Point, Counterpoint - Further Debating The Jack Johnson Trade

Just a couple of friends talkin' trades.

Nick (left) got married last summer, which was a great time for us to reunite and celebrate our recent Stanley Cup championship win. Of course I brought jerseys to the reception… you don’t keep extras in your car for just this occasion?

This is something new we’re going to try. Dater and I talked about doing it for the deadline, but unfortunately he was unavailable to do it tonight so I had to call in my back-up plan: my friend Nick.

Nick was the equipment guy at Dartmouth for two years and we were roommates on the road for many trips through New England and frigid upstate New York. He spent some time as a youth living in Colorado and, like me, is a die-hard Avalanche fan (he has the back tattoo to prove it, too!). We went to games together in Boston and Nick was my sidekick for my first Avs game in Denver back in December 2017 against the Panthers (moved down from the 300 to section 106) .

I asked Nick — fresh off his men’s league win Sunday night — to join me to talk about the Jack Johnson trade in my favorite place ever: a shared Google Doc!

So what you’re about to read, is the ramblings of two idiot fans talking about the finer nuances of a 1-for-1 trade of bottom-pair NHL defensemen. Enjoy!

Pat: Ok, Nicky. I asked you to join me right after hearing about the JJ trade. You said you loved it, while I was less than thrilled. Why did you like the move?

Nick: Please refer to me as Nick or Nicholas. I liked this trade for several reasons, but if I could describe my thoughts on the trade in a simple sentence it would be this: “Experience helps win championships.”

Pat: Ha! I said in the piece I wrote right after the deal that maybe the Avs front office brass liked the idea of getting a guy with 1,013 more regular season games and maybe that has something to do with it!

Nick: Not only the games, but Jack Johnson has experienced seven NHL playoff runs with four different teams. On the other side of the trade you see a 27-year old (my age, but in today’s NHL that’s kind of old) who has had three “playoff runs.” One in the AHL and two in the SHL. 

Pat: Oh I understand that. And I totally agree with the intangibles of the deal. There is just something about the role he plays that I don’t understand now. JJ was almost like someone that the other players were all doing it for (like Cogs and EJ), while he provided some sort of sage leadership last season. But, now as winners, I don't know if that role is completely needed. The role of big, physical defenseman, however, is now missing with Englund going the other way. I want to be clear, I like Jack Johnson. I just think that what Englund did well was something that we need this year and JJ doesn’t do.

Nick: I can understand that, but if we take away the physical presence of Englund then what more is there left to offer? This is a guy who, to be fair, could have very well spent much more time in the AHL this year without the constant injuries of the Avalanche. I think that he is a guy who was likely on the way out after the year and was going to be UFA come June. I see JJ as having one last run and is a proven likable locker room guy who can be rallied around.

Pat: TO BE FAIR! (said in the Letterkenny voices) It’s easy to say that if you take away the physical play and the defensive-defensiveness of Englund, that you don’t have a top-tier (maybe even mid-level) NHL defenseman. But, counterpoint: when you take away the physical play of Englund, who do you have left on defense who can match that? We got a lot less heavy and a lot easier to play against in our end with this deal. I think that it’s less about what we get in Jack Johnson returning to the lineup and more about what identity we lose in making the deal.

Nick: Kurtis MacDermid. I know you hate this answer and you are going to spew on about how unreliable he is, and now he’s in concussion protocol and yadda yadda yadda. BUT! Kurtis has more points than Englund, he has more PIMs and is only a minus-2 compared to Englund plus-1. He may not be someone we want to use in the playoffs, but for someone like myself who is a stats guy, I would put MacDermid in over Englund and maybe even over another Avs defenseman who is minus-7 on the year. *Cough cough*