JWatt (formerly PMS) wrote:
I expect the team to admit their mistake by actually trying to put players on the ice that will actually prevent goals from being scored. Move Jackman down the depth chart.
This isn't NHL 09. You can't just swap out and make trades left and right to get the team you want out there. They were stuck with what they had. And quite honestly, there seems to be a fundamental difference between what you think is a good team and what they think is a good team. If they felt we were in such dire straits then a trade would have been made. But there was no need to trade young prospects to improve an injury-related situation. If we would have signed a bunch of guys to be our top defensemen and they flat out sucked, then that would have been a problem. But the problem was our top guys got hurt and others were called upon to step up and fill in.
Where did I say anything about making trades and swapping out players? I was talking about not putting out Jackman against the other team's top line to be scored upon at will. Maybe it would have behooved us to try Weaver, McKee, or Colaiacovo in those spots. Our problem wasn't just injury related, it was poor defensive personnel decision related. If Brewer was counted on to be our top guy, then we had major problems to begin with.
JWatt (formerly PMS) wrote:
How do you come up with that? Because the Blues media department told you so? Jackman's advanced statistics show that he was the equivalent of a minor league call-up last year (i.e. Strachan). The Blues would have made the playoffs with or without him. The biggest reason Jackman receives so much criticism is because Murray puts him out there all the time. Khalil Greene isn't going to get as much criticism on the DL as he would batting .200 and playing horrible defense on the Cards. The same thing applies here as well. The other reason he gets criticized is because his hefty contract is getting in the way of us acquiring a good defenseman.
No I came up with that by watching the games and understanding a guy stepping in to a tough situation and trying to make the best of it. You're telling me if we scratched Jackman every night, put Mike Weaver in his place and brought up another AHL guy we'd still have made the playoffs? I highly doubt that'd be the case. It seems that you glare more on mis-steps and refuse to acknowledge his other efforts including occupying the ice for as long as he did.
I watched the same games as you and came to a different conclusion, one which the statistics backed up. I certainly think that we still would have made the playoffs if Weaver and Strachan were playing down the stretch. We didn't make the playoffs because of Jackman going -17 and allowing about 3 GA/60min TOI at even strength, so it stands to figure that losing him wouldn't have hurt much at all.
Timmo Seppa of the Puck Prospectus agreed on my take of Jackman as well:
"Regarding your buddy Jackman, we've got him at +0.0 offensive GVT, +1.5 defensive GVT, +1.5 total GVT. So he's not much more than AHL-level replacement fodder. And as you allude to -if you look at Gabe's site- he took 23 minors versus drawing 5 at even strength - That cost his team a couple of goals."
Look, the guy isn't my favorite player by any stretch of the imagination. I cursed his name the entire way out the building after Game 4 and I think he plays like a dumbass some times. But he is what he is and you need to accept it. I commend him for his effort and hope that he doesn't have to fill such a role again. Hell, if I recall, wasn't it reported that he had been injured since January and still played that many minutes every night? Regardless if that's fact or not, he still laced up and put out a better effort than some would have.
Jackman got hurt against San Jose in March and only played hurt the last 15 games of the regular season. He was bad before the injury. And let's not use that as a total crutch. Jay McKee played through a significant knee injury that actually required surgery (Jackman's didn't) and was only one the ice for 1 goal against in the postseason. Sergei Gonchar tore his MCL as well and wasn't a pylon in the playoffs either. And who are you saying Jackman put out more effort than? Are you saying the rest of the team was dogging it?
Adn what's this non-sense about acquiring a good defensemen? If management felt they needed a better guy, they probably would have tried to get someone. I think they were comfortable with what they had. Maybe they'll sign someone after Wednesday. Maybe they wont. But Jackman isn't getting in the way of another acquisition. If they felt he was in the way then they either a.)wouldn't have signed him to a new deal or b.) would have bought him out over McKee.
The non-sense is that you couldn't have afforded acquiring another good defenseman last season when you were stuck paying a bunch of money to Jackman, McKee and Brewer. There simply aren't enough dollars on defense to go around. Sure, they bought out McKee, but they still have to pay him 2/3 of his contract. The Blues simply cannot add a big contract (like Bouwmeester or Pronger) on defense without moving another big contract. That isn't an option with Brewer or Jackman. And I don't know why you trust this management making decisions on free agent defensemen. This is the same management that gave Brewer, McKee, and Kariya big contracts. Sure, they have a good drafting record, but not so much when it comes to valuing defensive free agents.