I disagree because every year I've seen that he can carry the puck out of trouble well. That is the part of his game that has always been there (the skating part). His offensive game though has not grown at all aside from being able to skate the puck out of danger more often. Good skater, below average defense, below average shot, and average passing skills is how I see his game now which is exactly how it was in year 1, although his positioning defensively as gotten much better. I just think if he is on this roster as a power play specialist, which he mostly is, that he should actually have power play skills which he does not. He needs to show a lot more to his game to deserve a roster spot. I will say this though, having a Kris Russell as your #5-6 defender is a lot better than quite a few other teams can say.
Bottomline his size is an issue, Rafalski made it but he was around 25 before that happened. Not to mention the reports of confidence seminars over the summer is a concern.
I agree that Russ has some issues, however I think you are selling him short. He has more offensive skill then most of our other d-men put together. It's about translating that to results.
If everyone were healthy do you honestly think he would even be in the lineup now. I definitely dont believe so. Obviously if healthy Commodore, Hejda, Tyutin, and Rusty are all certainties. Stralman has outplayed him since his arrival here and is a better player IMO. Methot has been rock solid and isnt coming out of the lineup anytime soon. So already he is the teams #7 defenceman most likely if everyone is healthy. He even sat out a game for Mathieu Roy as a healthy scratch recently which gives you an idea where he is on the depth chart right now.
As for his skills he is an offensive defenceman who doesnt produce nearly enough offensively, and when he isnt scoring there isnt much else he has to offer. Granted I will give you he is better some of this teams blueliners offensively but that is more about the teams lack offensive blueliners than anything else. I would still say Stralman, Tyutin, and Moore (though not on the team this year I know), are all better offensively.
Projecting ahead if Stralman and Moore are both superior to him as many are forecasting how is he even going to get into the teams lineup let alone be worth 1.3 million a year.
If everyone were healthy do you honestly think he would even be in the lineup now. I definitely dont believe so. Obviously if healthy Commodore, Hejda, Tyutin, and Rusty are all certainties. Stralman has outplayed him since his arrival here and is a better player IMO. Methot has been rock solid and isnt coming out of the lineup anytime soon. So already he is the teams #7 defenceman most likely if everyone is healthy. He even sat out a game for Mathieu Roy as a healthy scratch recently which gives you an idea where he is on the depth chart right now.
As for his skills he is an offensive defenceman who doesnt produce nearly enough offensively, and when he isnt scoring there isnt much else he has to offer. Granted I will give you he is better some of this teams blueliners offensively but that is more about the teams lack offensive blueliners than anything else. I would still say Stralman, Tyutin, and Moore (though not on the team this year I know), are all better offensively.
Projecting ahead if Stralman and Moore are both superior to him as many are forecasting how is he even going to get into the teams lineup let alone be worth 1.3 million a year.
Hitch has repeatedly said that this is a 23 man team, and he needs all 23 to produce. I take that to mean that they all have value - some in specific situations, but not everyday. He is going to juggle them around as the situation dictates. If he needs Russ' abilities to skate the puck out more than Roy's thundering checks, then Shake gets the nod.
Sum of the parts, and all that.
Great point made about Commie. Havent heard his name come up too often, prob bc of NTC for now. 3.6 mil a year is a pretty big hit. I hope 1) He returns soon and 2) Has solid performances in all of our playoff series' this year
I like Commie alot, I think he brings alot to the team on and off the ice, but I agree that 3.6 was overpayment. The market last off season however was pretty insane, so its not that shocking considering what other FA defenseman were pulling down.
I like Commie alot, I think he brings alot to the team on and off the ice, but I agree that 3.6 was overpayment. The market last off season however was pretty insane, so its not that shocking considering what other FA defenseman were pulling down.
With last year's first playoff appearance and, hopefully, continued success in this season, a time may be coming when the CBJ will not have to overpay to entice free agents. They may not begin lining up to sign, as with the glamor teams (and, of course, the Leafs), but it may not be quite the struggle it has been in the past.
