10:10 AM
  #60
bleedgreen
Moderator
 
bleedgreen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: colorado
Posts: 10,797
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cory Lavalette View Post
Maybe headcase isn't fair. He's not a headcase as much as he's pushed and pulled so many diff. ways by certain people. I think he was rushed, overwhelmed by expectations and hasn't had the chance to form an identity as a player or person. Personally, I'd take what Gleason brings before I'd take what Jack does.
i reaaly think based on watching him play and some of the interviews ive seen, and the footage they have of jj when when they followed him around on crosby's draft day that he is just a big, dumb, kid who just wants to play hockey. doesnt care about the rest, doesnt care about who his agent is, doesnt really care what team as long as the guys are good guys etc.. He wasnt mature enough to take care of himself yet. considering he was a teenager, i dont see the problem. most kids, even elite hockey players are like that, only most kids dont have the expectations. the day he was drafted his mom still did his laundry, he was wearing superman underwear....he was funny as hell but a kid. thats what upsets me the most in all this slandering. watched all that footage and just really liked him, i dont see any of the negative crap people say about him - i dont believe it. when he grows up he'll tell his dad to beat it, maybe he already has? he seemed like too good a team person and guy to not take his role seriously. if he has a true problem its that he hasnt learned that when poo hits the fan he cant just do it all himself anymore - even though its worked every step of the way up to here. molding all the natural skill into slow and steady will be major chore but a part of doesnt want that to happen at all, he's a thoroughbred - let him run enough to get it out of him.

i dont see anything that gleason brings that jj doesnt, or cant learn. any intangible gleason has i think jj has, it just hasnt had time to come out yet. gleason wasnt there at jj's age either, he has come into his own only these last couple of years. you guys forget jj is playing the toughest position at what, 22? at 26 he could be everything we thought he could be.

bleedgreen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2009, 10:14 AM
  #61
bleedgreen
Moderator
 
bleedgreen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: colorado
Posts: 10,797
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by StormCast View Post
No and the comment wasn't even directed at you if you'd care to retrace the posts here. The simple point was, as I already outlined, that I initially thought the Canes blew it with the trade after finally having a potential star Dman in the system. I decided to learn as much as I could because it didn't make a lot of sense on the surface. As mentioned, I listened to all the interviews and podcasts and did some research, all quite simple.

It was pretty apparent what had happened but if you had actually read what I'd written (which by the way was very little about the KHL situation), I consistently blamed the father and the Johnson camp, stating several times that JJ was just a kid who was getting bad advice. There simply was no two-year promise to Berenson which was the tipping point. Again, if you'd look at most of the links, they were direct quotes from Johnson himself, not some insider sources reporting. Big distinction.

Many times on this board someone with a predisposed way of thinking immediately comes to a preformed conclusion which is stated as fact. They then selectively support it and conveniently ignore whatever doesn't. That has happened quite a bit on this topic and I've consistently provided the actual backdrop. It is pretty ironic that you jumped into the middle of it all. If the roles were reversed, I would certainly expect someone who had clearly done their homework to challenge me on a counterpoint if all I had to offer was my recollections, especially if I am predisposed on a topic.

Based on your comments, that all seems to rub you the wrong way but I really don't care in all candor. I'll call things the way I see them.
well then i think i need to see your proof, apparently again, because you come off as someone who selectively supports his theories and conveniently ignores whatever doesnt. when i read that second paragraph, it reminded me of your posts. lets hear all the facts. is your only point that there was no two years promise?
http://www.hockeysfuture.com/article...cts_for_april/

says here on HF that ISS they thought he would be there for a few years.
http://www.michigandaily.com/print/17542

that one sounds like he had no intention of leaving and had made it known, lombardi seems fully aware. i think we were too, we just assumed as soon as we put the full court press on he would cave and go pro, despite his very strong language that it was his dream to play there and would go when he was ready to leave.


