1. Move him as part of a package to acquire a good defenseman
2. Keep him on board
Trading him for draft picks seems useless to me unless we can turn those draft picks into a player who can help us starting next season. Our team needs to improve NOW, not a few years down the road.
I would also say that we need to improve now, but we also need to improve a few years down the line as well. That's the whole balancing act that Howson doesn't seem to be all that good at.
I would also say that we need to improve now, but we also need to improve a few years down the line as well. That's the whole balancing act that Howson doesn't seem to be all that good at.
I can see your point here as well. I would assume that Howson could move Voracek, get a decent draft pick in return, and then sign a UFA to replace Jake for next season with the cap space gained. That would be an ideal scenario.
How would Columbus feel about Voracek for the Bruins (Tor) 9th pick?
As a Bruins fan I think that is over-payment but also intriguing. Maybe expand a bit to include Filtatov? Something like 1st + Peverley for Voracek and Filatov?
Bruins don't really go European very often but all I feel they need is some potential game breaking talent and future top liners to play with Seguin. Also the sooner the better since Boston is looking to compete now.
There is no way Columbus sends Voracek + Filatov for the 9th pick.
I'll agree with this - better to move him and get an asset back vs. compounding a mistake, if that's how they view the situation.
Agreed. What I would like to see more are moves that keep the future in mind, but don't constantly put the future ahead of the now. I would also like to see us smarter with the young players we bring in. Not all of these guys are going to reach the potential we hope. We have to show that we can identify those players earlier if we can.
These are the kinds of things I am going to be looking at for Howson this off season. He's been consolidating cash. He's cut ties with an expensive contract for someone that isn't fitting in with the team. That's all fine and good. What I want to see now, is what he does with the team now.
I'll be curious to see what they do with Jake based on a couple of things I've heard.
Too many things are starting to align that points to far more change that what we're used to. I'm curious to see how Howson responds to it. This going back to the whole "Who's full of crap" thing.
I can see your point here as well. I would assume that Howson could move Voracek, get a decent draft pick in return, and then sign a UFA to replace Jake for next season with the cap space gained. That would be an ideal scenario.
Yeah, Howson really hasn't been all that good at making moves that help the roster in the short term without impacting the long term goals.
Stop gap UFA's are a good source. Trading a midling pick here and there for roster players is another route.
Were I think we've really failed in in the secondary scoring area. We knew our top six was going to struggle to produce at the level of the top eight in the West, if for no other reason then we had unproven players up there. However we focused more on leadership and defensive specialists then someone that could actually put the puck in the net. That's all fine and good, but no amount of Ethan's was going to address the lack of scoring in the bottom six. No amount of character in the room was going to address the ceilings that the players had on defense.
If Jake is wrong for this team, then moving him for a top 10 pick is a very viable solution if you can't get the return you would like in the form of a roster player. If he's wrong for the team, then re-signing him is the wrong thing to do.
That's the key: is Jake just developing slower than we would like or is he "wrong for the team"? It's a judgement the Scotties have to make, together and soon. I prefer keeping him; but if he's really a problem that they don't see resolving itself immediately, then he has to be moved. If so, I prefer an NHL player in return; but, if that's not available and he must be gone, then a good pick or prospect has to come back. It all hinges on how he's judged by his bosses and, subsequently, by the league GMs.
These kinds of decisions are what ultimately decide the fate of a franchise, a GM, and a coach. Should make for an interesting summer.
That's the key: is Jake just developing slower than we would like or is he "wrong for the team"? It's a judgement the Scotties have to make, together and soon.
Couldn't agree more. If they feel it's just a development issue, get a stop gap for next year to take the pressure off him and help stabilize the top six. If they think there are deeper issues, move on.
But if Boston comes up with the 9th pick, you have to listen. Not saying you have to make the move, but having two top 10 picks, even in this draft, is a strong position to be in.
It would appear that we have to change up the mix on this roster. Moving Jake might fit into that mold.
Couldn't agree more. If they feel it's just a development issue, get a stop gap for next year to take the pressure off him and help stabilize the top six. If they think there are deeper issues, move on.
But if Boston comes up with the 9th pick, you have to listen. Not saying you have to make the move, but having two top 10 picks, even in this draft, is a strong position to be in.
It would appear that we have to change up the mix on this roster. Moving Jake might fit into that mold.