With last year's first playoff appearance and, hopefully, continued success in this season, a time may be coming when the CBJ will not have to overpay to entice free agents. They may not begin lining up to sign, as with the glamor teams (and, of course, the Leafs), but it may not be quite the struggle it has been in the past.
Overpayment and FA are synonymous. It is the nature of the beast.
What people seem to constantly ignore when talking about Commodore's contract is the fact that the Jeff Finger contract is what forced the jackets into paying close to $500 000 more than what they would have had Fletcher not signed Finger to that monstrosity.
Overpayment and FA are synonymous. It is the nature of the beast.
What people seem to constantly ignore when talking about Commodore's contract is the fact that the Jeff Finger contract is what forced the jackets into paying close to $500 000 more than what they would have had Fletcher not signed Finger to that monstrosity.
You arent kidding about overpayment, and driving the prices up for defensemen with varying degrees of offensive capability.
Finger $3.5 Four years left (all years left in contracts include this season)
Hainsey 4.5 Four years left
Rozsival $5.0 Three years left
Redden $6.5 Five years left
Boyle $6.6 Five years left
Campbell$7.142 Seven years left...
By no means does Russell fit into this category of defensemen, but this is an example of how the market is priced.
With last year's first playoff appearance and, hopefully, continued success in this season, a time may be coming when the CBJ will not have to overpay to entice free agents. They may not begin lining up to sign, as with the glamor teams (and, of course, the Leafs), but it may not be quite the struggle it has been in the past.
Nailed it.
And then Howson can really start working some magic. He is doing all of this, with not much to sell. Once we become an annual playoff team, his job becomes much, much easier.
Overpayment and FA are synonymous. It is the nature of the beast.
What people seem to constantly ignore when talking about Commodore's contract is the fact that the Jeff Finger contract is what forced the jackets into paying close to $500 000 more than what they would have had Fletcher not signed Finger to that monstrosity.
Not to mention Wade Redden and Michal Rozsival signing for even more obscene numbers. Remember that year's class?
Redden front loaded contract with a $6.5 million Cap hit ($8 million first two years)
Rozsival front loaded contract with a $5 million Cap hit ($7 million year 1, $6 million year 2)
Streit $4.1 million and the bargain of the class!
Finger $3.5 million
Brian Campbell $7.1 million
John-Michael Liles $4.2 million
Orpik $3.75 million
Hainsey $4.5 million!
Based on those signings, does Commodore look so bad at $3.75?
Trading a guy because you have to make cap room is not always the best position to be in. The Ducks are still feeling the pain that being forced to trade a guy like Andy McDonald to make cap space created. The problem with trading guys to make cap space is, the guys you'd like to trade (ex. Kristian Huselius) are often not the guys that have a market. So, you sometimes get stuck trading someone who was valuable to the team while keeping someone who was less valuable. And that is why a signing like this bothers me.
Oh, yeah, because there are so many obvious parallels between $1.3m/year for young not-quite-yet-working-out Kris Russell and $4m/year for old shadow-of-his-former-self-for-years Todd Bertuzzi. They're almost mirror images of eachother!
Seriously, that's blowing this so way out of proportion as to be laughable. $1.3m/year does not make him untradable by any stretch of the imagination unless he instantaneously develops a severe injury history. It's barely $600k over an ELC, for crying out loud.
I could understand if, say, the contract was over $3m/year, or if Russell had significantly less upside, or if we'd never had any trade offers for him... but none of these are true.
__________________
Remember - when you're a hockey fan, it's not "reckless driving", it's "good forechecking".
"Viqsi, you are our sweet humanist..." --mt-svk on the CBJ boards
Thanks, Howson, for cleaning up MacLean's toxic waste. Welcome, Kekalainen; let's get good things built!