Last edited by bleedgreen: 06-24-2009 at 10:25 AM.
bleedgreen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2009, 10:23 AM
  #62
Blueline Bomber
Expectations - high
 
Blueline Bomber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 22,678
vCash: 500
Ever think that it's not "Everyone's out to get JJ", but that you refuse to see any criticism of JJ's play as anything but a personal shot against him?

The past aside, Johnson's play isn't up to par to be worthy of the draft position he was drafted at. He was an offensive force in college, but that hasn't translated at all into the NHL. Gleason's got about the same PPG average that Johnson has. And while he hits, that +/- should speak enough about his defensive play.

Blueline Bomber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2009, 10:35 AM
  #63
Konk
Registered User
 
Konk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,886
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anton Babchuk View Post
Replace Gleason with Johnson on this team and the team doesn't come close to making the playoffs.
That's impossible to say and a moot point. Not even worth saying or debating because it can't be proven either way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anton Babchuk View Post
How much longer does Gleason need to be better than "JMFJ" in order for the trade to be at least passable? Another year? Two years? Five years when Johnson is a UFA?
How about this question, why won't Canes fans allow JJ to develop without having to try and justify this trade every few months?

You do realize at the exact same point in their careers (Tim was 23 as a sophmore, Jack was 22) Gleason was getting about 16-17 minutes of icetime and was basically a third pairing guy behind Sopel, Visnovsky, Norstrom, Corvo, and Miller. He was battling with Nathan Dempsey and Mike Weaver for ice time. He wasn't exactly setting the world on fire either, to say the least.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anton Babchuk View Post
Gleason played the toughest minutes on the team and did a very good job at it despite being paired with Joe Corvo most of the time. He's not a legit top-pairing guy, but he's a very good #3 and that's a lot more than you can say about Johnson.
Jack played similar minutes to Gleason -- the difference is he's four years younger and on a much worse team.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anton Babchuk View Post
Jack Johnson went -18 in only 41 games despite his regular defensive partner (Matt Greene) being +2. I don't even know how that's possible. The only regular Kings player with a higher 5-on-5 GAA was Tom Preissing.
There once was a promising young defenseman who played his first few years on one of the worst teams in the league. In each of his first two seasons he put up around 10 points and was a -27. Sounds similar to Jack Johnson, right?

It was Norris Trophy winner Zdeno Chara. Just goes to show how much of an idiot you can made out to be if you think a 20 year olds first few years in the league is going to be indicative of his entire career. Look at Timmy, he went from battling it out with scrubs for third pairing minutes to becoming a solid contributor for Carolina a few years later. In fact, I would say it was only this season when Gleason has fully established himself as one of the better defensive defensemen in the conference and he's 26 years old. Jack is only 22. He's already better offensively and is ahead of where Gleason was at the same age. You can't ask for anything more than that, especially after coming back from major shoulder surgery half-way through the season.

Konk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2009, 10:39 AM
  #64
Konk
Registered User
 
Konk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,886
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blueline Bomber View Post
The past aside, Johnson's play isn't up to par to be worthy of the draft position he was drafted at. He was an offensive force in college, but that hasn't translated at all into the NHL. Gleason's got about the same PPG average that Johnson has. And while he hits, that +/- should speak enough about his defensive play.
How is that, exactly? Jack had 11 points in 41 games, 6 of them goals. Gleason had 12 points in 70 games, no goals.

That's roughly the same amount of points in 30 less games coming off of major shoulder surgery. If Jack played the same amount of games as Gleason (70) he might've had more goals than Tim had points.

Konk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2009, 10:49 AM
  #65
jimmy1100
Registered User
 
jimmy1100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Seattle
Country: United States
Posts: 1,817
vCash: 500
You guys also forget that Jack hasn't really had a chance to do anything yet. He got 5 games at the end of 06-07. Spent 07-08 with Rob Blake, on a horrible team with no concept of team defense (and even worse goaltending). He was also on a Crawford-imposed leash to NOT jump into the play offensively. And this year he gets injured in his 2nd game, comes back halfway through and the Kings go on a tear. Johnson finally hit his stride at the WCs this year and is set to break out next season.

