News Article: Attitude Adjustment Needed To Keep Jets Aloft

[Mortimer Snerd]

So if I'm getting this correct we should just ice 11 forwards and only 5 defencemen? I don't think you quite understand that we don't have anything to replace the crap with aside from more crap. Just because the crap is cheaper is largely irrelevant when you have the most cap space in the league and the crap is on a somewhat short term contract. A turd by any other name is still a turd.

Peluso 2 years
Thorburn 3 years
Stuart 4 effing years

These are not somewhat short term contracts. If we had the cheaper crap on 1 year deals we could dump them when something better comes along.

 

[Daximus]

None of what you posted was relevant besides character issues.

Those players get better results on ice regardless of what you or other GMs think.

Did you take the time to actually research each guys rel corsi and 5v5 scoring per minute? Guess what? I did.

Every single player listed was better then thorbs

And Stuart.

Edit: perhaps saying what you said was irrelevent is a bit harsh and I apologize. But the point i'm making is those guys ARE better players. They have measurable impacts on ice that are proven to be more succesful of future wins then Thorburn. These are in depth numbers. Scoring per minute 5v5 not per game. Primary scoring (no secondary assists) as it's proven to be more repeatable. Impact on shot attempt differentials relative to their teammates.

These are the things that lead to wins. These players are better at these things then Thorburn and Stuart have been this year.

honestly, just check the warriors for these guys from this season. It's obviously not perfect, but most of these guys perform dramatically better then stuart and thorburn across these catagories.


Its hard to find improvement If you only look for the traits that have caused your current failure.

Some of these guys might drive play slightly better than Thor and Stu. But some of them also don't and a for those that do they don't really get better results from it. It's pretty bad if you drive play better than Stu but have less to show for it on the score sheet.
I don't want to get into a stats argument. All I'm trying to say again is that a turd by any other name is still a turd. These guys are all pretty terrible players. I'd rather they ice the guys, intentionally or not, that give us a better shot at a high draft pick to be honest this year.
Stu and Thor are accomplishing something out there. They are accomplishing a damn fine tank job.

 

[Daximus]

Peluso 2 years
Thorburn 3 years
Stuart 4 effing years

These are not somewhat short term contracts. If we had the cheaper crap on 1 year deals we could dump them when something better comes along.

Well we know they are keeping at least 1 face puncher regardless of what anyone thinks. So arguing against it is like fighting a brick wall, you won't win. So might as well have the best one out there.
Thorburn I think is not a horrible 4th liner but Stu... well I agree with you there.

 

[Grind]

Some of these guys might drive play slightly better than Thor and Stu. But some of them also don't and a for those that do they don't really get better results from it. It's pretty bad if you drive play better than Stu but have less to show for it on the score sheet.
I don't want to get into a stats argument. All I'm trying to say again is that a turd by any other name is still a turd. These guys are all pretty terrible players. I'd rather they ice the guys, intentionally or not, that give us a better shot at a high draft pick to be honest this year.
Stu and Thor are accomplishing something out there. They are accomplishing a damn fine tank job.

Did you look at their numbers?

The ones that barely push play I noted as "barely" improvements.

You can not want to get into a statistical argument but stating a players quality comes down to how they impact the game in a measurable and predictable manner (IE: stats)

Stuart and Thorburn push play in the "below fourth line/third pair" catagory.

almost half of the forwards listed push play higher then an average third liner, and those that don't scored significantly better then thorbs (or were listed as barely improvements).

What i'm trying to say to you is the assumptions your making about the gap between these players is incorrect. They aren't barely better, they were significantly better.

Thorb and stu = bottom 15% of league.

Most players listed = 30%-65% catagory

That is significant.

These are not the turds you speak of.

Now, many of these guys did this in small minutes or on teams that were terrible (therefor easier to boos their own numbers).

That being said, the numbers themselves are so big that they are at minimum worth giving the chance over stuart and thorburn.

if you'd rather talk tanking that's fine, but it's neither here nor there. Has literally nothign to do with the discussion.

You said "there isn't anyone better on the waiver wire."

I've put forth the best most factual argument I can to show that that statements incorrect. You move the goal posts or change the topic, but yes, stuart and thorburn are so bad that there is a significant chance almost every single player waived that played NHL games this year is better then them.

These small assumptions taht the difference between players getting waived by other teams and our regular fourth liners "isn't a big deal" or "well there all bad players anyway" is WHY our fourth line so bad...because the difference it's monumental.


put it this way: the loyalty our organization is showing to Stuart and Thorburn is like showing loyalty to a lottery ticket you already know lost. A new lottery ticket, no matter how small the chance, offers some chance for improvement. Holding onto the ticket for the lottery from last year because of sentimental value get's you no where.

 

[Daximus]

Did you look at their numbers?

The ones that barely push play I noted as "barely" improvements.

You can not want to get into a statistical argument but stating a players quality comes down to how they impact the game in a measurable and predictable manner (IE: stats)

Stuart and Thorburn push play in the "below fourth line/third pair" catagory.

almost half of the forwards listed push play higher then an average third liner, and those that don't scored significantly better then thorbs (or were listed as barely improvements).

What i'm trying to say to you is the assumptions your making about the gap between these players is incorrect. They aren't barely better, they were significantly better.

Thorb and stu = bottom 15% of league.

Most players listed = 30%-65% catagory

That is significant.

These are not the turds you speak of.

Now, many of these guys did this in small minutes or on teams that were terrible (therefor easier to boos their own numbers).

That being said, the numbers themselves are so big that they are at minimum worth giving the chance over stuart and thorburn.

if you'd rather talk tanking that's fine, but it's neither here nor there. Has literally nothign to do with the discussion.

You said "there isn't anyone better on the waiver wire."

I've put forth the best most factual argument I can to show that that statements incorrect. You move the goal posts or change the topic, but yes, stuart and thorburn are so bad that there is a significant chance almost every single player waived that played NHL games this year is better then them.

These small assumptions taht the difference between players getting waived by other teams and our regular fourth liners "isn't a big deal" or "well there all bad players anyway" is WHY our fourth line so bad...because the difference it's monumental.


put it this way: the loyalty our organization is showing to Stuart and Thorburn is like showing loyalty to a lottery ticket you already know lost. A new lottery ticket, no matter how small the chance, offers some chance for improvement. Holding onto the ticket for the lottery from last year because of sentimental value get's you no where.

Okay fine I'll waive the white flag they are all shinier turds than Thor and Stu. But still turds.

 

[Grind]

Okay fine I'll waive the white flag they are all shinier turds than Thor and Stu. But still turds.

couple of them look like turds with promise even (Gormley in particularly, and despite his off ice issues, Kassian)

To get back on topic, this is sort of the issue with our management.

It would be fine to have shown the loyalty to these two players that they did if they were even average at their level (average fourth linie, averag third pairing)

maybe even below average but still within reason.

That's because you can put weight into things like loyalty, character, etc.

the issue is these guys are so far below this bar at this point that it seems impossible to justify anything to prop them up.

It's nice to see someone in the media approaching this fromt he same angle. A brief discussion a couple days piqued my interest regarding "the off ice affect/impact of morale of playing with guys who are actually causing losses".

Something that get's overlooked frequently.