I do not think we need this draft pick but I would trade him for Brett Burns or Ryan Suter /together with our 1st draft pick/.
Or.. what do you think about the trade Jakub Voráček for Ryan Ellis?
I do not think we need this draft pick but I would trade him for Brett Burns or Ryan Suter /together with our 1st draft pick/
I don't even know what this is supposed to mean. What does "need" have to do with anything? One could argue we don't "need" Nash to win. That's too subjective.
You look for a roster player. If you can't get one that you like, maybe you move him for a high first round pick. That assumes you (the org) thinks you are better off without Jake.
I never said or hinted it (the pick) should be our first option.
But honestly, I'm not going to play the latest round of "Let's throw out a random list of names for a potential trade" game. If you get a solid rumor, let's here it. But we can't agree on the value of 95% of the players discussed around here.
The odds are good that we won't get the player(s) we are looking for with our initial trades. It's about cleaning up the roster, freeing up cap space and contract term, moving players that don't fit in with your long term plan, and stockpiling potential assets for other moves.
This is probably going to have to be a game of chess, Howson must be looking 3 or 4 moves ahead. He must identify players that he can potentially get, identify what those teams are looking for, and utilize other assets to acquire those assets. This probably isn't going to be as easy as "Jake and a first for Burns". Burns is their man on D and Jake probably isn't going to be all that interesting to them, at least not for Burns. If they want to win next year, that #1 probably isn't all that interesting either. At least not to move Burns.
Maybe they listen to something like Jake/Tyutin for Burns and swapping our firsts. That's not to imply that I think that's a good trade or would do it, just saying I can't think Burns would be cheap and I'm sure they want a replacement.
I don't even know what this is supposed to mean. What does "need" have to do with anything? One could argue we don't "need" Nash to win. That's too subjective.
You look for a roster player. If you can't get one that you like, maybe you move him for a high first round pick. That assumes you (the org) thinks you are better off without Jake.
I never said or hinted it (the pick) should be our first option.
But honestly, I'm not going to play the latest round of "Let's throw out a random list of names for a potential trade" game. If you get a solid rumor, let's here it. But we can't agree on the value of 95% of the players discussed around here.
The odds are good that we won't get the player(s) we are looking for with our initial trades. It's about cleaning up the roster, freeing up cap space and contract term, moving players that don't fit in with your long term plan, and stockpiling potential assets for other moves.
This is probably going to have to be a game of chess, Howson must be looking 3 or 4 moves ahead. He must identify players that he can potentially get, identify what those teams are looking for, and utilize other assets to acquire those assets. This probably isn't going to be as easy as "Jake and a first for Burns". Burns is their man on D and Jake probably isn't going to be all that interesting to them, at least not for Burns. If they want to win next year, that #1 probably isn't all that interesting either. At least not to move Burns.
Maybe they listen to something like Jake/Tyutin for Burns and swapping our firsts. That's not to imply that I think that's a good trade or would do it, just saying I can't think Burns would be cheap and I'm sure they want a replacement.
I thought we have enough young players and this draft is not so good as the next.
Yes, Minnesota would probably wants another player as Ťjutin but it would be too much IMO. And whether this terade could be? They have Židlický and Spurgeon, so the defensman is. Plus if they would agree with this trade they coud draft another defensman and they would have a good forward.
They have Židlický and Spurgeon, so the defensman is. Plus if they would agree with this trade they coud draft another defensman and they would have a good forward.
I would rather have my sort of stud #1 over a second line wing any day of the week. A prospect 3 years away doesn't mean a lot to me. Especially when I don't know who that prospect is and the realization that outside of the top 3 the change of a disappoint starts to increase exponentially.
I don't see how this makes any sense from the Wilds perspective.
They aren't facing cap concerns. I see no reason for the trade in it's initial form to occur no matter how much we seem to try and justify it. Jake just isn't worth Burns and the top pick of ours just isn't high enough.
I do not think we need this draft pick but I would trade him for Brett Burns or Ryan Suter /together with our 1st draft pick/.
Or.. what do you think about the trade Jakub Voráček for Ryan Ellis?
I would trade our 1st, next year's first, Jake, Filatov, and my first-born child for Ryan Suter. I'm not sure if Nashville would accept.