JJ was clearly over-hyped, and I think anyone would be hard-pressed to argue against that fact. But he hasn't had a chance yet to really show what he can do.

That being said, if anyone has 'won' this trade right now, it's Carolina because they've received better play from Gleason that Tverdovsky/Johnson have provided the Kings between them. Will that change in the next year or so? Maybe, maybe not.

jimmy1100 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2009, 10:54 AM
  #66
Cory Lavalette
Hockey's Future Staff
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Raleigh
Posts: 255
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Cory Lavalette
Quote:
Originally Posted by bleedgreen View Post
i reaaly think based on watching him play and some of the interviews ive seen, and the footage they have of jj when when they followed him around on crosby's draft day that he is just a big, dumb, kid who just wants to play hockey. doesnt care about the rest, doesnt care about who his agent is, doesnt really care what team as long as the guys are good guys etc.. He wasnt mature enough to take care of himself yet. considering he was a teenager, i dont see the problem. most kids, even elite hockey players are like that, only most kids dont have the expectations. the day he was drafted his mom still did his laundry, he was wearing superman underwear....he was funny as hell but a kid. thats what upsets me the most in all this slandering. watched all that footage and just really liked him, i dont see any of the negative crap people say about him - i dont believe it. when he grows up he'll tell his dad to beat it, maybe he already has? he seemed like too good a team person and guy to not take his role seriously. if he has a true problem its that he hasnt learned that when poo hits the fan he cant just do it all himself anymore - even though its worked every step of the way up to here. molding all the natural skill into slow and steady will be major chore but a part of doesnt want that to happen at all, he's a thoroughbred - let him run enough to get it out of him.

i dont see anything that gleason brings that jj doesnt, or cant learn. any intangible gleason has i think jj has, it just hasnt had time to come out yet. gleason wasnt there at jj's age either, he has come into his own only these last couple of years. you guys forget jj is playing the toughest position at what, 22? at 26 he could be everything we thought he could be.
JJ never had any intention of playing the Canes ... the beat writer who covers Michigan hockey at my day job told me as much before the trade ever happened. I didn't believe him ... but I do now. To me, that's a huge indication of character. If you listen to Tavares, he could care less where he goes ... he just wants to play in the NHL. JJ wasn't (and presumably still isn't) that way.

As for Gleason/JJ comparison: no one's suggested Johnson's captain material. Gleason has had that label from the get-go. So he brings that, which to me is huge.

Cory Lavalette is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2009, 11:21 AM
  #67
totalkev
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,579
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anton Babchuk View Post
How much longer does Gleason need to be better than "JMFJ" in order for the trade to be at least passable? Another year? Two years? Five years when Johnson is a UFA?
That's not the point. The point is that the trade was bad from the instant it was made, not because it was shortsighted, impatient and note because Gleason wouldn't be better than JJ for a while, but because we A) didn't get enough for an asset with the value of JJ, and B) didn't do the pro scouting on Gleason *and* Belanger to realize we weren't getting what we thought we were getting.

The fact that JJ has been slow to come around isn't really the point. The point is that we could have -- and should have -- gotten more for him. Even the salary dump portion of the trade (including Tverdovsky) backfired when he left for Russia. It was just a bad trade, and always will be.

Even if JJ turns into a total bust (he won't, IMO, although I don't like him and I'm glad it's not our problem to get him to play to his potential), this was still a bad deal because we could've gotten something a lot more valuable than Gleason, who is a No. 4/5 on a good team.

totalkev is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2009, 11:35 AM
  #68
bleedgreen
Moderator
 
bleedgreen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: colorado
Posts: 10,797
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blueline Bomber View Post
Ever think that it's not "Everyone's out to get JJ", but that you refuse to see any criticism of JJ's play as anything but a personal shot against him?