Oh, yeah, because there are so many obvious parallels between $1.3m/year for young not-quite-yet-working-out Kris Russell and $4m/year for old shadow-of-his-former-self-for-years Todd Bertuzzi. They're almost mirror images of eachother!
Seriously, that's blowing this so way out of proportion as to be laughable. $1.3m/year does not make him untradable by any stretch of the imagination unless he instantaneously develops a severe injury history. It's barely $600k over an ELC, for crying out loud.
I could understand if, say, the contract was over $3m/year, or if Russell had significantly less upside, or if we'd never had any trade offers for him... but none of these are true.
Exactly, especially when you consider we just rode out the last year of Backman's contract at 3.4 million. I think 1.3 is tolerable for Kris Russell, assuming his play at least stays at the same level.
Tolerable in contract terms is not something thats really in the CBJ ownership hand book. Tolerable to us, but not ownership. If youre a team that can spend to the cap, no, $1.3 isnt an issue, but if youre close to $45-48m and cant add a player unless you move a player, $1.3 for Russell, when as stated, Stralman has already out played him, and Moore is in the wings, is a bit of a head scratch'er. Its more surprising with how well Moore played, does this say we dont plan on playing him next year? I couldnt really see Moore, Stralman and Russell all in the lineup. I just hope it doesnt cost us a player like Torres and not be able to resign him because of budget
...$1.3 for Russell, when as stated, Stralman has already out played him, and Moore is in the wings, is a bit of a head scratch'er. Its more surprising with how well Moore played, does this say we dont plan on playing him next year?
Strahlman has played in four games, in which he has one point. I like him, too, but it's not like he's done that much more than Russell, who has two assists in six games. Moore played very well in the pre-season. He's very promising, but nothing is certain with young guys. Russell is a known quantity to this organization and, obviously, they have assigned a certain value to him. Just as obviously, some don't assign the same value. To my mind, the amount and term are about right and give us time to find out if he'll reach his potential in Union Blue or not. If not, the contract is not so unreasonable to be untradable and puck movers are in demand throughout the league - someone will be out there who will still see potential and believe they can bring it out.
Tolerable in contract terms is not something thats really in the CBJ ownership hand book. Tolerable to us, but not ownership. If youre a team that can spend to the cap, no, $1.3 isnt an issue, but if youre close to $45-48m and cant add a player unless you move a player, $1.3 for Russell, when as stated, Stralman has already out played him, and Moore is in the wings, is a bit of a head scratch'er. Its more surprising with how well Moore played, does this say we dont plan on playing him next year? I couldnt really see Moore, Stralman and Russell all in the lineup. I just hope it doesnt cost us a player like Torres and not be able to resign him because of budget
Okay, **** subtlety. I will now explicitly spell it out:
If, by some strange, unknowable force of G-d, it becomes such that Russell's contract is the one thing standing between us and a more valuable player, Russell himself can and probably will be traded. The contract is low enough that it is still attractive to other suitors, if necessary.
Seriously, c'mon, folks. I shouldn't have to spell this out like this.
Okay, **** subtlety. I will now explicitly spell it out:
If, by some strange, unknowable force of G-d, it becomes such that Russell's contract is the one thing standing between us and a more valuable player, Russell himself can and probably will be traded. The contract is low enough that it is still attractive to other suitors, if necessary.
Seriously, c'mon, folks. I shouldn't have to spell this out like this.
Your using a lot lately..., I hate that icon so I had to mention it.
Lets compare Methot at 1.1 million to Russell at 1.3 million, that earns a big..
I want to see Russell impact game outcomes, something I've not seen in 2 plus years. I don't buy the tradable argument, if he brings little to nothing to the win column no GM in the league will take his new contract.
Lets compare Methot at 1.1 million to Russell at 1.3 million, that earns a big..
I want to see Russell impact game outcomes, something I've not seen in 2 plus years. I don't buy the tradable argument, if he brings little to nothing to the win column no GM in the league will take his new contract.