Ellis is doing amazing things in junior, but I'd want to see his pro game first. Standard paranoia.
__________________
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!
I would rather get a roster piece for Jake. If he has the issues that some are complaining about, then a 9th overall pick might not be a bad return so that we don't commit the 3 million.
The problem isn't getting the potential 3 million off the books, it's we have no idea what Howson is going to do with that 3 million.
I know this years draft is supposed to be weak, but two top 10 picks would still be a strong position. You could possibly trade both to move up, trade one for another roster player and still have a strong pick left over.
If Jake is wrong for this team, then moving him for a top 10 pick is a very viable solution if you can't get the return you would like in the form of a roster player. If he's wrong for the team, then re-signing him is the wrong thing to do.
I can agree with this. IF Jake isn't a fit and you don't want to commit another year (or longer) to him on the CBJ then a move before the draft is most likely. Personally, I believe Columbus could do better for the short and long term by moving him for another young player rather than pick. Setoguchi may not be considered on the same "potential" level as Jake but he could be a part that would work for columbus. Couture? Pavelski? I know ther are more surrounding such deals but I'm just hoping that the pick is part of a package and that if Jake does go it isn't for a pick.
That's the key: is Jake just developing slower than we would like or is he "wrong for the team"? It's a judgement the Scotties have to make, together and soon. I prefer keeping him; but if he's really a problem that they don't see resolving itself immediately, then he has to be moved. If so, I prefer an NHL player in return; but, if that's not available and he must be gone, then a good pick or prospect has to come back. It all hinges on how he's judged by his bosses and, subsequently, by the league GMs.
These kinds of decisions are what ultimately decide the fate of a franchise, a GM, and a coach. Should make for an interesting summer.
Dead on with this one too. I completely agree. Fans can't pretend to know if he's not a good fit or simply developing slow. I think most look at a player in absolutes. He hasn't met expectation and therefore he must not be good enough...time to move on. You can sign him for one year (this is likely anyway) and revisit again next year.
WOW, came back to see what happened to this thread and its still going! Haha!
I was curious if any opinions have changed on Jake now that the season is over, and was curious if you guys would accept a trade like this, or if it is at least on for value:
PHI 1st
PHI 3rd
Carl Gunnarsson
IDK that could be way off so dont tear me to shreads. Id also like to know what it might cost for Umberger.
WOW, came back to see what happened to this thread and its still going! Haha!
I was curious if any opinions have changed on Jake now that the season is over, and was curious if you guys would accept a trade like this, or if it is at least on for value:
PHI 1st
PHI 3rd
Carl Gunnarsson
IDK that could be way off so dont tear me to shreads. Id also like to know what it might cost for Umberger.
Cheers!
Those Philly picks are going to be real late, we don't want to move a roster player for more picks and a depth player, needs to be someone with substance. Umberger would require overpayment, like Kulemin, which isn't going to happen so it's not worth discussing further. Jake to TO would be tough since they don't have the pieces we need (unless you want to take Huselius, Commodore and Jake for Phanuef)
WOW, came back to see what happened to this thread and its still going! Haha!
I was curious if any opinions have changed on Jake now that the season is over, and was curious if you guys would accept a trade like this, or if it is at least on for value:
PHI 1st
PHI 3rd
Carl Gunnarsson
IDK that could be way off so dont tear me to shreads. Id also like to know what it might cost for Umberger.
Cheers!
No. The odds of any of those pieces being as good as Jake is now aren't great. The Jackets need to get more talented, not less. If Jake is moved for a d-man, it'll (hopefully) be in a package for a top-pairing d-man.
No. The odds of any of those pieces being as good as Jake is now aren't great. The Jackets need to get more talented, not less. If Jake is moved for a d-man, it'll (hopefully) be in a package for a top-pairing d-man.
Based on that logic if i said clarke macarthur for jake you would do it hmmm?
Based on that logic if i said clarke macarthur for jake you would do it hmmm?
Nope. If I were Howson, the only way I trade Jake (or Brass) is to get an upgrade at D or center.
And I'm not sold on Macarthur.. admittedly, I haven't seen enough of him to talk too much about him, but if he keeps it up I might have a different opinion. Jake, while inconsistent, is still an excellent player when he's on his game.
EDIT: The local die-hards might disagree with me, guess we'll see.