The past aside, Johnson's play isn't up to par to be worthy of the draft position he was drafted at. He was an offensive force in college, but that hasn't translated at all into the NHL. Gleason's got about the same PPG average that Johnson has. And while he hits, that +/- should speak enough about his defensive play.
uhhhh...no. i dont think its just me, i feel like an island around here being one of the only people who has this view around here, but i feel my take is justified. i feel all the questions that would be directed to me were eloquently answered by konk few posts ago. well said konk.

i think most shots against him ARE personal because the people who say them so obviously are against him. using +/- against him on the kings, using him the way they have is ridicuous, gleason is YEARS older so the point totals mean nothing at this point.

do you seriously think gleason is as good as jj offensively? i want to see you write that. production means crap when your 20-22 as dman in the league, they are obviously trying to get him to play in his own end right now.


konks points about what gleason was like at jj's age and how good actually was at the time are very relevant.

bleedgreen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2009, 11:41 AM
  #69
totalkev
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,579
vCash: 500
Let's put it this way, ask yourself if the Kings would trade JJ for Gleason.

Obviously, Carolina wants no part of JJ, and the feeling is probably mutual. But do the Kings consider it? No chance.

totalkev is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2009, 11:41 AM
  #70
bleedgreen
Moderator
 
bleedgreen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: colorado
Posts: 10,797
vCash: 500
[QUOTE=Cory Lavalette;20031490]JJ never had any intention of playing the Canes ... the beat writer who covers Michigan hockey at my day job told me as much before the trade ever happened. I didn't believe him ... but I do now. To me, that's a huge indication of character. If you listen to Tavares, he could care less where he goes ... he just wants to play in the NHL. JJ wasn't (and presumably still isn't) that way.

As for Gleason/JJ comparison: no one's suggested Johnson's captain material. Gleason has had that label from the get-go. So he brings that, which to me is huge.[/<script id="" >function ebPanel_Del_0_Del_Panel1_Del_45487175043672323_DoF SCommand(command,args){ebScriptWin0_45487175043672 323.gEbBanners[0].displayUnit.handleFSCommand(command,args,"ebPanel _Del_0_Del_Panel1_Del_45487175043672323");}</script>QUOTE]

not that im saying this didnt happen, or that it isnt true, but if i said that stormcast would require a link for that story....

some people said it all along that jj wouldnt play for us, much to do with the compuware/ little caesar's rivalry, which is/was a much stronger influence then people realize. i bet his dad was much more caught up with all that than he was. i just dont believe jj was actually that way. we agree to disagree, i think he has a lot of character and showed it by staying and doing the thing he said he would do.

bleedgreen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2009, 11:49 AM
  #71
bleedgreen
Moderator
 
bleedgreen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: colorado
Posts: 10,797
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by totalkev View Post
Let's put it this way, ask yourself if the Kings would trade JJ for Gleason.

Obviously, Carolina wants no part of JJ, and the feeling is probably mutual. But do the Kings consider it? No chance.
this is what im saying. id trade gleason for jj in a heartbeat - he is currently a much better skater, passer, shooter, and by skating a better hitter, and he wants the puck when it matters most. Timmy would throw his body in front of a puck when it matters most, which is awesome, but ill take jj and get someone else to jump in front of pucks.

bleedgreen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2009, 12:29 PM
  #72
caniac247
Registered User
 
caniac247's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Raleigh
Country: United States
Posts: 4,656
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konk View Post
How is that, exactly? Jack had 11 points in 41 games, 6 of them goals. Gleason had 12 points in 70 games, no goals.

That's roughly the same amount of points in 30 less games coming off of major shoulder surgery. If Jack played the same amount of games as Gleason (70) he might've had more goals than Tim had points.
No offense but I would expect Johnson to put up more points than Gleason as one is an OFFENSIVE-defensemen and the other a DEFENSIVE-defensmen.