I really just don't get the angst here on this signing. Hitch & Howson have repeatedly for 2 years talked about the upside potential to this undersized d-man. He's only 22 years old. No one, not one player on the team, skates as smoothly as this kid. He's an adequate D-man today. And this is slight overpayment for that. But look at the guys we are comparing his value to:
Methot. He's 24-25. Didn't crack NHL lineup until 24 years old
Strahlman: Another 24-25 yo, still not an NHL regular
Roy: 25-26?? Same story
Hell it took Rusty 8 years to become reliable.
Russell is worth the risk. Once again, I think H & H know what they are doing. Howson is paying for potential. No different than the Brassard signing last month.
Finally, if the $500,000 overpayment is what will put ownership over the edge in our balancing act between being competitive and a budget team, we have way bigger problems than Russ. Howson has earned the right to use his judgement on this, IMO.
Your using a lot lately..., I hate that icon so I had to mention it.
Lets compare Methot at 1.1 million to Russell at 1.3 million, that earns a big..
I want to see Russell impact game outcomes, something I've not seen in 2 plus years. I don't buy the tradable argument, if he brings little to nothing to the win column no GM in the league will take his new contract.
He's still considered to be a prospect. That's why folks have been willing to take a chance on him.
If he has a major impact on game outcomes, then he's worth more than that. Right now what he's being paid is not entirely unusual for any bottom-pairing defenseman; if he improves at all then it becomes a very nice deal.
I really just don't get the angst here on this signing. Hitch & Howson have repeatedly for 2 years talked about the upside potential to this undersized d-man. He's only 22 years old. No one, not one player on the team, skates as smoothly as this kid. He's an adequate D-man today. And this is slight overpayment for that. But look at the guys we are comparing his value to:
Methot. He's 24-25. Didn't crack NHL lineup until 24 years old
Strahlman: Another 24-25 yo, still not an NHL regular
Roy: 25-26?? Same story
Hell it took Rusty 8 years to become reliable.
Russell is worth the risk. Once again, I think H & H know what they are doing. Howson is paying for potential. No different than the Brassard signing last month.
Finally, if the $500,000 overpayment is what will put ownership over the edge in our balancing act between being competitive and a budget team, we have way bigger problems than Russ. Howson has earned the right to use his judgement on this, IMO.
I hear ya (as far as age goes)... I could be wrong (lets ask Hash) but I doubt Hitchcock was the one behind this signing. That said, I'm all in for Howson so I hope he makes me and several eat crow. My main concern is the players size......
I have to give Russell credit for a very good game last night, it was the best I've seen him play in quite awhile. New contracts are like a gallon of Red Bull.
I have to give Russell credit for a very good game last night, it was the best I've seen him play in quite awhile. New contracts are like a gallon of Red Bull.
He came on in the second, but so did the rest of the team. In the first he had some awful outlet passes that turned over directly into shots on goal. Credit Where Credit Is Due Dept. reports: "that 2-on-1 pass breakup was a beauty, eh".
Like all young players, it's about establishing consistency. If he can consistently play like he did in the 2nd and 3rd, we have a good contract. If not, then we don't.
I have to give Russell credit for a very good game last night, it was the best I've seen him play in quite awhile. New contracts are like a gallon of Red Bull.
Bill Davidge seemed to think so too. I just saw him do the same thing he does most nights - very good puck possession, good pinching, creative passing, got outmuscled once or twice, mostly made up for those occasions with good positioning (and gave up a breakaway - I think that was him).
Meanwhile, I've seen Stralman exposed as a major defensive liability on numerous occasions. I noticed this particularly in San Jose, but I saw it against Calgary too. While bearing in mind the significant limits of the plus-minus stat, he's -3 in 5 games. This might just be because Stralman isn't used to his partner, or because he's just learning Hitchcock's system, or because he just needs some solid coaching, or maybe he'll just always be a guy who's a bit of a defensive liability and needs to be backed up.