Quote:
Originally Posted by bleedgreen
skater - only corvo is agrueably in his class, though ill take jj in his lateral quickness, and definitely stronger on his skates than corvo, and obviously he actually hits people. to me jj outskates eveyone we have.
Pitkanen can skate circles around those 2.

Quote:
Originally Posted by totalkev
That's not the point. The point is that the trade was bad from the instant it was made, not because it was shortsighted, impatient and note because Gleason wouldn't be better than JJ for a while, but because we A) didn't get enough for an asset with the value of JJ, and B) didn't do the pro scouting on Gleason *and* Belanger to realize we weren't getting what we thought we were getting.
How was the trade bad from the start? We needed help on D NOW. Gleason provided that help, Johnson did not.

And a little info: Gleason has been coveted by this org since he was in Ottawa's org. So I'm pretty sure they knew what they were getting.

Which goes back to how was this a bad trade from the start. The org got their needed help and got the guy they've been looking at for a few years.


Last edited by caniac247: 06-24-2009 at 12:50 PM.
caniac247 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2009, 12:52 PM
  #73
Blueline Bomber
Expectations - high
 
Blueline Bomber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 22,678
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konk View Post
How is that, exactly? Jack had 11 points in 41 games, 6 of them goals. Gleason had 12 points in 70 games, no goals.

That's roughly the same amount of points in 30 less games coming off of major shoulder surgery. If Jack played the same amount of games as Gleason (70) he might've had more goals than Tim had points.
Career-wise, I suppose I should have said.

Gleason's got 65 points in 335 games, or about 1 point every 5 games, for an average of about .195.

Johnson's got 22 points in 120 games, also about 1 point every 5 games, however, his average is about .188.

Now yes, Johnson's played a lot less games than Gleason, but Johnson's considered an offensive-defenseman and Gleason...isn't. I don't think I'm wrong to expect more production from Johnson.

Blueline Bomber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2009, 01:10 PM
  #74
impeach estaalo
Registered User
 
impeach estaalo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 10,901
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konk View Post
That's impossible to say and a moot point. Not even worth saying or debating because it can't be proven either way.
It can't be proven that the 'Canes wouldn't have made the playoffs with Frantisek Kaberle playing instead of Joni Pitkanen, so we might as well not argue it I guess.

The 'Canes made the playoffs by five points if you include tiebreakers. I don't think it's a stretch to say that Gleason's play resulted in 2.5 more wins over a course of a season than compared to that of Johnson's. We of course cannot prove that, but it's entirely reasonable given their respective play this season.

Quote:
How about this question, why won't Canes fans allow JJ to develop without having to try and justify this trade every few months?
We only justify it when people call it the WORST TRADE EVER and insist that Gleason is a pile of crap. There are actually people on HF who think he's a bust and some third-pairing defenseman because he doesn't put up points. I'm not even Gleason's biggest fan and have regularly criticized the guy on this board as being nothing more than a borderline #2/3 defenseman (who is only on the top pair because he's our best defensive defenseman by default), but come on.

Quote:
You do realize at the exact same point in their careers (Tim was 23 as a sophmore, Jack was 22) Gleason was getting about 16-17 minutes of icetime and was basically a third pairing guy behind Sopel, Visnovsky, Norstrom, Corvo, and Miller. He was battling with Nathan Dempsey and Mike Weaver for ice time. He wasn't exactly setting the world on fire either, to say the least.
Sopel played 11 games with the Kings that season. Ignoring Sopel, Gleason was fourth on the team in average even strength time (behind Visnovsky/Corvo/Norstrom) and third in PK time (behind Norstrom/Miller). That makes him a second-pairing guy.

And if Gleason was battling with Dempsey and Weaver for ice time, why were those guys regular healthy scratches while Gleason played the whole season? Why did Gleason get significantly more ES time than both of them and close to three more minutes per game than Weaver?

Oh, and the Kings nearly made the playoffs that season, so I could see why they limited the minutes of a 22/23-year old defenseman on a team full of veterans. They didn't throw Gleason to the wolves at the expense of points in the standings. They were trying to win hockey games, though ultimately failed in their goal. If Johnson was on that team instead of being on a team with a bunch of other kids, he would have been lucky to be playing the 17:41/game Gleason did. Maybe he would have gotten a bit more due to his PP skills, but he wouldn't have been trusted in defensive situations as much as Gleason was.

I wrote yesterday in the Seidenberg thread that Gleason got roasted on the ice for much of that season, especially on the PK. But his defensive ineptitude came absolute nowhere close to Johnson's this season. Johnson's defensive numbers were off-the-charts bad even compared to his teammates not named Tom Preissing. They were terrible and I'm being nice while saying that. Doughty, who is three years younger, faired much better. Not all players develop at the same rate and obviously Doughty is a special player, but you can't use age as an excuse as there were other young Kings defensemen who faired much better.

Quote:
Jack played similar minutes to Gleason -- the difference is he's four years younger and on a much worse team.
Johnson played a similar number of minutes and that's about it as far as the toughness of them and the amount of success they had playing them. The quality of them (PP/PK time) and the match-ups Johnson faced were nowhere near Gleason's. To imply that both are #3s because they played similar minutes is ridiculous. Is Pitkanen on par with Zdeno Chara because they got similar ice time?

First let's start with the actual minutes.
Gleason: 17:29ES, 2:47PK, 0:22PP
Johnson: 16:55ES, 1:28PK, 1:58PP

Looks like Gleason was trusted more in defensive situations despite being on a much better team. Their ES times were the only ones that were similar and it's not like Johnson played well enough there to warrant those sort of minutes. On a playoff team, Johnson is getting third-pairing ES minutes. Being on a "much worse team" isn't a positive thing when you're talking about how much ice time is being handed out. Johnson playing 20+ minutes a game shows that Kings weren't very good and that their veteran defensemen were Sean O'Donnell and Denis Gauthier, as opposed to Visnovsky/Corvo/Norstrom. This goes in line with what I was talking about above with how many minutes Gleason played on Kings in '05-'06.

Now let's move onto the match-ups. BehindTheNet.ca has developed a "quality of competition" stat that determines the toughness of opposition by averaging together the on/off-ice +/- of each player's opponents.

Gleasons's was .06, the highest among any regular Hurricane. Johnson's was .02, behind O'Donnell, Frolov, Doughty, Kopitar, and Simmonds. From the stats, it looks like O'Donnell and Doughty handled the top lines. JJ went -18 in 41 games while being sheltered away from the other team's top line. Gleason went +3 while facing the top lines and he did it while being paired with Corvo, whose defensive "skills" I am sure Kings fans are familiar with. Gleason also was the Hurricanes #1 PKer (and the PK was actually very good under Maurice).

Compare the quality of the team and the 5-on-5 scoring (it's not like the Hurricanes scored a ton of goals, either) all you want, but the fact remains that Johnson's goals-against were ridiculously high on a team with good goaltending.

Quote:
There once was a promising young defenseman who played his first few years on one of the worst teams in the league. In each of his first two seasons he put up around 10 points and was a -27. Sounds similar to Jack Johnson, right?
Zdeno Chara was a third round pick who was traded along with the 1st overall (Jason Spezza) for Alexei Yashin. He trade value was not that high and he wasn't thought of as some magnificent, can't-miss prospect...his play in Ottawa came as a bit of surprise (and for accuracy's sake, he was only a -8 in his rookie year).

As an aside, Ottawa would have gotten just three seasons out of Zdeno Chara had the UFA rules been as they are now.