But I just don't see why people who are falling over with adoration for Stralman, who's a year older, and to my eye has all of the same drawbacks that Russell has (although he has a better shot, I concede), would be so hard on Russell. Maybe it's just because Stralman is shiny and new.
But I just don't see why people who are falling over with adoration for Stralman, who's a year older, and to my eye has all of the same drawbacks that Russell has (although he has a better shot, I concede), would be so hard on Russell. Maybe it's just because Stralman is shiny and new.
Bill Davidge seemed to think so too. I just saw him do the same thing he does most nights - very good puck possession, good pinching, creative passing, got outmuscled once or twice, mostly made up for those occasions with good positioning (and gave up a breakaway - I think that was him).
Meanwhile, I've seen Stralman exposed as a major defensive liability on numerous occasions. I noticed this particularly in San Jose, but I saw it against Calgary too. While bearing in mind the significant limits of the plus-minus stat, he's -3 in 5 games. This might just be because Stralman isn't used to his partner, or because he's just learning Hitchcock's system, or because he just needs some solid coaching, or maybe he'll just always be a guy who's a bit of a defensive liability and needs to be backed up.
But I just don't see why people who are falling over with adoration for Stralman, who's a year older, and to my eye has all of the same drawbacks that Russell has (although he has a better shot, I concede), would be so hard on Russell. Maybe it's just because Stralman is shiny and new.
Yes Stralman can be a defensive liability. We picked up up for a 3rd round pick and he hasn't played that many NHL games. Was there something else you expected?
He's playing above his head right now, through necessity. He does a couple of things Russ doesn't. Things that we haven't seen a lot of in our history. He's doing surprising well under the circumstances. If by adoration you mean the feeling of exceeding expectations, then sure.
Bill Davidge seemed to think so too. I just saw him do the same thing he does most nights - very good puck possession, good pinching, creative passing, got outmuscled once or twice, mostly made up for those occasions with good positioning (and gave up a breakaway - I think that was him).
Meanwhile, I've seen Stralman exposed as a major defensive liability on numerous occasions. I noticed this particularly in San Jose, but I saw it against Calgary too. While bearing in mind the significant limits of the plus-minus stat, he's -3 in 5 games. This might just be because Stralman isn't used to his partner, or because he's just learning Hitchcock's system, or because he just needs some solid coaching, or maybe he'll just always be a guy who's a bit of a defensive liability and needs to be backed up.
But I just don't see why people who are falling over with adoration for Stralman, who's a year older, and to my eye has all of the same drawbacks that Russell has (although he has a better shot, I concede), would be so hard on Russell. Maybe it's just because Stralman is shiny and new.
I haven't seen enough games featuring Kris Russel to add to the Russel vs. Stralman discussion (it wouldn't be fair) but he seems like a talented player at first glance. Great skating and passing. Just like Strålman. If they develop further I'm sure there will be room for both of them in the future.
As for his contract: with a talented player like that, it might turn out to be a steal. If Russel doesn't develop as expected, 1.3 won't ruin the Blue Jackets. It's not Brian Campbell money.. (What the **** where the Hawks thinking when offering him that contract?)
I'm not sure what you mean by Strålman being a defensive liability, but considering the circumstances surrounding his trade (I'm sure you've heard of them having a baby during camp and his fiance still being stuck in Calgary with two children due to immigration issues) I think he's played pretty solidly. With the exception of Hejda, I haven't seen anyone on the Jackets d-corps being much more "reliable" than Strålman.
You mention his -3, but IMO that's very unfair. In San Jose he played his first competitive game since the WCs, and on a new team. The Blue Jackets got schooled by the Sharks, and six players where -2 or worse.
Against the Flames he was a -2 because: 1: Mason let in a softie (Phanuef 4-3) and 2: Tyutin made a horrible turnover (Iginla 5-3). The +/- stat, while interesting, can be very deceiving. Judging by that stat alone, Brent Burns is the worst player in the NHL right now.