The Kings have already burned up Johnson's entry-level contract due to playing him for five games in '06-'07 (WTF? Did Johnson request that? Headcase! ). Due to Kevin Lowe, the days of the second contract are over. You will pay Johnson market value for the next five years and then he's gone unless you meet the absurd demands of the UFA market. That's how it works now. You used to be able to keep these guys until age 31 at cheap rates, but no longer. I bring this up because of my point about "how much longer will Gleason be better than Johnson?" You can't wait an eternity for kids to develop anymore. By the time Gleason's contract is up, he'll have been with the Hurricanes for six years. So him being older has nothing to do with the discussion of who is better now.

Quote:
It was Norris Trophy winner Zdeno Chara. Just goes to show how much of an idiot you can made out to be if you think a 20 year olds first few years in the league is going to be indicative of his entire career.
I never said Johnson was going to go minus-billion every season. I've said on the trade board recently that he still has potential to be a #1 (despite some writing him off as a bust; these are the same sort of people that claimed Cam Ward's Cup run was a "fluke" before this season) and will likely be better than Gleason in the future. The entire point of my post was that Gleason is better now and that, given the circumstances, the Hurricanes couldn't wait for Johnson to develop.

Oh, and it's easy to make someone look like an idiot when you compare someone to the career path of Zdeno ****ing Chara. Might as well compare every North American defensemen who heads to Europe to the career of Brian Rafalski. Kevin Dallman = Brian Rafalski.

Quote:
Look at Timmy, he went from battling it out with scrubs for third pairing minutes to becoming a solid contributor for Carolina a few years later. In fact, I would say it was only this season when Gleason has fully established himself as one of the better defensive defensemen in the conference and he's 26 years old. Jack is only 22. He's already better offensively and is ahead of where Gleason was at the same age.
Better offensively, yes. Ahead of Gleason at the same age? No. Gleason was a + player and the Kings just barely missed the playoffs with Gleason in a Top 4 role. Granted, Gleason was a year older, but there's no comparable NHL season to look at because of the lockout.

I hope for the Kings' sake that Johnson gets better and develops into the potential top-pairing defenseman that he can be. I'm not someone who sits around and bashes former players/prospects once they are gone. I've praised Justin Williams (said he would be the second-best forward on the Hurricanes behind Staal if he was still here) and Andrew Ladd here a ton. I've been heaping praise on Dennis Seidenberg, who is almost assuredly 100% gone from the team. All I'm saying is that Gleason is better now and could possibly be for the next couple of years unless Johnson takes a leap in his development.

I think this post was even longer than my one about Brett Carson, so I'm going to stop.


Last edited by impeach estaalo: 06-24-2009 at 01:36 PM.
impeach estaalo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2009, 01:13 PM
  #75
impeach estaalo
Registered User
 
impeach estaalo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 10,901
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by caniac247 View Post
And a little info: Gleason has been coveted by this org since he was in Ottawa's org. So I'm pretty sure they knew what they were getting.
Bleedgreen is correct about them not doing a proper pro-scouting job. The information they had was from Marshall Johnston, who drafted Gleason as an offensive defenseman when he was the Senators' GM.

He had obviously morphed into a defensive defenseman by that point as his offensive skills didn't translate to the pro level (he has a hard slapshot and not much else), but they actually thought they were getting a defenseman with some offensive potential based on what Johnston said. Remember, Gleason was brought in in part because of Kaberle's long-term injury. Up until Hamilton and Cullen were acquired to QB the powerplay, people still talked about putting Gleason there. He was actually used on our second unit back in '06-'07 for a few months to hilarious results (he wound up with 6 points that season).

Now it's possible that Gleason still had offensive potential at that point (he had 21 points that season with no PP time), but either way they were dead wrong. The guy can barely make a proper outlet pass.

This is what I think Bleedgreen was referring to, but I could be wrong.


Last edited by impeach estaalo: 06-24-2009 at 02:07 PM.
impeach estaalo is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:40 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.